My idea for a new Suburban train

[Terry Tait]

I have often wondered if it would be technically possible to build a new Suburban train with doors to every bay, like an EPB but up to date, electric plug doors that are controlled by staff in most carriages and another carriage per unit that has two double doors and PRM compliance.

 

[AM9]

I have often wondered if it would be technically possible to build a new Suburban train with doors to every bay, like an EPB but up to date, electric plug doors that are controlled by staff in most carriages and another carriage per unit that has two double doors and PRM compliance.

I believe there was an experiment to power-operate slam doors on compartment stock but if true, it obviously didn't come to much. Even if it was designed from scratch, I think it would be unsuccessful for many reasons:

About half of the seats would be in the path of boarding/alighting passengers. I clearly remember having to avoid treading on feet by stepping over them, not that safe especially when there is a large drop to platform level
Doors are often the weak point on busy trains. Maintaining reliability of up to three times as many doors would be very difficult
The speed of the latest high density stock's loading/unloading with wide, fast operating pairs of sliding doors and as much circulating area as possible around the doors would be very hard to improve on
Not every passenger moves at the same speed so if a slow person sat right by the door, they would slow everybody behind them down​

For those reasons, I think that such an idea would be a non-starter. What do you think the benefits would be?

 

[yorksrob]

The benefits would be the ability to have a high density seating pattern with quick acceds and egress.

Sadly though, you're correct about doors being a point of unreliability. It seems to me that for intensive suburban work, the basic EPB design will never be bettered.

 

[Neptune]

I worked on class 308’s and to be honest they were no quicker for boarding/alighting than the replacement 333’s. At busy times people board at the nearest door but then due to the narrow entry point it was a slow and painful process due to the lack of circulation area. On the 333’s with their wide doors but high density layout the biggest problem is that people board and don’t move down the train, however it is still as quick if not quicker than the old stock.

For me the best suburban solution is 2 or 3 wide doors with stand back areas and grab poles in the middle of the circulation area and throughout the train to encourage people to move into the coach. With a metro 2+2 seating layout this also provides a comfier off peak experience. I like the class 707 as it seems to tick most boxes for commuting and for short distance off peak travel.

 

[yorksrob]

I worked on class 308’s and to be honest they were no quicker for boarding/alighting than the replacement 333’s. At busy times people board at the nearest door but then due to the narrow entry point it was a slow and painful process due to the lack of circulation area. On the 333’s with their wide doors but high density layout the biggest problem is that people board and don’t move down the train, however it is still as quick if not quicker than the old stock.

For me the best suburban solution is 2 or 3 wide doors with stand back areas and grab poles in the middle of the circulation area and throughout the train to encourage people to move into the coach. With a metro 2+2 seating layout this also provides a comfier off peak experience. I like the class 707 as it seems to tick most boxes for commuting and for short distance off peak travel.

People might have taken time to get in, but it was a lot quicker getting out, rather than having to file past everyone.

The sliding doors at 2/3 1/3 design wastes a lot of room and doesn't have enough seating generally (although the 333's are the only ones to come close to an acceptable seating layout).

 

[hexagon789]

People might have taken time to get in, but it was a lot quicker getting out, rather than having to file past everyone.

Is that not due in part to the fact that people would open the doors and indeed step out before the train stopped?

 

[yorksrob]

Is that not due in part to the fact that people would open the doors and indeed step out before the train stopped?

Only partially. Even if you waited for the train to stop fully before opening the door, you'd still get out a lot quicker than trying to scramble through two bays and a vestibule full of passengers.

 

[hexagon789]

Only partially. Even if you waited for the train to stop fully before opening the door, you'd still get out a lot quicker than trying to scramble through two bays and a vestibule full of passengers.

Granted, but I imagine it saved a bit of time.

 

[AM9]

Only partially. Even if you waited for the train to stop fully before opening the door, you'd still get out a lot quicker than trying to scramble through two bays and a vestibule full of passengers.

