On Feb 15, 9:53 pm, "Nick Lawford" wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message
What for?

I'll throw that one back at you and ask ''why not''. The Bakerloo goes
to Harrow (and used to go to Watford), the ELLX is projecting LU service
over NR routes, Croxley link (if ever) are examples.

Thats a few extra miles on track that will be electrified to 4th rail
if it ever happens. Not all the way to the Thames estuary under 25Kv.


Its being designed for the tube system

Actually, no its not.

Don't be pedantic , you know exactly what I mean.


S-stock does NOT run in the tubes but on the sub-surface lines.

not national rail.
Different radio
systems, different ATP systems

So what ?

Err , so it wouldn't be able to run without extra kit? Which means
extra money? Which means more tax/fares from londoners to pay for
something which might one day maybe possibly when a cow jumps over a
blue moon get used once and then they discover the train layout isn't
suitable anyway for journeys of that length.

Stop looking at details and think about the bigger picture.

Details tend to be important or things don't work.


, possibly a slightly different loading
gauge,. not to mention
the 4th rail shoes dangling inbetween the rails that could foul some
mainline track systems.

So 4th rail surface trains are out of gauge at Wimbledon and Richmond
are they ? Met A stock knocks NR infrasture to pieces every time one
goes to Amersham ?

Other people have answered that.


S-stock is being built as common stock for all sub-surface lines. I'd be
pretty sure that spec would more or less put them within NR gauge.

Yes , I'm sure "more or less" would be fine until it hits a bit of
trackside equipment.

And - as been pointed out already - District trains did used to run
further than then they do now to beyond Upminster.

So? This isn't the 1930s. It doesn't run there anymore and nor does it
have steam trains pulling the carraiges. Plus its highly unlikely it
ever will run there and even if it did then it would probably just
suffer the same fate as the east london line and become part of NR
using standard NR stock.

There was so much negative thinking in your response. If everything
proposed was dealt with your way nothing would ever move forward. It was

And if everyone thought like you then we'd be paying through the nose
for trains with a compromise design and possibly redundant equipment
which would never get used.

I mean why not take your argument to its logical conclusion and make
every train everywhere in the country compatable with every line? Lets
fit 3rd rail shoes to pendilinos and class 91s for example, then we
could have through services then from edinburgh to Brighton via snow
hill!

B2003

Boltar wrote:

And - as been pointed out already - District trains did used to run
further than then they do now to beyond Upminster.

So? This isn't the 1930s. It doesn't run there anymore and nor does it
have steam trains pulling the carraiges. Plus its highly unlikely it
ever will run there and even if it did then it would probably just
suffer the same fate as the east london line and become part of NR
using standard NR stock.


I agree with your overall argument Boltar about the lack of any need
to fit Underground SSL stock with pantographs etc for running on NR
lines.

However I disagree with your comments that the East London Line will
suffer from it's future fate of conversion into an NR line - the ELL
extension will unleash the potential of the cross-river line. That
said, I'd be wary if the new operation was to be run by an outfit such
as Connex - but the ELLX trains will be run under the auspices of TfL
as part of their "London Overground" network, which makes me feel much
more confident that things will be done properly.

The fact that I support the ELLX doesn't mean I'd be in favour of
taking the District line out to Southend - the District line is
already more than fulfilling it's potential as a useful urban railway.


There was so much negative thinking in your response. If everything
proposed was dealt with your way nothing would ever move forward. It was

And if everyone thought like you then we'd be paying through the nose
for trains with a compromise design and possibly redundant equipment
which would never get used.

I mean why not take your argument to its logical conclusion and make
every train everywhere in the country compatable with every line? Lets
fit 3rd rail shoes to pendilinos and class 91s for example, then we
could have through services then from edinburgh to Brighton via snow
hill!


The Pendolinos would need to be shrunk quite a lot to fit into the
tunnels of the Central line, which would prove an interesting
development to those people who already think they're cramped!

On Feb 16, 12:33 pm, "Mizter T" wrote:
However I disagree with your comments that the East London Line will
suffer from it's future fate of conversion into an NR line - the ELL
extension will unleash the potential of the cross-river line. That
said, I'd be wary if the new operation was to be run by an outfit such
as Connex - but the ELLX trains will be run under the auspices of TfL
as part of their "London Overground" network, which makes me feel much
more confident that things will be done properly.

Obviously this is all supposition on my part and hopefully I'll be
proved wrong , but although I think the northern extension will not be
an issue as far as the services go (though it really needs to go to
finsbury park to be of real use) the southern bit is basically just
running trains on the already overcrowded south london lines. So any
disruption on those lines will delay the ELL trains and so affect the
central and north bit of the ELL which IMO is not acceptable. If its
to retain its similarity to a tube line then it should be self
contained or at the least share very few stretches of track with other
services otherwise the timetable will just become an interesting
curiosity rather than something of any real use and passengers will
treat it as just yet another unreliable NR service where they may
spend 30 mins on some dingy platform waiting for a train that may or
may not turn up.

B2003

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message


Which reminds me, what happened to Henry Law?


I wondered that myself but dared not to mention his name first in case
it recatalysed him.


--
Nick



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message

the new third-rail ban merely DfT policy rather than any actual
regulation ?

Quite possibly.

The subject comes up in uk.r often enough that it seems to have been
taken de facto that new unprotected third is not allowed, but I've yet
to see where that is stated.

However, it does not appear in UIC recommendations according to some
notes and extracts of UIC stuff sent to me from a German correspondant.
UIC seem only to refer to 50/25/15 kV AC and 6000/3000/1500 DC overhead
including lineside distribution and protected 600/750 V DC, not to
unprotected DC.

