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 21:13:30 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. Just to be as clear as I can be, there is no intention and there never has been for a 'C' stock interior layout for 'S'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2006 21:33:36 GMT
Then why hasn't TfL come right out and made that clear? The only way to keep the gymkhana of the 1960s from repeating itself when the 464-seater A stock replaced the 600-seater T stock is to let interested parties know precisely what type of seating they can expect.
EDIT: What sort of passenger anchors will be provided in the gangways? How wide will they be? How hard will it be for the depot folks to split a unit for maintenance? What sort of equipment positioning will be used (i.e. will the traditional labels of DM/UNDM be retained)?
|
|
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 21:42:37 GMT
Then why hasn't TfL come right out and made that clear? The only way to keep the gymkhana of the 1960s when the 464-seater A stock replaced the 600-seater T stock is to let interested parties know precisely what type of seating they can expect. We are already doing so and will continue to do so via processes such as CAT etc. With a project of this magnitude you cannot just consult all parties on all subjects at the same time. Just as the design goes through specific stages of evolution so does the consultation process. Whilst I do not claim to be responsible for Comms, I know that everything is in place for the right people to be consulted at the right time. There is no point in speaking to customers about moquette (just as an example) right now, but when the design has reached that point we will have got proper documented feedback. Right now we are seeking input from staff (as well as ongoing talks with relevant external parties) and that is what I am attempting to encourage here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2006 21:57:13 GMT
Then why hasn't TfL come right out and made that clear? The only way to keep the gymkhana of the 1960s when the 464-seater A stock replaced the 600-seater T stock is to let interested parties know precisely what type of seating they can expect. We are already doing so and will continue to do so via processes such as CAT etc. With a project of this magnitude you cannot just consult all parties on all subjects at the same time. Just as the design goes through specific stages of evolution so does the consultation process. Whilst I do not claim to be responsible for Comms, I know that everything is in place for the right people to be consulted at the right time. There is no point in speaking to customers about moquette (just as an example) right now, but when the design has reached that point we will have got proper documented feedback. Right now we are seeking input from staff (as well as ongoing talks with relevant external parties) and that is what I am attempting to encourage here. Thanks for the clarification. What about my remaining questions?
|
|
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 22:48:39 GMT
EDIT: What sort of passenger anchors will be provided in the gangways? How wide will they be? How hard will it be for the depot folks to split a unit for maintenance? What sort of equipment positioning will be used (i.e. will the traditional labels of DM/UNDM be retained)? Sorry, my original reply went in before your edit. Gangways are still being developed, so specific details on size etc is minimal. MRSSL provide an extremely competent depot manager to attend maintenence reviews (as this is their issue rather than LU's) and they have quite strict requirements for things such as timings for splitting units etc. With regards to Cant rail labelling, we are still quite early on in the design for this, but we are pushing for consistency accross the system (where possible) in all areas so they should be reasonably uniform with the rest of LU's fleet. Whilst I have said there are some things I can't answer here, I have to admit that your questions are quite specific and I am not sure of the answers myself! So in this case I am not being evasive, I'm just not sure!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by trainopd78 on May 1, 2006 17:11:29 GMT
Its nice to know though that our views as the end user are being sought. Once more detailed designs have been drawn up i'm sure plenty of constructive criticism can be bounced around, and i'm hopeful that a good all round design will be the result. Seating layout will always be a big discussion point, and I think sub classes to cater for each lines needs would be the way to go.
If the cars could be designed in such a way that the seating layout could be relatively flexible, so that if a car moves from say the Met to the District, then the seating could be relatively easily adapted to suit. Not sure how feasible that would be though with underfloor equipment etc.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on May 1, 2006 19:58:59 GMT
Its nice to know though that our views as the end user are being sought. As I said to Colin earlier in the thread, please, please, please get in touch with us officially and give us your comments - you will get a response.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on May 1, 2006 20:01:28 GMT
Once more detailed designs have been drawn up i'm sure plenty of constructive criticism can be bounced around, and i'm hopeful that a good all round design will be the result. One of the problems with waiting for more detailed designs is that the further on the project gets - the more difficult it becomes to change things. If you have any thoughts, comments, ideas, or just general observations pester the System Upgrades team now!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2006 7:55:23 GMT
Is it likely that the continuous gangways will be almost full width such as on the Bucharest Metro's new Bombardier built trains, and the Paris Metro MP89 www.flickr.com/photos/stephenk1977/139238875/ ? Or will the corridors be a bit narrower with larger bulkheads as found on the Bangkok Skytrain, and the Hong Kong MTR www.hkmtr.net/galleries/Pop/Nt_Interior_5_P.jpg ? Personally, I think the wider the better, although this does mean that there is less room for electronic equipment at the car ends (I think the air con control is found in the HK MTR bulkheads).
