I wonder if they plan to do a mock up anywhere in town.


http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/11/her...g-as-standard/

wrote:
I wonder if they plan to do a mock up anywhere in town.


http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/11/her...g-as-standard/


Do we know why the initial TfL Rail sets for the Liverpool Street to
Shenfield service will only be seven-car? Are there some current platform
length restrictions?

On 22.11.15 16:35, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
I wonder if they plan to do a mock up anywhere in town.


http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/11/her...g-as-standard/


Do we know why the initial TfL Rail sets for the Liverpool Street to
Shenfield service will only be seven-car? Are there some current platform
length restrictions?


No idea.

On 2015\11\22 21:53, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 16:35:54 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

wrote:
I wonder if they plan to do a mock up anywhere in town.


http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/11/her...g-as-standard/


Do we know why the initial TfL Rail sets for the Liverpool Street to
Shenfield service will only be seven-car? Are there some current platform
length restrictions?

As a follow up to my other post I have subsequently found this on the
web.

"2.4.4 Following the introduction of Crossrail services, the number of
platforms at London Liverpool Street station will reduce from 18 to
17. This is to enable platforms 16 and 17 to be lengthened to
accommodate Crossrail trains; platform 18 will be taken out of
commission."


Maybe I'm being really thick, but I see no reason why the trains running
through Liverpool Street deep have to fit in Liverpool Street surface.
Certainly not if they have to lose a platform to do it.

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2015\11\22 21:53, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 16:35:54 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

wrote:
I wonder if they plan to do a mock up anywhere in town.


http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/11/her...g-as-standard/


Do we know why the initial TfL Rail sets for the Liverpool Street to
Shenfield service will only be seven-car? Are there some current platform
length restrictions?

As a follow up to my other post I have subsequently found this on the
web.

"2.4.4 Following the introduction of Crossrail services, the number of
platforms at London Liverpool Street station will reduce from 18 to
17. This is to enable platforms 16 and 17 to be lengthened to
accommodate Crossrail trains; platform 18 will be taken out of
commission."


Maybe I'm being really thick, but I see no reason why the trains running
through Liverpool Street deep have to fit in Liverpool Street surface.
Certainly not if they have to lose a platform to do it.

The new trains will be running into Liverpool St surface platforms before
the tunnel opens, hence the need for the initial batch to be shorter to
fit.

Even after the tunnel opens, some Crossrail trains will serve the surface
platforms, hence the need to lengthen (some of) the surface platforms. But
fewer surface platforms will be needed when most of the Shenfield trains
will be using the tunnel.

On 2015\11\24 12:50, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:16:27 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2015\11\22 21:53, Paul Corfield wrote:

As a follow up to my other post I have subsequently found this on the
web.

"2.4.4 Following the introduction of Crossrail services, the number of
platforms at London Liverpool Street station will reduce from 18 to
17. This is to enable platforms 16 and 17 to be lengthened to
accommodate Crossrail trains; platform 18 will be taken out of
commission."

Maybe I'm being really thick, but I see no reason why the trains running
through Liverpool Street deep have to fit in Liverpool Street surface.
Certainly not if they have to lose a platform to do it.

The service level to be provided on the Shenfield line is such that
not all peak trains can run via the tunnel. Therefore some have to
run into the surface platforms. It's as simple as that. To allow the
9 car Class 345s to run into the local platforms on the east side of
LST requires the platform modifications.


I didn't make myself clear. I meant that I see no reason why the trains
terminating at Liverpool Street have to be as long as the trains going
through to Paddington. Certainly not if they have to lose a platform to
do it. How long are these trains and platforms now? Why would the
introduction of Crossrail bring about an increase in the number of
people using Liverpool Street, because I would expect a decrease.

On 2015-11-24, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2015\11\24 12:50, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:16:27 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2015\11\22 21:53, Paul Corfield wrote:

As a follow up to my other post I have subsequently found this on the
web.

"2.4.4 Following the introduction of Crossrail services, the number of
platforms at London Liverpool Street station will reduce from 18 to
17. This is to enable platforms 16 and 17 to be lengthened to
accommodate Crossrail trains; platform 18 will be taken out of
commission."

