prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Apr 28, 2006 20:39:59 GMT
Has anyone seen the staff news letter that has been sent out to all SSR train crew depots? It gives details on the new 'S' Stock and a general run down of the upgrade.
Just wondered, if you have seen it, what you thought?
Wasn't really sure where to put this as it is an SSR topic rather than Met, so admin please move if appropriate.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,317
|
Post by Colin on Apr 28, 2006 21:02:36 GMT
Hmmm, it may sit better in the General board.......
Anyway, yes there's loads of 'em at Acton and Earls Court - I don't think it says anything we don't already know though (IMHO)........
Infact, the refurb D stock isn't even 25% complete yet, and we'll be the last to see them in service (District) in 2114 2014 - so I think it's a little early to be wasting all that paper. At least at the District depots.
|
|
DWS
every second count's
Posts: 2,422
|
Post by DWS on Apr 28, 2006 21:05:32 GMT
Has anyone seen the staff news letter that has been sent out to all SSR train crew depots? It gives details on the new 'S' Stock and a general run down of the upgrade. Just wondered, if you have seen it, what you thought?Wasn't really sure where to put this as it is an SSR topic rather than Met, so admin please move if appropriate. No I have not seen it, how about giving us some more details.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,317
|
Post by Colin on Apr 28, 2006 21:19:45 GMT
They're in the booking on point at Earls Court
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Apr 28, 2006 21:27:42 GMT
I think it's a little early to be wasting all that paper. At least at the District depots. It's a fair point, but we want to start getting everyone involved and not everyone accesses the unofficial upgrade noticeboard that is District Dave! ;D
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Apr 28, 2006 21:33:37 GMT
No I have not seen it, how about giving us some more details. At this point we just want to say "Hey, theres an upgrade and this is where we are with it". There is a lot of interest generated by this project and we're trying to address that. There is a high level overview from Howard Collins (SSR Service Director), some early concept design sketches, and a Q&A with the SSR Upgrade Delivery Manager. There is an e-mail address on the back page for staff to e-mail in their questions or comments and we are keen for you guys to participate, after all it is your upgrade. I know you don't all have e-mail accounts but your managers should be happy to e-mail on your behalf with your contact details. In future editions we will be giving you direct access (auto etc) to the relevant team members (eg; me for rolling stock) for you to ask questions or make comments. Do you think this is something you (all of you LU guys) would use? Additionally, what would you (LU bods again) like to see covered in future editions? We are really keen to get a dialogue going and want your input.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,317
|
Post by Colin on Apr 28, 2006 21:53:09 GMT
I think staff would like to offer their input - but it's a case of getting past that culture of "there's no point saying anything - no one listens". If staff feel they are being listened to, and that the communication is working - there's no reason why it can't work.... On a personal note (I'm taking advantage of this 'ere medium!! ;D ;D), a duty book holder, illuminated gauges and screen wash would be nice ;D ;D ;D Future editions: more on the cab layout?
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Apr 28, 2006 22:13:07 GMT
Thanks Colin, if you find the time please send these in via the details in the news letter - our Comms guy can then collate everything and create a database of comments received/responded to. This will be a valuable evidential driver in pushing some issues through the process. In addition you will then get an official response too. We are definately listening, I can't guarantee every suggestion we receive will be implemented but where we get comments we will always respond in a timely manner and give honest reasons to the decisions made. We recognise that as the actual operators you have a valuable contribution to make and we want to tap into that. I'm sure you understand that I can't really say too much about 'S' in an open forum, but giving your feedback officially will guarantee a response and will answer your queries.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,317
|
Post by Colin on Apr 28, 2006 22:22:55 GMT
Ok, cheers for the encouragement - I do have some other suggestions too, so i'll put one of those leaflets in me bag and 'put pen to paper'....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2006 23:41:48 GMT
One thing I noticed was the seat layout: pairs of forward/backward facing seats on one side of the car, sideways facing (C stock style) the other side, with a wide gangway in between. Looked like a good compromise to me. Also, the walk-through connection between carriages seems to still be included. And apparently aircon will definitely be included!
