Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
S R wrote:
I can't see any reason why they'd diagram in such a way to be 376 only, but it could be done in theory, which is why I assume the OP asked the question. My reason for asking was concern that routes limited by platform length to 8-car trains would see all their peak-period 6- and 8-car trains replaced by 5-car trains. Which stations/routes are restricted to 8 cars? I might have been sensible to have designed the 376s with selective door opening to permit 10 car working to these stations. What actually is the history of the 12 car networker thing? I recall lots of platform lengthening happening at about the time the networkers were coming in, but I wasn't really paying attention at the time? What work was left undone that would have allowed 12 car trains, and what were the originally intended routes for them? Robin |
#12
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
R.C. Payne wrote:
S R wrote: I can't see any reason why they'd diagram in such a way to be 376 only, but it could be done in theory, which is why I assume the OP asked the question. My reason for asking was concern that routes limited by platform length to 8-car trains would see all their peak-period 6- and 8-car trains replaced by 5-car trains. Which stations/routes are restricted to 8 cars? I might have been sensible to have designed the 376s with selective door opening to permit 10 car working to these stations. What actually is the history of the 12 car networker thing? I recall lots of platform lengthening happening at about the time the networkers were coming in, but I wasn't really paying attention at the time? What work was left undone that would have allowed 12 car trains, and what were the originally intended routes for them? Robin I still have the leaflets for the Networker launch. There is talk of power supply upgrades required (where have I heard that since), longer platforms, signaling improvements (later followed up by the Dartford resignal ling. Use of longer trains (up to 12 coach), high power mode, regenerative braking etc. Chris |
#13
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"R.C. Payne" wrote in message ...
S R wrote: I can't see any reason why they'd diagram in such a way to be 376 only, but it could be done in theory, which is why I assume the OP asked the question. My reason for asking was concern that routes limited by platform length to 8-car trains would see all their peak-period 6- and 8-car trains replaced by 5-car trains. Which stations/routes are restricted to 8 cars? I might have been sensible to have designed the 376s with selective door opening to permit 10 car working to these stations. What actually is the history of the 12 car networker thing? I recall lots of platform lengthening happening at about the time the networkers were coming in, but I wasn't really paying attention at the time? What work was left undone that would have allowed 12 car trains, and what were the originally intended routes for them? Robin I can't give a list of what work was left undone, but I remember a lot about the period. The Networkers were originally all going to be units of four. The platforms were long enough for ten-car EPBs, but the Networkers were going to have to be shorter (eight-car) if the platforms weren't extended to allow for twelve. But then three incompatible things happened. 1) The extension of all (most?) of the relevant platforms took place, requiring Charing Cross to be closed for three solid weeks at one point, and resulting in the disappearance of platform 7 at London Bridge. 2) The order was changed to include two-car 466s, which meant that there could be ten-car trains anyway. 3) The Networker trains, for a long time, were a maximum of eight cars, and for many years the average length was shorter than the EPBs had been. The main result of the extended platforms has been to give the various operators a good laugh watching people chasing short trains to the far end of the platform. |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Which stations/routes are restricted to 8 cars? I might have been sensible to have designed the 376s with selective door opening to permit 10 car working to these stations. Victoria/Blackfriars-Beckenham Jn/Orpington S R |
#15
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Chris Fribbins" wrote in message ... R.C. Payne wrote: MIG wrote: James Looker wrote in message ... Nick Lawford wrote: "Peter Masson" wrote in message There won't be enough 376s to displace Networkers completely from any route. There are more than enough to cover specific routes entirely. 