|
|
Post by bwhughes on Oct 20, 2006 22:30:48 GMT
From examining the 'SSR Upgrade Newsletter' thread, there doesn't seem to be a definite decision about whether the new subsurface stock will have variations in, i.e. seat layout, or if there will be a standard layout for all sub-surface lines. Personally I think that the Met should keep its seating arrangement due to the long distance the trains travel (albeit with easier standing space around the doors because of the narrower aisles!) and three sets of doors as already specified for the S stock, The Circle and Hammersmith & City sets should be fitted with four sets of doors and much fewer seats than the Met as the current C69 and 77 stock is. This feature has worked really well, especially in the peak hours when efficiency in boarding and alighting is critical. District trains would be mostly similar to the ones on the Circle and Hammersmith and City but with extra seats. How air con and passenger loading could be made more efficientIn order to keep the interiors at the optimum temperature for passengers (esp. at open air stations) without slowing down boarding and alighting at busy stations, passenger door buttons could be fitted but the doors could have the option of being fully controlled by the driver in the underground sections and the busiest stations for maximum loading efficiency.  At less busy open-air stations, the doors would stay closed unless the buttons are operated by the passengers.  This way, the air conditioning could be used most efficiently, but the loading of passengers would still remain efficient in the busy stations where it is better that all doors open at once. There would be two sets of door open buttons on the driver's desk - one pair to simply release them and the other to open them all outright.  Surely it wouldn't be too hard to do this? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2006 22:41:57 GMT
but the doors could have the option of being fully controlled by the driver in the underground sections and the busiest stations for maximum loading efficiency. At less busy open-air stations, the doors would stay closed unless the buttons are operated by the passengers. This was the way the 92s operated when new, with all doors being opened by the driver between White City and Leytonstone, whilst passenger mode was used on the ends. This system didn't work as passengers who got on in the central area just stood and expected the doors to open in the suburbs, and when they didn't operated the Pass alarm. The system didn't last very long as you can imagine. |
|
|
|
Post by bwhughes on Oct 20, 2006 22:53:14 GMT
One more go before the idea gets disbanded: Simply using announcements at stations where the passenger door control will be applied would be a good way of reminding people that the buttons are there for a reason! then the alarms wouldn't be used unneccesarily. In Rome last year, I noticed on the line diagram of route F (from Flaminio to Viterbo) that stations outside of the third one out of the terminus generally required that a bus-style 'stop' button be pushed, otherwise the train would keep going on! ;D The stations where the train ALWAYS stopped were marked in blue whilst all the others that required a request, were in the line's colour. This form of diagram could be used to show passengers they have to press the door buttons if they want to get out at certain stations! ;D If it works in Rome, it could work again in London! Just more reminding needed. If you didn't press stop in Rome you could go past your station anyway! ;D |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Oct 20, 2006 23:01:51 GMT
It is current LU policy not to have customer open buttons for that very reason Jim! In addition we are trying to reduce the amount of controls the driver interacts with, not increase them by adding more buttons. The drivers job is difficult enough as it is, we are trying through our human factors engineers, to reduce the possibilities of driver error. The space on the console is limited as it is without adding more superfluous buttons.
The seating layout for 'S' Stock has pretty much been decided. There has been a campaign on the north of the Met regarding this issue, but I believe this has been concluded? As a result of that campaign a lot of work was done to look at different options and we still came back to the current proposal being the most efficient. Whilst there is a small reduction in the amount of seats per train, we are going to be running more trains per hour - so in real terms there are more seats per hour!
'S' Stock is being designed in order for it to be as universal as possible and things such as different numbers of doors would be unthinkable at this stage of design. Traction packages and braking systems would all need to be redesigned in order to allow for the difference in weight and weight distribution just for starters.
