class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,743 
|
Post by class411 on Oct 1, 2012 6:51:05 GMT
You were the one to say regarding the C stock "They're comfortable, spacious, and do the job." and "The only stock I will be glad to see the back of is the D stock. Yes, and I haven't contradicted myself. The only thing I have against the D stock is that the seats are too narrow if you are tall (or, presumably, fat). Other than that they are fine. Somewhat off topic for the thread, but one thing I noticed is that some (I'm not sure how much because it's not noticeable under all ambient lighting conditions) D stock seems to have amazingly good internal lighting. On a dullish day they actually look as if there is more daylight inside them than outside. It must be something to do with the colour balance of the tubes in use. |
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Oct 1, 2012 7:36:12 GMT
Somewhat off topic for the thread, but one thing I noticed is that some (I'm not sure how much because it's not noticeable under all ambient lighting conditions) D stock seems to have amazingly good internal lighting. On a dullish day they actually look as if there is more daylight inside them than outside. It must be something to do with the colour balance of the tubes in use. It's probable you are referring to car 17008, the prototype refurb car, as this is fitted with different length tubes and therefore non-standard to all other D Stock cars. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2012 12:36:31 GMT
You were the one to say regarding the C stock "They're comfortable, spacious, and do the job." and "The only stock I will be glad to see the back of is the D stock. Yes, and I haven't contradicted myself. The only thing I have against the D stock is that the seats are too narrow if you are tall (or, presumably, fat). Other than that they are fine. Somewhat off topic for the thread, but one thing I noticed is that some (I'm not sure how much because it's not noticeable under all ambient lighting conditions) D stock seems to have amazingly good internal lighting. On a dullish day they actually look as if there is more daylight inside them than outside. It must be something to do with the colour balance of the tubes in use. The C stock are not as roomy as a D nor do they do the job as half as good. The C stock has been a under performer in regards to ride, comfort and reliability. A contemporary to the C stock the 1972 MKII on the the line that time forgot is poles apart and is a real pleasure to travel on. Every time I take a Bakerloo train, even though there is no replacement yet on its way, I have a sense of making sure of appreciating every moment of it as they won't be there forever. I am not saying that LU made the wrong decision or the reasons in replacing the A stock first, however my own choice, forsaking financial constraints and concentrating on maximum benefit, would had been to keep the older A stock going a little longer, replaced the C stock first, then the A stock and then switched attention to replacing the Piccadilly 1973 stock and back to a last batch of S7s for the District line. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Oct 1, 2012 20:02:30 GMT
Yes, and I haven't contradicted myself. The only thing I have against the D stock is that the seats are too narrow if you are tall (or, presumably, fat). Other than that they are fine. Somewhat off topic for the thread, but one thing I noticed is that some (I'm not sure how much because it's not noticeable under all ambient lighting conditions) D stock seems to have amazingly good internal lighting. On a dullish day they actually look as if there is more daylight inside them than outside. It must be something to do with the colour balance of the tubes in use. The C stock are not as roomy as a D nor do they do the job as half as good. The C stock has been a under performer. Actually, the C stock are far better crowd shifters, mainly due to the single leaf doors on the D stock. C stock are a bit unloved in many ways, but I have good memories of them pre-refurbishment. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2012 20:21:59 GMT
The C stock are not as roomy as a D nor do they do the job as half as good. The C stock has been a under performer. Actually, the C stock are far better crowd shifters, mainly due to the single leaf doors on the D stock. C stock are a bit unloved in many ways, but I have good memories of them pre-refurbishment. What stock shifts a larger crowd with its higher passenger carrying capacity,emmm, I wonder......  Answer.  I can only put it down to a moment of madness on the part of LT, but prior to refurb, the C stock had narrow aisles and the majority of the seating was transverse companion seats, not exactly suitable for a frequent stop-start operation in Central London!  |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Oct 1, 2012 21:05:41 GMT
Can't agree with you there routemaster. 'C' Stock definitely move more punters than 'D' Stock. We have detrained a 'C' Stock loaded with football traffic onto a 'D' Stock and left people behind on the 'C' because the 'D' was at capacity. I know I have said it before but you just have to stand on Westminster platform during peak hours and watch how a 'C' hoovers the platform where a 'D' leaves people behind.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by class411 on Oct 2, 2012 7:46:50 GMT
I think C stock have a greater effective capacity because the capacity they have seems to be easier to use.
On a crowded D stock train there seems to be a marked reluctance for passengers to 'move down the car', whereas with a crowded C stock, with their wider door bays, the available space seems to be used much more willingly and quickly.
