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 April 13th, 2010, 06:54 PM   #4001
cle
Registered User
 
cle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,096
Likes (Received): 524

They're extending platforms at Westbourne Park, and I assume the others along that stretch. Wood Lane was built longer, which you can tell if on the platform as to where the 'end of platform barrier thing' is located.

The three stations Tubey mentioned are SDO - but with articulated trains, not such a problem unless it's packed.

I think the seating might all be longditudinal? I'm not sure on the Met - but aren't these basically just 378s?
cle no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 14th, 2010, 01:41 AM   #4002
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

Not really. The S8s will be nearly twice as long as the 378s, have different seating layouts, different doors, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman
I was under the impression all S Stocks were going to be identical 7 car trains for flexibility?
Nope, I'm pretty sure the Metropolitan trains will be 8 cars long as when they were delievered, I counted...
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2010, 12:18 PM   #4003
cle
Registered User
 
cle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,096
Likes (Received): 524

I think the inner London (your 'S7's) trains will look and feel like 378s. The interior looks quite cluttered and claustrophobic, with small windows.

And obviously they're twice as long, but it's not as if you'll often be able to see the ends!
cle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2010, 04:01 AM   #4004
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

I think the windows on the S Stock are larger than those on the 378s. Sorry to disagree, but I really don't think the 378s are particularly claustrophobic, especially compared to the 313s that they replaced...
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2010, 11:33 PM   #4005
Abhishek901
Registered User
 
Abhishek901's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,773
Likes (Received): 1204

Hey Tubeman, I want to know more about :

* the capacities of all the lines of LU in terms of passengers per hour per direction. It would be nice if I get the break up also (capacity of individual train and frequency in TPH).

* how much of that capacity is tapped (like in terms of frequency and length of trains)

* how much is the usage of tapped capacity in terms of % (ie lines are over-crowded or under-crowded in terms of tapped capacity and by what margin)

* and finally what are capacity expansion plans and what you think can be the ultimate capacities of these lines.

I know that it is very long list to ask. It would help if you redirect me to some source which explains that, even if it has technical stuff and jargons. And your inputs are always welcome. Thanks

One more thing. Is there any thread for suburban railways in London, (like the one we have for Paris' Transilien network here) in this sub-forum or the UK forum ?
Abhishek901 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2010, 09:53 AM   #4006
1772
Registered User
 
1772's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,573
Likes (Received): 1439

Hello there.

Is there any subway system like the one in Moscow any where ells in the world?
meaning stations built in a classical style.
1772 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2010, 12:27 PM   #4007
cle
Registered User
 
cle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,096
Likes (Received): 524

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
I think the windows on the S Stock are larger than those on the 378s. Sorry to disagree, but I really don't think the 378s are particularly claustrophobic, especially compared to the 313s that they replaced...
Fair enough if you disagree!

I use it quite frequently, and find the new trains are pretty claustrophobic. 313s were also in a different way (the three seat rows/narrow aisles) but at least had big windows.

The 378s are very spacious when empty, but the area around the doors is very dark.
cle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2010, 12:45 PM   #4008
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3271

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1772 View Post
Hello there.

Is there any subway system like the one in Moscow any where ells in the world?
meaning stations built in a classical style.
I think Pyongyang is similar in style to Moscow:

Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2010, 01:05 PM   #4009
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3271

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abhishek901 View Post
Hey Tubeman, I want to know more about :

* the capacities of all the lines of LU in terms of passengers per hour per direction. It would be nice if I get the break up also (capacity of individual train and frequency in TPH).

* how much of that capacity is tapped (like in terms of frequency and length of trains)

* how much is the usage of tapped capacity in terms of % (ie lines are over-crowded or under-crowded in terms of tapped capacity and by what margin)

* and finally what are capacity expansion plans and what you think can be the ultimate capacities of these lines.

I know that it is very long list to ask. It would help if you redirect me to some source which explains that, even if it has technical stuff and jargons. And your inputs are always welcome. Thanks

One more thing. Is there any thread for suburban railways in London, (like the one we have for Paris' Transilien network here) in this sub-forum or the UK forum ?
Capacity isn't easy to definitively measure as there's an absolute maximum where trains are crush loaded and physically can't get any more passengers on, and there'll be a ideal capacity where trains are full but not bursting. The former isn't ideal because dwell times become too long, which reduces the maximum tph frequency.

