The Decline of The Metro Style Train

[Silent]

^I agree as the doors of new underground trains don't actually seem faster, maybe even a bit slower even for safety. But acceleration seems to be better.

 

[tfw756rider]

I couldn't find specific numbers but from what I have heard the 172 has an acceleration rate around that of the 170s and 185s (so ~0.49 to 0.50 m/s2) which would be a 0-60mph of about 53/54 seconds. Not bad for a unit running long distances, especially one that's a DMU, but it's not exactly suitable for an urban rail or high-capacity metro system regardless of door design.

For comparison the 345 has an acceleration rate up to 1m/s2 (0-60 of about 27 seconds) and the S Stock has one of up to 1.3m/s2 (0-60 of about 21 seconds). I have heard that this only saves about 10-15 seconds per station stop elsewhere on the forums, but it adds up across the length of the journey. For urban rail systems, 172s are relatively poor accelerators compared to electric traction.

Sorry, but I think something's not right there.

When I first rode on a 172 (in early 2022, before 195 in late 2022 and 196/197 in late 2023), the diesel-mechanical 172 was noticeably significantly quicker-accelerating than a diesel-hydraulic 170.

Maybe not quite like a modern electric unit, but still.

 

[Sorcerer]

Sorry, but I think something's not right there.

When I first rode on a 172 (in early 2022, before 195 in late 2022 and 196/197 in late 2023), the diesel-mechanical 172 was noticeably significantly quicker-accelerating than a diesel-hydraulic 170.

Maybe not quite like a modern electric unit, but still.

Unfortunately I couldn't quite find the exact numbers for the 172 acceleration and am simply going by what I've heard and also partially by comparing to other Turbostar trains. The Google AI result claims it's 0.5m/s2 but this is based on performance figures of similar trains as well. Ultimately I still wouldn't call it a metro-style train unless it's acceleration and capacity could match something like the S Stock or Class 345.

Part of me is also tempted to suggest that defining a metro-style train should also include being electric. That might seem like a bit of an extreme gatekeep, but the kind of acceleration and capacity you need for metro operations can only really come from electric traction. Has there ever actually been an example of a non-electric metro unit anywhere in the world?

 

[tfw756rider]

Unfortunately I couldn't quite find the exact numbers for the 172 acceleration and am simply going by what I've heard and also partially by comparing to other Turbostar trains. The Google AI result claims it's 0.5m/s2 but this is based on performance figures of similar trains as well. Ultimately I still wouldn't call it a metro-style train unless it's acceleration and capacity could match something like the S Stock or Class 345.

Fair enough, and agreed of course.

Part of me is also tempted to suggest that defining a metro-style train should also include being electric. That might seem like a bit of an extreme gatekeep, but the kind of acceleration and capacity you need for metro operations can only really come from electric traction.

I do agree.

 

[py_megapixel]

I think the new CAF trains on the Docklands Light Railway can close their doors at two different speeds. When on a layover at a station they close slowly after a few seconds to maintain the efficiency of the air conditioning. When actually preparing to leave a station they close more quickly, to get them on their way as soon as possible.

I would appreciate a regular user or someone familiar with the technical design confirming or denying this, as I might just be making it up!

 

[NCT]

I get that. I'm not saying it can't work, and maybe once in a while you can deploy an express style train on high density metro routes. However, this is a consistent trend, as before that, there were 172s on the GOBLIN line which also has hundreds of commuters per work day, almost like the North London and Lee Valley lines. I mean, I guess if it isn't that effective, then they wouldn't do it, but I still think it's worth questioning whether how much it solves overcrowding problems.

I'm confused. I still don't get where the 'decline of the metro style train' comes from.

You are comparing trains of different traction, different train lengths and different interior layouts, and then are ascribing the performance difference solely to doors? I'm confused.