Maybe I'm being really thick, but I see no reason why the trains running
through Liverpool Street deep have to fit in Liverpool Street surface.
Certainly not if they have to lose a platform to do it.

The service level to be provided on the Shenfield line is such that
not all peak trains can run via the tunnel. Therefore some have to
run into the surface platforms. It's as simple as that. To allow the
9 car Class 345s to run into the local platforms on the east side of
LST requires the platform modifications.


I didn't make myself clear. I meant that I see no reason why the trains
terminating at Liverpool Street have to be as long as the trains going
through to Paddington. Certainly not if they have to lose a platform to
do it. How long are these trains and platforms now? Why would the
introduction of Crossrail bring about an increase in the number of
people using Liverpool Street, because I would expect a decrease.

Because over time the cost of not having a uniform fleet (spare sets,
scheduling problems for the normal timetable, flexibility when something
goes wrong ...) is probably greater than the cost of fiddling with
the end of one platform (2 faces). That's all its about. There _will_
be fewer passengers (and fewer trains) at Liverpool Street ("surface"),
so there's no reason not to lose one platform that is just long enough
for an 8-car 315.

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:00:09 +0100
Eric wrote:
On 2015-11-24, Basil Jet wrote:
I didn't make myself clear. I meant that I see no reason why the trains
terminating at Liverpool Street have to be as long as the trains going
through to Paddington. Certainly not if they have to lose a platform to
do it. How long are these trains and platforms now? Why would the
introduction of Crossrail bring about an increase in the number of
people using Liverpool Street, because I would expect a decrease.

Because over time the cost of not having a uniform fleet (spare sets,
scheduling problems for the normal timetable, flexibility when something
goes wrong ...) is probably greater than the cost of fiddling with

Thats something LU finally figured out when it ordered the S stock.

the end of one platform (2 faces). That's all its about. There _will_
be fewer passengers (and fewer trains) at Liverpool Street ("surface"),
so there's no reason not to lose one platform that is just long enough
for an 8-car 315.

So one platformn is being removed from LS just after the Overground has
started running into it. I'm sure this will end well. *cough*

--
Spud

On 2015\11\24 16:00, Eric wrote:
On 2015-11-24, Basil Jet wrote:

I didn't make myself clear. I meant that I see no reason why the trains
terminating at Liverpool Street have to be as long as the trains going
through to Paddington. Certainly not if they have to lose a platform to
do it. How long are these trains and platforms now? Why would the
introduction of Crossrail bring about an increase in the number of
people using Liverpool Street, because I would expect a decrease.

Because over time the cost of not having a uniform fleet (spare sets,
scheduling problems for the normal timetable, flexibility when something
goes wrong ...) is probably greater than the cost of fiddling with
the end of one platform (2 faces). That's all its about. There _will_
be fewer passengers (and fewer trains) at Liverpool Street ("surface"),
so there's no reason not to lose one platform that is just long enough
for an 8-car 315.

I suppose when you add up all the costs involved it does make sense!

On 2015-11-24, d wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:00:09 +0100
Eric wrote:
On 2015-11-24, Basil Jet wrote:
I didn't make myself clear. I meant that I see no reason why the trains
terminating at Liverpool Street have to be as long as the trains going
through to Paddington. Certainly not if they have to lose a platform to
do it. How long are these trains and platforms now? Why would the
introduction of Crossrail bring about an increase in the number of
people using Liverpool Street, because I would expect a decrease.

Because over time the cost of not having a uniform fleet (spare sets,
scheduling problems for the normal timetable, flexibility when something
goes wrong ...) is probably greater than the cost of fiddling with

Thats something LU finally figured out when it ordered the S stock.

the end of one platform (2 faces). That's all its about. There _will_
be fewer passengers (and fewer trains) at Liverpool Street ("surface"),
so there's no reason not to lose one platform that is just long enough
for an 8-car 315.

So one platformn is being removed from LS just after the Overground has
started running into it. I'm sure this will end well. *cough*

No, the existing Shenfield trains use 16,17,18. When Crossrail opens
they will go through the centre (i.e. the new Liverpool Street Crossrail
platforms) except for some in the peak that will go into the existing
Liverpool Street using platforms 16 and 17 - 18 will have been lost to
make 16 and 17 long enough.

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry