Jump to content
IGNORED

Rail Seating


Red Army 75

Recommended Posts

  • SC&T Board Members
9 minutes ago, Barkhamred said:

In the second picture doesn't the independent rail at the front encroach into the space needed for standing / passing by to ones seat (sorry space!)? It can be a tight fit at the moment if someone with a larger frame wishes to pass by.

In their situation that's not really an issue, as the metal seat on the row behind takes up no more space than the rail itself. Clearly if they had the bulkier tip-up seats and a rail taking up that amount of space on every row it would indeed be a very tight squeeze.

Hopefully the seat/rail configuration at AG will increase the space along each row rather than reduce it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, matalan12 said:

Nope, not a bit more. exactly the same as it is now.

they should of planned for this right from the start, using the singing section as something to be proud of, bang in the middle behind the goal. instead of being shoved in the corner, being seen as more of an inconvenience

Wouldn't a load of people standing right behind the goal spoil the view of everyone else who either isn't in a standing seat or would rather just sit?

At least where S82 are accommodated now they can stand without any inconvenience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, matalan12 said:

A whole end standing, thats my vision. Would of looked very impressive, and the potential was there. Given the opportunity, the demand is there as well i feel. but its too late now, unfortunately.

Sir Jack Hayward Stand With Standing Safety Barriers

Looking Towards The Stand Cullis Stand

That's my ideal situation too. Ideally, away fans shoved in the corner nearest that end with home fans all stood behind one goal. I wish they'd done this with the Atyeo and put away fans either in Dolman A/B or that corner of the Lansdown. Logistically it's too challenging now I think.

A reasonable compromise could be something like this

 

Image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • SC&T Board Members
11 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

That's my ideal situation too. Ideally, away fans shoved in the corner nearest that end with home fans all stood behind one goal. I wish they'd done this with the Atyeo and put away fans either in Dolman A/B or that corner of the Lansdown. Logistically it's too challenging now I think.

A reasonable compromise could be something like this

 

Image

Agreed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

That's my ideal situation too. Ideally, away fans shoved in the corner nearest that end with home fans all stood behind one goal. I wish they'd done this with the Atyeo and put away fans either in Dolman A/B or that corner of the Lansdown. Logistically it's too challenging now I think.

A reasonable compromise could be something like this

 

Image

I imagine this is a pilot to see how things go with a small section of fans. 

No point doing it for the whole end if not we'll received, doesn't work etc.

Also we have a lot of fans who won't stand no matter what and who won't be moved, so it's a bit of a cultural battle as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

Sounds like a real positive, however when I was a nipper, you would negotiate your place on the terrace so that you were able to see, usually by standing in front of a tall person, rather than behind. 

I wonder how this will work on a fixed seat basis?

Why do tall people always seem to go to the front at concerts and sports events ? 
 Tall gits. 
 

:bounce:

let me see , let me see .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, matalan12 said:

 

Still, it does not change the fact from a singing section point of view, that its always been viewed as a hindrance, rather than a focal point. Rails or no rails.

 

I'm sorry, but that's just not true. If the singing section was viewed as a hindrance, it wouldn't be there. When I was SLO, not just myself but everyone at the club bent over backwards to ensure that the hard core of vocal support from the East End had somewhere to congregate during the stadium redevelopment, because there  was (and clearly still is) an understanding that the vocal support they offer is a key part of making the stadium a noisier place. There is also recognition that some fans want to stand, and therefore we had to try and find a way of letting them do that, even though ground regulations and government rules didn't allow it. It's been a sometimes messy compromise over the years, and I'm glad to see that the situation is now becoming more clear cut. But you shouldn't confuse the necessity of complying with complicated safety regulations with a lack of desire from the club to provide standing areas for those that want them. Hats off too to @Blagdon red who has been a tireless advocate for safe standing - as have certain key figure at Ashton Gate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Dave L said:

I'm sorry, but that's just not true. If the singing section was viewed as a hindrance, it wouldn't be there. When I was SLO, not just myself but everyone at the club bent over backwards to ensure that the hard core of vocal support from the East End had somewhere to congregate during the stadium redevelopment, because there  was (and clearly still is) an understanding that the vocal support they offer is a key part of making the stadium a noisier place. There is also recognition that some fans want to stand, and therefore we had to try and find a way of letting them do that, even though ground regulations and government rules didn't allow it. It's been a sometimes messy compromise over the years, and I'm glad to see that the situation is now becoming more clear cut. But you shouldn't confuse the necessity of complying with complicated safety regulations with a lack of desire from the club to provide standing areas for those that want them. Hats off too to @Blagdon red who has been a tireless advocate for safe standing - as have certain key figure at Ashton Gate.

Well said Dave. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, matalan12 said:

Nope, not a bit more. exactly the same as it is now.

they should of planned for this right from the start, using the singing section as something to be proud of, bang in the middle behind the goal. instead of being shoved in the corner, being seen as more of an inconvenience

Fair enough. I've never been in S82 so I'm not surprised I got the sections wrong. 