The problem with air con has been resolved but I am not at liberty to discuss that at this time.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Oct 20, 2006 23:11:20 GMT
One more go before the idea gets disbanded: Simply using announcements at stations where the passenger door control will be applied would be a good way of reminding people that the buttons are there for a reason! then the alarms wouldn't be used unneccesarily. Who makes this annoucement? The driver can't, we want them to concentrate on their duties - not make constant PA's. As for the Customer Information System (CIS) we are already struggling to fit in all the required messages in line with the dwell times. Not to mention the fact our customers already claim they are being bombarded (no pun intended!) with too many messages already. In Rome last year, I noticed on the line diagram of route F (from Flaminio to Viterbo) that stations outside of the third one out of the terminus generally required that a bus-style 'stop' button be pushed, otherwise the train would keep going on! ;D The stations where the train ALWAYS stopped were marked in blue whilst all the others that required a request, were in the line's colour. This form of diagram could be used to show passengers they have to press the door buttons if they want to get out at certain stations! ;D If it works in Rome, it could work again in London! Just more reminding needed. If you didn't press stop in Rome you could go past your station anyway! ;D No, it couldn't. London Underground carry over 3 million customers every day, thats more than the entire Network Rail system carries daily. This idea would be unworkable here, forgetting how busy we are for a second, just in terms of operability with ATO. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2006 23:24:50 GMT
Not to mention the fact our customers already claim they are being bombarded (no pun intended!) with too many messages already. It wasn't too long ago they claimed they were not given enough information, we just can't win |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Oct 20, 2006 23:27:10 GMT
I know! ;D
LU regularly get complaints about the amount of auto-annoucements, we are commiting noise pollution apparently! Oh well, you win some - you lose some.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2006 23:56:34 GMT
LU regularly get complaints about the amount of auto-annoucements, we are commiting noise pollution apparently! Oh well, you win some - you lose some. You could start by getting rid of announcements about riverboat services. Honestly, does anybody care? |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Oct 20, 2006 23:59:22 GMT
I certainly don't! I also don't want to know about 'The Museums' at South Kensington when it's eleven o'clock at night!! ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2006 8:20:54 GMT
The seating layout for 'S' Stock has pretty much been decided. There has been a campaign on the north of the Met regarding this issue, but I believe this has been concluded? As a result of that campaign a lot of work was done to look at different options and we still came back to the current proposal being the most efficient. Whilst there is a small reduction in the amount of seats per train, we are going to be running more trains per hour - so in real terms there are more seats per hour! Doesn't matter - the people in Metro-land are not likely to see things that pragmatically. IMHO all they will see is a 464-seat A stock train being replaced with an S stock train with fewer seats, and they will howl. |
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Oct 21, 2006 9:07:48 GMT
Do the Metro-landers know about the reduction in seats? Phew! Having seen the vociferous comments on the Amersham forum there may be a hot potato here! In my respectful experience the argument that there will be more services in exchange for less seats has not worked, on road or rail, before. If you increase services bums, fill up the seats to suit. Watch them howl!! I am too late! They know! www.amersham.org.uk/forum/ipb/index.php?showtopic=372www.amersham.org.uk/forum/ipb/index.php?showtopic=195The nearest analogies I can recall straight away is the electrification of the GNR suburban routes, which were I beilieve an outstanding success compared to the diesel services, and also locally the Southampton-Fareham line which transformed rail services on the south coast. It also meant more electric units to cope with the increased demand. *Mods please excuse the reference to another forum but I think it is justified here* |
|
|
|
Post by agoodcuppa on Oct 21, 2006 10:38:49 GMT
I am too late! They know! Some interesting comments re luggage racks and the suitability of a compromise internal layout. Those responsible should take note. |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Oct 21, 2006 10:43:31 GMT
Customers on the north of the Met do indeed know about this, and LU have engaged in consultation with a number of user groups. The Upgrades Delivery Manager (who lives at Harrow incidentally) has attended a lot of meetings and spoken with various bodies including the newspapers that ran the 'Save Our seats' Campaign. We are by no means ignoring our customers viewpoint, but we do need to consider the needs of the majority and the practicalities of running a modern metro system that best meets all the demands placed upon it (both now and in the future).