There's a perfect like-for-like comparison opportunity of 378s vs 710s where you can pretty much isolate the difference between pocket and plug doors (I say pretty much as in the real world nothing is perfectly academically like-for-like).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Nov 2025 ==

I couldn't find specific numbers but from what I have heard the 172 has an acceleration rate around that of the 170s and 185s (so ~0.49 to 0.50 m/s2) which would be a 0-60mph of about 53/54 seconds. Not bad for a unit running long distances, especially one that's a DMU, but it's not exactly suitable for an urban rail or high-capacity metro system regardless of door design.

For comparison the 345 has an acceleration rate up to 1m/s2 (0-60 of about 27 seconds) and the S Stock has one of up to 1.3m/s2 (0-60 of about 21 seconds). I have heard that this only saves about 10-15 seconds per station stop elsewhere on the forums, but it adds up across the length of the journey. For urban rail systems, 172s are relatively poor accelerators compared to electric traction.

In relation to the original question, this has a much bigger impact than having a plug door on the rolling stock. If there was solid evidence that sliding pocket doors were significantly faster than plug doors and therefore were better suited to metro systems then I would accept it, but as it stands the acceleration and capacity plays a much bigger role in defining a metro-style train than the door design.

(Just a note here for anyone wondering where I got my calculations from. I used an online converter. I don't want to risk filling this post with too much off-topic clutter but I will show the workings out should forum staff request it. Also m/s2 means metres per second squared for anyone unfamiliar).

Wikipedia quotes 0.83m/s^2 for the Class 195. The Class 172 has almost the same gearbox and engine output. I'd be surprised if the Class 172 only had the performance of the 170.

 

[sharpener]

Some sliding doors of all types are air-operated, but this is by putting compressed air into a separate cylinder to move a piston which then moves the door.

When I went to stay in Paris in 1962 I travelled on the Metro a lot, you had to open the sliding doors yourself after lifting a gate latch thingy. But there were (visble through the windows) pneumatic rams to close them. As a schoolboy I thought this arrangement very antiquated compared with London Underground. Especially as they were clearly double-acting rams so were in principle capable of opening the doors too.

The Dutch seem to favour this design - apart from some very new kit almost all Dutch trains have this sort of mechanism. The main downsides seem to be that the shaft itself might be a safety issue when it rotates if people are holding it (it provides a natural handrail) and that the doors can only be quite narrow as were they wider they would swing out too far and knock people on the platform over as they opened. The upside is that it's a very simple design with few failure modes.

Sliding mechanisms have always been more difficult to engineer than rotating ones: bearings and seals are more expensive and in an object of any great size it is difficult to avoid racking which makes it jam in the tracks.

 

[edwin_m]

I couldn't find specific numbers but from what I have heard the 172 has an acceleration rate around that of the 170s and 185s (so ~0.49 to 0.50 m/s2) which would be a 0-60mph of about 53/54 seconds. Not bad for a unit running long distances, especially one that's a DMU, but it's not exactly suitable for an urban rail or high-capacity metro system regardless of door design.

For comparison the 345 has an acceleration rate up to 1m/s2 (0-60 of about 27 seconds) and the S Stock has one of up to 1.3m/s2 (0-60 of about 21 seconds). I have heard that this only saves about 10-15 seconds per station stop elsewhere on the forums, but it adds up across the length of the journey. For urban rail systems, 172s are relatively poor accelerators compared to electric traction.

In relation to the original question, this has a much bigger impact than having a plug door on the rolling stock. If there was solid evidence that sliding pocket doors were significantly faster than plug doors and therefore were better suited to metro systems then I would accept it, but as it stands the acceleration and capacity plays a much bigger role in defining a metro-style train than the door design.

(Just a note here for anyone wondering where I got my calculations from. I used an online converter. I don't want to risk filling this post with too much off-topic clutter but I will show the workings out should forum staff request it. Also m/s2 means metres per second squared for anyone unfamiliar).

Bear in mind that quoted acceleration figures usually only apply at low speeds, where the acceleration is limited by the amount of weight on powered wheels and by wheel-rail adhesion. As speed increases it starts to be limited by resistance which is similar for all trains of the same size, but also by the available power. Electrics almost always have much more power available than diesels, so even if their starting acceleration is no better than a diesel, their acceleration at high speeds will be better. So you can't use the simple "suvat" equations to calculate train running times, it needs a more complicated calculation that takes account of the variation of acceleration with speed.

