Underground Train Design

[GoingUnderground]

Replying earlier today to Xerces Fobe in another thread made me aware again of the many flaws, at least as I see it, in the latest designs for UndergrounD and OvergrounD rolling stock, including repeating features from earlier carriages which were later removed because they didnlt work.

 

I'm thinking of 1920s F Stock when it was first introduced compared to the 1990s revamps and now the new rolling stock.

 

The similarities are remarkable: mainly longitudinal seating to maximise passenger capacity, windows in the carriage ends, and worst of all floor to ceiling grab poles in the doorway areas.

 

My gripe is with the grab poles. If you read any books on the 1920s stock they all say that the vertical grab poles were removed because they impeded the flow of passengers in and out of the carriages. A single pole doesn't in itself, but once folks cluster round the poles they are reluctant to move out of the way. Whereas without the poles people are more willing, and able because the pole isn't in thier way, to move out of your way if the carriage is crowded to let you on or off. Becaus the pole is there people congregte round it, the yhave no choice as they need to hang on to it to keep their balance. The 1920s Standard Tube stock had support pilars in the double door openings. The 1930s designs didn't have those pilars because they too impeded passenger flow.

 

Another gripe. The Perch seats - Waste of space and money. Too low to be comfortable. Their only benefit is that the space in front of them is somewhere to put luggage when you're off to St Pancras catch the Eurostar.

 

Another Gripe - I know security is important, and they shouldn' t have taken away the Guard. To compensate they put windows in the carriage ends in the 1990s revamp, and now as have articulated carriages. To me a case of knowing the cost of a Guard but not the value of one nor appreciating the full impact of removing them.

 

The articulated carriages are a bad idea. If you watch the movement of the two carriages across the articulation you can see there is substantial movement between the cars both vertical and lateral. This matters at train speeds 30-50 mph. It may work in buses and street trams where you'll be lucky to get as high as 30mph, but not to my mind, in trains. Standing in that area when the train is crowded is NOT a good idea, you risk being thrown off balance even on the latest S Stock. If you try to stay in one carriage in a packed train you may have no choice and find yourself having to straddle the gap. My guess is that at best you may get an extra 10 people per train with them, hardly a major increase in capacity.

 

So am I off on one, and out of touch with the modern world, or do others share my views in disliking the latest designs?

 

Are there any features you hate, or love in modern UndergrounD and OvergrounD stock?

[Edwin_m]

As I understand it the S stock is not actually articulated (adjacent coaches sharing a bogie) but each coach has two bogies and the arrangement is similar to a conventional gangway connection but much wider. This is certainly the case with the 378 units on the Overground.

 

The problems you refer to would probably be less if an actual articulation had been used, since the movement between the two bodyshells would be purely rotation whereas the two halves of a gangway can also move laterally relative to each other on reverse curves and pointwork. Articulation works fine in trams, which can get up to 50mph and round much tighter curves than on the Underground (but not both at the same place!), and although you find your feet moving around if you are standing on the join, I'm not aware that this has ever caused any accidents.

 

On a rare trip on the the Victoria Line this week, I liked that the automatic on-train announcements tell you which side to alight at the next station.

[GoingUnderground]

As I understand it the S stock is not actually articulated (adjacent coaches sharing a bogie) but each coach has two bogies and the arrangement is similar to a conventional gangway connection but much wider. This is certainly the case with the 378 units on the Overground.

 

The problems you refer to would probably be less if an actual articulation had been used, since the movement between the two bodyshells would be purely rotation whereas the two halves of a gangway can also move laterally relative to each other on reverse curves and pointwork. Articulation works fine in trams, which can get up to 50mph and round much tighter curves than on the Underground (but not both at the same place!), and although you find your feet moving around if you are standing on the join, I'm not aware that this has ever caused any accidents.

 

On a rare trip on the the Victoria Line this week, I liked that the automatic on-train announcements tell you which side to alight at the next station.

 

You are quite right "articulation" was the wrong word, thank you for correcting me. You have voiced my point completely. The rotational movement is much greater in a tram. reminds me of 1960s trams in Amsterdam, but because of the true articuation there is no vertical movement between adjoining cars, so there is less chance of being jolted off balance.

 

I know that the announcements are there to help people, able bodied or otherwise, but there's just too many public announcements and intrusive noises. You don't need a beep to tell you the doors are closing. People getting stuck in the closing doors happens because they tried to get on board when the doors were already closing, beep or no beep. It gets to the stage where you, or at least I, ignore the sound effects and announcements because they're always there.

[Edwin_m]

Oddly enough the announcements don't bother me on Tubes, as even without them the environment isn't really conducive to a relaxed experience. I find them much more annoying on main line trains where the lower noise levels and a relatively comfy seat mean I'm often trying to work and resent the interruption.

[Welly]

I like the next station indication and those which indicates which side of the train the doors will open. I don't mind the announcers on the Tube either as my journeys on them are brief and irregular.

 

I confess that I actually like the end windows as these help the trains feel less claustrophobic than they used to be.

 

I concede that I don't regularly used the UG and OG in London so haven't found anything to hate about them apart from the convoluted and overlong passageways in certain stations such as Waterloo and the ticket gates!

[GoingUnderground]

......I confess that I actually like the end windows as these help the trains feel less claustrophobic than they used to be.......

You must normally travel off-peak or outside the central area then if you can actually see far enough down the carrriage to see the end windows.

[Dagworth]

convoluted and overlong passageways in certain stations

 

Try the Paris Metro, you could walk from one London UndergrounD station to the next at street level in a shorter distance than you seem to walk in Paris station passageways.

 

Andi

[GoingUnderground]

Try the Paris Metro, you could walk from one London UndergrounD station to the next at street level in a shorter distance than you seem to walk in Paris station passageways.

 

Andi

Hi Andi,

 

You mean like the walk from Bienvenue Montparnasse Metro station to the Main Line Montparnasse station. Some distance, never mind the stairs.