Why did it take BR so long to adopt sliding doors?

[sprinterguy]

Has anyone got any more info on this?

I've found this image here, taken in 1980:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/23700069@N03/8125658238/in/photostream/

According to the following web page (near the bottom), the carriage involved was 4EPB vehicle S14259 from unit 5130, which underwent experimental trials at Strawberry Hill depot.
http://www.epbpg.co.uk/departmental.htm

 

[HSTEd]

That's true but plug doors are slower than sliding.

Some are slower than others.
The ones on Mark 4s are relatively quick, whilst Pendolino ones seem to take an aaaaage to open.
But if you had one per seating bay you would be able to tolerate a couple more seconds to open/close them considering the train would be empty rather quicker than even the fastest one you could imagine from Thameslink.
Almost half the side of the train could be doors. The rest being the place the doors slide to.

 

[sprinterguy]

Some are slower than others.
The ones on Mark 4s are relatively quick, whilst Pendolino ones seem to take an aaaaage to open.

The Pendolino doors have the added delay of having to put out the door steps first as part of the opening process, of course.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Almost half the side of the train could be doors. The rest being the place the doors slide to.

That's roughly how the old LU C-stock is.

 

[infobleep]

That's true but plug doors are slower than sliding.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


My mistake, I must have been thinking of another recent tread that mention GE.



Not at all. The days of slam doors are gone. They aren't safe enough for the 21st century, and even busy stations don,t have enough staff to ensure they are used properly.
To have lots of power swing doors on a train is just asking for reliability issues, would increase weight and probably dwell times. So a train with lots of sliding doors would of necessity have lots of vestibules meaning lots of standing space.
I stand by what I've said, passengers who travel on the busiest of trains that are the reason for the high levels of investment may just have to put up with stands of up to 1 hour in the future and 30mins could become the norm on some lines. If seats were so important, patronage would fall but there doesn't seem to be any signs of that. All there is moaning about it, but that's the way of commuters,- been there, done that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


That's not the same thing. Standing on a train is much the same whether it covers 30 miles non-stop in 30 minutes or 15 miles with a few stops in 30 minutes, assuming comfort through reasonable track condition and braking respectively. The distance is irrelevant.

The distance may be irrelevant but I was more thing of time spent on multiple trains vers time spent continuously on one train.

For example if I was on direct train from Surbiton to Guildford ran where the only in between stop was Woking, I'd want a seat throughout.

However if I travelled on the same route, with same number of stops but using two trains, I'd probably not be bothered if I got a seat in either train because I'd consider the time spent on either train not that long (about 10 mins).

So physiologically I think people perceive things differently based on time spent on an individual train and distance covered.

It doesn't really matter but it's what people might think.

As for standing for an hour. One of the management in South West Trains said it wasn't acceptable that someone should stand to Southampton Airport Parkway from Waterloo. I don't know which evening service it would be though and it is probably longer than an hour.

I find it hard to believe though that there is a service where all seats are taken right through to Southampton Airport Parkway but that was the comment made. It was in a newspaper report I seem to think but I don't have a link to hand.

 

[edwin_m]

Various franchise performance standards and the Network Rail planning process in England (and I think in Wales) is based on an assumption that people shouldn't have to stand for more than 20min but shorter standing periods are acceptable. The Scots have a more stringent standard.

 

[hulabaloo]

The Pendolino doors have the added delay of having to put out the door steps first as part of the opening process, of course.

I remember when the Javelins were first introduced and it used to take a good twenty seconds before you could even open them. I think they realised that was too long and seemed to have halved to wait time.

 

[AM9]

Various franchise performance standards and the Network Rail planning process in England (and I think in Wales) is based on an assumption that people shouldn't have to stand for more than 20min but shorter standing periods are acceptable. The Scots have a more stringent standard.

But with many of the commuter routes approaching saturation of available paths with trains of maximum capacity, there will be extended periods of planned standing for longer times before infrastructure improvement gets the go ahead. Whilst commuters may think that their requirements are the first priority for all government investment, - and that may also be so for the encumbent mayor in London, nationally, expenditure on the scales required will just take its place in the queue.

 

[yorksrob]

But with many of the commuter routes approaching saturation of available paths with trains of maximum capacity, there will be extended periods of planned standing for longer times before infrastructure improvement gets the go ahead. Whilst commuters may think that their requirements are the first priority for all government investment, - and that may also be so for the encumbent mayor in London, nationally, expenditure on the scales required will just take its place in the queue.

But, as mentioned previously, the traditional high density layout is a way of maximising seating capacity without increasing infrastructure. Now if they could just build ten plug doors to the side of the carriage, we'd be sorted.