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Oct 21, 2006 10:46:50 GMT
Some interesting comments re luggage racks and the suitability of a compromise internal layout. Those responsible should take note. With regards to luggage racks - we are aware that people need somewhere to put their used Metro's. ;D As for a compromise layout, as I said, we have looked at all the various options and the current plan is still proving to be the best. |
|
|
|
Post by agoodcuppa on Oct 21, 2006 10:56:07 GMT
the current plan is still proving to be the best. In who's opinion? Agreed that there are fewer Amersham commuters compared to the in town variety, but if they're not comfy on the journey in to town they won't use the service. EDIT: Perhaps I've hit on TfL's secret agenda!!! They want to kill off the Amersham service, so by providing an uncomfortable stock that commuters give up using they can "legitimately" withdraw the service and/or hand it over to Chiltern. |
|
DWS
every second count's
Posts: 2,421
|
Post by DWS on Oct 21, 2006 11:41:39 GMT
the current plan is still proving to be the best. In who's opinion? Agreed that there are fewer Amersham commuters compared to the in town variety, but if they're not comfy on the journey in to town they won't use the service. EDIT: Perhaps I've hit on TfL's secret agenda!!! They want to kill off the Amersham service, so by providing an uncomfortable stock that commuters give up using they can "legitimately" withdraw the service and/or hand it over to Chiltern. Or maybe the plan is to hand over the Amersham service to London Overground, just line the East London Line  |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,310
|
Post by Colin on Oct 21, 2006 13:12:34 GMT
This thing with the Met harks back to the days when 'they' thought they were a 'proper' railway. The trains and stations are LUL, so now at last, they are getting a proper LUL service! ;D ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2006 14:52:25 GMT
Hmmm, I think this matter of seating layouts is standardisation too far, seems blatently apparant to me that the same seating layout is NOT appropriate on a Circle line train as it is on a Metropolitain one, nor for that matter a District. I think evolution has already produced almost the ultimate. all longitudinal on Circle and curtailed H&C, R stock layout on District (one pair of transverse is too few) however the proposed layout may very well suit the District and all transverse on Metropolitan. If the odd unit with a differing seat layout has to be used on a different line well thats just a minor inconvenience unlikely to generate complaints. I too am quiet sure the commuters of Amersham will not see extra trains as providing the same number of seats ...especially when they are standing on the one they are on !!! And in disrupted conditions controllers look at trains running through not numbers of seats ! Now what of seat padding  A stock have nice comfy sprung seats Unrefurbed D and C stock have tollerable seating (even if C stock moquette is horrendous) Refurbed D's have right numb bum seats ! One does trust that a ride from Amersham - Barking or Upminster to Ealing (or even Uxbridge) will not have to be made on some bit of unpadded plastic with a wisp of material on it !!! Even the refurb D drivers seats are as hard as a board ! I do hope in determining the S stock drivers seats .. somone has looked at modern bus drivers seats ...they clearly never did with the refub D's !!!! |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Oct 21, 2006 15:35:48 GMT
In who's opinion? In the opinion of the LU experts who operate the system along with the train builders and infraco, who have many years of experience between them. Agreed that there are fewer Amersham commuters compared to the in town variety, but if they're not comfy on the journey in to town they won't use the service. Who said anything about comfort? The 'S' Stock interior will be world class and a massive leap from the 'A' Stock. Before anyone says anything about standing customers, wether it is accepted or not - there will be more trains per hour which will result in more seats per hour. EDIT: Perhaps I've hit on TfL's secret agenda!!! They want to kill off the Amersham service, so by providing an uncomfortable stock that commuters give up using they can "legitimately" withdraw the service and/or hand it over to Chiltern. Do me a favour! Yes thats it, we want to alienate our customers and close lines. The fact that the man in charge of the SSR Upgrade lives at Harrow proves that LU are aware of our customers needs and opinions in that part of the world. We also have another key member of the team who lives at Chesham, both these guys commute daily on the Met. Our boss is working hard to try and address the isues raised by the few (and it is a few) Met commuters who have raised concerns. |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Oct 21, 2006 15:40:04 GMT
This thing with the Met harks back to the days when 'they' thought they were a 'proper' railway. The trains and stations are LUL, so now at last, they are getting a proper LUL service! ;D ;D On a purely personal basis - I couldn't agree with you more. That said, the team have done a lot of work to try and keep all our customers interests at the forefront of our minds. That includes those customers on the north end of the Met. |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Oct 21, 2006 15:59:48 GMT