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on May 16, 2006 0:06:24 GMT
The gangways will be as wide as possible to accomodate standing passengers during busy periods. Apologies for the delay in answering your question, I have been on holiday (they let me out for a week or so! ).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2006 17:48:38 GMT
The gangways will be as wide as possible to accomodate standing passengers during busy periods. Apologies for the delay in answering your question, I have been on holiday (they let me out for a week or so! ). Thats good to hear. I will be interested to see the more recent versions of the artists impressions when they are released to the public, which I assume will be fairly soon?
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on May 16, 2006 19:40:01 GMT
I will ask our Comms guy where we are with release material and get back to you. It may be next week now though as I am out of the office on a course for the rest of this week.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2006 22:55:16 GMT
Thanks. I would guess that Metronet will put the images up on their site, or in Metronet matters, as soon as they release the images to the public. I think LURS Underground News also mentioned they would have something about both 2009TS and S-stock soon.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on May 25, 2006 20:47:07 GMT
We are currently carrying out early customer acceptance testing at some stations, I have asked our comms guy if I can post the photo's being shown to the public here. I can't see why it would be a problem and am currently awaiting a reply. As far as I am concerned your responses would be another source of information, fingers crossed!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2006 21:40:47 GMT
We are currently carrying out early customer acceptance testing at some stations, I have asked our comms guy if I can post the photo's being shown to the public here. I can't see why it would be a problem and am currently awaiting a reply. As far as I am concerned your responses would be another source of information, fingers crossed! Thanks, I hope that you are able to give us this information. Otherwise we'll just have to pay a visit to the customer acceptance testing - is that likely to be in the Metronet van?
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on May 25, 2006 21:45:22 GMT
No, it is by means of canvassers on stations stopping customers, showing them different images, and asking questions. I might be wrong but I get the impression that Metronet are not that keen on their roadshow bus thingy! I'm really hoping that I will get permission to post something, they are showing them to the public on stations anyway. Also, this thread was biased towards staff so it would be nice to be able to give everyone else something to comment on too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2006 22:18:00 GMT
but I get the impression that Metronet are not that keen on their roadshow bus thingy! Probably because it's either full of clueless passers by, or tube enthusiasts like myself asking difficult questions.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on May 25, 2006 22:22:48 GMT
but I get the impression that Metronet are not that keen on their roadshow bus thingy! Probably because it's either full of clueless passers by, or tube enthusiasts like myself asking difficult questions. I kinda got the impression that they didn't feel it was an effective tool?
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jun 1, 2006 20:40:47 GMT
I will be interested to see the more recent versions of the artists impressions when they are released to the public, which I assume will be fairly soon? I am really pleased to say that I have got permission to post some interior shots. They are the same shots that appear in the SSR Upgrade Newsline so at least the non-LU members can get to see what all the fuss is about. They are very early conceptual design shots and are not set in stone but it's better than nothing. Please bear with me as I have never tried to put photo's into a thread before (Duh!). ;D
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Jun 1, 2006 23:13:00 GMT
Thank goodness for Phil! Here is the first view courtesy of the admin: Above is the full car cutaway, it is an early design and the colours are for illustration only. Above shows the interior, again ignore the colours. Further down the vehicle you can see the through gangway to the next car. The final shot better illustrates the gangway area.
|
|
|
Post by connextrain on Jun 1, 2006 23:24:10 GMT
definatly i agree with you there
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,358
|
Post by Chris M on Jun 2, 2006 0:35:14 GMT
My first thoughts related to this area of the first image: This looks like a glass partition with a grab-pole type bar accross the top. The wheelchair against is suggests the idea of it is for wheelchair users to use it in the manner. If all this is right then I have a number of concerns. - In a violent stop would the glass partition be stong enough to withstand the impact of an unsecured (or inadequately secured) wheelchair? If not, then the wheel chair users and those around them could be showered in broken glass. The wheel chair user may also hit their head against the metal bar.
- The metal bar looks a very convenient height for people to lean against (think of the vestibule araes of 1973 Stock trains). Normally this wouldn't be a problem, but with nothing heigher up to support them, it seems quite likely they could topple over it in the event of a sharp stop or start of the train.
- Similarly to the above, young people are not unlikely to perch on top of the bar, either through unfamiliarity with the jerkiness of the trains or for a laugh/bet - particularly when drunk. Obviously falling of is a very real possibility and probably almost inevitable in an emergency stop situation.
- It also looks a height convenient for parents to sit toddlers on, which would have very similar consequences to the previous point.
- Will it be obvious enough to be seen by visually impaired people?
If my interpretation of its purpose is correct, then its inclusion seems like a good idea. However I'd suggest the following changes be made to it relating to my points above. - Make it higher - I'm thinking along the lines of the height of seat backs on A stock trains.