Another problem with D stock and their single doors is 'dawdlers' who remain in their seats until everyone else has de-trained and then jump up to get off and block the ingress of alighting passengers. On the C stock, the wider entrance and shorter maximum distance to a door means this is not so much of a problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 2, 2012 11:31:08 GMT
This thread is leaving me a little torn! Clearly I will have nothing negative said about 'C' Stock but I was the operational manager responsible for the 'D' Stock refurb. That was a good project and saw operations and some brilliant LU Engineers working together with Bombardier to produce, what I think is, the best refurb project LU has ever managed to pull off. 'D' Stock is the only train that ever truly managed to look like a brand new train. The cab wasn't perfect but we had to work with what we had. I'd broadly agree that the D Stock refurb was a decent improvement except for one thing. Those horrible hard and too wide metal armrests which have made seats that were fine to use unbearable unless you have the width of a stick insect. I am a fat lump and the current TfL emphasis on providing seats that are narrower than old stock is just daft given what is happening in society. The other strange change (and sorry for the stock drift) is why the Jubilee Line seats are now so hard following the moquette retrim. It's like sitting on a plank. |
|
|
|
Post by dennisc on Oct 2, 2012 12:03:06 GMT
This thread is leaving me a little torn! Clearly I will have nothing negative said about 'C' Stock but I was the operational manager responsible for the 'D' Stock refurb. That was a good project and saw operations and some brilliant LU Engineers working together with Bombardier to produce, what I think is, the best refurb project LU has ever managed to pull off. 'D' Stock is the only train that ever truly managed to look like a brand new train. The cab wasn't perfect but we had to work with what we had. I'd broadly agree that the D Stock refurb was a decent improvement except for one thing. Those horrible hard and too wide metal armrests which have made seats that were fine to use unbearable unless you have the width of a stick insect. I am a fat lump and the current TfL emphasis on providing seats that are narrower than old stock is just daft given what is happening in society. The other strange change (and sorry for the stock drift) is why the Jubilee Line seats are now so hard following the moquette retrim. It's like sitting on a plank. Same with the S8's. All trains are designed to get the maximum amount of people in and the attitude seems to be if you are larger than average that's your problem not ours. |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by class411 on Oct 2, 2012 12:27:09 GMT
Same with the S8's. All trains are designed to get the maximum amount of people in and the attitude seems to be if you are larger than average that's your problem not ours. Funny. I tried an S8 and it was fine. It's definitely only the D stock that I've ever had a problem with. Even then, I'm not exactly wedged in, it's just that it's disconcerting being able to feel the armrests on each side. Surely, they didn't change the number of seats in each row, just increased the total space taken up by the armrests? |
|
|
|
Post by dennisc on Oct 2, 2012 12:42:14 GMT
Same with the S8's. All trains are designed to get the maximum amount of people in and the attitude seems to be if you are larger than average that's your problem not ours. Funny. I tried an S8 and it was fine. It's definitely only the D stock that I've ever had a problem with. Even then, I'm not exactly wedged in, it's just that it's disconcerting being able to feel the armrests on each side. Surely, they didn't change the number of seats in each row, just increased the total space taken up by the armrests? The transverse seating in the S8's is most uncomfortable if your bum is bigger than average. |
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Oct 2, 2012 13:41:08 GMT
Surely, they didn't change the number of seats in each row, just increased the total space taken up by the armrests? The previous armrests were cantilevered from the back and didn't dive-down back to the bottom, which would give a bit more 'leg space'. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 2, 2012 15:13:24 GMT
The transverse seating in the S8's is most uncomfortable if your bum is bigger than average. On another line, and another operator, I was told that the seating was designed for the average person. That means that it is too small for 50% of the population. The average member of the UK population has fewer than two legs, fewer than two eyes: approximately one ovary, 2.4 children, etc etc and lives near Appleby Parva in Leicestershire (the UK's "population centroid"). I have yet to find such a person, in Leicestershire or anywhere else. (Less, not fewer, as the |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2012 22:25:33 GMT
I think C stock have a greater effective capacity because the capacity they have seems to be easier to use. On a crowded D stock train there seems to be a marked reluctance for passengers to 'move down the car', whereas with a crowded C stock, with their wider door bays, the available space seems to be used much more willingly and quickly. Another problem with D stock and their single doors is 'dawdlers' who remain in their seats until everyone else has de-trained and then jump up to get off and block the ingress of alighting passengers. On the C stock, the wider entrance and shorter maximum distance to a door means this is not so much of a problem. I think you make a very, very valid point about people reluctantly moving down the inside of D stock cars. I will add that the C stock is better in design regarding getting passengers to pass down the cars to due the centre grab poles only being between the main seating areas, where you want to draw people to, and none in the doorways, which gives a much better flow and people are not attracted to a prominent centre grab pole in the doorway and thus clog it up straight away. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2012 22:41:27 GMT