 

[Ridgeblog]

I'm confused. I still don't get where the 'decline of the metro style train' comes from.

You are comparing trains of different traction, different train lengths and different interior layouts, and then are ascribing the performance difference solely to doors? I'm confused.

There's a perfect like-for-like comparison opportunity of 378s vs 710s where you can pretty much isolate the difference between pocket and plug doors (I say pretty much as in the real world nothing is perfectly academically like-for-like).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Nov 2025 ==

You're right, yes I'm mainly comparing the different door types, but I'm guessing other factors also come into play, for instance the layout types and even tractions as you've described. In my opinion, most tocs have fumbled in choosing the correct style of train for different routes, but especially for high density metro from the reasons I described. I don't think it's beneficial to deploy longer trains with higher seating, say 4 or 5 windows wide between doors, with slower opening plug doors, sliding or swing, compared to shorter trains with longitudinal seating and pocket doors.

Maybe I didn't make it as clear, since my emphasis was mostly on the doors since that stood out the most to me. It seems generally inconsistent on what train types are often deployed as they don't correspond to how busy those lines are and how often they need to stop at stations. These lines I mentioned are very busy and short stopping, so it doesn't make sense to me why both train types can be used and still work effectively. My idea of a metro train is that it should be short with a small amount of seating and pocket doors that slide easily so that getting in and out is quick and easy, like on the underground, as surely that's more logical.

Originally, the overground was just like that with the 378s until the 710s came along, and I don't think they're as effective on these routes for these reasons. Similar can be said for other routes, say Norwich to Liverpool Street, where the aventras are used. These are also long with transverse seating and plug doors, the complete opposite of what I think a metro train should be. That's why I think that's a decline as I believe choosing newer train types for these routes has worsened over time, with a few exceptions.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Nov 2025 ==

Bear in mind that quoted acceleration figures usually only apply at low speeds, where the acceleration is limited by the amount of weight on powered wheels and by wheel-rail adhesion. As speed increases it starts to be limited by resistance which is similar for all trains of the same size, but also by the available power. Electrics almost always have much more power available than diesels, so even if their starting acceleration is no better than a diesel, their acceleration at high speeds will be better. So you can't use the simple "suvat" equations to calculate train running times, it needs a more complicated calculation that takes account of the variation of acceleration with speed.

Ok that makes sense, and maybe the door types alone don't really make all that much difference as I was thinking earlier. Those are good points about the acceleration also. I do feel it's important to have high acceleration on metro routes so for quick short stopping. But what about other factors then, like seating and layout differences that I just mentioned now? When I add those up, it doesn't make sense and feels like a downgrade to me to have a longer train with more seating, longer space between doors, and plus those doors are plug. That seems more suited to me for suburban, longer distance routes which have less stopping.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Nov 2025 ==

Also, another thing I forgot to consider is, don't the plug door mechanisms wear out more if they open and close too often? Some here have mentioned that they require rotating knobs or levers depending on whether it's sliding on swing, so aren't these more prone to damage due to friction or electrical faults?

 

[BayPaul]

You're right, yes I'm mainly comparing the different door types, but I'm guessing other factors also come into play, for instance the layout types and even tractions as you've described. In my opinion, most tocs have fumbled in choosing the correct style of train for different routes, but especially for high density metro from the reasons I described. I don't think it's beneficial to deploy longer trains with higher seating, say 4 or 5 windows wide between doors, with slower opening plug doors, sliding or swing, compared to shorter trains with longitudinal seating and pocket doors.

Maybe I didn't make it as clear, since my emphasis was mostly on the doors since that stood out the most to me. It seems generally inconsistent on what train types are often deployed as they don't correspond to how busy those lines are and how often they need to stop at stations. These lines I mentioned are very busy and short stopping, so it doesn't make sense to me why both train types can be used and still work effectively. My idea of a metro train is that it should be short with a small amount of seating and pocket doors that slide easily so that getting in and out is quick and easy, like on the underground, as surely that's more logical.