I don't agree that boarding/alighting would in most cases be any quicker.
I had years of commuting on both the slam door stock, 305s/307s/309s and the much older 306s with their slow air-operated sliding doors. In virtually all cases the sliding doors were quicker to load/unload leading to shorter dwells, - that included the extreme (even by modern standards) crush loading during the ASLEF work to rules in the early '70s. If you had experience of fully loaded compartment stock, you can't fail to remember the problems of stepping over pairs of feet to get on or off, as passengers always chose the seats nearest the door that they would be alighting from. The only instances when the compartment stock would even approach the 306s was when terminating at Liverpool St. when they were dumping their whole passenger load at one station. Even then, with the trains having a 5-10 minute turnround time, the fact that those passengers not in a desperate hurry gathered their belongings and would all be clear of the train in much less than a minute from the doors opening had no effect on dwells or subsequent departure times. The rest of the world realised that sliding/plug doors were far easier to maintain short dwells soon after WW2 and banished individual doors from rail services. The,UK only staggered on because of the lack of investment in train design in the 1950s.

 

[WideRanger]

On some of the busiest commuter lines in Tokyo, some of the carriages have extra doors, so that instead of 3 or 4 double doors per side, there are 5 or 6. Once inside, it feels like nearly half of the side of the train is door. Very fast for loading and unloading, but they aren't able to fit many seats in. On some, they actually lock the seats flipped up so the carriage becomes standing only, during peak with-flow journeys. Some commuters actively choose those carriages, because they feel a little less 'crushed'.

 

[yorksrob]

Granted, but I imagine it saved a bit of time.

Indeed so.

I don't agree that boarding/alighting would in most cases be any quicker.
I had years of commuting on both the slam door stock, 305s/307s/309s and the much older 306s with their slow air-operated sliding doors. In virtually all cases the sliding doors were quicker to load/unload leading to shorter dwells, - that included the extreme (even by modern standards) crush loading during the ASLEF work to rules in the early '70s. If you had experience of fully loaded compartment stock, you can't fail to remember the problems of stepping over pairs of feet to get on or off, as passengers always chose the seats nearest the door that they would be alighting from. The only instances when the compartment stock would even approach the 306s was when terminating at Liverpool St. when they were dumping their whole passenger load at one station. Even then, with the trains having a 5-10 minute turnround time, the fact that those passengers not in a desperate hurry gathered their belongings and would all be clear of the train in much less than a minute from the doors opening had no effect on dwells or subsequent departure times. The rest of the world realised that sliding/plug doors were far easier to maintain short dwells soon after WW2 and banished individual doors from rail services. The,UK only staggered on because of the lack of investment in train design in the 1950s.

To be honest, I think that fully loaded compartment stock has its own issues, in that people have to commit to a compartment and take longer looking for one. But certainly on the Southern, all-compartment trains weren't built after the first few steel bodied SUB's. After this, the predominant design was for 1/4 compartment 3/4 saloon and these had some very quick turn-around times at Charing Cross for example.

I've commuted on stock with all the door layout's mentioned, and the door to every bay was by far the quickest for getting off.

 

[Aictos]

Indeed so.



To be honest, I think that fully loaded compartment stock has its own issues, in that people have to commit to a compartment and take longer looking for one. But certainly on the Southern, all-compartment trains weren't built after the first few steel bodied SUB's. After this, the predominant design was for 1/4 compartment 3/4 saloon and these had some very quick turn-around times at Charing Cross for example.

I've commuted on stock with all the door layout's mentioned, and the door to every bay was by far the quickest for getting off.

But was it quicker getting on especially at intermediate stations? Also back then the railway was nowhere near as busy as it currently is which you haven’t acknowledged.

 

[AM9]

Indeed so.



To be honest, I think that fully loaded compartment stock has its own issues, in that people have to commit to a compartment and take longer looking for one. But certainly on the Southern, all-compartment trains weren't built after the first few steel bodied SUB's. After this, the predominant design was for 1/4 compartment 3/4 saloon and these had some very quick turn-around times at Charing Cross for example.

I've commuted on stock with all the door layout's mentioned, and the door to every bay was by far the quickest for getting off.

It doesn't matter how fast those already pressed up against the door can get off, - the minimum dwell time is determined by the last person getting off.
Clearly your experience differs from mine where I could compare on a daily basis as the 306s stopped at the same stations as some of the 305/307/308 stock. The 306s were over 10 years older than the 305/308s as well, but their dwells were no longer than the slam door stock even with the dangerous practice of passengers opening their doors before the train stopped. If there were crew controlled locks on lots of seating bay doors, there would be interlock release and interlock confirmation times added (which would start from when the last door was closed).