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Apr 28, 2006 23:46:33 GMT
Ok, cheers for the encouragement - I do have some other suggestions too, so i'll put one of those leaflets in me bag and 'put pen to paper'.... Thanks Colin, we really can't wait to hear from you. That goes for all you LU guys too, these are your trains and they are going to be in service for 40 years - nows your chance to have your say!
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Apr 28, 2006 23:47:02 GMT
One thing I noticed was the seat layout: pairs of forward/backward facing seats on one side of the car, sideways facing (C stock style) the other side, with a wide gangway in between. Looked like a good compromise to me. Also, the walk-through connection between carriages seems to still be included. And apparently aircon will definitely be included! Seating - Trying to meet the needs of all customers (Met/Distrcit/C&H). Gangway - yes. Air Con - yes.
|
|
|
Post by thc on Apr 29, 2006 6:12:07 GMT
Seating - Trying to meet the needs of all customers (Met/Distrcit/C&H). Gangway - yes. Air Con - yes. Firstly congratulations for being so proactive with internal communications. You seem keen to bring everyone involved on board with 'S' stock development, which can only be a good thing. Now for my one negative comment. I don't mean to pee on your chips but I find it difficult to see how you will cope with the divergent needs of Amersham commuters and H&C short-hoppers in one uniform seating arrangement. Unless the plan is for three sub-fleets to address the different requirements of each line? (in which case why all the hoo-ha about uniform SSL stock?) THC
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Apr 29, 2006 8:45:51 GMT
Seating - Trying to meet the needs of all customers (Met/Distrcit/C&H). As thc has said, does this meant that the previous idea of different seating for the 'long-distance' Met trains has been abandoned? I scarcely think the high status commuters from Metroland will take that lying down ( or do I mean standing up?).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2006 8:50:42 GMT
Now for my one negative comment. I don't mean to pee on your chips but I find it difficult to see how you will cope with the divergent needs of Amersham commuters and H&C short-hoppers in one uniform seating arrangement. Unless the plan is for three sub-fleets to address the different requirements of each line? (in which case why all the hoo-ha about uniform SSL stock?) THC I agree on this - if LU tries to specify a C-stock interior to the S stock, Met Main passengers will defect to Chiltern en masse and there will no longer be any point in retaining electrification to Amersham. I think the S stock, from a technological, operation and maintenance standpoint, ought to be identical, but from a seating standpoint, divergent - there ought to be three separate subclasses, each with seating appropriate for the SSL stock they replace. Also, do the S stock cabs have cupholders?
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Apr 29, 2006 9:30:27 GMT
Let me address the most important issue first, there will be cup holders! With regards to the seating layout, I here what your saying. As I said to Colin - please utilise the e-mail address on the news letter to put forward your comments or questions. We really do want to be able to give you all an 'in' on the project, the whole team are hoping that you guys dcide to give us some steer. All I can say is that you have all raised the seating issue without any prompting by me, if my boss says otherwise when your comments come in to the office I will refer him to this thread! My area is really forward of the bulkhead and to a lesser extent under the floor, we have another person for seating/ambience but I know he will be over the moon to get feedback.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Apr 29, 2006 9:35:34 GMT
Seating - Trying to meet the needs of all customers (Met/Distrcit/C&H). As thc has said, does this meant that the previous idea of different seating for the 'long-distance' Met trains has been abandoned? I scarcely think the high status commuters from Metroland will take that lying down ( or do I mean standing up?). Sorry, forgot to address this in my last post! Currently the plan is that there will be one stock for the entire sub-surface network.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2006 10:25:13 GMT
As thc has said, does this meant that the previous idea of different seating for the 'long-distance' Met trains has been abandoned? I scarcely think the high status commuters from Metroland will take that lying down ( or do I mean standing up?). Sorry, forgot to address this in my last post! Currently the plan is that there will be one stock for the entire sub-surface network. Well that says it all!! If anyone believes there will be a seating compromise for the sake of customers at the northern extremes of the Met, think again.
