Neil Williams wrote:

Craig wrote:

Maybe as other mass transit systems use, eg, New York, a hard rigid
plastic. Still comfortable to sit on given that you are only on it
briefly !!! and not holding hidden all kinds of gunk that must be
embedded in the fabric.....

One model of London bus was fitted out with the back 4 or 5 rows
upstairs in solid plastic - it makes them have a very unpleasant feel -
almost unsafe. Like the screens protecting the drivers, the only
reason they were there is because they were necessary. This doesn't
lead to a feeling of safety.

Perhaps a good hybrid would be to have easily replaceable covers (but
NOT easy to remove without suitable tools!) over a plastic-covered
sprung or sponge seat?

Neil

Plastic seats on the top-deck of said model of London bus is discussed
elsewhere on this thread - you say it's because it's necessary - why?

(I dislike them too!).

Mizter T wrote:

Plastic seats on the top-deck of said model of London bus is discussed
elsewhere on this thread - you say it's because it's necessary - why?

It isn't really, though it would make vandalism of said seats easier to
remove, and perhaps discourage people from sitting there "out of sight"
where other seats are available.

The point was more that bus companies wouldn't do such a thing if there
wasn't a good reason for it, even as a failed trial. Thus, like the
anti-assault screens, it gives the impression that the bus is perhaps a
less safe (from attack) means of transport than it actually is.

Neil

On 18 Jul 2006 13:38:50 -0700, "Neil Williams"
wrote:

The point was more that bus companies wouldn't do such a thing if there
wasn't a good reason for it, even as a failed trial. Thus, like the
anti-assault screens, it gives the impression that the bus is perhaps a
less safe (from attack) means of transport than it actually is.

In a bus I went on in Chicago once, the protection for the driver was
even more extreme. You spoke to him through a microphone, and you
couldn't pass him cash for your fare - you had to insert your $1 bill
or whatever into a motorised slot a bit like on train ticket machines
here, then your ticket was printed. The plastic between me and the
driver was also pretty thick, and looked like it might have been
bulletproof.

--
to respond via email, visit:
http://tinyurl.com/e48z9

All points very valid - can I move on, maybe a little off thread but
still tied in to the Vic Line investment...


According to Metronet's website Walthamstow Central will be
refurbished by 2006 (ok its nearly August so not too much to look
forward to) - anyone know the actual plans ?

I know that money ran out in the Vic Line project originally and hence
Finsbury Park upwards is basically shell with a light shade ! but will
they ever do the decent thing and line the walls etc ever ?

..... also will the link ever open at Walthamstow - I understand that
it may be political between plans and plans, Underground/Buses/****
Ken etc; oh and a lot of squabbling, and I know that any plan in E17
seems to be fundementally a bad idea thru failure!! (look around)



On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 12:31:00 +0100, Craig
wrote:


Hi,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5186896.stm

Just wondered if anyone else thinks it would be far more hygenic, more
pleasant & acceptable if the decision to no longer cover seats on new
trains in fabric was made.

Maybe as other mass transit systems use, eg, New York, a hard rigid
plastic. Still comfortable to sit on given that you are only on it
briefly !!! and not holding hidden all kinds of gunk that must be
embedded in the fabric.....

Just Wondered !

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 12:31:00 +0100, Craig wrote:


Hi,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5186896.stm

Well I went to see the mock up early this morning. A bit like a rogue's
gallery of people I know but at least staff were showing interest.

