daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old August 4th, 2010, 11:31 AM   #1261
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

I have read complaints by certain rail enthusiasts on the web that the S-stock is a totally innappropriate replacement for the A-stock.

I do not believe this for a minute as everything that I have seen so far I agree with (eg half longitudinal seats, good acceleration/top speed), but what are the percieved problems? Or is it just typical nonsensical moaning?
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old August 4th, 2010, 12:59 PM   #1262
Fatfield
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 488
Likes (Received): 93

Quote:
Originally Posted by makita09 View Post
I have read complaints by certain rail enthusiasts on the web that the S-stock is a totally innappropriate replacement for the A-stock.

I do not believe this for a minute as everything that I have seen so far I agree with (eg half longitudinal seats, good acceleration/top speed), but what are the percieved problems? Or is it just typical nonsensical moaning?
Its Britain. We like a good old moan.
Fatfield no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 4th, 2010, 01:41 PM   #1263
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,547

Quote:
Originally Posted by scalatrava89 View Post
How many train buffs turned out? You all should of cheered when it pulled away at the end. SO what did you think of the new stock PortoNuts? The main benefit is obviously the internal space, and light aerie feel.
But, given A stock is the largest train running on British rails, interior space isn't an improvement, it's a carry on - you could argue that more standing space is a benefit, but the people of Northwood (and further out, but especially in the Northwood area) consider that a massive flaw, because it means less seats, so they will have to stand now. A Stock has a light aerie feel - it's only the newness of S stock on this that makes it better. I think those who commute on the Met line would have liked a new improved A stock (better seats, air con, perhaps 2+2 rather than 3+2, more speed, better accleration, etc). The big problem is that it's a stock designed for other lines - it's absolutely perfect for the District, and for the other two, it's rather good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by makita09 View Post
I have read complaints by certain rail enthusiasts on the web that the S-stock is a totally innappropriate replacement for the A-stock.

I do not believe this for a minute as everything that I have seen so far I agree with (eg half longitudinal seats, good acceleration/top speed), but what are the percieved problems? Or is it just typical nonsensical moaning?
The half longitudinal seats are the problem. Air con and the acceleration/top speed are great, as is replacing 50 year old trains. But to reduce the number of seats by the amount that they have, on the Met line where distances and travel times are long is a big mistake.

By all means, it's a good compromise stock for the SSLs, but the situation at Northwood (and other places, given longitutinal seats aren't as comfortable as transverse ones with they higher backs), where people who used to sit will now have to stand all the way in, isn't like the situation at Woodford (say), where the tube service, while having trains with less seats, provided a much better service than the NR one, so the pay off is bearable, and now (70 years later) no one knows better. With the move to S stock there's a slight increase in frequency and a slight decrease in travel time, but the people of Northwood and further out don't think it's worth it - the compromise removes A stock's bias towards them and the bonuses for them aren't good enough to make up for the backward step with the seats.

I can understand the arguments about the circle line bit needing the standing space, but whenever I've been on a Met train on the circle (which includes in the peaks), it's not crush loaded by a long shot, and there's enough room to stand with A stock.

The problem with S stock is that the Met line is used to better seating arrangements (though slightly worse standing arrangements) and Met line commuters disagree with the idea that there ought to be one stock for the varied SSLs.

They look brilliant trains for the District, H&C and Circle lines, but the compromise of the stock is just a bit too compromised for the Met line. It is indeed inappropriate for the line, especially given how A stock was fit for purpose. It's a line where you need big-wide trains to make the most of the tunnel size, where you need lots of seats, because the line is for commuting long distances, though also a decent amount of standing room (check out the big vestibule areas on A stock) due to the central London section. What has happened is that we now have narrower trains, and then less seats to make up the standing room (and now there's more than is necessary).

Completely irrelevant but, looking at the front, S stock is a bit ugly, aren't they?
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2010, 04:50 AM   #1264
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

The narrowness of the S Stock compared to the A Stock is countered by the fact that there is standing room between the carriages, and that it allows a much smaller gap between the train and the platform.