Originally, the overground was just like that with the 378s until the 710s came along, and I don't think they're as effective on these routes for these reasons. Similar can be said for other routes, say Norwich to Liverpool Street, where the aventras are used. These are also long with transverse seating and plug doors, the complete opposite of what I think a metro train should be. That's why I think that's a decline as I believe choosing newer train types for these routes has worsened over time, with a few exceptions.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Nov 2025 ==


Ok that makes sense, and maybe the door types alone don't really make all that much difference as I was thinking earlier. Those are good points about the acceleration also. I do feel it's important to have high acceleration on metro routes so for quick short stopping. But what about other factors then, like seating and layout differences that I just mentioned now? When I add those up, it doesn't make sense and feels like a downgrade to me to have a longer train with more seating, longer space between doors, and plus those doors are plug. That seems more suited to me for suburban, longer distance routes which have less stopping.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Nov 2025 ==

Also, another thing I forgot to consider is, don't the plug door mechanisms wear out more if they open and close too often? Some here have mentioned that they require rotating knobs or levers depending on whether it's sliding on swing, so aren't these more prone to damage due to friction or electrical faults?

I don't understand why a longer train is a downgrade. Longer trains have more capacity to swallow up crowds of people, and no real downsides.

In my experience, most of the new and newish fleets of metro trains, such as 700s, 345s, 701s, 707s, S stock etc have all the other features you're after - narrow seats with wide aisles to give loads of standing room, a lower ratio of seats to standing room, huge spaces around the doors for quick boarding, simple designs with minimal features.

 

[yorksrob]

I think plug doors look better. Thameslink trains look like network southeast era trains with the window and door arrangement whilst 378s remind me of older tube trains

I would definitely agree with that. The 150/PEP/455 bodyside manages to be uglier than both its predecessors and successors IMO.

 

[Dstock7080]

They also cause corrosion as water gets into the pockets.

I remember visiting the refurbishment process for C Stock (RFS Doncaster) and A Stock (BREL Derby) and they explained that the worst corrosion was in the door pockets, as rain that had hit the door would be carried into the pocket upon opening, it would then fester into the floor.

 

[hwl]

the complete opposite of what I think a metro train should be.

A significant issue appears to be what you "think" not aligning with reality.
The core functional metric for metro trains are:

• Low dwell times
• high capacity
• good acceleration and deceleration

Note that the choice of sliding or other types of doors doesn't matter it is the outcome that matters.

In the case of the Anglia 720 procurement there was a DfT metric for the franchise bidders to maximise the number of seats which was done without reference to dwell time (3+2 seats, narrow aisles, small vestibules and flip down seats in vestibules.) DfT learnt their lesson the hard way.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Nov 2025 ==


Ok that makes sense, and maybe the door types alone don't really make all that much difference as I was thinking earlier.

No they don't with modern plug doors - you are finally getting there.

Those are good points about the acceleration also. I do feel it's important to have high acceleration on metro routes so for quick short stopping. But what about other factors then, like seating and layout differences that I just mentioned now?

Door width, Seating and vestibules are the major determinants of dwell times for a chosen number of number alighters and embarkers given modern high performance doors. 720s got it very wrong but 345, 377/6 &/7, 387, 700, 701, 707, 710, 730 do it very well (as did SWT/R modified 455s with larger vestibules and doors modified to open wider).

On door width NSE got the Networker door and vestibule width very wrong at circa 1.75 adults width but lesson were learnt and the next generation of stock (Electrostar and Desiro) at doors and vestibules that were more than 2 adults wide.
For very wide opening doors (e.g. 345s) plug doors can actually have better performance than sliding as the mechanism is geared but the performance difference is only noticeable on very wide doors.

When I add those up, it doesn't make sense and feels like a downgrade to me to have a longer train with more seating, longer space between doors, and plus those doors are plug. That seems more suited to me for suburban, longer distance routes which have less stopping.

