On 2014\11\26 14:53, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:22:25
on Wed, 26 Nov 2014, David Cantrell remarked:
Short platform lengths at some stations limit
future lengthening.

I don't understand this. Are people really too ****ing stupid to
understand announcements like "passengers for Some Station must travel
in the front four carriages"? Cos those work just fine elsewhere on the
rail network.

With ungangwayed 4-car units it's not always obvious which one you are
in without getting out and having a look. I've even been on an 8-car
(double 4-car) unit with a through gangway which was about to arrive at
a splitting station and just to confuse everyone they'd already locked
and closed the gangway.

The answer is for separate warnings to be heard in separate carriages.

In message , at 15:32:21 on Wed, 26 Nov
2014, Basil Jet remarked:
Short platform lengths at some stations limit
future lengthening.

I don't understand this. Are people really too ****ing stupid to
understand announcements like "passengers for Some Station must travel
in the front four carriages"? Cos those work just fine elsewhere on the
rail network.

With ungangwayed 4-car units it's not always obvious which one you are
in without getting out and having a look. I've even been on an 8-car
(double 4-car) unit with a through gangway which was about to arrive at
a splitting station and just to confuse everyone they'd already locked
and closed the gangway.

The answer is for separate warnings to be heard in separate carriages.

Ha! That's for too complicated for train designers.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Basil Jet)
wrote:

On 2014\11\26 14:18, David Cantrell wrote:

Lots of them get off at Canada Water. I presume that they're
heading for the Jubilee line and Canary Wharf.

I've just noticed that a straight line from Bermondsey Station to
Canary Wharf Station pretty much goes through Rotherhithe Station.
Does anyone know why Canada Water was built at all?

To serve docklands developments there?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
14:22:25 on Wed, 26 Nov 2014, David Cantrell
remarked:
Short platform lengths at some stations limit
future lengthening.

I don't understand this. Are people really too ****ing stupid to
understand announcements like "passengers for Some Station must travel
in the front four carriages"? Cos those work just fine elsewhere on the
rail network.

With ungangwayed 4-car units it's not always obvious which one you
are in without getting out and having a look. I've even been on an
8-car (double 4-car) unit with a through gangway which was about to
arrive at a splitting station and just to confuse everyone they'd
already locked and closed the gangway.

I presume that is why the PIS on some 377s says which coach one is in.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 2014-11-26 18:32:41 +0000, said:

I presume that is why the PIS on some 377s says which coach one is in.

Yes, it's been modified to do that, which is why you get oddities like
the destination scrolling in the second row even where it doesn't need
to. Originally it was first line destination, second line scrolling
stopping points, no coach numbers.

Though it surprised me they didn't use the national standard of letters
rather than numbers.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 02:53:15PM +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:22:25
on Wed, 26 Nov 2014, David Cantrell remarked:
Short platform lengths at some stations limit
future lengthening.
I don't understand this. Are people really too ****ing stupid to
understand announcements like "passengers for Some Station must travel
in the front four carriages"? Cos those work just fine elsewhere on the
rail network.
With ungangwayed 4-car units it's not always obvious which one you are
in without getting out and having a look ...

Hence all the "this is coach [pause] 5 [pause] of [pause] 8"
announcements.

--
David Cantrell | semi-evolved ape-thing

If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you're reading it in English, thank Chaucer.

On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 06:40:34 -0800 (PST)
Mark wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 November 2014 19:06:56 UTC, wrote:
I still think S stock running on the ELL as a tube route terminating at
new cross + gate would have been a better choice despite extra traffic
from further south since interchange would have been fairly easy.

Where would the extra services from further south terminate? No terminating
facility
at New Cross Gate, and no capacity at London Bridge.

They could have had reversers further up the line. Lets be honest - the real
raison d'etre for the ELL now is to get people from highbury to shadwell or
canada water to get to canary wharf so bypassing a huge chunk of central
london. The south bit is mainly irrelevant since trains already went to
london bridge where people could already get the jubilee anyway.

Same applies for terminating from the north at New Cross Gate. Terminating 12
tph
there would be challenging, perhaps not impossible but the knock-on effect of
a problem would be far bigger than with multiple quieter terminuses.

How do other tube lines cope then? Where there's a will...

route. A train load of people changing at New Cross Gate would cause chaos
there, even
after they've finished rebuilding it.

That logic didn't seem to stop the closure of the farringdon to moorgate
branch so its odd TfL seem to think it applies in south london but not north
london.

South london is already oversubscribed with national rail services, it didn't
need another. The ELL with a high frequency fast tube service would have been
a better option for those of us north of the river than the dog slow service
we ended up with.

--
Spud

In message , at 13:06:57
on Thu, 27 Nov 2014, David Cantrell remarked:
Short platform lengths at some stations limit
future lengthening.
I don't understand this. Are people really too ****ing stupid to
understand announcements like "passengers for Some Station must travel
in the front four carriages"? Cos those work just fine elsewhere on the
rail network.
With ungangwayed 4-car units it's not always obvious which one you are
in without getting out and having a look ...

Hence all the "this is coach [pause] 5 [pause] of [pause] 8"
announcements.

None of the (splitting) trains I've been on have that sort of
announcement.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
13:06:57 on Thu, 27 Nov 2014, David Cantrell
remarked:
Short platform lengths at some stations limit
future lengthening.
I don't understand this. Are people really too ****ing stupid to
understand announcements like "passengers for Some Station must travel
in the front four carriages"? Cos those work just fine elsewhere on
the rail network.
With ungangwayed 4-car units it's not always obvious which one you are
in without getting out and having a look ...

Hence all the "this is coach [pause] 5 [pause] of [pause] 8"
announcements.

None of the (splitting) trains I've been on have that sort of
announcement.

Trains like that do have workings that split but I admit not having been on
one when it did.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 13:06:57
on Thu, 27 Nov 2014, David Cantrell remarked:
Short platform lengths at some stations limit
future lengthening.
I don't understand this. Are people really too ****ing stupid to
understand announcements like "passengers for Some Station must travel
in the front four carriages"? Cos those work just fine elsewhere on the
rail network.
With ungangwayed 4-car units it's not always obvious which one you are
in without getting out and having a look ...

Hence all the "this is coach [pause] 5 [pause] of [pause] 8"
announcements.

None of the (splitting) trains I've been on have that sort of
announcement.

A standard Southern message on I think all 377s not just those that
split. (I forget if 455s have this as a screen message)

--
Mark