Richard J. wrote:
all trains have audible warnings of closing doors (if you count D
stock
hissing sounds as such), and it's hardly a surprise that the doors
have

The central line trains could be improved in this regard. Having the
beep/squeal go after the doors have started to close (and they close
quite fast) seems a curious design decision to me. I'm surprised they
haven't changed it by now.

to close before the train departs, I can't believe that the
announcements do much good. If they were just "mind the doors"
instead
of this nonsense about the train being ready to depart, which it
plainly
isn't with all the doors open, it would be less annoying.

Thing is , 99% of people know to get out of the way of the doors when
they're closing and don't need to be told anyway. Its the other
dimwitted
1% who can't seem to grasp the fact that the doors can't close with
their
fat arses or overstuffed backpacks in the way who are the problem and
they
obviously don't listen to the announcements anyway.

B2003

Richard J. wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote:

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:40:06 +0000, Dave Newt
wrote:

Some stations achieve a balance but the odd one doesn't and a
wait of more than two minutes can mean you hear a stream of
noise over and over again.


Agreed. Hearing more than once that there is a "good service" while
waiting for your train is particularly irritating. Or at Leicester
Square last night awaiting a westbound Piccadilly: "There is a good
service on the Northern line". The Paris Metro answer is to display
network-wide service disruption details on a monitor as you enter the
station, and I find this much more sensible.

That is done to some extent at places like Baker Street and Notting Hill
Gate where there is a large LED display showing the status of each line,
although an actual disruption map would be more useful to those
unfamiliar with the network.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 23:19:56 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:40:06 +0000, Dave Newt
wrote:

How different to here, where the same old mantra is repeated 6
times at almost every station, and is routinely ignored.

Well yes but I have to say that the constant exhortations to "do
this, do that, breath in, breath out, this line is running, this
one isn't, don't leave your bag" drive me crazy even though there
are good reasons for making the announcements.

There are only good reasons if the announcements are effective. Since
there is, as you say, a constant stream of the damned things, it seems
to me very unlikely that they are effective, since people just switch
off or get irritated with them.

Yes I would agree with this. If things have gone wrong then you need
good, timely, helpful and accurate information. Too much of the time
that does not happen.

Has there been any research into the effectiveness of general
exhortations about keeping your belongings with you, about CCTV
coverage, about not smoking, etc.? (Though I realise that if a station
supervisor sees on his TV monitors someone smoking or walking away from
their baggage, a one-off targeted announcement may be useful.)

The luggage issue is related to the security rating applied to the LU
network. Advice has to be given in order to keep disruption to a minimum
because if stuff is left behind then we have to close stations or
interrupt the service.

The smoking aspect these days is more likely to be triggered by someone
being observed as you suggest above.

Similarly, has there been any research into comparative dwell times at
stations which do or don't have "closing doors" announcements?

Station dwell time is measured and the whole issue of the management of
train arrivals and departures was the subject of a lot of research to
support the decision to employ more people and make the announcements.
We don't have the sophisticated signalling and control systems that the
Paris Metro has which counts down for the drivers at each station and
advises when to sound buzzers etc. Therefore we use people to do that
and while some announcements are condescending and make we wish to
scream I think the overall effect of providing a more consistent spacing
of trains is genuine and beneficial. If the service has completely
collapsed then the role changes to one of crowd management and
information provision. There is also the reassurance / personal security
aspect of having staff on the platforms which we know customers value.
There is therefore a business case for having these people around.

Some stations achieve a balance but the odd one doesn't and a
wait of more than two minutes can mean you hear a stream of
noise over and over again.

Agreed. Hearing more than once that there is a "good service" while
waiting for your train is particularly irritating. Or at Leicester
Square last night awaiting a westbound Piccadilly: "There is a good
service on the Northern line".

As I use Leicester Square every day I hear this all the time. I usually
hear the Northern Line announcement just as a train leaves and the next
one is 5 minutes away. I'm afraid I consider that to be an appalling
level of service for Central London when everywhere else has a train
every 2-3 mins. The announcement just makes me think the opposite to
what it is telling me.

The Paris Metro answer is to display
network-wide service disruption details on a monitor as you enter the
station, and I find this much more sensible.