This aside, the TfL website does helpfully give capacities for each stock which I guess is the latter:

A = 1424
C = 1272
D = 1372
1967 = 1448
1972 = 1278
1973 = 1238
1992 = 892
1995 = 914
1996 = 964

...However I find the stated capacities for the three newest stocks very suspect: 8 cars of the Victoria Line's '67 is nearly twice that of 8 cars of the Central's '92... which is clearly rubbish. If anything the 1992 stock should have greater standing capacity as it has fewer seats (272 versus 304). I can only assume that the older stocks' standing capacities were arrived at through some form of testing (e.g. see how many people can be crammed into one car and then multiply), whereas the newer stocks is arrived at through some form of calculation of metres squared per standee, taking into account pushchairs, wheelchairs, luggage etc.

So, I think if you really went for it, you could get 1500 per train... But ideally you'd probably not want more than 1000 to avoid extended dwell times.

You can then simply multiply train capacity by tph, which varies between 20 and 30 tph... On average I guess most lines can comfortably move 25,000 passengers per hour in each direction.

Regarding unused capacity in Central London, the Southern ends of the Bakerloo and Metropolitan Lines are the only sections with any real capacity to spare.

And no I don't think there is a London Suburban rail thread on the UK transport forum, just separate ones for Crossrail, Thameslink and Overground.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2010, 07:14 PM   #4010
1LONDONER
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Northern sides
Posts: 623
Likes (Received): 55

Tubeman the 2009 stock's capacity is given as 1448 on wikipedia, I dont know if that is correct or not as its the same as given above in your post.
Assuming your post (tfl) to be correct, for the 67 stock and given the claims of a 21% capacity increase, that means 2009 stock capacity of 1752! So at a push, pushing almost 2k capacity per train?

Does that sound right?
1LONDONER no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2010, 09:30 PM   #4011
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3271

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1LONDONER View Post
Tubeman the 2009 stock's capacity is given as 1448 on wikipedia, I dont know if that is correct or not as its the same as given above in your post.
Assuming your post (tfl) to be correct, for the 67 stock and given the claims of a 21% capacity increase, that means 2009 stock capacity of 1752! So at a push, pushing almost 2k capacity per train?

Does that sound right?
Ello mate... Long time no hear / see!

2000 is probably pushing it... I guess it's reasonable to predict a capacity increase of an appreciable margin of the 2009s over the 1967s due to the loss of transverse seating, but 21% sounds a bit too much to me... I just can't see another 300 people squeezing in...

I reckon 10% extra tops, so maybe up to 1600 on a 2009 stock train. This is totally unscientific mind, just a hunch.

BTW I've been hanging out in the Wig & Gown on Holloway Rd before / after games all season, in case you're wondering why I've not been in the White Swan!
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2010, 10:03 PM   #4012
Abhishek901
Registered User
 
Abhishek901's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,773
Likes (Received): 1204

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Capacity isn't easy to definitively measure as there's an absolute maximum where trains are crush loaded and physically can't get any more passengers on, and there'll be a ideal capacity where trains are full but not bursting. The former isn't ideal because dwell times become too long, which reduces the maximum tph frequency.
Yep. I was talking about the latter, the ideal capacity (which many times get sacrificed).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
...However I find the stated capacities for the three newest stocks very suspect: 8 cars of the Victoria Line's '67 is nearly twice that of 8 cars of the Central's '92... which is clearly rubbish. If anything the 1992 stock should have greater standing capacity as it has fewer seats (272 versus 304). I can only assume that the older stocks' standing capacities were arrived at through some form of testing (e.g. see how many people can be crammed into one car and then multiply), whereas the newer stocks is arrived at through some form of calculation of metres squared per standee, taking into account pushchairs, wheelchairs, luggage etc.
Still the capacity of new trains looks ridiculously low when compared to older trains. I guess it is some miscalculation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
So, I think if you really went for it, you could get 1500 per train... But ideally you'd probably not want more than 1000 to avoid extended dwell times.
I am assuming you are talking about 8 car train with every car about 20 m long. In such a scenario 1000 looks too low (or is it that I am assuming a wrong scenario ?).

