|
Post by amershamsi on Oct 25, 2007 0:04:52 GMT
The mixed solution for the 8 car 'S' is considered to be optimum by the design team and a full 2+2 seating layout isn't A stock a 3+2 arrangement? surely 2+2 shouldn't be considered full, in the light of that. What's the average journey time on the Met - Baker St to Harrow is 20 minutes, and at peak times, you'd be talking about 10 minutes on average at either end of that journey - into the city and out to the edges of town. 40 minutes counts as a long journey. With the Met, look at what mainline TOCs want to do with their trains on their routes that go out towards the M25 and perhaps a bit beyond - look at your Windsor lines, look at what kind of seating they want on Crossrail, look at the Dartford lines, or Hayes, or Caterham. I'd quite like to see Met line S stock after a few years - will one side's wheels be far more worn after having more load to bear, as everyone will sit on the transverse seating bit, unless it's full?
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Oct 25, 2007 10:50:37 GMT
The current A stock is 3+2 (unless your on a D end motor then its 2+3!) but we must remember that the A stock is 9'8'' wide (the widest loading guage in Britain) but the S stock is only to be 9'7'' wide (ie the same as the old F stock and the current C stock). When the C69 stock was first introduced it had a 2+2 seating plan because thats all that could be put in. The A stock width is a remnant of the old Brunel broad guage that was installed from Hammersmith to Farringdon.
One factor that really bothers me is the direction people will be sitting on the mixed layout. I'm not concerned with facing front or back, but if your siting on a transverse seat you will have other passengers in the corner of your eye-weird! Vice versa- those on bench seats will have to stare at the side of someone's face! I don't know how some ladies will enjoy that!
I must say (waits for moans!) the Met is a bit of a special case and its trains should reflect this (especially as they will be a sub-fleet anyway!).
|
|
|
Post by johnb on Oct 25, 2007 10:58:42 GMT
I can't see the increase in the service frequency to counter this-especially as Metronet (or whatever they hale as now) can't even afford to buy as many trains (hence why Barking got the chop) now! Got a source there? (either for the definite end of the Barking plan, or for the cut in total S-stock orders)
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Oct 25, 2007 11:23:59 GMT
Yeah I heard it on another site and I know an employee at Bombarbier who is involved with the delivery of the contract.
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Oct 25, 2007 16:26:29 GMT
The current A stock is 3+2 (unless your on a D end motor then its 2+3!) but we must remember that the A stock is 9'8'' wide (the widest loading guage in Britain) but the S stock is only to be 9'7'' wide (ie the same as the old F stock and the current C stock). . That's one inch difference, or _____________. The A Stock also relies on the Great Central railways construction to continental standards. The GWML and Chiltern suburban trains have 3+2, so it is possible on smaller trains. However it's not really desirable for the London end, as the gangway is narrow (though A stock's is wide enough to lose an inch, surely?). 2+2 will give ample standing room, and a fairly decent amount of decent, comfy seats - that should be what's done. It's sad to see the huge internal cross sectional area of A stock go (S stock will also be shorter (as in less tall, not less long)), however it seems reasonable to make them the same width as the other trains. However they ought to have the other features that make A stock great - lots of high backed seats that are comfy, for instance - you just don't get this with transverse seats.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Oct 25, 2007 18:19:44 GMT
you mean with bench seats don't you? Otherwise here here!! 2+2 all the way!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2007 20:04:30 GMT
I seem to remember that the A stock seats are not wide enough to meet current standards, so even if you built to exactly A stock dimension you would need a narrower gangway to get 3+2 seating to fit.
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Oct 25, 2007 20:35:35 GMT
Personally, I regard A stock as having 2.5 and 1.5 seats - ie 2+1 and two cheeks!
in contrast D stock is 2+2. Wait for the mock up. You won't be disappointed.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Oct 25, 2007 23:59:36 GMT
Well the D stock is the narrowest of the 3 Sub-surface stocks-so if 2+2 is possible on that (which it is) then it should be possible on the 8 car S stocks! I hope I'm not disappointed!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2007 9:48:47 GMT
I can't see the increase in the service frequency to counter this-especially as Metronet (or whatever they hale as now) can't even afford to buy as many trains (hence why Barking got the chop) now! Got a source there? (either for the definite end of the Barking plan, or for the cut in total S-stock orders) I'd like to know, too. I always thought that changing the H&C/Circle into one line wasn't a good idea in the first place. As far as I know the Uxbridge Branch frequency should be going up to 10 tph, but I don't really remember my source for that anymore either. If this is true, I could see the Pic. cut back to Rayner's Lane.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Oct 26, 2007 12:30:07 GMT
As far as I know the Hammersmith and Circle Line plan is still going ahead (why?). I also heard from another forum that they never expected the Barking plan to go ahead! I'm not sure the Uxbridge service will run every 6 minutes! If it did, would that be enough time to deal with the Piccadilly reversals? I also heard it was planned to rebuild Rayners Lane-but frankly its not an important issue (so it won't happen I suppect!).
