In article , Solar Penguin
writes
They are building lifts at Brixton, although I don't know which other
stations will be accessible *from* there for wheelchair users.

Wheelchair users should be able to use the cross-platform connections at
Stockwell, Oxford Circus, Euston, Highbury & Islington, and Finsbury
Park. (OTOH, that still leaves the question of how many stations on
those lines are wheelchair-accessible?)

Let's see: that's the Northern, Bakerloo, Piccadilly, and WAGN Inners.

The Northern has some street-level entrances at the north end, and the
Piccadilly has some accessible stations at the west end. Beyond that I'm
a bit hazy.

But, on the other hand, this can only be done one step at a time.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Dave Arquati wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Aidan Stanger wrote:

Boltar wrote:


There was a short piece on BBC london news on TV last night about
the new vic line trains and an interview with some bod at (I
think) Bombardier. Anyway , turns out that it looks like the
prototypes at least will have less seating (quelle surprise) and
a lot of what seating is left will be flip up so theres room for
all these mythical wheelchair bound passengers we keep hearing
about but no one has ever actually seen.

But how does this new train design compare to other (relatively)
recent tube train designs? Have they overcome the following three
design flaws:

Floor too high?
Wasted space between seats and wall?
End connection not safe to use while train is moving?


The end connection will never be safe to use while the train is
moving, simply because the ends of the cars do not remain in
alignment. Watch them going round bends, in some cases the door on
the adjacent car is completely obscured.

However, the new subsurface stock will (apparently) be truly
articulated.

Depends what you mean by articulated. They certainly appear to have
near-full-width inter-car gangways. However, the word 'articulated'
tends to be used to mean that one bogie is shared between two cars, as
in the original "space-train" concept for the Victoria Line. However,
that's not necessary to achieve wide inter-car gangways.

I'm not sure why this can be done on the SSL stock and
not the Victoria stock (for which it was originally proposed).

Nor am I, though I suspect it's a cost and operational choice rather
than that it *can't* be done.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On 9 Feb 2005 01:10:42 -0800, Boltar wrote:

Call me a cynic

You're 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.

and a mistaken one, to boot; the costs are the other way round.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/c398531.html
(Thumbnail index to British Steam Locomotives (main line))

In article , lid
(Michael Hoffman) wrote:

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'm taller than average, which is probably why I'd prefer a perch seat
to standing.

Our experiences are different then.

--
Colin Rosenstiel