- Get rid of the glass -
- construct it out of two or three vertical, narrow (~1-2 feet wide) strips of solid, A stock seat back-style plastic, covered (apart from a ~1 inch border) with seating fabric (no or minimal padding needed).
- The vertical pannels might either directly touch each other or there may be a small (no more than a couple of inches) gap between them. Leave a gap between the bottom of the pannels and the floor (as with the chairs) for easier cleaning.
- The solid construction should be able to withstand a wheelchair/heavy luggage in an emergency and be more easily seen by the partially sighted.
- Instead of a single bar accross the top, have one shallow D-shaped bar per vertical pannel. This would allow them to be used as grab bars but (combined with their extra height) significantly reduce their appeal as something to sit on. They will also be extremely more difficult to get onto to sit on - quite possibly beyond the ability of many drunks.
The flooring in the gangway also looks very slippy, but I'm sure thats just an artifact of the drawing not the actual floroing. Chris ps: I'm happy for these comments (and any others I make in this thread) to be used in any official consultation. PM me if you need any information about me for this.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jun 2, 2006 7:44:36 GMT
I notice the lack of luggage racks and umberella hooks; something that Metrolanders fought hard for when the 'T' stock was replaced with saloons. Surely this cannot be for security reasons; afterall a luggage rack is high up and in a more noticable location for stray possessions to be spotted than, say, under the chairs. Also speaking of the seating, it looks dangerously uncomfortable! I do hope that a copy of the seating on the 1992 tube stock isn't produced; because once its built countless millions of people over the next 30 years wont have a choice but to be uncomfortable when sitting on it. The transverse seats have low backs; I know I'm just whining now but people like having somewhere decent to sit. Oh; the line diagrams look interesting...
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,358
|
Post by Chris M on Jun 2, 2006 7:56:15 GMT
I notice the lack of luggage racks and umberella hooks; something that Metrolanders fought hard for when the 'T' stock was replaced with saloons. Surely this cannot be for security reasons; afterall a luggage rack is high up and in a more noticable location for stray possessions to be spotted than, say, under the chairs. However, it takes time to put luggage on racks, where it is more likely to fall off in the event of an accident. Luggage on racks is also more likely to be forgotten by the person when they get off. If the person putting the luggage up there has moved away from right by it during the journey, they might have to fight their way through a crowd of people to get to it meaning they take much longer getting off. These have got to be considerations on a metro service. Another reason I don't think you'll see them is there would be less space for adverts
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2006 8:58:18 GMT
Just a quick message, as I'm rather busy at the moment! Thanks for posting the pics. I love the wide gangway, a definate improvement over the previous artists impressions. I also like the mix of longitudinal and transverse seating, plus the general layout seems spacious and good for movement around the carriage (thus hopefully limiting station dwell times). Maybe the armrests would be better if they were of the D-stock refurb type, these seem a bit too pointy. I agree with the designers that luggage racks are not needed, the ones on the A-stock are only used for discarding used copies of Metro! How wide are the doors? To keep dwell times down 1.6m doors would be more preferable to 1.3m doors. Also, it seems odd that door open buttons have been retained.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2006 9:17:01 GMT
I think Chris M has a good point about people sitting on that low grab rail - you can guarantee that some folk will sit on anything other than a seat! Also, the pairs of facing seats encourage people to put their feet up on the seat opposite.
If they use the armourplate glass like the D stock partitions then I don't think there's much danger of it breaking. Using solid materials instead of glass has the disadvantage of making it harder to see down the train, with possible security issues.
It looks like some of the seats will have space underneath them for luggage, which is good. But it does bring the risk of people forgetting their stuff when they get off the train.
|
|
|
Post by russe on Jun 2, 2006 10:46:45 GMT
I am astonished at the complete lack of horizontal handrails above shoulder height. On a crowded train, these are often the only means by which a passenger can keep upright.
Russ
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2006 12:00:13 GMT
I am astonished at the complete lack of horizontal handrails above shoulder height. On a crowded train, these are often the only means by which a passenger can keep upright. Russ Oh, yeah. I hadn't noticed that, does seem a strange omission.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,358
|
Post by Chris M on Jun 2, 2006 12:33:00 GMT
I am astonished at the complete lack of horizontal handrails above shoulder height. On a crowded train, these are often the only means by which a passenger can keep upright. Russ Oh, yeah. I hadn't noticed that, does seem a strange omission. I hadn't spotted these either. Perhaps the desgin/drawings have been done by short people. I'm 5'5" and only on very exceptional occasions are they any use to me, so I don't think to look up there!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2006 16:42:32 GMT
Good point about the handrails. There are loads of vertical handrails, particularly in the seating areas. But I think there could be a few more rails above the passengers heads, particularly around the door circulation areas.
|
|