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Apr 29, 2006 10:36:11 GMT
I can see MPs and leaders of councils getting involved in this one - Metrolanders are a vociferous pressure group. And I suggest Chiltern start ordering the extra stock and finishing of Marylebone enlargement soon - they'll need it!!
And to prjb - I 'd love to submit comments but you've made it clear this consultation is for current LU staff. Which I'm not.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Apr 29, 2006 11:39:43 GMT
This part of the consultaion is for LU staff as they know the upgrade is coming and are asking questions now. Also the main areas we are about to enter involves subjects that they are concerned about, as in the cab and equipment etc. Rest assured Phil that Customer Acceptance Testing (CAT) is an area we are actively persuing and everyone's concerns will be taken into account regardless. The VLU and SSRU know it is vital to get Customer 'buy in' and CAT is not something we just pay lip service to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2006 15:49:33 GMT
Let me address the most important issue first, there will be cup holders! I wonder how many shoe paddles will end up in car boots as a result ;D All I can say is that you have all raised the seating issue without any prompting by me, if my boss says otherwise when your comments come in to the office I will refer him to this thread! My area is really forward of the bulkhead and to a lesser extent under the floor, we have another person for seating/ambience but I know he will be over the moon to get feedback. Interesting. Ever since the unified S stock design was first mooted, people have been asking about the seating issue. I'm surprised that it wasn't addressed early on in the feasibility/requirements stages of the S stock process.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Apr 29, 2006 17:16:41 GMT
'S' Stock are being designed with the full consultation of human factors experts from LU, Metronet, and their suppliers. You can rest assured that the final design will be optimised for the user, and the use of shoe paddles in the cab will not be necessary! Just as much as we recognise we need subject matter experts involved in the process, we also recognise that we need staff input too - which is where you LU guys come in at this stage. We are also consulting with your Union Reps in order to try and head off potential problems before they occur. Customers and their representative groups will also have a large input too, indeed some consultation is already well underway. I don't imagine for a second that we are going to get this 100% right, that would be arrogant, but we are going to have a bl~~dy good try! These trains are going to be in service long after we have retired and in some cases they will out live some of us too, so we want to leave a legacy behind us that will be remembered for all the right reasons.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2006 17:36:33 GMT
'S' Stock are being designed with the full consultation of human factors experts from LU, Metronet, and their suppliers. You can rest assured that the final design will be optimised for the user, and the use of shoe paddles in the cab will not be necessary! Just as much as we recognise we need subject matter experts involved in the process, we also recognise that we need staff input too - which is where you LU guys come in at this stage. We are also consulting with your Union Reps in order to try and head off potential problems before they occur. Customers and their representative groups will also have a large input too, indeed some consultation is already well underway. I don't imagine for a second that we are going to get this 100% right, that would be arrogant, but we are going to have a bl~~dy good try! These trains are going to be in service long after we have retired and in some cases they will out live some of us too, so we want to leave a legacy behind us that will be remembered for all the right reasons. Hmmm! Am I missing something here? This post IMO has not answered any concerns from Phil's post!!!
|
|
|
Post by trainopd78 on Apr 29, 2006 17:44:32 GMT
The major thing I can think of, if the drawings are correct, is that the current layout of 4 sets of doors per car is going to be replaced by 3. With a service such as the circle, the 4 door layout is one of the keys to such a short train moving vast amounts of people, which the C stocks especially, do frighteningly well. I've had 1500 people on my C stocks in the past (during match days and certain industrial relation issues). The S stock looks like it wont come close with its current layout.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2006 17:56:03 GMT
The major thing I can think of, if the drawings are correct, is that the current layout of 4 sets of doors per car is going to be replaced by 3. With a service such as the circle, the 4 door layout is one of the keys to such a short train moving vast amounts of people, which the C stocks especially, do frighteningly well. I've had 1500 people on my C stocks in the past (during match days and certain industrial relation issues). The S stock looks like it wont come close with its current layout. Agreed, trainopd78, as prjb is quick to point out C stock does the business, I also rest my case.!