For example Delhi metro's 8 car trains have an ideal capacity of about 2200, which can go even further if you talk about crowded situation. Length of each car is about 20-25 m and width is 3.2 m, which means 4 persons per sq m. That sounds quite fine. Maybe because they have extra width (see here) but I doubt that a small difference in width will lead to doubling of capacity. There might be some other factor which I have missed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
You can then simply multiply train capacity by tph, which varies between 20 and 30 tph... On average I guess most lines can comfortably move 25,000 passengers per hour in each direction.
25,000 seems to be quite low when you look at face of it as many metro systems have capacities of even 80,000 PPHPD or even above, but when we look at the London's relatively small population and the huge number of lines and route length, this seems to be quite sufficient.

So, what seems to have gone wrong in terms of overcrowding ? Is it because people here travel much longer distance than their counterparts in other cities (as passenger-km matters more than just no. of passengers) or because of LU's route design, the crowd converges at some choke points creating bottlenecks and crowding in some of the sections ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
And no I don't think there is a London Suburban rail thread on the UK transport forum, just separate ones for Crossrail, Thameslink and Overground.
Does that indicates that suburban rail in London has much less importance/significance here than its counterparts, say, Paris ?
Abhishek901 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 20th, 2010, 03:23 AM   #4013
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1772
Hello there.

Is there any subway system like the one in Moscow any where ells in the world?
meaning stations built in a classical style.
The style is usually considered "Stalinist", and there are similar stations to the Stalinist designs on the Moscow Metro on the St Petersburg Metro.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abhishek901 View Post
For example Delhi metro's 8 car trains have an ideal capacity of about 2200, which can go even further if you talk about crowded situation. Length of each car is about 20-25 m and width is 3.2 m, which means 4 persons per sq m. That sounds quite fine. Maybe because they have extra width (see here) but I doubt that a small difference in width will lead to doubling of capacity. There might be some other factor which I have missed.
It's not as simple as that...

7 x 16m = 112m Bakerloo line 1972 Stock
8 x 16m = 128m Central line 1992 Stock
6 x 16m = 96m Circle/H&C line C Stock
6 x 18m = 108m District line D Stock
7 x 18m = 126m Jubilee line 1995 Stock
8 x 16m = 128m Metropolitan line A Stock
6 x 18m = 108m Northern line 1995 Stock
6 x 18m = 108m Piccadilly line 1973 Stock
8 x 16m = 128m Victoria line 1967 Stock
4 x 16m = 64m W&C line 1992 Stock

I believe the new 2009 Stock for the Victoria line will be 3m longer than the current stock.

You have to remember that the deep level lines have significantly smaller trains than normal and therefore the passenger capacity is lower. Many European metros have smaller than necessary trains (Paris and Berlin are two I can think of right now) because the networks were originally designed with revolutionary technology and for lower capacity. Most Asian metros are late developers and have learnt from our mistakes.
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 20th, 2010, 09:08 AM   #4014
Abhishek901
Registered User
 
Abhishek901's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,773
Likes (Received): 1204

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
The style is usually considered "Stalinist", and there are similar stations to the Stalinist designs on the Moscow Metro on the St Petersburg Metro.



It's not as simple as that...

7 x 16m = 112m Bakerloo line 1972 Stock
8 x 16m = 128m Central line 1992 Stock
6 x 16m = 96m Circle/H&C line C Stock
6 x 18m = 108m District line D Stock
7 x 18m = 126m Jubilee line 1995 Stock
8 x 16m = 128m Metropolitan line A Stock
6 x 18m = 108m Northern line 1995 Stock
6 x 18m = 108m Piccadilly line 1973 Stock
8 x 16m = 128m Victoria line 1967 Stock
4 x 16m = 64m W&C line 1992 Stock
Thanks. That pretty much explains it. I was assuming similar length of cars in both cities. Here the platforms are 185 m long, so that explains higher capacity of trains.
Abhishek901 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 20th, 2010, 03:29 PM   #4015
Apoc89
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 287
Likes (Received): 55

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abhishek901 View Post
Does that indicates that suburban rail in London has much less importance/significance here than its counterparts, say, Paris ?
I think it's less about lack of importance/significance(indeed, London has an extensive system, and for parts that lack Underground coverage such as most of the southern half, suburban trains are the only rail link to the centre) and more a lack of a single identity.

Trains in London are run by around ten different companies each with their own brands, and the suburban "metro-style" services are usually integrated seamlessly into the National Rail network, so it's sometimes difficult to tell where suburban rail ends and intercity/regional rail begins.
Apoc89 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 20th, 2010, 07:11 PM   #4016
Abhishek901
Registered User
 
Abhishek901's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,773
Likes (Received): 1204

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apoc89 View Post
Trains in London are run by around ten different companies each with their own brands, and the suburban "metro-style" services are usually integrated seamlessly into the National Rail network, so it's sometimes difficult to tell where suburban rail ends and intercity/regional rail begins.
That means there is no single agency operating the suburban system like TfL ?
Abhishek901 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 20th, 2010, 07:33 PM   #4017
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3271

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abhishek901 View Post
That means there is no single agency operating the suburban system like TfL ?
Correct, although TfL are exerting increasing influence, for example the recent roll-out of Oyster across most of the suburban NwR stations.

One day perhaps all suburban services in London will have the TfL 'Overground' brand. I see no reason why not. The complexity comes in with franchises like SWT, which while operating near metro-like suburban services, also run intercity to Southampton, Portsmouth, Exeter etc. The suburban and intercity would need to be separated into separate franchises.

Practically all that is missing currently is a logical and consistent fare structure like the LU zones... Hopefully if LOROL slowly assumes control of suburban rail, the LU zones will become universal across modes.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 20th, 2010, 09:02 PM   #4018
Abhishek901
Registered User
 
Abhishek901's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,773
Likes (Received): 1204

Isn't overground quite different from suburban rail ? From what I have seen, Overground is a low capacity system, while suburban rails have higher capacity (maybe I am wrong).

Also the catchment of both of them is different. Suburban caters to mostly longer distance passengers coming from areas beyond London or its outer areas to the central London, while Overground caters to same people as Underground (i.e., mainly intra-London trips).

I think if the different suburban services are linked together and they form continuous mesh instead of fragmented systems, it will have a huge impact on London. Having an RER like system will allow people to travel from one end of London area to another seamlessly. And the biggest beneficiary of this will be the Underground. A lot of people will use suburban as an express service for intra-city trips, so no need of expansion, etc in LU.

Biggest challenge which I can see (apart from political will) is linking all the services with each other in central London and providing non-stop through-fare through central London, which may require intense tunneling in central London. It will be cost effective in long run since most of the tracks are on surface and already exist.

After that we can have 2 hierarchies of local rail transport in London - Upper level consisting of suburban and lower level consisting of LU, LO and DLR.

Regarding running of inter-city trains and suburban trains on same lines, there can be some rationalizing of resources if multiple tracks are available. At places where there is only 1 pair of tracks, a new pair can be added. It would be much cheaper than extending an Underground line.
Abhishek901 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 20th, 2010, 10:56 PM   #4019
ajw373
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,249
Likes (Received): 48

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abhishek901 View Post
Isn't overground quite different from suburban rail ? From what I have seen, Overground is a low capacity system, while suburban rails have higher capacity (maybe I am wrong).

Also the catchment of both of them is different. Suburban caters to mostly longer distance passengers coming from areas beyond London or its outer areas to the central London, while Overground caters to same people as Underground (i.e., mainly intra-London trips).
Your really cannot draw hard and fast lines between the various systems, as each has common elements. I mean to say the Overground, Underground and Suburban railway network are ALL suburban railways that serve and connect the suburbs of London. The main difference between them is who owned them and how they developed.
ajw373 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 20th, 2010, 11:10 PM   #4020
Abhishek901
Registered User
 
Abhishek901's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,773
Likes (Received): 1204

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajw373 View Post
Your really cannot draw hard and fast lines between the various systems, as each has common elements. I mean to say the Overground, Underground and Suburban railway network are ALL suburban railways that serve and connect the suburbs of London. The main difference between them is who owned them and how they developed.
Well, we can't draw hard and fast lines between various systems sometimes but not always. You should take a look at various systems around the world and their purpose is different. For example, in Germany, purpose of U-bahn is different from S-bahn. In California, purpose of BART is different from Muni metro. In Paris, purpose of RER is different from Paris metro.

There is definitely a reason why we have different types of railway systems instead of having one standard system. BTW, Shanghai is criticized for developing a single large metro system instead of having a 2-level system (metro and suburban rail).
Abhishek901 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
london, railways, tube

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 01:21 PM.


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