Jack Taylor wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:

Quail just calls it the 'City Line', and puts the junction at 5 miles
and 10 chains on the NLL, the platforms being at 5 miles 39 chains;
29 chains is 583 metres. I don't know where on the platforms the 5:39
point is, and there is a point before the junction where the down
City crosses the up NL. There's also a junction with what Quail calls
the 'New' line, the link from the DC lines to the NLL that Charles
calls the City Line, at 5:13. And, as Richard mentioned, not all of
that distance is wide enough for platforms anyway.

There's also the fact that the signalling is currently at the end of
the platform and would need to be moved nearer to the junction if the
platforms were extended that way, retaining the required overlap, for
safety reasons.

The up station starter would obviously need to be moved to the end of the
extended platform, but Kensal Green Junction is already protected by another
signal (HL 1106) nearer the junction.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

Richard J. wrote:

The up station starter would obviously need to be moved to the end of
the extended platform, but Kensal Green Junction is already protected
by another signal (HL 1106) nearer the junction.

Thanks, Richard. I should have checked my Quail first, I didn't recall
another signal nearer to the junction!

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.

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...
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.

What doesn't seem to have been explained by TfL is why they suddenly need to
add 3 more whole trains to the original order. Assuming the original order,
split between ELL and NLL as it was, was for the exact number needed to
replace the existing NLL services, does this indicate they have have gained
an agreement with NR to increase frequency on the NLL?

Paul

On 5 Jul, 15:11, "Paul Scott" wrote:
What doesn't seem to have been explained by TfL is why they suddenly need to
add 3 more whole trains to the original order. Assuming the original order,
split between ELL and NLL as it was, was for the exact number needed to
replace the existing NLL services, does this indicate they have have gained
an agreement with NR to increase frequency on the NLL?

ELL phase I was originally intended to go to Dalston Junction; now it
will go all the way to Highbury. I'm fairly sure this is where the
difference lies.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Jul 5, 3:11 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
What doesn't seem to have been explained by TfL is why they suddenly need to
add 3 more whole trains to the original order. Assuming the original order,
split between ELL and NLL as it was, was for the exact number needed to
replace the existing NLL services, does this indicate they have have gained
an agreement with NR to increase frequency on the NLL?

The extra trains are for the ELL, and presumably are required for the
Dalston Junction to Highbury service, which opens a bit later than the
rest of the line.

If the Goblin diesel fleet takes over the WLL service, and the
Bakerloo takes over the Watford DC, there should be a surplus of 378s
for the NLL.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com

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.

That's the main culprit. Quite a lot need little work other than
stripping/resurfacing/drainage cleaning. WJ is the difficult one to squeeze
another car length out of. Even SDO (to use the inner doors only of the end
cars) wouldn't work, due to the siting of the signalling.

Pardon my ignorance, but what signaling problems would affect the use of
SDO, such as not releasing the doors in the rear coach?

Mojo wrote:

Pardon my ignorance, but what signaling problems would affect the use
of SDO, such as not releasing the doors in the rear coach?

Sorry, I wasn't very clear on that, was I? Willesden Junction will only hold
three cars. With four car units it would not be possible to pull forward
such that the inner sets of doors in the leading and trailing cars were at
the platform and the other sets cut out because of the position of the
station starting signal at the end of the platform. Either that would need
to be relocated or otherwise both sets of doors on the rear car would have
to be cut out (as that would be off the platform) - not very desirable or
customer friendly.