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Apr 29, 2006 18:07:50 GMT
The major thing I can think of, if the drawings are correct, is that the current layout of 4 sets of doors per car is going to be replaced by 3. With a service such as the circle, the 4 door layout is one of the keys to such a short train moving vast amounts of people, which the C stocks especially, do frighteningly well. I've had 1500 people on my C stocks in the past (during match days and certain industrial relation issues). The S stock looks like it wont come close with its current layout. What you need to bear in mind, and IMHO the newsline doesn't emphasise this enough, is that 'S' Stock will be gangway stock. The gangway areas will be utilised for the use of standing customers and are being designed for this purpose from the outset. I know I keep banging on but I can't address all the issues here, if you contact us via the details on the back of the newsline you will get a full and frank response (better than I can give here). This was the point of the thread really, I wanted you guys to know that you have a useful tool into the project if you wish to use it. This time we really are listening and really are waiting for your opinions, I promise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2006 19:10:21 GMT
I agree on this - if LU tries to specify a C-stock interior to the S stock, Met Main passengers will defect to Chiltern en masse and there will no longer be any point in retaining electrification to Amersham. I think the S stock, from a technological, operation and maintenance standpoint, ought to be identical, but from a seating standpoint, divergent - there ought to be three separate subclasses, each with seating appropriate for the SSL stock they replace. Also agree, S/A for Metropolitan with all transverse seating, S/C for Hammersmith & Circle line stock with all longitudinal and S/D for Districts with a compromise of the previous two perhaps. Let's hope common sense wins on this one or the Met Main will be hauling air more often than people.
|
|
|
Post by thc on Apr 29, 2006 19:28:34 GMT
This time we really are listening and really are waiting for your opinions, I promise. I believed you the first time you said that but, like Phil, I'm not LU staff and so, given your earlier answer to him, I'm not so sure I do now! And in any case you've not answered my question about the proposals for 'S' stock to deal effectively with the divergent needs of Amersham commuters and H&C short-hoppers. How do your team plan to deal with this? And don't tell me standing in the extra room provided by a gangway from Chorleywood to GPS is the answer! THC
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2006 19:32:41 GMT
prjb has spelt it out, any minor contributions are welcome.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Apr 29, 2006 20:58:28 GMT
This time we really are listening and really are waiting for your opinions, I promise. I believed you the first time you said that but, like Phil, I'm not LU staff and so, given your earlier answer to him, I'm not so sure I do now! And in any case you've not answered my question about the proposals for 'S' stock to deal effectively with the divergent needs of Amersham commuters and H&C short-hoppers. How do your team plan to deal with this? And don't tell me standing in the extra room provided by a gangway from Chorleywood to GPS is the answer! THC I started the thread purely to encourage LU staff on the forum to contribute to the project via a newly set up LU internal medium. So often in the past LU have involved staff too late to make a difference, this time we want to elicite their opinions as early as possible. Typically at the start of a project everything is possible but communication is minimal, and at the end very little is possible whilst communication is extensive. We want to address this. CAT is also an essential and valuable exercise and is something we will be doing in spades, this process has already begun. That will be the point where customers can have their input, and make no mistake if customer response is poor then LU have the power and no real coice but to ensure changes are made. In fairness to me, my post regarding gangway areas was in answer to how 'S' would handle high passenger numbers as 'C' does today and not at all centred around the needs of longer distance commuters. With regards to not answering your questions directly, that was not really the purpose of this thread. As I have previously said, I am limited to what I can actually say in a public forum. Possibly 'weasel words' here I know, but the honest truth.
|
|