On Jul 4, 3:50 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:21 pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:


with the switch to longitudinal seating giving a short term capacity boost.

Oh f**k, everybody's answer to cramming even more people onto trains.
Why don't they go the whole way and remove all the seats. Just when I
thought that it might be worth using the NLL.

Kevin

On 4 Jul, 16:23, Kev wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:50 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:21 pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:

with the switch to longitudinal seating giving a short term capacity boost.

Oh f**k, everybody's answer to cramming even more people onto trains.
Why don't they go the whole way and remove all the seats. Just when I
thought that it might be worth using the NLL.

ISTR the original coaches of the Cathcart Circle had no seats, so more
people could get on, so it's been done before.

Pyromancer wrote:
On 4 Jul, 16:23, Kev wrote:
Why don't they go the whole way and remove all the seats. Just when I
thought that it might be worth using the NLL.

ISTR the original coaches of the Cathcart Circle had no seats, so more
people could get on, so it's been done before.

I don't really see what all the fuss is about. 376s have been plying their
trade very successfully on Southeastern for the last three years - the
proposed 378 is not that significantly different. I'd rather stand on a
purpose-designed 378 with plenty of grab-rails than on a wedged 313 with
virtually none.

"Kev" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 4, 3:50 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:21 pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:


with the switch to longitudinal seating giving a short term capacity
boost.

Oh f**k, everybody's answer to cramming even more people onto trains.
Why don't they go the whole way and remove all the seats. Just when I
thought that it might be worth using the NLL.


You've not been on a rebuilt District Line train yet then?

Paul

Kev wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:50 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:21 pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:


with the switch to longitudinal seating giving a short term capacity boost.

Oh f**k, everybody's answer to cramming even more people onto trains.
Why don't they go the whole way and remove all the seats. Just when I
thought that it might be worth using the NLL.

Given the loadings when I've been on the route, I don't think anyone
will miss one less passenger!

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

"Arthur Figgis" wrote in message
...
Kev wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:50 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:21 pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:


with the switch to longitudinal seating giving a short term capacity
boost.

Oh f**k, everybody's answer to cramming even more people onto trains.
Why don't they go the whole way and remove all the seats. Just when I
thought that it might be worth using the NLL.

Given the loadings when I've been on the route, I don't think anyone will
miss one less passenger!

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Seems to me that they could double the length of the trains and they would
still be full but they will add one coach and put in longitudinal seats.
Maybe if Ken wasn't spending so much money on the ELL he might have the
money to do it.

Kevin

Kev wrote:
Oh f**k, everybody's answer to cramming even more people onto trains.
Why don't they go the whole way and remove all the seats. Just when I
thought that it might be worth using the NLL.

Don't worry! The passenger numbers will decrease for a while. How so you
say? TfL will install gates where there presently are none and hopefully
have more grippers on the line - so the multitudinous bands of NLL fare
dodgers, for it is they, will have to resort to another mode of transport.

ESB

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 23:46:11 +0100, Ernst S Blofeld wrote:

Oh f**k, everybody's answer to cramming even more people onto trains.
Why don't they go the whole way and remove all the seats. Just when I
thought that it might be worth using the NLL.

Don't worry! The passenger numbers will decrease for a while. How so you
say? TfL will install gates where there presently are none and hopefully
have more grippers on the line - so the multitudinous bands of NLL fare
dodgers, for it is they, will have to resort to another mode of transport.

Or, more likely, just pay the fare.

Jack Taylor wrote:

I could never understand why they didn't order four-car units for the
North London line from the outset. You only have to look at the
loadings on the 313s to see that additional capacity was desperately
needed.

The 313s weren't ordered for the NLL, they were pinched form the Welwyn
GC/Hertford North lines when demand on those lines had temporarily fallen.

John Rowland wrote:
Jack Taylor wrote:

I could never understand why they didn't order four-car units for the
North London line from the outset. You only have to look at the
loadings on the 313s to see that additional capacity was desperately
needed.

The 313s weren't ordered for the NLL, they were pinched form the
Welwyn GC/Hertford North lines when demand on those lines had
temporarily fallen.

I'm aware of that, John, being an ECML bod myself - I think that you
misunderstood. By 'from the outset' I meant from the placement of the order
for class 378s. The 313s have been wedged for years, factor in increased
loadings and it seemed ridiculous (as we all said on uk.r at the time of the
order) to place a further order for three-car units. Fortunately it seems
that that has now been recognised by the decision to increase train lengths
to four cars. Apologies if my original statement was slightly ambiguous.