 

[Tobbes]

On capacity, the Overground 378s must take some beating. I normally cycle to work, but take the train probably once a week - Putney to CJ is too short to matter, but CJ - Canada Water is nice to have a seat - 25 minutes. (Canada Water to Canary Wharf is obviously crushed on the Jubilee).

But given the platform limitations, 378s will not be more than 5 cars - and short of a more frequent service, if you stand to Canada Water, you stand!

 

[edwin_m]

But, as mentioned previously, the traditional high density layout is a way of maximising seating capacity without increasing infrastructure. Now if they could just build ten plug doors to the side of the carriage, we'd be sorted.

But it doesn't maximised total capacity - that would require all seats to be taken out and the whole floor area crush-loaded. So there may be a situation where providing seats for some is preventing others using the train at all.

 

[yorksrob]

But it doesn't maximised total capacity - that would require all seats to be taken out and the whole floor area crush-loaded. So there may be a situation where providing seats for some is preventing others using the train at all.

Yes, but as a travelling experience, that would be crap. If we go over to London Underground seating I might learn to drive!

 

[AM9]

Yes, but as a travelling experience, that would be crap. If we go over to London Underground seating I might learn to drive!

OK, I'll spell it out in simple terms:

When the trains are full on the tracks which are full, those who insist on travelling at the busiest time willhave a 'crap travelling experience'.
Those who think they know better will learn to drive if they need to, and spend hours per week crawling along congested roads sitting in the 'comfortable' cars.
Then after a few months, many of them will return to the trains satisfied that travelling standing up at 100mph is better than sitting at 10 mph. They will also probably be more healthy for it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But it doesn't maximised total capacity - that would require all seats to be taken out and the whole floor area crush-loaded. So there may be a situation where providing seats for some is preventing others using the train at all.

These sort of suggestions are often made by passengers who join trains when seats are sometimes available.

 

[yorksrob]

OK, I'll spell it out in simple terms:

When the trains are full on the tracks which are full, those who insist on travelling at the busiest time willhave a 'crap travelling experience'.
Those who think they know better will learn to drive if they need to, and spend hours per week crawling along congested roads sitting in the 'comfortable' cars.
Then after a few months, many of them will return to the trains satisfied that travelling standing up at 100mph is better than sitting at 10 mph. They will also probably be more healthy for it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


These sort of suggestions are often made by passengers who join trains when seats are sometimes available.

All very interesting, but none of what you say negates the fact that we are offering solutions for the same problem.


Spell It out "all you like" but the fact remains, the traditional high density rolling stock layout is a very successful way of balancing the needs of longer distance commuters who need a seat, with the physical limitations of the infrastructure.

 

[AM9]

All very interesting, but none of what you say negates the fact that we are offering solutions for the same problem.


Spell It out "all you like" but the fact remains, the traditional high density rolling stock layout is a very successful way of balancing the needs of longer distance commuters who need a seat, with the physical limitations of the infrastructure.

'Traditional high density seating' as in obsolete and non-compliant with contemporary safety standards is dead if it involves 8-10 doors per side per coach. The wishes of longer distance commuters will in many cases be secondary to the needs of all passengers to travel at all.
As edwin_m has explained, maximising seats compromises total capacity which is far more important than additional comfort for a few. If the railway makes a few passengers stand for their journeys, that's unfortunate, if it regularly leaves passengers on the platform, it has failed absolutely.

 

[theageofthetra]

Another problem with plug over sliding doors is that if a plug door gets stuck open the train is out of gauge.

 

[RobShipway]

As has been pointed out to me in another thread, the fare you pay is to get you from a to b and does not suggest that you will get a seat on a train, so on busy trains you will see people standing as you seem to do on most Reading bound trains through the week between London Waterloo and Twickenham as an example.

 

[yorksrob]

'Traditional high density seating' as in obsolete and non-compliant with contemporary safety standards is dead if it involves 8-10 doors per side per coach. The wishes of longer distance commuters will in many cases be secondary to the needs of all passengers to travel at all.
As edwin_m has explained, maximising seats compromises total capacity which is far more important than additional comfort for a few. If the railway makes a few passengers stand for their journeys, that's unfortunate, if it regularly leaves passengers on the platform, it has failed absolutely.

I use many trains with a high density seating layout. I've never seen them leave passengers behind for want of getting on.

There are many trains in the South of England which have high density seating layouts. Where is your evidence that they are regularly leaving passengers behind ?

 

[edwin_m]

I use many trains with a high density seating layout. I've never seen them leave passengers behind for want of getting on.

There are many trains in the South of England which have high density seating layouts. Where is your evidence that they are regularly leaving passengers behind ?