The main points are

a) the train seems wider and taller inside.
b) very bright and shiny inside - let's hope they can stay that
way. Panels are white, seat covers are a white and blue patterned
design. Handrails are a darker blue that Vic Line map blue in order to
provide suitable contrast.
c) seats are not as wide as now but are not as awful in terms of
width as the most recent new stocks and refurbs.
d) the seat backs are very upright which sort of pulls you in to
provide more gangway space. The seat cushions are decidedly thin.
e) there are warning lights at eye level inside the door aperture
to show the doors are closing.
f) there are white LEDs that illuminate the vestibule just inside
the doors.
g) the ventilation vents are at above your head if you are seated
but are at an awful height in you are standing in the tip up seat area.
h) the positions for the passenger alarms and intercoms are not,
IMO, ideal as they angled away from users and protrude into the area
where someone may have their head as they leave the train. Hard to
describe in words but this needs more work.
i) the tip up / wheelchair area is most odd. there are six tip up
seats with a central partition to allow a wheelchair user to park their
chair against it. The top of the seat cushion, when vertical, is shaped
so you can perch on it. If you do this and are above 5'7" then your head
collides with the vents.
j) still in the tip up area there are no horizontal grab rails
above the tip up area and no verticals either apart from one to support
the partition and even that curves towards the car side. This means
everyone standing would have to hold the grab rail on the other half of
the ceiling. I understand this issue is going to be sorted out to
provide a grabrail - seems the interpretation of the regulations was a
little too literal.
k) the doors are externally hung - similar to northern and jubilee
line trains.
l) there are external and internal electronic displays showing the
standard destination / next station messages.

The DfT, Travelwatch, council representatives and some disabled groups
have already been to visit. The Mayor hasn't popped along - yet!

Overall not bad but the seating is the worst aspect and I made that
point rather forcibly. The initial response was "most people only
travel short distances". I replied by saying Walthamstow to Victoria is
about a 30 minute journey and uncomfortable seats are not what people
expect.

In case anyone is in doubt about whether there will be real market
research - I've seen misinterpretations of the TFL press release on
other groups - there most certainly will be during the public sessions.
For those with a genuine interest in anything to do with the Vic Line /
Tube or simply as an interested passenger I would recommend visiting if
you possibly can.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Why oh why do they have to keep designing new trains? Sure , use new
technology
under the floor as and when it becomes available , but just how many
permutations of
doors, seating and general visual design can there be before they're
happy? Wasn't
the 92 stock with its large windows supposed to be the last work in
passenger friendly
tubes? Then we were all told how amazing the new jubilee and northern
stock was.
Wouldn't it perhaps be somewhat more responsible of Metromess to save a
million or 10
on yet another pointless new train design, order some more 1995 stock
trains with
any suitable technology upgrades and be done with it. That way the
money could be
spent where its needed on refurbishing track and signalling.

B2003

Boltar wrote:
Why oh why do they have to keep designing new trains? Sure , use new
technology under the floor as and when it becomes available , but just
how many permutations of doors, seating and general visual design can
there be before they're happy?

If the interior arrangements worked okay in 1938, don't change it!

Stevo wrote:
Boltar wrote:
Why oh why do they have to keep designing new trains? Sure , use new
technology under the floor as and when it becomes available , but just
how many permutations of doors, seating and general visual design can
there be before they're happy?

If the interior arrangements worked okay in 1938, don't change it!

They did. As far as I'm aware humans haven't significantly changed
physically
for the last few million years. Unless you know otherwise.

B2003

On 23 Jul 2006 11:24:13 -0700, "Boltar"
wrote:


Stevo wrote:
Boltar wrote:
Why oh why do they have to keep designing new trains? Sure , use new
technology under the floor as and when it becomes available , but just
how many permutations of doors, seating and general visual design can
there be before they're happy?

If the interior arrangements worked okay in 1938, don't change it!

They did. As far as I'm aware humans haven't significantly changed
physically
for the last few million years. Unless you know otherwise.

People have got taller, and have bigger posteriors, than in recent
history. The changes are big enough to be of concern to seat makers
and train designers.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Stevo wrote
Boltar wrote:

Why oh why do they have to keep designing new trains? Sure , use
new
technology under the floor as and when it becomes available , but
just
how many permutations of doors, seating and general visual design
can
there be before they're happy?

If the interior arrangements worked okay in 1938, don't change it!

As you perhaps know, both Londoners and tourists are taller and
weightier than in 1938.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2083660.stm
Tom Stewart, managing director of ergonomics consultants System
Concepts, says that while obesity is a growing problem, healthy Britons
are becoming larger too.

"People are generally bigger than they were. A poor diet used to mean
people didn't reach their full potential size. Improved nutrition has
changed that."

--
Mike D