Crossrail users would disagree with you. You can't transport the number of passenger on shorter trains (even if more frequent) which would lead to more crowding and extended dwell time issues. (Especially after TfL increase the frequency in the core using some of the extra batch of 10)
Might I suggest you replace your rose tinted spectacles with some untinted lenses?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Nov 2025 ==

Also, another thing I forgot to consider is, don't the plug door mechanisms wear out more if they open and close too often? Some here have mentioned that they require rotating knobs or levers depending on whether it's sliding on swing, so aren't these more prone to damage due to friction or electrical faults?

No not the modern ones that are electrically actuated. It is best to ignore older plug door designs and focus on current.

 

[NCT]

You're right, yes I'm mainly comparing the different door types, but I'm guessing other factors also come into play, for instance the layout types and even tractions as you've described. In my opinion, most tocs have fumbled in choosing the correct style of train for different routes, but especially for high density metro from the reasons I described. I don't think it's beneficial to deploy longer trains with higher seating, say 4 or 5 windows wide between doors, with slower opening plug doors, sliding or swing, compared to shorter trains with longitudinal seating and pocket doors.

Maybe I didn't make it as clear, since my emphasis was mostly on the doors since that stood out the most to me. It seems generally inconsistent on what train types are often deployed as they don't correspond to how busy those lines are and how often they need to stop at stations. These lines I mentioned are very busy and short stopping, so it doesn't make sense to me why both train types can be used and still work effectively. My idea of a metro train is that it should be short with a small amount of seating and pocket doors that slide easily so that getting in and out is quick and easy, like on the underground, as surely that's more logical.

Originally, the overground was just like that with the 378s until the 710s came along, and I don't think they're as effective on these routes for these reasons. Similar can be said for other routes, say Norwich to Liverpool Street, where the aventras are used. These are also long with transverse seating and plug doors, the complete opposite of what I think a metro train should be. That's why I think that's a decline as I believe choosing newer train types for these routes has worsened over time, with a few exceptions.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Nov 2025 ==


Ok that makes sense, and maybe the door types alone don't really make all that much difference as I was thinking earlier. Those are good points about the acceleration also. I do feel it's important to have high acceleration on metro routes so for quick short stopping. But what about other factors then, like seating and layout differences that I just mentioned now? When I add those up, it doesn't make sense and feels like a downgrade to me to have a longer train with more seating, longer space between doors, and plus those doors are plug. That seems more suited to me for suburban, longer distance routes which have less stopping.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Nov 2025 ==

Also, another thing I forgot to consider is, don't the plug door mechanisms wear out more if they open and close too often? Some here have mentioned that they require rotating knobs or levers depending on whether it's sliding on swing, so aren't these more prone to damage due to friction or electrical faults?

About the 378 vs 710 door type comparison - all I'm seeing is conjecture and no evidence.

As to the rest, I still have no clue what point you are trying to make.

The word 'decline' suggests a longitudinal comparison - a comparison of before and after. What's your basis of comparison? Remember, that traditionally National Rail didn't 'do' metro - all urban commuter networks used stock with 2+3 seating with small vestibules, well into the early 2000s. Looking at a few routes:

Thameslink: 319 -> 700
Overground: 313 -> 378/710
Crossrail: 315/165/166 -> 345
Cross City Line: 323 -> 730
SWR: 455 -> 701

In every case, we had 3+2 seating replaced by metro-layouts with standing areas, door areas became much bigger, the trains became walk-through, acceleration much better.

Where's the decline?

 

[bramling]

A significant issue appears to be what you "think" not aligning with reality.
The core functional metric for metro trains are:

• Low dwell times
• high capacity
• good acceleration and deceleration

Note that the choice of sliding or other types of doors doesn't matter it is the outcome that matters.

In the case of the Anglia 720 procurement there was a DfT metric for the franchise bidders to maximise the number of seats which was done without reference to dwell time (3+2 seats, narrow aisles, small vestibules and flip down seats in vestibules.) DfT learnt their lesson the hard way.

No they don't with modern plug doors - you are finally getting there.

