On 24 Sep, 13:42, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, MIG wrote:
On Sep 24, 1:40*am, Mizter T wrote:
On 23 Sep, 21:56, Rupert Candy wrote:

On Sep 22, 5:58*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

'Rail Manager online' reporting the first 378 to travel south tomorrow, and
the possibility of Third Rail electrification of the GOB line...

http://91.186.0.3/~keepingt/rm/164/RMAN_164.pdf

There's a sizeable feature in this week's Railway Herald
(www.railwayherald.com) about the 378s, with several pictures. Anyone
else struck by the lack of handles at useful heights for that massive
standing space in between the seats? You'd think they'd have learnt
their lesson from the 376s.

I'd seen this photo and had a similar thought about the lack of
handles:http://www.upmain.fotopic.net/p53614368.html

However I wonder if the bars which are suspended from the ceiling
might actually be low enough for many people to use. If not perhaps
they might have to add straps or handles to those bars - indeed,
perhaps that's already part of the plan?

After the way the 376s were delivered, I could believe anything.

I entirely accept the need for standing space, but surely by now it's
bleedin obvious that this can't be achieved by mixing seating and
standing space in the same part of the carriage.

No.

It would be better to have areas purely for standing either side of the
doors (slighly bigger than in 376s, without obstructions and with plenty
to hold on to) and short areas of transverse seating in between.
Longitudinal seating may appear to leave standing space according to
calculations, but in real life, space full of seated people's legs and
heads can't realistically be used for anything like as much standing as
a dedicated standing area.

Have you ever actually used the tube? Specifically, C stock, which has the
most comparable layout? The space between the seats can be and is used for
plenty of standing.

Of course I have. The layout on the Jubilee, for example, is awful,
with space for one and half people to stand between the end of the
seats and the first obstruction. The C stock has so many doors that
it wouldn't really be possible to have both standing and sitting space
between them.

Of course the space between can be used for standing, but not as
efficiently as it might.

A similar layout was tried and abandoned (thank gawd) on the DLR, and
the current DLR arrangement is pretty damn good.

The problem with 376s (really a reply to Mizter T, sorry) is that the
seated area is too long and the standing area too small and cluttered
to be taken proper advantage of.

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:18:54 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

Of course I have. The layout on the Jubilee, for example, is awful,
with space for one and half people to stand between the end of the
seats and the first obstruction. The C stock has so many doors that
it wouldn't really be possible to have both standing and sitting space
between them.

This is true, though that makes them awful trains to travel in when
there aren't enough seats, because when standing it is impossible not
to be in somebody's way.

I think something like the D stock layout would work best, but instead
of having those side-facing seats make that space a standback on both
sides of the doors. This, if done as 3+2, would give almost as many
seats as a longitudinal arrangement but also a far better space for
standing in without being in people's way. Even as 2+2 with wider
seats it'd give a better balance, IMO. Maybe like SWT have done to
their 455s?

Elsewhere, though, I still take the view that once "Metroland" gets to
see the S-stock and how it compares with the civilised A-stock, they
are *not* going to be impressed, and Chiltern are suddenly going to
get an influx of new passengers. And I'm not convinced the money
wouldn't in the case of the S-stock have been better spent on
completely relaying the track, as it is in an absolutely woeful state
for a major city. (This is one of the things that the Germans tend to
take great pride in).

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Sep 24, 7:48*pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:18:54 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:
Of course I have. *The layout on the Jubilee, for example, is awful,
with space for one and half people to stand between the end of the
seats and the first obstruction. *The C stock has so many doors that
it wouldn't really be possible to have both standing and sitting space
between them.

This is true, though that makes them awful trains to travel in when
there aren't enough seats, because when standing it is impossible not
to be in somebody's way.

I think something like the D stock layout would work best, but instead
of having those side-facing seats make that space a standback on both
sides of the doors. *This, if done as 3+2, would give almost as many
seats as a longitudinal arrangement but also a far better space for
standing in without being in people's way. *Even as 2+2 with wider
seats it'd give a better balance, IMO. *Maybe like SWT have done to
their 455s?

Yes, I think that the SWT 455 refurbishments are another example of
good design, and really show up the lack of thought that went into the
nearly new 376s.

A short section of transverse seating (so no one needs to queue to get
in and out of it) is an efficient way of making room for seated
passengers, because the knees can be at least as close to each other
as they ever could to a standing person, without the person opposite
dangling bags in one's face etc.

MIG wrote in news:051823b7-ea14-4958-bcfa-
:

Yes, I think that the SWT 455 refurbishments are another example of
good design, and really show up the lack of thought that went into the
nearly new 376s.

Hmm, to a point, yes. The 455s still quite often depart from Clapham Jn
and Vauxhall inbound during the morning peak before all those wanting to
get off are able to do so. The main problem with the redesign is the
airline-style seats: if the person in the window seat wants out then the
person in the aisle seat has to get up and move into the aisle, but when
that's full of standing passengers (or passengers queueing to get off),
they can't do so in time.

At CJ in particular, the passengers waiting to board usually start doing so
before those leaving are all out, which only adds to the problem.

A guard said to me that SWT is judged on trains arriving at Waterloo on
time. Passengers complaining don't cost them money.

Peter

--
Peter Campbell Smith ~ London ~ pjcs00 (a) gmail.com

In article
,
(MIG) wrote:

Yes, I think that the SWT 455 refurbishments are another example of
good design, and really show up the lack of thought that went into the
nearly new 376s.

The SWT refurbished 455s compare very favourably with the various 317
refurbishments which are pants by comparison.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:
In article
,
(MIG) wrote:

Yes, I think that the SWT 455 refurbishments are another example of
good design, and really show up the lack of thought that went into the
nearly new 376s.

The SWT refurbished 455s compare very favourably with the various 317
refurbishments which are pants by comparison.


I can offer no higher praise than to say that they nearly make you
forget you're in a 455. Nearly.

That's some achievement.

Tom