Can't agree with you there routemaster. 'C' Stock definitely move more punters than 'D' Stock. We have detrained a 'C' Stock loaded with football traffic onto a 'D' Stock and left people behind on the 'C' because the 'D' was at capacity. I know I have said it before but you just have to stand on Westminster platform during peak hours and watch how a 'C' hoovers the platform where a 'D' leaves people behind. You can't agree with me. The TfL figures for 4 passengers per square are C stock 739 passengers D stock 827 passengers www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/modesoftransport/londonunderground/rollingstock/1616.aspxwww.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/modesoftransport/londonunderground/rollingstock/1618.aspxFor all you mention above, the first thing I blame is the centre grab poles that were put in the doorways on refurb. The doorways are narrower than the traditional double leaf doorways and the single door leaf is known for its limitations and yet a grab pole was put there! If a full C stock load of passengers cannot be swithced over onto an empty D stock train there is something very wrong indeed. The D stock have the same number of cars as a C stock and each car 15 to 20% longer than a C stock's and there is a centre cab on every C stock train. LT tried centre grab poles in the double doorways on the H&C "O" stock, sometime in the 1940/50s, and had to take them off because they caused congestion and boarding delays, which were wider than a D's doorways. The Central line 1992 TS has its high level hand rails, located above the doors, painted grey instead of red to encourage people not to block the doorways and use the full length of the cars. The green forest of centre grab rails. We have the photo on this thread of the original interior of the C stock and now the refurb version, a decade before the D refurb. What is striking is the openess of the doorways, there is no centre poles there, they are where they should be in the long transverse seating areas and the draught screens taper inwards, which may not seem much, but I think it is a touch of genious. The double handrails and their curved sections at the car end are also noteworthy. We have the photo on this thread of the original interior of the C stock and now the refurb version a decade before the D refurb, below. What is striking is the openess of the doorways, there is no centre poles there, they are where they should be in the long transverse seating areas and the draught screens taper inwards, which I think it is a touch of genius. Uncluttered and open. Also the dual high level grab rails which run the full length of the cars and the curved ends are also noteworthy for their efficency. |
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Oct 3, 2012 21:53:54 GMT
You can't agree with me. The TfL figures for 4 passengers per square are C stock 739 passengers D stock 827 passengers In practice though you can pack em' in to a 'C' much more efficiently!! ;D We have the photo on this thread of the original interior of the C stock and now the refurb version a decade before the D refurb, below. What is striking is the openess of the doorways, there is no centre poles there, they are where they should be in the long transverse seating areas and the draught screens taper inwards, which I think it is a touch of genius. Also the dual high level grab rails which run the full length of the cars and the curved ends are also noteworthy for their efficency. See routemaster, I am bringing you round to the Darkside of the SSR Rolling Stock!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2012 7:17:02 GMT
Not withstanding the ability of the C to Hoover up people better than the D stock. The A & now S stock are superior to the C stock - which results in a little known fact of a shortage of S stocks in the city will see KX Met go into station control.
I guess the S7 will be even better, but even with walk through I do wonder if he number of doors cut out may increase dwell times.
|
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Oct 5, 2012 11:46:35 GMT
Can't agree with you there routemaster. 'C' Stock definitely move more punters than 'D' Stock. We have detrained a 'C' Stock loaded with football traffic onto a 'D' Stock and left people behind on the 'C' because the 'D' was at capacity. I know I have said it before but you just have to stand on Westminster platform during peak hours and watch how a 'C' hoovers the platform where a 'D' leaves people behind. You may well be right but I wonder whether you can draw conclusions about capacity or efficiency purely from the Westminster example you give. Are both types of train equally loaded on arrival? Also worth considering passenger destinations and service frequency. Stig - could you explain what you mean by station control at Kings Cross? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2012 16:35:44 GMT
Personally, I'd say the C Stock have a higher capacity, mainly because of there layout so people stand differently. The D stock might be able to carry more people but the way people stand on them makes it so there is less room when really there is.
Anyway, back on topic, I was at Bombardier (they had a family open day, but I was invited) a few weeks ago and the guy I was talking to said that the S7s that were made were just waiting for an extra car then they would be sent down. Also, instead of one a week they would do two a week. He also said the S7s would all be in service across the H&C and Circle by the end of 2013 and the District should have them by 2015.
Another thing he mentioned was that some C Stocks would remain after the D Stocks had gone because they can go on more lines and if an S7 fails they can send out a C stock.
Also, a C Stock car was sent for scrap today, was a sad sight!
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by class411 on Oct 31, 2012 9:37:31 GMT
Actually saw my first S7 at Hammersmith on Friday last. Naturally the signal was green and, despite a couple of Olympic sprints it shot out of the station before I could alight but at least I now know H&C S7's are not related to the unicorn.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by class411 on Jan 22, 2013 10:40:29 GMT
Just bumping this as it's now pretty clear that there is some problem with the introduction of this stock as there appear to have been no new units placed on the H&C since the beginning of December.