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,311
|
Post by Colin on Oct 26, 2007 13:12:27 GMT
Both Met's to Barking & the T-cup have been dropped - I can't remember where I got that info from though, but it is true.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Oct 26, 2007 13:44:18 GMT
Good! The Circle Line lives on! Maybe with more reliable trains/signalling the Circle Line can work!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2007 13:56:10 GMT
Both Met's to Barking & the T-cup have been dropped - I can't remember where I got that info from though, but it is true. Very interesting. I wonder if is was dropped because of the legal requirements or because it was finally found unworkable.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Oct 26, 2007 13:58:05 GMT
Well exactly-Edgware Road/Praed St Junction would have been like the M25/M4 interchange!!
|
|
|
Post by happybunny on Oct 26, 2007 17:20:30 GMT
I hear at Rayners a third platform will be created.. not sure how it will work exactly but will enable a Uxb bound met and picc to go into the stn at the same time. This will help them get there 10 tph to Uxb... I just hope they don't run the Picc as a permanent Rayners only service. It would be a shame!
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Oct 26, 2007 18:40:32 GMT
Very, very difficult work! I imagine that the space where the two sidings are could be used to make the extra platform and make the down plaform into an island instead (or they could get rid of the signal box and do it on the other side-think there is more room there anyway!)? I expect the picc would reverse at Rayners lane off peak and the odd train would go to Ruislip/Uxbridge in peak hours. Does the Uxbridge line need 10 tph?
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,311
|
Post by Colin on Oct 27, 2007 0:28:43 GMT
I wonder if is was dropped because of the legal requirements or because it was finally found unworkable. Unworkable, I believe, is the main reason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2007 8:11:12 GMT
Good! The Circle Line lives on! Maybe with more reliable trains/signalling the Circle Line can work! Not with the existing drivers ;D
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Oct 28, 2007 12:05:01 GMT
Good! The Circle Line lives on! Maybe with more reliable trains/signalling the Circle Line can work! Not with the existing drivers ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Oct 28, 2007 14:52:02 GMT
Rayners Lane IMR is in the way if the intent would be to create a new platform south of the westbound unless half the westbound platform is lost which would push the platform further to the west. It's a long time since I worked there so I don't know now if a complete realignment of the Picc into the south side of the station is an option although it would probably eat up the car park if that still exists.
Brian
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2007 17:18:02 GMT
[Not with the existing drivers ;D Seems like we're lucky if the Circle Line has drivers Delays reported on the Circle Line due to staff shortages seem to be a rather regular occurence at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Oct 28, 2007 17:22:04 GMT
[Not with the existing drivers ;D Seems like we're lucky if the Circle Line has drivers Delays reported on the Circle Line due to staff shortages seem to be a rather regular occurence at the moment. It's been like that for years! It's only recently they have started putting out the real reason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2007 21:36:09 GMT
It's been like that for years! It's only recently they have started putting out the real reason. I've always wondered why the Circle seems to suffer worse than other lines for that. I've speculated that it might be because the delays that the Circle picks up too easily has a knock on effect on crew reliefs. However would have thought in that case lack of staff would be an effect (or an exacerbating factor) rather than the only reported cause of a delay.
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Oct 28, 2007 21:41:09 GMT
It's been like that for years! It's only recently they have started putting out the real reason. I've always wondered why the Circle seems to suffer worse than other lines for that. I've speculated that it might be because the delays that the Circle picks up too easily has a knock on effect on crew reliefs. However would have thought in that case lack of staff would be an effect (or an exacerbating factor) rather than the only reported cause of a delay. The other reason is that if a train is say 20mins late and there are no other pick ups or spares to reform, it will have to be diverted to Moorgate, Hammersmith, or worked onto the sidings otherwise the Operator will be over hours or into enforced overtime. Also Circles are first to be cancelled when there is a failure or shortage of rolling stock and are also diverted to cover gaps to Hammersmith if there are problems on the H&C.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Oct 28, 2007 22:29:11 GMT
Yeah I heard it on another site and I know an employee at Bombarbier who is involved with the delivery of the contract. It's just not true. Metronet do not make decisions on LU service patterns, that is firmly LU's responsibility. LU made the decision to drop the Met's to Barking service pattern for a whole host of reasons, none of which involved financial reasons. Metronet decide on how many trains they order, and this decision is based on them being able to meet their PPP commitments. Currently LU have had no notification of Metronets intentions to reduce the number of 'S' Stock being ordered, but thats not to say this will not come. If and when it does we will be looking to ensure that Metronet are able to meet their contractual requirements. Incidentally, the Met's to Barking plan was dropped well before Metronet went into PPP Administration.
|
|
prjb
Advisor
LU move customers from A to B, they used to do it via 'C'.
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by prjb on Oct 28, 2007 22:31:54 GMT
Both Met's to Barking & the T-cup have been dropped - I can't remember where I got that info from though, but it is true. This isn't true either. The 'T-Cup' service is still firmly in the plans and I doubt it will be dropped. I don't like it at all, but currently it is going ahead and I don't think it will change.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2007 23:01:41 GMT
Hang on. If there's a T-Cup service and no Mets to Barking, what provides the direct Liverpool St - Aldgate East service?
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Oct 28, 2007 23:02:13 GMT
Shame- it's a rubbish idea. The delays (even with ATO) will be dreadful at Edgware Road from what Tubeprune suggests!
|
|
|
Post by c5 on Oct 28, 2007 23:11:05 GMT
Shame- it's a rubbish idea. The delays (even with ATO) will be dreadful at Edgware Road from what Tubeprune suggests! Edgware Road wouldn't be as bad if the depot was moved elsewhere! Maybe when the rest of the SSR will be moved over to the new room and the Signal Box will be left there to do it's stuff ;D ;D ;D ;D What with the scaling down of the "Super-Depots", I wonder if there are any plans to mve Edgware Road Train Crew Depot? After all Hammersmith (opened a few years ago), will close!
|
|