OTH the document is a home translation so something might have been
missed, and a UIC recommendation is not regulation, although is often
taken as a basis for regulation.

Perhaps Mr. Catlow may know ?

--
Nick





--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Boltar wrote:

On Feb 16, 12:33 pm, "Mizter T" wrote:
However I disagree with your comments that the East London Line will
suffer from it's future fate of conversion into an NR line - the ELL
extension will unleash the potential of the cross-river line. That
said, I'd be wary if the new operation was to be run by an outfit such
as Connex - but the ELLX trains will be run under the auspices of TfL
as part of their "London Overground" network, which makes me feel much
more confident that things will be done properly.

Obviously this is all supposition on my part and hopefully I'll be
proved wrong , but although I think the northern extension will not be
an issue as far as the services go (though it really needs to go to
finsbury park to be of real use) the southern bit is basically just
running trains on the already overcrowded south london lines. So any
disruption on those lines will delay the ELL trains and so affect the
central and north bit of the ELL which IMO is not acceptable. If its
to retain its similarity to a tube line then it should be self
contained or at the least share very few stretches of track with other
services otherwise the timetable will just become an interesting
curiosity rather than something of any real use and passengers will
treat it as just yet another unreliable NR service where they may
spend 30 mins on some dingy platform waiting for a train that may or
may not turn up.



I think "service pollution" is the term for that. I agree that the
extensions at both ends (remember some of the ELLX trains will
continue onto the North London Line to Highbury & Islington) will
introduce the potential for disruption - I'm sure there will be
occasional issues but I wonder if it'll be as big a problem as you
suggest or will happen that often. Of course we shall see how it all
works out when the ELLX opens!

Re your comments about the need to continue to Finsbury Park - as I
said earlier some of the ELLX services will continue to Highbury &
Islington which will provide a interchange with both the Victoria Line
and FCC's Great Northern line. The North London line around Canonbury
is either three or four track, and trains continuing up to Finsbury
Park via the Canonbury Curve would mean they'd have to cross all the
tracks on the level, blocking them all up - operationally going to
High & I and reversing somewhere beyond there appears to be
preferable. Plus there is the possibility that such trains will go
beyond High & I in the future - perhaps up to Willesden Junction via
Primrose Hill.

As ever, more info is on alwaystouchout:
http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/3

Nick Lawford wrote:
"Graeme Wall" wrote in message

Which reminds me, what happened to Henry Law?

I wondered that myself but dared not to mention his name first in case
it recatalysed him.

Also Ian Batten.

"Boltar" wrote in message

Thats a few extra miles on track that will be electrified to 4th rail
if it ever happens. Not all the way to the Thames estuary under 25Kv.

I did not say where to.

All I said was connection to Tilbury lines.

District Line trains to Fenchursh Street for example (capacity relief
District line taken up by reinstating NR trackage).

systems, different ATP systems

So what ?

Err , so it wouldn't be able to run without extra kit?

extra money? Which means more tax/fares from londoners to pay for
something which might one day maybe possibly

Approving something when a train is new and going through type approval
costs far far less than a retro-fit - the example of 365s v. 458s has
been cited many times. 365s were done all at new even though they were
in two single volt batches. That saved a lot when they moved the DC
batch from Kent to GN. 458s have limited redeployment choices because
they were never AC approved even though can technically handle it. This
is why 350 have now been DC approved, and so on.

What I was referring to was include AC in the s-stock testing spec, not
fit every train for AC and NR running.

Stop looking at details and think about the bigger picture.

Details tend to be important or things don't work.


But are not blocking points.



Yes , I'm sure "more or less" would be fine until it hits a bit of
trackside equipment.



This is EXACTLY what the Ludites said when Electrostars and Desiros came
to the Sr.


It doesn't run there anymore

Again so what.

That something once happened (eg Snow Hill) and was closed does not
prevent a restart (Thameslink).


And if everyone thought like you then we'd be paying through the nose
for trains with a compromise design and possibly redundant equipment
which would never get used.

No.

See above.

Testing and approving - not equipping until or if needed.



I mean why not take your argument to its logical conclusion and make
every train everywhere in the country compatable with every line?

Ideally they should be.


--
Nick



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Mizter T wrote:

Re your comments about the need to continue to Finsbury Park - as I
said earlier some of the ELLX services will continue to Highbury &
Islington which will provide a interchange with both the Victoria Line
and FCC's Great Northern line. The North London line around Canonbury
is either three or four track, and trains continuing up to Finsbury
Park via the Canonbury Curve would mean they'd have to cross all the
tracks on the level, blocking them all up - operationally going to
High & I and reversing somewhere beyond there appears to be
preferable. Plus there is the possibility that such trains will go
beyond High & I in the future - perhaps up to Willesden Junction via
Primrose Hill.

As ever, more info is on alwaystouchout:
http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/3

Seems that one (albeit costly) way to improve the NLL capacity and
congestion issue would be to build a dive-under to swap the NLL/ELL
passenger service and freight trains somewhere between Dalston and the
Canonbury curve. This would allow ELL trains from the south to access the
Canonbury curve and the NLL diverging later at Camden without crossing the
frieght lines. So the ELL/NLL passenger services pair of tracks would be
north of the freight pair between Camden and Canonbury, and south between
Canonbury and Dalston. Between Primrose Hill and Camden, and Dalston and
Hackney, the one pair would have to accommodate both passenger and freight
services.

Angus

In message lgate.org
"Nick Lawford" wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message


Which reminds me, what happened to Henry Law?


I wondered that myself but dared not to mention his name first in case
it recatalysed him.



Ooh, painful!

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html