There are still eleven trains backed up at the 'test track', one has been delivered and seems to have been stuck in the Neasden Depot for the last 11 days and one has been delivered and is operating on the Met.
Have the discovered some fault that is stopping them from passing testing? (And how long is that test track?)
Or have they discovered some operational problem that they need to sort out before more stock can be assimilated onto the line?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2013 12:26:57 GMT
Using the H&C everyday from KX-Goldhawk road I saw one for the first time just yesterday at around 9AM @ Goldhawk Rd...going the other way...
I didn't believe they existed until I saw it!
Looking forward to travelling on one as the C stock really do seem very tired now both in image and performance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2013 14:01:31 GMT
Just bumping this as it's now pretty clear that there is some problem with the introduction of this stock as there appear to have been no new units placed on the H&C since the beginning of December. I believe they are still training the Train Operators on these units |
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Jan 22, 2013 15:34:25 GMT
I am sure that our esteemed prjb will concur that everything is still going to plan with S7 introduction.
There are no new problems, other than the already reported 37 train S8 issues.
Only 2 trains (+T700) are available in WTT28 until 18 May after which should see a massive influx of trains as they will then be running on H&C and Circle Lines.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2013 15:41:57 GMT
I am sure that our esteemed prjb will concur that everything is still going to plan with S7 introduction. There are no new problems, other than the already reported 37 train S8 issues. Only 2 trains (+T700) are available in WTT28 until 18 May after which should see a massive influx of trains as they will then be running on H&C and Circle Lines. T700 has been replaced by T703 which runs to Barking |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by class411 on Jan 22, 2013 16:23:16 GMT
I am sure that our esteemed prjb will concur that everything is still going to plan with S7 introduction. How can everything be going to plan when the introduction - originally planned for 2009/10, I believe is still not happening apart from a few trains - and with more manufactured trains awaiting testing / awaiting delivery than have actually been delivered? Sorry, that as clear as mud. What on earth is WTT28? And where has 18th May suddenly sprung from? When I asked this question in the summer I was told that it would all be happening after December the first when new timetables came into operation. Now it's nearly six months later. And what part of the plan was to introduce and operate six or seven trains and then wait for half a year with a lot of very expensive equipment at the test track? Is this how it happened on the Met? A few units operational and then a wait of half a year with manufactured stock sitting idle? On the plus side, I suppose it's a few more months to appreciate the C stock - I'm sure I'll miss them when they've gone. |
|
|
|
Post by londonstuff on Jan 22, 2013 17:19:27 GMT
Sorry, that as clear as mud. What on earth is WTT28? And where has 18th May suddenly sprung from? When I asked this question in the summer I was told that it would all be happening after December the first when new timetables came into operation. Now it's nearly six months later. And what part of the plan was to introduce and operate six or seven trains and then wait for half a year with a lot of very expensive equipment at the test track? Is this how it happened on the Met? A few units operational and then a wait of half a year with manufactured stock sitting idle? On the plus side, I suppose it's a few more months to appreciate the C stock - I'm sure I'll miss them when they've gone. The tone of your post above is both rude and disrespectful, especially as you've no doubt seen that DStock7080 is both an admin here and a very knowledgeable driver. If you're not sure what a WTT is or the fact that they are all in operational use until a certain date then feel free to do a search of the site and the answers will become apparent. To that end, I'd suggest that the problem of not understanding what a WTT is is yours and while we're perfectly happy to answer people's questions, I would advise you to be more tactful in future when asking for information or clarification of something that you don't understand. |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by class411 on Jan 22, 2013 17:47:14 GMT
Moderator CommentThe tone of your post above is both rude and disrespectful I'm afraid that's just the way you've read it. It certainly wasn't intended that way, although I suppose with no vocal clues it could seem to be. When I wrote it it was voiced with a bewildered chuckle meant more along the lines of "I'm not an expert on this" rather than a grumpy: "can't you use plain English". Hmm, could you do a search on "WTT" and let us know the results? You might find they are not as helpful as you supposed. Searching on WTT28 just returns posts in this thread. I think you are somewhat overestimating the ability of the site's search mechanism. I've been reading the H&C posts on the site for several months now and I promise you, the answers are not apparent. (Of course, I might have missed something.) Well, obviously it is my problem. That is the nature of asking a question: your problem is that you don't know the answer. Whatever, it would be nice if anyone would be prepared to either answer the questions or even just point me at the relevant threads (since you seem to believe the answers are already here). ETA I have sent an apology to DStock7080 in case he took my response to be impolite. |
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Jan 22, 2013 18:17:14 GMT
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by class411 on Jan 22, 2013 18:36:50 GMT
Thanks. I had, of course, tried a search but WTT is too short to be accepted as a search term. |
|