Hmmm, I think this matter of seating layouts is standardisation too far, seems blatently apparant to me that the same seating layout is NOT appropriate on a Circle line train as it is on a Metropolitain one, nor for that matter a District. I think evolution has already produced almost the ultimate. all longitudinal on Circle and curtailed H&C, R stock layout on District (one pair of transverse is too few) however the proposed layout may very well suit the District and all transverse on Metropolitan. I don't agree with you in the slightest here, provided it is optimised, a standard layout for all SSR trains can (and will) work. It's nice too that you still think in terms of Circle and H&C but these trains are going to be here for the next 50 years and the type of service patterns we run will change drastically in that time. LU need to ensure we have a standardised and optimal lay out that will best meet all our customers needs. If the odd unit with a differing seat layout has to be used on a different line well thats just a minor inconvenience unlikely to generate complaints. It won't be a problem at all! Because we have no intention of limiting our stock movements for 7 car trains by unnecessarily altering seat layouts. I too am quiet sure the commuters of Amersham will not see extra trains as providing the same number of seats ...especially when they are standing on the one they are on !!! And in disrupted conditions controllers look at trains running through not numbers of seats ! It's not how people see things now that really matters, when all our customers are travelling on modern 21st century trains under modern signalling that allows for more trains per hour, I think they will be over the moon. Change is a difficult thing for people to accept, but unfortunately 'A' Stock is going to be scrapped and LU will not be replacing them with the exact same design. We need to move forward, and the improvements far out weigh the small number of seats per train that will be lost. Now what of seat padding A stock have nice comfy sprung seats In whose opinion? I think the 'A' stock seating is awful. If I wanted a trampoline I would buy one! Unrefurbed D and C stock have tollerable seating (even if C stock moquette is horrendous) Don't start with the 'C' Stock bashing, I won't stand for it!! ;D Refurbed D's have right numb bum seats ! Again, in whose opinion? I think the 'D' Stock seats are very comfortable. One does trust that a ride from Amersham - Barking or Upminster to Ealing (or even Uxbridge) will not have to be made on some bit of unpadded plastic with a wisp of material on it !!! Come on! This LU not NR. Even the refurb D drivers seats are as hard as a board ! Really? Is this a universal opinion? I would like to know from a professional point of view here. If we have made a mistake on 'D' I don't want to repeat it on 'S'. I do hope in determining the S stock drivers seats .. somone has looked at modern bus drivers seats ...they clearly never did with the refub D's !!!! I will be getting heavily involved with the 09ts seat (when it arrives!) for this very same reason. I want to ensure that the 'S' Stock seat is 100% acceptable. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2006 16:05:52 GMT
Really? Is this a universal opinion? I would like to know from a professional point of view here. If we have made a mistake on 'D' I don't want to repeat it on 'S'. I don't think it is. I actually think the refurb seat is very comfy. I do think seating like bedding is a difficult one as we all have differing opinions on comfort. |
|
|
|
Post by agoodcuppa on Oct 21, 2006 16:13:37 GMT
EDIT: Perhaps I've hit on TfL's secret agenda!!! Do me a favour! Sorry, I forget the smiley.  |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Oct 21, 2006 16:36:36 GMT
Well, I did wonder. Your posts are always informed and positive! |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Oct 21, 2006 16:39:23 GMT
Really? Is this a universal opinion? I would like to know from a professional point of view here. If we have made a mistake on 'D' I don't want to repeat it on 'S'. I don't think it is. I actually think the refurb seat is very comfy. I do think seating like bedding is a difficult one as we all have differing opinions on comfort. Thanks Jim. It is good to get others thoughts on this sort of subject. I was part of the team that signed off the new 'D' Stock seat, so aspects comments made me sit up.  I do hope the seat is generally accepted as 'ok', it is difficult to please all of the drivers all of the time!! ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2006 17:40:06 GMT
Personally I think the seats on the refurb D stocks are comfy enough. The only problem I have with them is that it is too fiddly to release the seat back to fold it forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by agoodcuppa on Oct 21, 2006 17:59:25 GMT
Well, I did wonder. Your posts are always informed and positive! In the same way that the saying about "If it seems too good to be true, it probably isn't true! usually applies, treat my hyperbole as being very much tongue in cheek. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by bwhughes on Oct 21, 2006 18:01:36 GMT
I suppose a lot of the problem with seating requirement comes to the fact that there is simply not enough capacity on the Met Because it shares a measly double-track section beyond Baker Street with the Circle and Hammersmith & City, the line is working to capacity.  This means that seating would have to be drastically compromised for standing space  on the S-Stock, especially for Met services going beyond Baker Street! When Swiss Cottage and St John's Wood stations were closed on the Met, it was originally proposed to build two deep-level, FULL SIZE (NOT tiny tube ) tunnels underneath the existing ones, to provide the non-stop service from Finchley Road to Baker Street. IF these extra tunnels had been built (even better if beyond Baker Street too), London would enjoy a higher-capacity east to west metro corridor like Paris has. From Gare de Lyon to Chatelet, Metro Lines 1 and 14, and the Regional line A, run parallel! However, Metro 14 and RER A run non-stop. All lines are crowded despite the high capacity (well, restricted by Paris's narrow Metro stock) If the Met had got a pair of extra deep level tunnels (and not inadequate tube tunnels currently used by the Jubilee Line), semi-fast services with high seating density could have run on the deep-level line whilst the stopping service with less seats could have been provided on the old line! |
|
|
|
Post by agoodcuppa on Oct 21, 2006 18:23:58 GMT
Is there not scope for the seating configuration to be changed and increased or removed according to which line the particular unit is allocated to?
Thus the high passenger number sections get fewer seats and the Met Main gets more. If a unit gets reallocated then the seating gets changed.
Airlines manage it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2006 18:45:52 GMT
I certainly don't! I also don't want to know about 'The Museums' at South Kensington when it's eleven o'clock at night!! ;D or Lawn Tennis at Southfields at 01.20... |
|
on the S-Stock, especially for Met services going beyond Baker Street!