Although I agree that the reduction in seats is a shame, It also is countered. The S Stock is fully walkthrough, meaning people can walk down the train as far as they want to find a spare seat, currently the train is often crowded at one end and empty at the other, which is a waste. Secondly, I don't see how the Metropolitan's journeys are longer than other line's, the line is the one underground line to have fast and semi fast services, not forgetting the huge gap between Finchley Road and Baker Street...

And I disagree about the front, I think it's attractive, unusual and modern.
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2010, 11:39 AM   #1265
mtj73
Registered User
 
mtj73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 324
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
The narrowness of the S Stock compared to the A Stock is countered by the fact that there is standing room between the carriages, and that it allows a much smaller gap between the train and the platform.

Although I agree that the reduction in seats is a shame, It also is countered. The S Stock is fully walkthrough, meaning people can walk down the train as far as they want to find a spare seat, currently the train is often crowded at one end and empty at the other, which is a waste. Secondly, I don't see how the Metropolitan's journeys are longer than other line's, the line is the one underground line to have fast and semi fast services, not forgetting the huge gap between Finchley Road and Baker Street...

And I disagree about the front, I think it's attractive, unusual and modern.
That's right, I don't understand why people always seem to overlook that fact. If the train is packed you would not of got a seat anyway, if it's not jam packed but all the seats and someone in another carrage stands up to get of at the next station it should be easy to grab it.

I would not want to stand for 40 minutes into work every day either but do the outer services really fill from the first station? I would of thought they would fill closer to the city but I am willing to be corrected on that.
mtj73 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2010, 03:43 PM   #1266
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,547

I had a big long post, but I'll just whittle it down to a few short-ish points
  • While a smaller train will fit better (and remember most people don't care too much about the gap - though obviously making it small for the few is a very good thing) in the centre, at places like Watford, etc, where the platform fits A stock pretty well (it's a tiny gap at Watford) the gap will be made bigger by the smaller stock. It's a non point to talk about gaps - in places it will be better, in others it'll be worse.
  • LU, with the A stock (designed for commuters from the outskirts) has made it exceptional (which you seem to despise, especially when it involves suburbia) - LU is now removing that and making it better. There would rightly be uproar if they decided to make new Central Line/Piccadilly stock work better for those in zones 4-6 at the expense of zone 1, this is the same thing - to make the trains suit the centre bit a bit more, but suit most of the line less. The problem isn't that S stock is bad, but that A stock was so well suited to the outer parts of the line, that anything that isn't as well suited is a backward step out there.
  • Any comparison to elsewhere on the tube network as far out must also have similar NR locations too - which have trains with lots of seats. Likewise there's no massive upgrade in service, like there was when things like Epping were tubified (direct trains deeper into Central London).
  • I agree with S stock, but I'm trying to put forward the reasons why people aren't happy, and why their complaints are somewhat valid - I do think they are making too much out of it, but they have been treated well by the tube for a while with A stock, and now they are going to be treated like Dagenham or Woodford - ie not as well. It is a backward step as far as they are concerned (they might not see the benefits at all, but for them the costs of having S stock, rather than a new special Met line train outweigh the benefits by a long way for the people out there - though it's not just them on the line!). The less good treatment of Dagenham and Woodford shouldn't mean that Northwood should be brought down - ideally the far ends of the District, Central, Piccadilly, etc would get trains that better suit them - it's the problem of the tube being metro and S-bahn at the same time. To say "tough, other people put up with it" is a bit like Ed Balls' schools policy which is pretty much that there should be no winners unless everyone can win, therefore we should all be losers.
  • The gap between Finchely Road and Baker Street has equivalents - Kings Cross to Caledonian Road and Highbury and Islington are about as far. The Central, Piccadilly and Victoria lines all have fast bits, even if there's no slow lines on some of them: Liverpool St - Stratford - see how many stops the District has going out to West Ham, Kings Cross - Seven Sisters, Earls Court - Acton Town. Are they equivalent - not quite, but still.
  • The front of S stock has a bit too much going on IMO - the lines aren't smooth, it's a bit too complex. I guess it's like the Multipla winning design awards - I remember seeing it for the first time in the Design Museum on a school trip - we saw the back first, and found it tolerable but then it rotated and their was a universal cry of disgust from the 10 or so of us looking at it - some of us couldn't even look at how ugly that double chin is, but then we hadn't had our taste generated by the design gurus. I'm sure I'll get used to it, like I did with the odd backs of cars, but I just find it ugly at the moment - not Multipla repulsive, but I'm not a fan.