Ideally I think you'd extend standing along the back of the south stand, maybe the back 10 or 15 rows. You'd end up with something similar to what you get at away grounds where people who stand go to the back and those who sit gravitate to the front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WolfOfWestStreet said:

I imagine this is a pilot to see how things go with a small section of fans. 

No point doing it for the whole end if not we'll received, doesn't work etc.

Also we have a lot of fans who won't stand no matter what and who won't be moved, so it's a bit of a cultural battle as well. 

Yep corner is a good start. If it’s popular and works well it can be expanded further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could we have some kind of agreement between the fans in that section. That we will treat it as unreserved as normal. We need to somehow get the message out to the fans in this section. Otherwise there is going to be alot of problems created by the club. I've been in an area with some friends since it opened and get on well with the other people around me. I really dont understand why by putting a rail in front of our seats makes the section need to be reserved seating?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, nebristolred said:

As far as I understand it, rail seating is a 'workaround' to allow people to stand during games within the law to some extent. Even though the club are required to issue reminders/warnings for persistent standing (not that they will). It's a bit of a compromise within the law.

I think that's the reason why it doesn't (or can't) increase capacity at this stage. It isn't technically standing, you are still allocated a seat. It is just providing facilities if it just so happens that people end up standing in these areas and the club will happen to turn a blind eye to it. I think that's correct at least.

 

It's all silly on a policy level isn't it? The government have this ideological approach of not wanting to go back on what was a poorly implemented idea in the first place, and so clubs have to come up with workarounds that allow us to kind of get away with it, but really the government should just change the law. 

It's the same with drug policy and the home office.  "We know our drug policies are working and nothing needs to change." In the background though tons is changing because their approach is stupid and more dangerous. 

Credit to those that keep fighting for change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, T R said:

Could we have some kind of agreement between the fans in that section. That we will treat it as unreserved as normal. We need to somehow get the message out to the fans in this section. Otherwise there is going to be alot of problems created by the club. I've been in an area with some friends since it opened and get on well with the other people around me. I really dont understand why by putting a rail in front of our seats makes the section need to be reserved seating?

We could do it by ummmm, talking to each other at the ground? Radical I know. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not understand how in 2020 we do not have some degree of "safe standing" aka what every other country in the world has. 

I was in Mainz not long ago and was sat in the main tribune block on the steps until the game started, barriers everywhere and it was easy and I stood the entire 90 minutes from the start. They have a similiar sized stadium to us (think it may actually be mid 30k) and one entire stand is "safe standing".

That being said, no one is going to want to go to championship games with/without safe standing if the ticket prices are still in the 30-40 quid region. Should be capped as a reflection of that of the prem, but that's another topic for another day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, matalan12 said:

If government rules didn't allow it, how did it happen? I'll tell you how. because like minded fans were going to stand if they wanted to, regardless.

If its seen as such a key part of making noise and creating atmosphere, why were we moved from one side of the Atyeo to the other, only to be moved to the South Stand as a last resort. probably as a request from police and authorities, more as a safety measure than a club desire. i don't think i've ever known ashton gate to be quieter, less atmospheric. you regularly read comments on here about how S82 cannot be heard from certain areas.

The South Stand was built from scratch and as such, huge potential to create an end was there that visiting clubs could be envious of.

I would be honestly surprised if any of those 14 likes are from people that have been in that section all these years. or maybe i'm just weird for feeling this way if i am, fair enough.

Going to defend, perhaps even praise the club here.

Who was the first club to raise head above parapet and look to try to get Safe Standing? Us!

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/nov/30/bristol-city-safe-standing-british-football-grounds

We in fact had hopes for 3,152 safe standing spaces if this article broadly accurate, was reading this last night and remembering.

Pre redevelopment, we actually had a small showcase in the Atyeo!

rail-seats-bristol-city-618x330.jpg

https://www.bristolcitysupporters.org/renewed-commitment-safe-standing-welcomed/

The above article in addition.

There it is being safety checked- different article again I think.

article-2560296-1B83C2D600000578-69_634x

We literally had nowhere to go however, with the legislation at the time as it turned  out. However I believe the intent was there and 3,152, over 10% of overall capacity isn't bad- nearly three times or between 2.5 and 3 times the current singing section?

http://www.fsf.org.uk/latest-news/view/bristol-city-propose-rail-seats-at-ashton-gate

If the below article is broadly correct, legislation basically hemmed us in- it was out of our hands it seems!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-29738556

One more article from the time, reinforcing it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/26141427

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Going to defend, perhaps even praise the club here.

Who was the first club to raise head above parapet and look to try to get Safe Standing? Us!

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/nov/30/bristol-city-safe-standing-british-football-grounds

We in fact had hopes for 3,152 safe standing spaces if this article broadly accurate, was reading this last night and remembering.

Pre redevelopment, we actually had a small showcase in the Atyeo!

rail-seats-bristol-city-618x330.jpg

https://www.bristolcitysupporters.org/renewed-commitment-safe-standing-welcomed/

The above article in addition.

There it is being safety checked.

article-2560296-1B83C2D600000578-69_634x

We literally had nowhere to go however, with the legislation at the time as it turned  out. However I believe the intent was there and 3,152, over 10% of overall capacity isn't bad- nearly three times or between 2.5 and 3 times the current singing section?

