Metropolitan Line
 

Whiskers wrote:
On 2006-05-04, John in Surrey wrote:
Hi folks
Is it me or are the trains slow on this line?

Indeed they are John. 'A' stock trains have a maximum speed of around
50mph as they are now very old dears - the oldest are 45 years of age.
As an example, it takes ten minutes longer now to travel from Watford
to Baker Street than it did when I was a kid in the early 1980s.

When the 'S' stock is introduced on the met (in 2010?) expect a big
drop in journey times as the trains will have a maximum speed of 70mph.

THC

Metropolitan Line
 

Metropolitan Line
 

Surely it's the state of the track and/or signal overlap lengths which
restrict the speed of A Stocks? The S Stock may be capable of faster
speed, what they won't admit is the likelihood of it having 20-30% less
seats. Time to bring back straphangers perhaps?

Metropolitan Line
 

In reply to news post, which wrote on Wed, 10 May
2006 -
Surely it's the state of the track and/or signal overlap lengths which
restrict the speed of A Stocks? The S Stock may be capable of faster
speed, what they won't admit is the likelihood of it having 20-30% less
seats. Time to bring back straphangers perhaps?

The A stock is restricted to I believe 50mph owing to cracks in the
bogies.

The Chiltern services which share part of the track go faster. In the
past I am sure I saw sped signs for 70, but perhaps it is 60 now.

The potentially reduced seating of the S stock is a problem, as I
believe is the type of seat, it can be a long journey out to Amersham /
Chesham
--
Matthew P Jones - www.amersham.org.uk
My view of the Metropolitan Line www.metroland.org.uk - actually I like it
Don't reply to it will not be read
You can reply to knap AT Nildram dot co dot uk

Metropolitan Line
 

Matthew P Jones wrote:
The A stock is restricted to I believe 50mph owing to cracks in the
bogies.

The Chiltern services which share part of the track go faster. In the
past I am sure I saw sped signs for 70, but perhaps it is 60 now.

It's 50 for A stock, 60 for 165s and 168s. The only section posted at
70 is north of Amersham.


The potentially reduced seating of the S stock is a problem, as I
believe is the type of seat, it can be a long journey out to Amersham /
Chesham

At the moment no one seems to know what type of seating will be used in
the S stock for the long runs out to Amersham - current thinking is
that there will be a hybrid seating arrangement to cater for both types
of usage patterns.

Metropolitan Line
 

In reply to news post, which TheOneKEA wrote on
Wed, 10 May 2006 -
Matthew P Jones wrote:
The A stock is restricted to I believe 50mph owing to cracks in the
bogies.

The Chiltern services which share part of the track go faster. In the
past I am sure I saw sped signs for 70, but perhaps it is 60 now.

It's 50 for A stock, 60 for 165s and 168s. The only section posted at
70 is north of Amersham.


The potentially reduced seating of the S stock is a problem, as I
believe is the type of seat, it can be a long journey out to Amersham /
Chesham

At the moment no one seems to know what type of seating will be used in
the S stock for the long runs out to Amersham - current thinking is
that there will be a hybrid seating arrangement to cater for both types
of usage patterns.


Have not looked out of the window recently for speed signs, I am pretty
sure years ago there was 70 on the Met

With regards seating, I also heard the hybrid idea, but no one seems to
know. If they don't get it right, I think many people will be unhappy.
When the designed the A stock, they built prototypes to try out new
ideas. The coaches before A stock were compartments and the A stock was
a kind of compromise between a normal underground carriage and a
compartment stock coach.


--
Matthew P Jones - www.amersham.org.uk
My view of the Metropolitan Line www.metroland.org.uk - actually I like it
Don't reply to it will not be read
You can reply to knap AT Nildram dot co dot uk

Metropolitan Line
 

In article ,
(Matthew P Jones) wrote:

When the designed the A stock, they built prototypes to try out new
ideas. The coaches before A stock were compartments and the A stock
was a kind of compromise between a normal underground carriage and a
compartment stock coach.

Not exactly. They converted parts of compartment stock vehicles for
trials but they weren't very close to the eventual A stock design I
don't think.

Why "S" for the new stock? The last surface` stock was "D".

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Metropolitan Line
 

On Sun, 14 May 2006, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Matthew P Jones) wrote:

When the designed the A stock, they built prototypes to try out new
ideas. The coaches before A stock were compartments and the A stock
was a kind of compromise between a normal underground carriage and a
compartment stock coach.

Not exactly. They converted parts of compartment stock vehicles for
trials but they weren't very close to the eventual A stock design I
don't think.

Why "S" for the new stock? The last surface` stock was "D".

Wasn't it D because it was for the District line, like the C is for the
Circle and A is, er, the Amersham service (and not, sadly, the 'Ammersmith
and City)? In which case S might be because it it's Shared by all the
Subsurface lines.

tom

--
I really don't know what any of this **** means, but it looks
impressive. -- zerolives, on YVFC

Metropolitan Line
 

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Sun, 14 May 2006, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Matthew P Jones) wrote:

When the designed the A stock, they built prototypes to try out new
ideas. The coaches before A stock were compartments and the A stock
was a kind of compromise between a normal underground carriage and
a compartment stock coach.

Not exactly. They converted parts of compartment stock vehicles for
trials but they weren't very close to the eventual A stock design I
don't think.

Why "S" for the new stock? The last surface` stock was "D".

Wasn't it D because it was for the District line, like the C is for
the Circle and A is, er, the Amersham service (and not, sadly, the
'Ammersmith and City)? In which case S might be because it it's
Shared by all the Subsurface lines.

They started the letter series again at A for the Met in 1960 but
skipped B, so they could us C for Circle I suppose. D just followed so
the fact that is also matched District was of little note.

Before then they had gone from A to R plus T from the start of
electrification in 1903.

I don't understand why the new stock isn't E.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Metropolitan Line
 

On Sun, 14 May 2006 19:00 +0100 (BST), Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

When the designed the A stock, they built prototypes to try out new
ideas. The coaches before A stock were compartments and the A stock
was a kind of compromise between a normal underground carriage and a
compartment stock coach.

Not exactly. They converted parts of compartment stock vehicles for
trials but they weren't very close to the eventual A stock design I
don't think.

Why "S" for the new stock? The last surface` stock was "D".

I don't think it's supposed to be an alphabetical progression -
there's no B Stock. I've always thought (someone correct me if I'm
wrong) that A is for Amersham, C is for Circle, and D is for District.

The new stock will be common to the whole subsurface network - hence S
Stock.

Returning to the topic of interiors, there are good reasons why Met
trains have 60 seats per carriage while Circle trains have 32 (in
carriages of the same length) - Circle trains are less frequent and
more crowded, and mostly used only for short journeys, while the
average journey length on the Met is a *lot* longer. To me it seems
like madness that the new stock might all be fitted with a common
"compromise" interior that suits neither line well. From my
(admittedly armchair) point of view, it would be much better to
semi-permanently fit the stock for each line with an interior similar
to the current ones (or at least using them as a starting point). This
would require the stock to be long-term allocated to a particular
line, but I don't see why that would be a big problem, with the siting
of depots already suited to this arrangement. Short-term transfers of
stock between lines would still be possible - it would just mean the
odd train running around with an unsuited interior (rather than every
train on the Met/Circle). Long-term transfers would require an
interior refit, however.

Metropolitan Line
 

In article ,
lid (asdf) wrote:

On Sun, 14 May 2006 19:00 +0100 (BST), Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

When the designed the A stock, they built prototypes to try out
new ideas. The coaches before A stock were compartments and the A
stock was a kind of compromise between a normal underground
carriage and a compartment stock coach.

Not exactly. They converted parts of compartment stock vehicles for
trials but they weren't very close to the eventual A stock design I
don't think.

Why "S" for the new stock? The last surface` stock was "D".

I don't think it's supposed to be an alphabetical progression -
there's no B Stock. I've always thought (someone correct me if I'm
wrong) that A is for Amersham, C is for Circle, and D is for District.

The new stock will be common to the whole subsurface network - hence S
Stock.

The stock before 1960 was lettered more or less in order (H was an
exception I forgot to mention). Since then a similar rule has applied.

Returning to the topic of interiors, there are good reasons why Met
trains have 60 seats per carriage while Circle trains have 32 (in
carriages of the same length) - Circle trains are less frequent and
more crowded, and mostly used only for short journeys, while the
average journey length on the Met is a *lot* longer. To me it seems
like madness that the new stock might all be fitted with a common
"compromise" interior that suits neither line well. From my
(admittedly armchair) point of view, it would be much better to
semi-permanently fit the stock for each line with an interior similar
to the current ones (or at least using them as a starting point). This
would require the stock to be long-term allocated to a particular
line, but I don't see why that would be a big problem, with the siting
of depots already suited to this arrangement. Short-term transfers of
stock between lines would still be possible - it would just mean the
odd train running around with an unsuited interior (rather than every
train on the Met/Circle). Long-term transfers would require an
interior refit, however.

It's completely stupid to try a compromise layout when such large
amounts of stock are involved and requirements differ so much.

Another lesson of history is the need for flexibility. Almost all modern
mainline stock can have its seating layout changed in pretty major ways
fairly easily. During its service life the new stock could change roles
in all sorts of ways.

--
Colin Rosenstiel