To put it simply - S stock is adequate for the Met, but Met line customers are used to something better suited to the line's outer parts, being treated like they aren't on the tube, but not on BR either - best of both worlds. They are used to being treated differently from the rest of the Underground and are rightly upset (though they do somewhat have a false sense of entitlement) at their lose of this privilege. Is S stock the right thing to do - yes. Is it a kick in the teeth to the people of the Northwood area - yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtj73 View Post
That's right, I don't understand why people always seem to overlook that fact. If the train is packed you would not of got a seat anyway, if it's not jam packed but all the seats and someone in another carrage stands up to get of at the next station it should be easy to grab it.
Surely those currently at the seat limit (Northwood/Pinner sort of area) will already move along the platform to go in at the emptiest carriages? Yes, with the walkways a few more might sit down, but it's still not all who try and board the train there.
Quote:
I would not want to stand for 40 minutes into work every day either but do the outer services really fill from the first station? I would of thought they would fill closer to the city but I am willing to be corrected on that.
They don't, which why the heckles are from Northwood and Pinner, quite a few stops down the line (5 or 6), that now get a seat, but with the reduction in seats, won't all get them, even with the walk-throughs.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2010, 12:02 AM   #1267
PortoNuts
Registered User
 
PortoNuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Porto
Posts: 24,073
Likes (Received): 7469

Quote:
Originally Posted by scalatrava89 View Post
How many train buffs turned out? You all should of cheered when it pulled away at the end. SO what did you think of the new stock PortoNuts? The main benefit is obviously the internal space, and light aerie feel.
I agree with you on both things. I really like, they remind me the East London Line trains of LO and I'm a fan of those as well. Good quality trains are essential for LU, they are the core of the network so to speak. I can handle crappy stations but not crappy trains. They are the ones who keep the system going.
__________________
Got one head for money and one head for sin..
PortoNuts no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2010, 04:49 AM   #1268
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
I had a big long post, but I'll just whittle it down to a few short-ish points

While a smaller train will fit better (and remember most people don't care too much about the gap - though obviously making it small for the few is a very good thing) in the centre, at places like Watford, etc, where the platform fits A stock pretty well (it's a tiny gap at Watford) the gap will be made bigger by the smaller stock. It's a non point to talk about gaps - in places it will be better, in others it'll be worse.
Here's Watford station, the gap looks smaller on the S Stock to me.