 

[yorksrob]

It doesn't matter how fast those already pressed up against the door can get off, - the minimum dwell time is determined by the last person getting off.
Clearly your experience differs from mine where I could compare on a daily basis as the 306s stopped at the same stations as some of the 305/307/308 stock. The 306s were over 10 years older than the 305/308s as well, but their dwells were no longer than the slam door stock even with the dangerous practice of passengers opening their doors before the train stopped. If there were crew controlled locks on lots of seating bay doors, there would be interlock release and interlock confirmation times added (which would start from when the last door was closed).

Yes, your experience must be different from mine in that case, because even if I'm sat on the opposite side to the platform, its still a lot quicker to get out of the door opposite, than through two bays and a standing are full of passengers.

 

[yorksrob]

But was it quicker getting on especially at intermediate stations? Also back then the railway was nowhere near as busy as it currently is which you haven’t acknowledged.

I think that the difference would have been less than for getting off as people would walk along the platform to look for a seat.

 

[AM9]

I think that the difference would have been less than for getting off as people would walk along the platform to look for a seat.

So they would walk alongside the stationary train and eventuall;y, seeing a seat, try and get into the nearest door. With sliding doors, there is sufficient space around the doors to board and then move into the seating area, by which time the train can be already underway.

 

[Dr Hoo]

As a one-time Southern Region commuter on the old EPBs, VEPs, etc. and also as a Station Manager and Operations Manager responsible for actually running and despatching the things I have no doubt about the potential speed of boarding and unloading with 'door to every bay' configurations. However, that was in the days when (as noted above) people could open doors before the train had come to a stand and so 'cheating' for a modern comparison.
I do remember how often one's feet got trampled and there seemed to be far less luggage around in those days. A slim briefcase or brolly quickly tossed onto a rack was easy. Nowadays everyone seems to be toting wheelie cases, rucksacks, coffee cups and trying to plug in laptops and use a fold-down table whilst sitting down, all the time zoned out with earphones or looking at a phone screen. Can't see it coming back.
But 'yes'. Two hundred regular passengers onto an already well-loaded 12VEP up from Ramsgate through c.100 doors at Chatham in the morning peak, ding-ding and away again, non-stop to Cannon Street, in less than 30 seconds. Amazing!

 

[randyrippley]

would a vehicle design with doors to every seating bay have enough strength to pass modern safety crash tests? I rather doubt it

 

[yorksrob]

So they would walk alongside the stationary train and eventuall;y, seeing a seat, try and get into the nearest door. With sliding doors, there is sufficient space around the doors to board and then move into the seating area, by which time the train can be already underway.

With sliding doors, we all crowd round waiting for one lot to pile out, before having to pile in. It's really not a speedy process.

 

[43096]

With sliding doors, we all crowd round waiting for one lot to pile out, before having to pile in. It's really not a speedy process.

But we now have trains that are superior in terms of comfort, aren’t too hot in summer or suffer from freezing draughts in winter. VEPs and their ilk were appalling.

 

[AM9]

With sliding doors, we all crowd round waiting for one lot to pile out, before having to pile in. It's really not a speedy process.

Just like we all stood back whilst the first person in every doorway threw the door open, then waited whilst the next few stumbled over feet. Then we piled in over the same feet with a few doors delaying the whole train.
In a true commuter service, it is unusual to have a station where there was a large number of joiners and leavers. Mostly, the trains are either mainly gathering passengers at each station to dump them at the city terminus or a close-in junction. The opposite happens at the end of the working day, i.e. there is a mass boarding before the train starts and a steady net egress as the train moves into the dormitory areas at the country end of it's service.
Modern high capacity trains have a graded access route from the 'travelling area' where the seating and safe standing takes place, through to a wide egress/ingress area allowing safe stepping across the platform-train interface. Recent trains have an improved door area with wider, faster operating doors and adequate stand-back provision, so by the time that that area gets continuously full, the train itself is at crush load levels.
When compartment-style trains were loaded to that level, their dwells would extend greatly as the standees would need to alight so that others could get off then they would reborn followed by ant waiting to get on at that station. The commuting world is as Dr Hoo says different now, numbers are much higher and increasingly, headways are tighter with better signalling to maintain safety. The Cannon St minor buffer collision shows just how unsafe high density standing amongst seats can be.

