In article , Nick
writes
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?

A driver of a 5-car train must stop at the "S" sign if there isn't a
specific "5". Just the same as the driver of an 8 car train can't stop
at the "4" sign if there isn't an "8". Some TOC managements will treat a
failure to do so as a SPAD.

If the right stopping place is the same a 6 car trains, then the 5 and 6
signs should be in the same place. If they aren't, there is a reason.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Aaron Borbora wrote to uk.transport.london on Tue, 30 Nov 2004:

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.

When did you last travel on a train that had a working one? They are
invariably locked out of service, in my experience - and if they
*should* happen to be open, they are filthy and unusable. Cue
old-ladyish mutter of "In my young day.....".....
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 28 November 2004

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
...
In article , Nick
writes
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?

A driver of a 5-car train must stop at the "S" sign if there isn't a
specific "5". Just the same as the driver of an 8 car train can't stop at
the "4" sign if there isn't an "8". Some TOC managements will treat a
failure to do so as a SPAD.

Well, yes, stopping an 8-car at a "4" sign is clearly not sensible, but
there have often been 3, 7 and 11-car formations on the mainline SET routes
and there aren't any "3", "7" or "11" signs as far as I can see, so
presumably the 7-car formations stop at "8" and 11-car stop at "12" etc?
Hence the logic that 5-car formations could just use "6"?

snipped

In article , Mrs Redboots
writes
I can't believe this - are they seriously planning to run to Gillingham on
stock with no toilets?

When did you last travel on a train that had a working one?

About 90 minutes ago.

Admittedly this was on WA"not any more, but we can make 365s work"GN.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
...
In article , Nick
writes
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?

A driver of a 5-car train must stop at the "S" sign if there isn't a
specific "5". Just the same as the driver of an 8 car train can't stop at
the "4" sign if there isn't an "8". Some TOC managements will treat a
failure to do so as a SPAD.


This is somewhat over the top, many places don't have stop signs, e.g. the
whole of Cardiff Valley Lines. Stopping short of the sign would be worse
than going past because the back of the train could be off the platform.

John.

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, John Clausen wrote:

This is somewhat over the top, many places don't have stop signs,
e.g. the whole of Cardiff Valley Lines.

Well, if it hasn't got a stop sign, surely no driver can be accused of
failing to stop at it? [1]

Stopping short of the sign would be worse than going past because
the back of the train could be off the platform.

What sign?

all the best

[1] I'm reminded of a colleague who received an official "opportunity
to pay a fixed penalty" for failing to stop at a red traffic light at
the junction of X road and Y street. He couldn't recall ever having
been there, but he went and looked, and found that there were no
traffic lights at that junction.

Mrs Redboots wrote in message ...
Aaron Borbora wrote to uk.transport.london on Tue, 30 Nov 2004:

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.

When did you last travel on a train that had a working one? They are
invariably locked out of service, in my experience - and if they
*should* happen to be open, they are filthy and unusable. Cue
old-ladyish mutter of "In my young day.....".....

Not on South Eastern Networkers for a long time, but to be fair, they
never had them on the EPBs that ran to Gillingham.

Now that they work less and less, the stink isn't so bad. You can
usually get a seat near the toilets because people assume that they
stink and stay away.

"Peter Masson" wrote in message ...
"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

What was the problem with Lewisham? The platforms were extended and
the signals were moved as far as I can remember. Passengers at
platform 4 regularly have to chase the trains almost all the way to
Blackheath, despite the main entrance and all the information displays
being on the section of platform which is no longer used.

"MIG" wrote in message
om...

What was the problem with Lewisham? The platforms were extended and
the signals were moved as far as I can remember.

Your memory may well be better than mine. ISTR early on in the programme
that Lewisham was one of the 'difficult' stations, and I had sort of assumed
that it was one they never got round to. Did they extend all four platforms?
Peter

In article ,
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.

Such as 2x 4EPB, for instance ...

Nick
--
http://www.leverton.org/ ... So express yourself