36 units must be more than enough to cover a service such as Hayes or Dartford via Greenwich (and excluding the obvious but silly answer of Bromley North). Surely both routes are entirely served from CS/CX so the short platforms issue does not arise. I can't see any reason why they'd diagram in such a way to be 376 only, but it could be done in theory, which is why I assume the OP asked the question. -- Nick Bromley North has been using the new trains and they have also been down to Orpington and Sevenoaks. The routes through Grove Park are definetly getting all new Class 376 trains within the next year. No one seems to have news of a drastic change in the diagrams that would keep units on specific routes. That's why they can't be kept on journeys they are best suited to. The are already doing some "semi-fasts" via Woolwich and Lewisham. I seem to recall having heard talk that (somehow) these trains were to be kept off longer distance trips such as beyond Dartford, and people here (on both uk.railway and u.t.l) pointing out how dificult that would be. Have TPTB finally given up the idea of keeping them off Gillingham services and the like? Robin They are diagrammed on the 17:46 from Cannon Street to Higham (Strood when tunnel re-opens in January) every day at the moment - 2 x 5 cars. The official line is that they will run to Gravesend in off-peak but may be used on longer journeys to/from Gillingham in the peak (also Orpington off-peak, Sevenoaks in Peak). In reality seats are likely to become available at Dartford (Coastbound) or earlier if you walk through the train (easier than most) and you will get a seat from longer out if you are London bound - that is if you want one!. Chris I can't believe this - are they seriously planning to run to Gillingham on stock with no toilets? This is just absured, it really is. Aaron ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#16
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "S R" wrote in message ... I can't see any reason why they'd diagram in such a way to be 376 only, but it could be done in theory, which is why I assume the OP asked the question. My reason for asking was concern that routes limited by platform length to 8-car trains would see all their peak-period 6- and 8-car trains replaced by 5-car trains. S R Speaking of 5-car formations, I've noticed some nice new "5 car stop" signs appearing near some of the platform monitors on these routes (surely they could just use the "6 car stop" positions anyway? Seem incredibly efficient to have started this already when there must be so many other tasks to do in tidying up SET's scruffy stations) Still no sign of toilets on my route (Sidcup line) which we were promised *before* deployment of any 376 units. Having said that, some bizarre looking 5-metre steel uprights have been embedded in the platform area of Sidcup station on the Dartford-bound platform, either side of an existing set of seats. This might be the beginning of a new structure that might be toilets? Might be completely unrelated though... Nick |
#17
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#18
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Aaron Borbora wrote:
I can't believe this - are they seriously planning to run to Gillingham on stock with no toilets? This is just absured, it really is. There's a precedent - they run from London Bridge to Tonbridge using class 508s. -- John Ray |
#19
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:09:10 +0000, John Ray wrote:
Aaron Borbora wrote: I can't believe this - are they seriously planning to run to Gillingham on stock with no toilets? This is just absured, it really is. There's a precedent - they run from London Bridge to Tonbridge using class 508s. a 508 *is* a toilet! :/ |
#20
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "R.C. Payne" wrote in message ... S R wrote: I can't see any reason why they'd diagram in such a way to be 376 only, but it could be done in theory, which is why I assume the OP asked the question. My reason for asking was concern that routes limited by platform length to 8-car trains would see all their peak-period 6- and 8-car trains replaced by 5-car trains. Which stations/routes are restricted to 8 cars? I might have been sensible to have designed the 376s with selective door opening to permit 10 car working to these stations. What actually is the history of the 12 car networker thing? I recall lots of platform lengthening happening at about the time the networkers were coming in, but I wasn't really paying attention at the time? What work was left undone that would have allowed 12 car trains, and what were the originally intended routes for them? As others have mentioned, the suburban routes from Victoria and Blackfriars are limited to 8 car trains, but there is no suggestion that 376s will be diagrammed on these routes. This includes Victoria - Dartford, because of short platfroms at Denmark Hill, Peckham Rye and Nunhead. The abortive 12-car scheme included Charing Cross and Cannon Street to Dartford (via all routes) and Orpington. I am not sure whether it also included Dartford - Gravesend (and Gillingham?), and Orpington - Sevenoaks. It did not include Bromley North (which had already become a self-contained shuttle) or Lewisham - Hayes. AIUI it was abandoned because of a downturn in London commuting in the early 1990s because of a recession, because the works required at a few stations (Dartford, Lewisham, for example) was proving seriously difficult and expensive, because the money wasn't there for sufficient stock to run 12-car trains, and possibly because someone did some calculations and found that a power upgrade (which hadn't been budgetted) was needed. Peter |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
SET 376 - A big disappointment | London Transport | |||
Class 376 train problems - South Eastern Trains | London Transport | |||
376 diagrams on SET website | London Transport | |||
I've been to London for business meetings and told myself that I'd be back to see London for myself. (rather than flying one day and out the next) I've used the tube briefly and my questions a | London Transport | |||
A couple of questions on Oystercards | London Transport |