I’m really proud of the club for being brave enough to forge ahead.

I just wish they’d realise that specific seating isn’t necessary. Maybe they do and it’s just lip service to get this over the line?

Rather like the Manchester games?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, 054123 said:

I’m really proud of the club for being brave enough to forge ahead.

I just wish they’d realise that specific seating isn’t necessary. Maybe they do it’s just lip service to get this over the line?

Rather like the Manchester games?

Agreed.

Only exceptions would have to be when spot checks by Licensing Authority, but specific seating isn't necessary, why would it be- a daft rule aside.

Also a chance that it would evolve and start out with smallish numbers and reserved seating and then maybe hit the 3,000 or so, or equivalent % in whatever stadia and unreserved over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/bristol-city-play-prominent-part-1717364

 We came up in the safe standing debate nearly two years ago now:

Quote

Luke Hall, MP for Thornbury and Yate, used the Robins and Bristol Bears' usage of Ashton Gate to point out that football clubs currently adhere to the advice and guidance of local experts.

The Robins did initially install the first block of safe standing rail seating in English football in 2014 and Hall said giving clubs the adaptability to do this would allow them to future-proof their stadiums.

Alas- seems as I thought we were hemmed in during 2013/14 and 2014/15- and football has been subsequently until the first pilot schemes were allowed ie Shrewsbury, and latterly Tottenham and Wolves, ready for the legislation to change!

I also suspect 'advice' means instructions/orders! In this context anyway.

Quote

He said: "Ashton Gate is the home of Bristol City Football Club and Bristol Rugby—the matches are held in the same ground. Yet the ground regulations on standing, for each sport, are in stark contrast to each other.

"Bristol City previously applied to the local safety advisory group to consider the possibility of introducing safe standing. Rail seating was considered at the start of the redevelopment of Ashton Gate in the 2013-14 and 2014-15 seasons, when the club was in League One.

"The possibility of progress on that was part of the reason why Bristol Rugby started to play at Ashton Gate. However, Avon and Somerset police have explained that it never took off following advice from the local safety advisory group.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lastly, the plans from the time ie 2013/2014 season.

http://www.fsf.org.uk/assets/Downloads/Safe-standing/Rail-Seats-Safe-Standing-Bristol-City-Wedlock-Stand.pdf

http://www.fsf.org.uk/assets/Downloads/Safe-standing/Rail-Seats-Safe-Standing-Dolman-Stand-Bristol-City.pdf

Interestingly, in those blueprints it appears to be in the lower half of the stand or chunks of it. The latter of course in the Dolman might have enabled more interaction between home and away if it was right across the lower sections, with a further positive knock-on effect for atmosphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Red94 said:

Get a designated seat for next season but still stand where you want in the section I think everyone is going to follow this philosophy ?.

Works for a period until time goes on, potd or newer fans come along, don't know the 'system' and then genuinely want the seat/standing spot they paid for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nebristolred said:

Works for a period until time goes on, potd or newer fans come along, don't know the 'system' and then genuinely want the seat/standing spot they paid for.

Then just let them know how it works I’m pretty sure you can’t get potd in those sections anyway? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • SC&T Board Members

Related to this discussion on rail seating / barriers, there's an interesting line in the planning application for Everton's new stadium, which has just gone online. Talking about the proposed safe standing areas it says:

"The 750mm row depths will allow for two 350mm deep rows"

That's a requirement for increasing capacity, so they are making provision for doing just that.

As the image below shows, what they are allowing for is a rail seat taking up 50mm and the two 350mm steps required by the safety regulations. This layout gives them scope for a 50% capacity increase in those areas.

Hopefully City will have this sort of futureproofing in their plans for the Section 82 area! The rows there are all deeper than Everton's, so would permit a higher percentage increase.

Two steps on 750mm row cropped.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Red94 said:

Get a designated seat for next season but still stand where you want in the section I think everyone is going to follow this philosophy ?.

Is the club deffenalty going to let this happen as don't want to find myself moved away from my friends, one of the main reasons I love section 82 is the freedom to move around , if rail seating stops this from happening then I would definitely not want rail seating, as the current unreserved way is far better, the club really need to make clear how they are going to be managing the area next season,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, winsaw said:

Is the club deffenalty going to let this happen as don't want to find myself moved away from my friends, one of the main reasons I love section 82 is the freedom to move around , if rail seating stops this from happening then I would definitely not want rail seating, as the current unreserved way is far better, the club really need to make clear how they are going to be managing the area next season,

Club has to 'play the game' though, so to speak.

We'll see how it goes. It's good news but lest we forget, still it said on the site 'subject to SAG approval.' Now I suspect that's a formality but club will surely need to demonstrate that they're trying to stick to it.

Here we go, the key line that has me putting champagne on ice a little:

Quote

To comply with current safety regulations, supporters will need a reserved seat to ensure that the correct number of supporters are in the designated rail/barrier seating blocks. This is subject to approval from the Safety Advisory Group (SAG).

I think the overcrowding issue can be avoided regardless of reserved seats basically but this seems to be a condition of or an * against?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...