Door width, Seating and vestibules are the major determinants of dwell times for a chosen number of number alighters and embarkers given modern high performance doors. 720s got it very wrong but 345, 377/6 &/7, 387, 700, 701, 707, 710, 730 do it very well (as did SWT/R modified 455s with larger vestibules and doors modified to open wider).

On door width NSE got the Networker door and vestibule width very wrong at circa 1.75 adults width but lesson were learnt and the next generation of stock (Electrostar and Desiro) at doors and vestibules that were more than 2 adults wide.
For very wide opening doors (e.g. 345s) plug doors can actually have better performance than sliding as the mechanism is geared but the performance difference is only noticeable on very wide doors.

I wouldn’t necessarily say NSE got the Networker design wrong, more they were built at a time when the priority for inner-suburban designs was maximising seating.

If you compare both the 365 and 465 with their successors, both have massively more seating. Certainly in the case of the 365, the consequence of this on GN was that a generation of commuters were more likely to get a seat, which I for one am grateful for.

It’s also notable that Networker doors are generally fairly quick to open and close, if not always the most reliable or easy to maintain.

 

[Ridgeblog]

Crossrail users would disagree with you. You can't transport the number of passenger on shorter trains (even if more frequent) which would lead to more crowding and extended dwell time issues. (Especially after TfL increase the frequency in the core using some of the extra batch of 10)
Might I suggest you replace your rose tinted spectacles with some untinted lenses?

Ok, I'm getting it now. I wasn't saying that lower capacity isn't suited, as obviously it is better, but I thought that having more doors closer together would be more necessar rather than further apart simply for quicker loading, more standing space, so that passengers can simply get out more easily, whereas if the space is a lot wider, as in the classes I was mentioning, especially with transverse 3+2 seating, the actual standing space would be a lot tighter and so it would be much harder for passengers standing or seating in the middle to get off, and so the train would have to wait longer to let them off? I get that longitudinal seating is very suited as you can have lots of standing space and lots of seats at the same time, but I still think width between doors would still be needed here. I mean, I don't know how to measure performance of trains vs passenger numbers, so I might be getting all this quite wrong. And yes, as you said, wider vestibules also work better here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the "short train" thing is a misunderstanding in a way. Metro trains are often too short for the number of passengers who want to use them because of cost or infrastructure constraints. But that's not a deliberate beneficial design decision, it's just a constraint. That constraint is mitigated by using a layout that has a relatively low number of seats and can take a high number of standees.

 

[Sorcerer]

You're right, yes I'm mainly comparing the different door types, but I'm guessing other factors also come into play, for instance the layout types and even tractions as you've described. In my opinion, most tocs have fumbled in choosing the correct style of train for different routes, but especially for high density metro from the reasons I described. I don't think it's beneficial to deploy longer trains with higher seating, say 4 or 5 windows wide between doors, with slower opening plug doors, sliding or swing, compared to shorter trains with longitudinal seating and pocket doors.

Maybe I didn't make it as clear, since my emphasis was mostly on the doors since that stood out the most to me. It seems generally inconsistent on what train types are often deployed as they don't correspond to how busy those lines are and how often they need to stop at stations. These lines I mentioned are very busy and short stopping, so it doesn't make sense to me why both train types can be used and still work effectively. My idea of a metro train is that it should be short with a small amount of seating and pocket doors that slide easily so that getting in and out is quick and easy, like on the underground, as surely that's more logical.

Originally, the overground was just like that with the 378s until the 710s came along, and I don't think they're as effective on these routes for these reasons. Similar can be said for other routes, say Norwich to Liverpool Street, where the aventras are used. These are also long with transverse seating and plug doors, the complete opposite of what I think a metro train should be. That's why I think that's a decline as I believe choosing newer train types for these routes has worsened over time, with a few exceptions.

Ok that makes sense, and maybe the door types alone don't really make all that much difference as I was thinking earlier. Those are good points about the acceleration also. I do feel it's important to have high acceleration on metro routes so for quick short stopping. But what about other factors then, like seating and layout differences that I just mentioned now? When I add those up, it doesn't make sense and feels like a downgrade to me to have a longer train with more seating, longer space between doors, and plus those doors are plug. That seems more suited to me for suburban, longer distance routes which have less stopping.

