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!

In article . com,
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 ,

If that exciting new technology is smaller, wouldn't it be nice if
some of that space was in the passenger area, rather than being an
empty, useless, void?

--
I don't play The Game - it's for five-year-olds with delusions of adulthood.

On 22 Jul 2006 09:53:13 -0700, "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? 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.

You seem to imagine that people would wish to buy more 1995 stock. You
also seem to imagine that Alstom would sell some to Metronet at a decent
price and also provide the necessary IPR to allow Bombardier to maintain
them. I have to say that having some limited awareness of Alstom's
commercial behaviour I cannot see that happening in a very, very long
time.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Mike Bristow wrote:
In article . com,
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 ,

If that exciting new technology is smaller, wouldn't it be nice if
some of that space was in the passenger area, rather than being an
empty, useless, void?

I was under the impression that that is exactly what is happening with the
new 2009 stock. Smaller wheels (740mm diameter), resulting in more space in
the passenger saloon. There is an extensive article in the July "Modern
Railways", giving full details of Bombardier's design for the new stock.

In article , aooy65
@dsl.pipex.com says...
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.

A couple of photos are available in this weeks Railway Herald magazine:
http://www.railwayherald.com/BackIssues/Issue45.pdf

Duncan

Mike Bristow wrote:
In article . com,
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 ,

If that exciting new technology is smaller, wouldn't it be nice if
some of that space was in the passenger area, rather than being an
empty, useless, void?



I thought the trend was for thicker and thicker walls and higher
floors, with less and less usable space inside. This was certainly the
case with the Central Line stock compared with the 1962 stock it
replaced. Removing the seats was meant to make up for it, but didn't
really.

Some of it may be safety-related, like instead of a handrail protruding
a couple of inches, the wall of the train is made two inches thicker so
that the rail can be in a recess. (Also angled so that you can't lean
against it.)

But then, bizarrely, in the Jubilee stock, the doors have windows in
deep recesses, the edges of which clout people every time the doors
open.

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 10:31:59 +0100, Duncan wrote:

In article , aooy65
says...
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.

A couple of photos are available in this weeks Railway Herald magazine:
http://www.railwayherald.com/BackIssues/Issue45.pdf

Ta - that looks like a rather interesting magazine. I've never heard of
it before. The interior photo of the V stock does help provide some
context for my comments.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Paul Corfield wrote:
You seem to imagine that people would wish to buy more 1995 stock. You

Well they did. Or at least they ordered an update of the 1996 stock
which
became the 95 stock.

also seem to imagine that Alstom would sell some to Metronet at a decent
price and also provide the necessary IPR to allow Bombardier to maintain

If they earn money from it yes they would. In business money is money
is
profit.

B2003