image hosted on flickr


Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
LU, with the A stock (designed for commuters from the outskirts) has made it exceptional (which you seem to despise, especially when it involves suburbia) - LU is now removing that and making it better. There would rightly be uproar if they decided to make new Central Line/Piccadilly stock work better for those in zones 4-6 at the expense of zone 1, this is the same thing - to make the trains suit the centre bit a bit more, but suit most of the line less. The problem isn't that S stock is bad, but that A stock was so well suited to the outer parts of the line, that anything that isn't as well suited is a backward step out there.
There might be an uproar if the Piccadilly/Central had lots of seating in the first place, but AFAIK, they never have. That's why i'm unsympathetic as the S Stock still has more seats than most of the existing LU lines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
Any comparison to elsewhere on the tube network as far out must also have similar NR locations too - which have trains with lots of seats. Likewise there's no massive upgrade in service, like there was when things like Epping were tubified (direct trains deeper into Central London).
The Tube will always win as it goes direct into Central London... But I don't see why they should be compared as they are inherently completely different services.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
I agree with S stock, but I'm trying to put forward the reasons why people aren't happy, and why their complaints are somewhat valid - I do think they are making too much out of it, but they have been treated well by the tube for a while with A stock, and now they are going to be treated like Dagenham or Woodford - ie not as well. It is a backward step as far as they are concerned (they might not see the benefits at all, but for them the costs of having S stock, rather than a new special Met line train outweigh the benefits by a long way for the people out there - though it's not just them on the line!). The less good treatment of Dagenham and Woodford shouldn't mean that Northwood should be brought down - ideally the far ends of the District, Central, Piccadilly, etc would get trains that better suit them - it's the problem of the tube being metro and S-bahn at the same time. To say "tough, other people put up with it" is a bit like Ed Balls' schools policy which is pretty much that there should be no winners unless everyone can win, therefore we should all be losers.
I don't really agree with that analogy. How is the seating on the S Stock making everyone a loser? It's a case of priorities. The fewer seats allows more people to fit in during the peaks, shorter dwell times, which is where it matters. There's the people that can't physically fit on southbound Met trains at Wembley Park and Finchley Road probably will be able to now the S Stock is in service, versus the seated passengers who will now have to stand because of fewer seats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
The gap between Finchely Road and Baker Street has equivalents - Kings Cross to Caledonian Road and Highbury and Islington are about as far. The Central, Piccadilly and Victoria lines all have fast bits, even if there's no slow lines on some of them: Liverpool St - Stratford - see how many stops the District has going out to West Ham, Kings Cross - Seven Sisters, Earls Court - Acton Town. Are they equivalent - not quite, but still.
True, but the Metropolitan still wins in this respect. Huge gaps between Moor Park - Harrow-on-the-Hill, Wembley Park - Finchley Road, etc etc. And not forgetting that there is the even faster Chiltern services, or the slower Jubilee services, you could even say the Bakerloo/Central/Piccadilly lines offer alternatives too. Met passengers are spoiled for choice.
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2010, 01:58 PM   #1269
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,547

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
There might be an uproar if the Piccadilly/Central had lots of seating in the first place, but AFAIK, they never have.
They did when they were BR branches (OK, not Cockfosters), but then they gained a better service when they switched (which doesn't happen with the Met). These commuters have my sympathy too - it comes from over-extending the tube lines with their small trains. Yes, it was the easiest way to deal with getting to those places, but as those villages grow bigger and the people did too, it's made the inner areas pay badly with overcrowding. However, of course, almost no one is old enough to know what it was once like on trains with proper seats - with Northwood the change has happened now, so they aren't used to it and they don't get the benefit of going through a central London tube (or further than Baker Street - Watford morning trains stop there). At Pinner, it doesn't make much difference that S stock has more seats than tube stocks, what matters is that five or ten people got seats under A stock, and none of them will now.

The comparison with A stock is the only comparison needed to see if it is a reduction of quality of service - the answer is yes, when it comes to seats. The comparisons with elsewhere (and Eltham, Seven Kings, Twickenham, etc should be made as well as Woodford, Dagenham Heathway, etc) are only really relevant to see if they are now so short-changed by the S-stock that it was a mistake. No - it drops the Met line to somewhere between tube and NR, which is what it is (in LUL colours).
Quote:
That's why i'm unsympathetic as the S Stock still has more seats than most of the existing LU lines.
You are unsympathetic as you hate people having it good - as I said, lowest common denominator as you hate the idea of someone winning (especially if they are suburbanites).
Quote:
The Tube will always win as it goes direct into Central London... But I don't see why they should be compared as they are inherently completely different services.
What BR and the met shouldn't be compared, or Epping and the Met? Baker Street is further from Central London than pretty much every London terminus! OK, Watford trains (which have the Northwood problem which is what this about), and other peak trains do to the northern Circle, so they do get Central London - but my point is that they got them with A stock - the service on the outer parts of the Met is downgraded by the design of the new trains running on it. The inner part is improved though.