Aside from the fact the 710s are just as effective as the 378s on their routes, you're applying an unusual criteria of a metro-style train with short coaches, low amount of seating, and pocket doors that slide, whereas the more objective criteria would be high-capacity, low dwell times, and rapid acceleration and deceleration (hence the name rapid transit). Short coaches with pocket doors that slide would be no good to a metro system if the train was a slog getting up to speed, whereas a longer coach unit with plug doors that can superspeed it's way to 60 would be a valuable asset.

But additionally one problem that needs to be pointed out is that you're talking about a perceived decline of metro-style trains on services that aren't metros to begin with. It can be debated whether Liverpool Street to Norwich counts as regional or intercity, but it's definitely not a metro line. Neither is the London Overground which is an urban rail system (easy to forget in all fairness) where the fifteen minute intervals would be considered inadequate on a proper metro system like the Underground, which actually does have shorter coaches and lots of standing room.

 

[hwl]

It’s also notable that Networker doors are generally fairly quick to open and close,

Which they understood as part of the specification development

if not always the most reliable or easy to maintain.

Which they only found out about afterwards - that was very useful long term learning for the GB rail industry and plug door reliability across Europe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But additionally one problem that needs to be pointed out is that you're talking about a perceived decline of metro-style trains on services that aren't metros to begin with. It can be debated whether Liverpool Street to Norwich counts as regional or intercity, but it's definitely not a metro line. Neither is the London Overground which is an urban rail system (easy to forget in all fairness) where the fifteen minute intervals would be considered inadequate on a proper metro system like the Underground, which actually does have shorter coaches and lots of standing room.

In a way the German designations are better. London Overground and Merseyrail aren't U-Bahnen, which is what we'd usually describe as a metro, but they are S-Bahnen, which typically run at lower frequencies using heavy rail trains on heavy rail infrastructure. The Lizzie is also an S-Bahn, albeit one that due to very high demand operates very frequently compared with most.

 

[yorksrob]

I wouldn’t necessarily say NSE got the Networker design wrong, more they were built at a time when the priority for inner-suburban designs was maximising seating.

If you compare both the 365 and 465 with their successors, both have massively more seating. Certainly in the case of the 365, the consequence of this on GN was that a generation of commuters were more likely to get a seat, which I for one am grateful for.

It’s also notable that Networker doors are generally fairly quick to open and close, if not always the most reliable or easy to maintain.

A fairly justifiable concentration on maximising seating, given how far they get.

 

[bramling]

A fairly justifiable concentration on maximising seating, given how far they get.

Yes I find some of the comments about Southeastern overplayed. Southern metro manages to run Electrostars on everything, with their low-density layout. What I would do is take out the third seats from the 465s.

 

[Silent]

I think the "short train" thing is a misunderstanding in a way. Metro trains are often too short for the number of passengers who want to use them because of cost or infrastructure constraints. But that's not a deliberate beneficial design decision, it's just a constraint. That constraint is mitigated by using a layout that has a relatively low number of seats and can take a high number of standees.

Don’t shorter trains maybe lessen dwell times. I don’t mean really short, more like tube length. And frequency matters as well for capacity.

 

[Ridgeblog]

About the 378 vs 710 door type comparison - all I'm seeing is conjecture and no evidence.

As to the rest, I still have no clue what point you are trying to make.

The word 'decline' suggests a longitudinal comparison - a comparison of before and after. What's your basis of comparison? Remember, that traditionally National Rail didn't 'do' metro - all urban commuter networks used stock with 2+3 seating with small vestibules, well into the early 2000s. Looking at a few routes:

Thameslink: 319 -> 700
Overground: 313 -> 378/710
Crossrail: 315/165/166 -> 345
Cross City Line: 323 -> 730
SWR: 455 -> 701

In every case, we had 3+2 seating replaced by metro-layouts with standing areas, door areas became much bigger, the trains became walk-through, acceleration much better.

Where's the decline?

I'm describing how metro routes were generally treated in recent years, like last decade or so. Originally, I was focusing on the door types as that was the change that most stood out to me, but others here have corrected me in saying that plug doors have actually improved and do open as fast as pocket doors and other types discussed.

So for the classes you've suggested, the 700s were an improvement on those routes as you said, since they do have metro style seating and I mentioned that they have retained pocket doors, so not really a decline I would say.

I spoke about overground routes already, stating that while the 378s perform no problem, they do have less seating compared to the 710s, which do have more seating with the drawback to me being more seats so longer space between each pair of doors, making harder for those standing or sitting in the middle to get off and thus potentially slowing down service frequency as the train would have to wait longer if the carridges are overcrowded, but that's the only downgrade, so still not necessarily a drawback.

For similar reasons, I'd say the 345s were generally an upgrade, however the plug doors and longer width between pairs of doors really stood out to me. For those reasons it may have been a decline to use networkers on these routes as they also have all these drawbacks in comparison, but the plug doors and acceleration weren't as sophisticated.

730s and 701s I'd say were an upgrade in every way basically, barring functionlity and struggles into introducing them in service, especially 710s, so I can't really argue on that, though it's debatable anyway, as someone else here pointed out, whether you can call these routes 'metro' or not, so maybe I shouldn't have specified metro and instead say for more generally short stopping high density routes.

I can add a few more examples:

720s on anglia routes. It was said here that these were a downgrade since they had smaller vestibules and standing door space, but which was an accident specification they got wrong.

Networkers on SE 'Metro' routes. 3+2 seating, plug doors, long space between pairs of doors, do I need to say more?

C2c I'd say used to be a decline until they redesigned 357s to have 2+2 seating, and of course there were the 720s in addition.

 

[BayPaul]

I'd say the 345s were generally an upgrade, however the plug doors and longer width between pairs of doors really stood out to me.

The 345s are the only trains on the national rail network with 3 doors on each side of each carriage, so they certainly have a shorter average width between each pair of doors than any other train. Because of this feature, I'd regard them as the ultimate metro train - fast boarding has been prioritised over anything else.

 

[Dstock7080]

The 345s are the only trains on the national rail network with 3 doors on each side of each carriage, so they certainly have a shorter average width between each pair of doors than any other train.

230s and 484s have 3-4 doors

 

[Silent]

The 345s are the only trains on the national rail network with 3 doors on each side of each carriage, so they certainly have a shorter average width between each pair of doors than any other train. Because of this feature, I'd regard them as the ultimate metro train - fast boarding has been prioritised over anything else.

Thats what overground should do for future train orders

 

[edwin_m]

Thats what overground should do for future train orders

Note that the Overground classes are about 20m long per vehicle, whereas the 345 is about 24m. I assume there is some clearance restriction that prevents a longer bodyshell on Overground routes, as there is on much of the third rail network. So any future Overground class would probably also be of 20m vehicles, and a third set of doors would give a closer door spacing than on the Elizabeth Line.

 

[Silent]

Note that the Overground classes are about 20m long per vehicle, whereas the 345 is about 24m. I assume there is some clearance restriction that prevents a longer bodyshell on Overground routes, as there is on much of the third rail network. So any future Overground class would probably also be of 20m vehicles, and a third set of doors would give a closer door spacing than on the Elizabeth Line.

tube train carriages are short yet have three sets of doors per carraige

 

[edwin_m]

tube train carriages are short yet have three sets of doors per carraige

Yes they are, not far off "peak door" where the doors take up 50% of the length and start bumping into each other.

The possibility of platform screen doors may start to play a part here as well. I'm not sure if the PSD on the Jubilee extension are exactly evenly spaced, but they look quite close with every third platform door aligning with the two single leaves on the ends of adjacent cars. I believe the doors on the 345 also give an even spacing along the length of the train - which also smooths passenger flow a bit by evening up the numbers near each door. I'm not sure how even the spacing is on the various fleets with two sets of doors per side, or with something like S Stock which might conceivably find itself operating with PSDs during its lifetime.