|
Post by bwhughes on Oct 21, 2006 19:13:02 GMT
I accept that the current cost of building a deep level full size line beneath the existing Met from Finchley Road to Aldgate would currently be prohibitive and would definitely not be seen in the near future.
However, I do have suggestions to keep standing space on the section from Baker Street to Aldgate whilst not depriving Amersham commuters of seats for most of their journey.
All Met services would terminate in the platforms at Baker Street. High-density seating could be provided all the way there from the suburbs.
The remaining few miles to Aldgate would only be Circle and H & C services (with high standing capacity), to keep enough standing space for commuters travelling on the central section.
There would be a problem with having to stand for the last part of a journey from Amersham if travelling somewhere further than Baker Street, but (with the reasons put forward by prjb that London Underground needs to act as an efficient modern metro),
even if full-distance services from Amersham to Aldgate continued to run, the seating would have to be compromised for the whole journey rather than for 8 closely-spaced stops. The section between Baker Street and Aldgate needs as much standing space as possible.
The biggest difficulty I suppose is getting all those passengers at once through Baker Street concourse and onto the extra Circle and H & C trains, introduced to take up the capacity released by the removal of the Met services.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2006 19:18:59 GMT
However, I do have suggestions to keep standing space on the section from Baker Street to Aldgate whilst not depriving Amersham commuters of seats for most of their journey. All Met services would terminate in the platforms at Baker Street. High-density seating could be provided all the way there from the suburbs. The remaining few miles to Aldgate would only be Circle and H & C services (with high standing capacity), to keep enough standing space for commuters travelling on the central section. Most Met commuters travel into the City and would be very put out if they have to change. Met passengers are among the most vocal passengers on LU when campaigning about their services.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2006 20:14:46 GMT
The S stock will be quicker than the A stocks now accelaration, adding more capacity to the northern circle and ATO eventually would aid it.
|
|
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 20:19:21 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. Thanks adw, I have noted that comment from others too. Fortunately the Infraco has realised that if they provide a seat that cannot be altered quickly and easily this will mean extended dwell times whilst drivers fiddle around. So it is in their interest to ensure that their client (BTUK) supply a seat which meets the needs of it's users. I am watching it closely though. Maybe nearer the time, and if I get permission (I am a mere bottom feeder in this! ), I could invite you guys to have a look at a mock up?
|
|
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 20:22:54 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. I am sure that we have discussed this elsewhere (the SSR thread maybe?), but this would be very difficult to achieve. It would alter the weight, the weight distribution, and would require different braking profiles and traction packages in consequence. All for something that, if you ask me, is not going to be an issue when the met customers get faster, more reliable, better equipped trains coupled with an increase in tph.
|
|
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 20:25:39 GMT
However, I do have suggestions to keep standing space on the section from Baker Street to Aldgate whilst not depriving Amersham commuters of seats for most of their journey. All Met services would terminate in the platforms at Baker Street. High-density seating could be provided all the way there from the suburbs. The remaining few miles to Aldgate would only be Circle and H & C services (with high standing capacity), to keep enough standing space for commuters travelling on the central section. Most Met commuters travel into the City and would be very put out if they have to change. Met passengers are among the most vocal passengers on LU when campaigning about their services. Exactly mate! Me and Jim remember a time when the Met terminated at Baker Street during the off peak periods. The Met customers kicked up a real stink at having to cross the bridge to continue east into the city. In fairness it is very inconvenient and doesn't aid customer flow at an already busy station.
|
|
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 20:26:12 GMT
The S stock will be quicker than the A stocks now accelaration, adding more capacity to the northern circle and ATO eventually would aid it. Yes, indeed.
|
|
|
Post by agoodcuppa on Oct 21, 2006 20:35:09 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? It would alter the weight, the weight distribution, and would require different braking profiles and traction packages in consequence. All those factor affect airliners as well.
|
|
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 21:54:43 GMT
I'm sure that they do, but LU and the associated Infraco's have neither the time, the resources, or the money to invest in something which is not strictly necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Oct 26, 2006 14:50:39 GMT
You could have something like the current C-stock interior design, however half of the sideways banks of seats could be "tip-up" seats but just secured down with locks. Then at peak times, a member of staff could go along unlocking the changeable seats, lifting them up and locking them in that position. Thus extra standing space during the peaks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2006 14:51:54 GMT
why not just have tip-ups
|
|