When Epping et all got downgraded to crappy longitudinal seating it got a huge upgrade in service - more penetration of the City for a start. Now the Met line is being downgraded to half-longitudinal seating, what are they getting - new trains, that go about as fast as the old ones used to, at a slightly better frequency. For those at the southern end of getting seats in the morning there's a huge retrograde step - just because every other tube line has it worse doesn't negate that. Should LUL be coddling the Metroland folks - no! Is there a valid complaint - yes!
Quote:
I don't really agree with that analogy. How is the seating on the S Stock making everyone a loser?
It's a drag down to the losers (when it comes to stock) policy that you are operating - you go "others have it worse" and instead of going "and they should have it better", you go "boo hoo for you - I'm going to ignore your complaint because I have a grudge against how well you have been, and will be, treated by LUL - in fact, you should have it much worse - even S stock is too good for you and your fast service with few stops in zones 2-4".
Quote:
It's a case of priorities.
Indeed, hence why I agree with S stock replacing A stock - some people are going to lose.
Quote:
The fewer seats allows more people to fit in during the peaks, shorter dwell times, which is where it matters. There's the people that can't physically fit on southbound Met trains at Wembley Park and Finchley Road probably will be able to now the S Stock is in service, versus the seated passengers who will now have to stand because of fewer seats.

True, but the Metropolitan still wins in this respect. Huge gaps between Moor Park - Harrow-on-the-Hill, Wembley Park - Finchley Road, etc etc. And not forgetting that there is the even faster Chiltern services, or the slower Jubilee services, you could even say the Bakerloo/Central/Piccadilly lines offer alternatives too. Met passengers are spoiled for choice.
Not from Northwood (though they can change at Wembley Park or Harrow, I guess). The fast trains to Moor Park are effectively LUL run main line commuter services (something which you deny - the BR-esque nature of the line, emphasised these past 50 years by A stock being designed for outer commuters). It's interesting how your argument relies on there being nothing special or different about the Met line then you keep pushing for this difference. Interesting that you talk about not being able to get on at Wembley Park or Finchely Road (surely quite a few get off here?) and then talk about how much choice there is for Met line customers - there's a choice for both these stations all the way in (that doesn't mean we shouldn't have it that they can't use the Met) - there isn't for the small area of the Met where S stock will have a genuine negative effect.

What I am saying is that there is there is a real negative effect of A stock being replaced by S stock - on a small bit of the Met line and greatly outweighed by the benefits. The people of Northwood have a valid complaint - they are seriously dis-benefited by this change - they do not gain, they lose and lose a lot. There's other issues that I have with your view of the world, iampuking, that prejudices you and blinds you to see my point, but I really have one point and one point alone that I'm trying to say and it is nice and bold for people to see.

Should S stock on the Met be scrapped for them? No - it's great for those from Harrow southwards and not the end of the world for Northwood people. S stock rectifies the decision in the late 50s to have A stock be mostly for the North of Harrow commuter - this is compromise between the inner and outer sections.

Should we try and work a way to improve the people of Northwood's lot? Perhaps - Crossrail's Aylesbury branch plan closed Moor Park's fast line platforms and replaced them with Northwood ones - far better catchment area for the fast line stop. It doesn't look easy, but also not very hard to do, and if LUL are clever they will just have it as an unfunded plan for years or something as a sort of sop for making the people of Northwood stand.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2010, 04:26 PM   #1270
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Interesting. I can see why they're disappointed, but I agree its a case of priorities. As someone who had to stand all the way commuting from Sevenoaks every day my sympathy is somewhat muted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatfield View Post
Its Britain. We like a good old moan.
Indeed, I think its our most superior characteristic Apart from thinking a cup of tea is the solution to everything.
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2010, 09:33 PM   #1271
kerouac1848
Registered User
 
kerouac1848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW London
Posts: 3,653
Likes (Received): 1628

Sotonsi

I'm sorry, but you're exaggerting about the disadvantages of the the S stock.
Quote:
However, of course, almost no one is old enough to know what it was once like on trains with proper seats - with Northwood the change has happened now, so they aren't used to it and they don't get the benefit of going through a central London tube (or further than Baker Street - Watford morning trains stop there). At Pinner, it doesn't make much difference that S stock has more seats than tube stocks, what matters is that five or ten people got seats under A stock, and none of them will now.
You're forgetting one important point; the train starts at watford and is empty. Northwood is only the 4th stop and those there and before can monopolise seats. With over 300 seats and walkthrough carriages that won't be an issue for Northwood, never mind Watford. The people most likely to have less seats than before are those at Harrow-on-around and stops near (yes, there are sometimes seats available when a train rolls in). Most people in Watford don't use the met line station anyway (except those in West watford, which is less populated anyway) as it isn't in the town's centre and gets into London slower than fast services from Watford Junction (which is a major stop).

