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.

tom

--
skin thinking

On 24 Sep, 13:42, Tom Anderson wrote:

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.

And is bloody inconvenient as such, because there is nowhere to stand
in C stock where you are not in the way of someone.

The OP has a good point - if TfL won't/can't fund longer trains (which
is the optimal solution), fewer seats and proper standbacks might
actually be better.

Neil

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 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

Looks like they had plenty of seating material left over from the old
tube D stock.

B2003

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Boltar 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

Looks like they had plenty of seating material left over from the old
tube D stock.

Indeed!

I'm also surprised by the narrow field of view the driver gets:

http://www.upmain.fotopic.net/p53614363.html

Is that just an illusion due to the angle of the shot? From the outside,
it looks like there are windows either side of the central one, but
they're obscured by the monitors.

tom

--
skin thinking

On 24 Sep, 13:47, Tom Anderson wrote:
Is that just an illusion due to the angle of the shot? From the outside,
it looks like there are windows either side of the central one, but
they're obscured by the monitors.

The driver looks out of the left side window (or the right from
outside). It looks to me like the centre cab door is opaque, so the
monitors in front of it aren't obscuring anything, and the monitor on
the left of the picture is against the side wall. There's a tiny
window to the left of it for seeing stopping marks and such. Pretty
much the same view as in other trains with cab-end doors.

U

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, 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?

Passengers will be expected to carry hooks with which to grab onto the
rails.

During the peaks, a sliding system based on military static line
parchuting setups will be used for rapid egress.

tom

--
skin thinking