There is work going on with this. We have a "heartbeat" display on the
Intranet at work which is now very good and has a very regular update
facility. We also have "Tracker" which shows where the trains are and on
the recently enhanced version you can click on a station and see a big
list of the next 20 trains or so and how long it will take to get there.
On the Jubilee Line it even includes those trains which are still
heading west to Stratford if you click to see the e/b list at Canary
Wharf for example. Not sure when this will be publicly available but I
believe the intention is to provide something via the Tube website in a
similar vein to that for DLR.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

In message , Dave Newt
writes
Contrary to stereotype, the Parisian commuter is a much more
considerate being than the London one.
I would say that the Parisian *metro* commuter is much more considerate
than the London Underground one. Parisian *bus* commuters are, in my
experience, much worse. (Which is saying something these days!)
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

"Mrs Redboots" wrote in message
...
Boltar wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 9 Feb 2005:

Call me a cynic but I can't help thinking that flip up seats are
probably a lot cheaper than the real thing though I'm sure this
in no way would influence their decision , no no, not at all.

They've had them on the Paris Metro since the year dot - certainly back
in the days of the old Sprague trains. I'm actually surprised they
haven't been introduced here until relatively recently. In the Metro,
there are great signs telling you not to use them during the rush hours
or when the train is busy, so that there is more room for standing
passengers.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 23 January 2005 with new photos



They suck for tall people, though. When I'm on those seats, I have to sit
there, as if I stood up, I'd be all bent over. The trains in Paris work
better, as they're more square in cross-section. On those trains, I can
stand anywhere. On tube trains, I have to be in the centre of the train,
otherwise I hurt my neck/back.

Boltar wrote:
Call me a cynic but I can't help thinking that flip up seats are
probably a lot cheaper than the real thing though I'm sure this
in no way would influence their decision , no no, not at all.

IMO flip up seats are more expensive than normal fixed seats - they
move and hence need more maintenance, they require more spares to be
kept vs. having all fixed seats, and they require more space - you
can't house equipment under them.

A cheaper option would be perch seats, which one leans against. The
Jubilee 1996 stock has these in place of the Northern 1995's flip ups,
which often seem to have broken springs and don't return to upright.


Dominic

In article . com,
() wrote:

Boltar wrote:
Call me a cynic but I can't help thinking that flip up seats are
probably a lot cheaper than the real thing though I'm sure this
in no way would influence their decision , no no, not at all.

IMO flip up seats are more expensive than normal fixed seats - they
move and hence need more maintenance, they require more spares to be
kept vs. having all fixed seats, and they require more space - you
can't house equipment under them.

A cheaper option would be perch seats, which one leans against. The
Jubilee 1996 stock has these in place of the Northern 1995's flip ups,
which often seem to have broken springs and don't return to upright.

The perch seats are unusable by people of normal height.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article . com,
() wrote:


Boltar wrote:

Call me a cynic but I can't help thinking that flip up seats are
probably a lot cheaper than the real thing though I'm sure this
in no way would influence their decision , no no, not at all.

IMO flip up seats are more expensive than normal fixed seats - they
move and hence need more maintenance, they require more spares to be
kept vs. having all fixed seats, and they require more space - you
can't house equipment under them.

A cheaper option would be perch seats, which one leans against. The
Jubilee 1996 stock has these in place of the Northern 1995's flip ups,
which often seem to have broken springs and don't return to upright.


The perch seats are unusable by people of normal height.

I second that for the Piccadilly line. The only vaguely usable ones are
the car-end ones, but they're still not particularly comfortable.
Standing is far more comfortable than "perching".

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Dave Arquati wrote:
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

The perch seats are unusable by people of normal height.

I second that for the Piccadilly line. The only vaguely usable ones
are the car-end ones, but they're still not particularly comfortable.
Standing is far more comfortable than "perching".

Only for people who have two good legs and/or are not pregnant etc.

Brimstone wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:


The perch seats are unusable by people of normal height.

I second that for the Piccadilly line. The only vaguely usable ones
are the car-end ones, but they're still not particularly comfortable.
Standing is far more comfortable than "perching".


Only for people who have two good legs and/or are not pregnant etc.

Fair enough.

Of course, for those people, an actual seat is probably far superior, be
it tip-up or not.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London