Quote:
Baker Street is further from Central London than pretty much every London terminus! OK, Watford trains (which have the Northwood problem which is what this about), and other peak trains do to the northern Circle, so they do get Central London - but my point is that they got them with A stock - the service on the outer parts of the Met is downgraded by the design of the new trains running on it. The inner part is improved though.
Wtf?! Baker st. is IN central London. If you mean the City, than Paddington is further and the interchange longer and more hassle (Ditto Victoria). Anyone who’s lived close to a met line station (like I have. Indeed I grew up using the line) would change at either Harrow-on-the-Hill or Finchley Rd for an Aldgate train ( around half the trains in peak-hours go through to Aldgate); to do so at baker st. is stupid. Similarly, they have cross platform interchange at Finchley for the Jubilee line, taking them to the West End and CW.

Quote:
Now the Met line is being downgraded to half-longitudinal seating, what are they getting - new trains, that go about as fast as the old ones used to, at a slightly better frequency. For those at the southern end of getting seats in the morning there's a huge retrograde step - just because every other tube line has it worse doesn't negate that.
The new trains have much faster acceleration and breakage, reducing total journey times. That is a huge improvement trust me and hardly a retrograde step. One thing I always hated about the met line was how slow the train would enter and leave the platform (at Wembley this is made more notable because you could compare it to the jubilee trains). Also note that this isn't just with regards to stations; trains stop frequently due to bunch ups caused by flat junctions in the central area. Finally, they'll undoubtedly be much smoother than the A stock, and bumpy rides can be an issue (around moor park and Wembley to Neasden especially).

Quote:
What I am saying is that there is there is a real negative effect of A stock being replaced by S stock - on a small bit of the Met line and greatly outweighed by the benefits. The people of Northwood have a valid complaint - they are seriously dis-benefited by this change - they do not gain, they lose and lose a lot. There's other issues that I have with your view of the world, iampuking, that prejudices you and blinds you to see my point, but I really have one point and one point alone that I'm trying to say and it is nice and bold for people to see.
Bollocks. They still keep the advantage of having first priority of seats, together with trains which can start and stop much quicker, leading to reduced journey times and better frequency, as well as being more comfortable. The A Stocks layout meant journeys for people from Harrow southwards were poor; hot, crowded, awarked and essentially unacceptable.

You're deliberatly playing down the benefits whilst bigging up disadvantages which when looked at properly are minor at best.
kerouac1848 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2010, 11:35 PM   #1272
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Quote:
Originally Posted by kerouac1848 View Post
You're forgetting one important point; the train starts at watford and is empty. Northwood is only the 4th stop and those there and before can monopolise seats. With over 300 seats and walkthrough carriages that won't be an issue for Northwood, never mind Watford. The people most likely to have less seats than before are those at Harrow-on-around and stops near (yes, there are sometimes seats available when a train rolls in). Most people in Watford don't use the met line station anyway (except those in West watford, which is less populated anyway) as it isn't in the town's centre and gets into London slower than fast services from Watford Junction (which is a major stop).
Of course this doesn't help in the evening, when no one has a geographically-provided advantage over the seats and everyone has equal chance of getting one. But that'll be at worst part of the journey, as from what you say loadings decrease significantly, and anyone standing will get a seat at some point if they are heading further out.
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2010, 12:00 AM   #1273
future.architect
Far East London
 
future.architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,800
Likes (Received): 2031

This debate about seats is just like the one we are having in manchester. The old trams have 86 seats, the new ones have 52 + 8 perch seats. One of the actual reasons is tougher regulations, you need to have more space for pushchairs ect.

In manchester the old trams will be refurbished over the next 4/5 years and will have the seating layout changed to match the new ones.
future.architect no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2010, 12:46 AM   #1274
allurban
All Urban
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto, Kuala Lumpur
Posts: 4,348
Likes (Received): 6

Did something happen on the DLR yesterday at Island Gardens station?

My wife & I walked out the of the Thames footpath around 3:30 or 4pm to see 8 fire engines sitting in front of Island Gardens with red and white tape across the entrance.