 

[yorksrob]

But we now have trains that are superior in terms of comfort, aren’t too hot in summer or suffer from freezing draughts in winter. VEPs and their ilk were appalling.

Absolutely not. I far prefer natural ventilation. And I have a rangeof jumpers available for winter weather.

You can keep your hermetically sealed tubes with four ironing board seats to fight over thank you.

 

[yorksrob]

Just like we all stood back whilst the first person in every doorway threw the door open, then waited whilst the next few stumbled over feet. Then we piled in over the same feet with a few doors delaying the whole train.
In a true commuter service, it is unusual to have a station where there was a large number of joiners and leavers. Mostly, the trains are either mainly gathering passengers at each station to dump them at the city terminus or a close-in junction. The opposite happens at the end of the working day, i.e. there is a mass boarding before the train starts and a steady net egress as the train moves into the dormitory areas at the country end of it's service.
Modern high capacity trains have a graded access route from the 'travelling area' where the seating and safe standing takes place, through to a wide egress/ingress area allowing safe stepping across the platform-train interface. Recent trains have an improved door area with wider, faster operating doors and adequate stand-back provision, so by the time that that area gets continuously full, the train itself is at crush load levels.
When compartment-style trains were loaded to that level, their dwells would extend greatly as the standees would need to alight so that others could get off then they would reborn followed by ant waiting to get on at that station. The commuting world is as Dr Hoo says different now, numbers are much higher and increasingly, headways are tighter with better signalling to maintain safety. The Cannon St minor buffer collision shows just how unsafe high density standing amongst seats can be.

If you travel from Leeds of an evening for example, you'll find a significant number of people getting off when the train enters, as well as those getting on.

Whilst there are more commuters, more trains in the London commuter zone and more carriages on those trains, I do not accept your premise that an individual peak service from Charing Cross in the late 1980's for example, was any less crowded than one today. The difference is that there were more seats, and it was easier to get in/out of the high density (I refuse to say "compartment type" as most of it wasn't) stock.

 

[Bald Rick]

But 'yes'. Two hundred regular passengers onto an already well-loaded 12VEP up from Ramsgate through c.100 doors at Chatham in the morning peak, ding-ding and away again, non-stop to Cannon Street, in less than 30 seconds. Amazing!

You can do 300-400 passengers through 24 doors of a well loaded Class 700 in a 30 second stop at any number of Thameslink stations.

 

[AM9]

Absolutely not. I far prefer natural ventilation. And I have a rangeof jumpers available for winter weather.

You can keep your hermetically sealed tubes with four ironing board seats to fight over thank you.

This is beginning to sound like a nostalgic rant for trains like your avatar.

 

[43096]

Absolutely not. I far prefer natural ventilation. And I have a rangeof jumpers available for winter weather.

You can keep your hermetically sealed tubes with four ironing board seats to fight over thank you.

I’ve never had a jumper that stops the draught around your legs.

 

[Neptune]

I worked a 333 into Leeds this morning and estimate was that there were well over 400 people on board (360 seats with not all the middle of 3 ones used of course) and every doorway full. I timed how long it took to disgorge at Leeds and it was about 50 seconds. There was a 4 minute turnaround with around 40-50 people boarding, mostly through the 4 doors in the back 2 coaches and the crew was in position to depart with all passengers boarded a good 2 minutes prior to departure. I put this down to the fact that around 2 or 3 people got off the train at once and everyone nicely filtered through the wide doors and all done safely. No tripping over legs as often happened in 308 days.

I do see why people believe it was faster when there were doors to every seating bay but it is very efficient with the current suburban layout.

 

[duffield]

I’ve never had a jumper that stops the draught around your legs.

My mother once knitted me one that could stretch that far.

 

[Journeyman]

@yorksrob just has a strange fetish for some of the absolute worst trains to have ever run in this country.

 

[yorksrob]

This is beginning to sound like a nostalgic rant for trains like your avatar.

On the contrary, up until now we've been having a discussion about the pros and cons of different designs of rolling stock.

You've just decided to have a rant because I don't agree with you.