Do you agree that a layout that maximises standing will carry more passengers in total than one that maximises seating?

If so then the capacity of the railway is maximised, other things being equal, by adopting this layout. If all other things are also maxed out then having more standing increases capacity. They may on occasions leave people on the platform, but in fact what happens is that if people regularly can't get on the train they will choose a different time or mode of travel or not travel at all. This will apply to more people if the total capacity of the trains is less.

Nobody is suggesting that people should have to stand from Waterloo to Southampton (though the fact it happens suggests that many would rather do so than face any of the alternatives). I mentioned above that the long-term planning process aims to restrict standing to 20min on all routes. On the SW main line this will involve some very expensive infrastructure works, most of which will be paid for by taxpayers.

Another issue is that some long distance services carry many more people for small parts of their journey. The "high density seating layout" on FGW is arguably benefitting Reading commuters at the expense of longer-distance travellers for whom a longer seat pitch and more tables would be better. It is arguable that a layout mixing more comfortable seating with more standing areas, as on Transpennine for example, would be better for these trains.

 

[HSTEd]

The logical "high density seating layout" involves no seats at all. Or maybe no seats apart from tip-ups.

Is that the railway we are prepared to have?

 

[infobleep]

But with many of the commuter routes approaching saturation of available paths with trains of maximum capacity, there will be extended periods of planned standing for longer times before infrastructure improvement gets the go ahead. Whilst commuters may think that their requirements are the first priority for all government investment, - and that may also be so for the encumbent mayor in London, nationally, expenditure on the scales required will just take its place in the queue.

They could have been doing some of this infrastructure projects 10 years ago.

Didn't South West Trains want to do something with Clapham Junction but didn't due to franchise being to short.

 

[HSTEd]

There isn't much you can do with Clapham Junction to improve capacity enormously.

You need more tracks and platforms at Waterloo.

 

[Bletchleyite]

FGW IC trains being used for commuters makes no sense. Were it not for HEx and Crossrail, you could operate something like 3tph of 12 car 3+2 seated MUs non stop, and keep the commuters largely off the ICs, like is done successfully from MK.

 

[RobShipway]

There isn't much you can do with Clapham Junction to improve capacity enormously.

You need more tracks and platforms at Waterloo.

That has been done with converting Waterloo International platforms for use, although it seems only platform 20 is ever used.

 

[edwin_m]

That has been done with converting Waterloo International platforms for use, although it seems only platform 20 is ever used.

The other four will be brought into use in the next few years, once the foot access is updated to cope with the numbers using commuter services. They also need to remove the Eurostar flyover (I think this is now definite) which reduces the four Windsor lines to three for a stretch. Also rearrange the station throat so all trains move a few platforms further over so each of the three groups of services gets some extra.

 

[455driver]

That has been done with converting Waterloo International platforms for use, although it seems only platform 20 is ever used.

Platform 20 is the only one in use because there is no suitable access to the other platforms until the undercroft is covered over and suitable level access is sorted out.

While it is fine for the odd International train try it with a crush loaded commuter train (an 8 coach 455 can easily have 800 passengers on board) every 5 minutes and see what happens.
That is before we get onto fire and evacuation etc regulations.

 

[jimm]

FGW IC trains being used for commuters makes no sense. Were it not for HEx and Crossrail, you could operate something like 3tph of 12 car 3+2 seated MUs non stop, and keep the commuters largely off the ICs, like is done successfully from MK.

Well I'm afraid it makes a lot of sense for the time being until electrification allows something different to happen, such as the 12-car emus with 2+2 seats that FGW will be running in a couple of years' time.

FGW simply does not have enough Turbos to do anything like this at present and there is spare capacity on some HSTs which is being used to serve places such as Twyford and Maidenhead, as well as Reading - and make the most efficient use of track capacity and the rolling stock that is available.

The ICs have to stop at Reading now and will continue to do so in future to meet the needs of passengers travelling to and from places other than London, so you might as well use them to help shift some London commuters while they are at it, rather like the sequence of early-morning Virgin services between MK and Euston.

 

[cjmillsnun]

As has been pointed out to me in another thread, the fare you pay is to get you from a to b and does not suggest that you will get a seat on a train, so on busy trains you will see people standing as you seem to do on most Reading bound trains through the week between London Waterloo and Twickenham as an example.

Ahh but that's not good enough. If you live in the thames valley you must get a seat because you are supposed to be holier than god himself :roll:

 

[Bletchleyite]

Into London is less of an issue because the long haul passengers already have seats.

 

[jopsuk]

in an alternative reality, more of the intermediate stations would be longer and the Thames Turbos would have been built as 100mph, 4-car (20m carriage) units as a straight diesel copy of the 365...