All change for the Metropolitan Line

Earlier this week, I met with representatives of London Underground to discuss their plans to update the rolling stock for the Metropolitan Line. Earlier this week, I met with representatives of London Underground todiscuss their plans to update the rolling stock for the MetropolitanLine. Readers of the Watford Observer may remember an article in the Summer where I raised concerns about the reduction in seats which will be available to Met Line commuters when the existing trains are replaced. It is a matter where I have a personal interest (being a daily commuter on the Met Line), hence the Watford Observer's headline "MP fears losing his seat" (this caused me a moment's panic when Iopened the page before I realised the article was about trains!).

The background is that the fairly elderly rolling stock used for theMetropolitan Line is going to be replaced as a consequence of the PublicPrivate Partnership and the investment into the Underground. This process will commence in 2010 and should be completed b 2013.

How will this affect commuters?

First, the good news. The new trains will have wider seats, air conditioning and will be easier to get on and off. They will acceleratemore quickly and have higher top speeds (with a reduction in the bouncing around). This means that, once the new trains are fully operational, more trains can be run, so there will be an increase in the number of trains and a decrease in journey times. Given the wider seats, air conditioning and reduction in bouncing, those with seats will have a more comfortable journey.

But there's the rub - "those with seats".

And that brings me to the bad news. The number of seats per train will be reduced dramatically. Whereas a Met train currently has 448 seats, the new version will have just 306 - in practice, this not as a disastrous as first appears (of which more later) but why the reductionin seats? The principal reason, according to LU, is that the seats willbe wider. Another reason is that more space is being created to allowmore people to stand and to enable passengers to get on and off morequickly.

This brings me to the dilemma which LU faces. Is the Metropolitan Line a "metro" line, designed to convey a large number of people short distances with large numbers of people getting on and off at stations relatively close together, like the Circle or Central Lines. Or is it a"suburban" or "commuter" service, conveying large numbers of commutersfrom the commuter belt and suburbs reasonably substantial distances toLondon, like the Chiltern Line? In truth, it is both. For those of ususing the Hertfordshire stations, it clearly has more in common with theChiltern Line. However, as someone who used to live near Finchley Roadstation and caught the Met to Aldgate, most of that journey was along aroute shared with the Circle Line, involving frequent stops and manypeople making relatively short journeys.

In an ideal world, the different types of journey require different types of carriage. A commuter train requires plenty of seating becausepeople cannot be expected to stand for long periods of time. For this,"transverse" seating (as seen in the current trains) is appropriate. Ametro carriage needs plenty of standing space to cope with swarms of people who are prepared to stand for short periods and a design which enables them to get on and off quickly (for which "longitudinal" seating - running along the sides of the carriages - works best). Up until now, the Metropolitan Line trains have clearly been better suited as commuter, as opposed to metro, purposes.

As a consequence of these different demands, we have a compromise, although one which leans too far, in my opinion, towards the metrorequirements. It will have banks of four transverse seats on one sidewith longitudinal seats on the other. More seats could have placed inthe trains (although not a huge number more) by having transverse seating on both sides but this would have reduced the width of the aisles and hence slowed people getting on and off at stations. Equally, the design could have had fewer seats still by having longitudinal seatson both sides (as I believe Ken Livingstone wanted) so it could havebeen worse.

LU argue that by adopting the design they have, stopping times for the busiest stretch of the route (Baker Street to Aldgate) will be quicker, enabling them to run more trains. This is why the reduction in seats is not as bad as it seems. Yes, the number of seats per train fallssignificantly but there will be more trains, promise LU. LU's figuressuggest that seating capacity for Rickmansworth and Chorleywood willfall by 2% and Moor Park by 16% once the new timetable is in place. Standing capacity for all three stations will be increased substantially (if that is any consolation). This would suggest that commuters at Chorleywood and Rickmansworth should still get seats (unless commuter numbers increase dramatically) although Moor Park commuters may be struggling.

The figures above relate to when the new timetable is in place. Indeed,it is reasonable to believe that they might be on the pessimistic sidebecause it compares what happens when the current service runs on schedule (which it never does) with the new service running on schedule (which with new trains and track etc it might just do occasionally).

However, things are going to be very difficult during the three year period when the new trains replace the old. This is because the high seat capacity trains will be replaced but the frequency and speed oftrains will remain what they were because there are still a few of theold trains slowing down the system. The problem will grow increasinglyacute as the old trains are phased out but the timetable remains thesame. No figures have yet been calculated as to seating capacity forthis period, whether because it is impossible to work this out yet orbecause the results will be too depressing to calculate. Either way,the winter of 2012/13 looks like being a grim one for commuters from ourpart of the world.

When this scenario was put to me by LU, I urged them to do everything they can to mitigate these problems. Could old trains and new trains be clustered together, so that parts of the day could run the "fast" timetable and other parts of the day run the "slow" timetable but with the high seat capacity trains? Could there be additional trains runningto Baker Street (where the schedule is less crowded)? Perhaps the Watford to Baker Street train (which stops at Moor Park) could remain of the old design for longer, to provide as many seats as possible for Moor Park? LU is not able to make a commitment at this stage, but I hope that this is high up their agenda. I also hope they will look again at the scheduling of trains for Moor Park, where it is already difficult to get seat on occasions.

A lot of money is being spent, we will have trains fit for the 21st century and travelling times will be reduced. However, in designing the next generation of Metropolitan line trains, the interests of the Hertfordshire commuters should not be forgotten.