By the time we got to the next station (Mudchute) we could see the LED signs saying that service was suspended in both directions and a number of police & ambulances were roaring past with lights on and sirens up.

By the time we got to the new South Quay station we saw a train operating so I guess things were back to normal.

Cheers, m

by the way, it's interesting that they moved South Quay station and dismantled the old station as well...can't say that I've ever seen a station dismantled before - and presumably they did it without disrupting the DLR service?
__________________
Follow TRANSIT - the Association for the Improvement of Mass-Transit

w. http://transitmy.org
e. [email protected]
tw. http://twitter.com/transitmy
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/TRANSI...12392362108880
allurban no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2010, 06:32 AM   #1275
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

I can't be bothered to reply to everyone's replies. I just want to say a few things.

Sotonsi, it's really cute that you remember my post history enough to know my dislike of the suburbs (funnily enough I dislike the new Arcade Fire album called The Suburbs when I liked all their others...) but i'm not a moron enough to be so biased that I can't see their viewpoint. If my views were so skewed then why do two other posters seem to agree with me? And it seems you agree with me too, the new S Stock benefits a greater percentage of people than it disbenefits.

One point I'd like to add is that the new S Stock allows far greater capacity on the northern sections of the circle in the peaks, it seems such a waste to have these BR style trains with huge amounts of seating running in between high capacity C Stock trains... And I can assure you as a past user of the Met from Finchley Road, very few people get off and the trains are often too full to board.
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2010, 12:26 PM   #1276
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3271

Quote:
Originally Posted by allurban View Post
Did something happen on the DLR yesterday at Island Gardens station?

My wife & I walked out the of the Thames footpath around 3:30 or 4pm to see 8 fire engines sitting in front of Island Gardens with red and white tape across the entrance.

By the time we got to the next station (Mudchute) we could see the LED signs saying that service was suspended in both directions and a number of police & ambulances were roaring past with lights on and sirens up.

By the time we got to the new South Quay station we saw a train operating so I guess things were back to normal.

Cheers, m

by the way, it's interesting that they moved South Quay station and dismantled the old station as well...can't say that I've ever seen a station dismantled before - and presumably they did it without disrupting the DLR service?
Someone told me that Red & white Police tape = fatality, dunno if this is true

Dunno what the need for 8 fire engines would be though
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2010, 03:02 AM   #1277
PortoNuts
Registered User
 
PortoNuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Porto
Posts: 24,073
Likes (Received): 7469

The A Stock now really seems kind of archaic next to the S Stock.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
New S Stock racing with the A Stock.

__________________
Got one head for money and one head for sin..
PortoNuts no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2010, 09:28 AM   #1278
mtj73
Registered User
 
mtj73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 324
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by PortoNuts View Post
The A Stock now really seems kind of archaic next to the S Stock.
It is archaic, 50 years old. I take my hat off to the guys that built them and most importantly the guys that keep them running every day.

By pure chance I happened to see an old steam train at Brisbane Central station yesterday, the tanoy proudly anounces that the engine was built in 1950 and the steel carridges in 1960s. A60 stock popped up in my head an had silent chuckle, other cities are use younger trains as heritage novelties than LU are using for main service.
mtj73 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2010, 06:35 PM   #1279
poshbakerloo
***Alexxx***
 
poshbakerloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London, Manchester, Cheshire, Sheffield, Moscow
Posts: 5,091
Likes (Received): 289

I don't what the big deal is with the seats. Do people really travel Amersham-Aldgate!?
I'd imagine most change at Baker Street etc
__________________
"BEFORE WE MARRY...I HAVE A SECRET!"

I <3 London
poshbakerloo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2010, 06:48 PM   #1280
sweek
Registered User
 
sweek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London NW1
Posts: 1,636
Likes (Received): 1

People who really do travel those long distances will still find seats. I expect there will be seats available between Amersham/Chesham/Uxbridge and Harrow-on-the-Hill at least, with the standing spaces being used from Harrow southwards.
The frequency is going to be higher on the Uxbridge branch, too.
sweek no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
britain, emirates, london, underground

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium