North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

TfL have announced a follow on order for Electrostars, mainly for 4th
cars for their North London Railway fleet:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/5432.aspx

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

Mr Thant wrote:
TfL have announced a follow on order for Electrostars, mainly for 4th
cars for their North London Railway fleet:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/5432.aspx

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.

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...
Mr Thant wrote:
TfL have announced a follow on order for Electrostars, mainly for 4th
cars for their North London Railway fleet:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/5432.aspx

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.

How much platform lengthening will be needed? In most cases it will merely
involve reopening sections of platfrom which have been out of use for years,
but lengthening Willesden Junction high level looks as though it will be
expensive.

Peter

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

On Jul 4, 3:21 pm, "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.

Some of the platforms aren't long enough though, and Network Rail's
timescale for lengthening them is 2010. TfL are presumably quite keen
to get new trains running ASAP, with the switch to longitudinal
seating giving a short term capacity boost.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

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

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

Peter Masson wrote:

How much platform lengthening will be needed? In most cases it will
merely involve reopening sections of platfrom which have been out of
use for years, but lengthening Willesden Junction high level looks as
though it will be expensive.

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.

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

On Jul 4, 7:48 am, "Peter Masson" wrote:

but lengthening Willesden Junction high level looks as though it will be
expensive.


I'd say lengthening Willesden Juunction high level looks as though it
will be horrendously expensive - possibly out of all proportion.

One hopes that such an extensive piece of work willl be done to allow
at least 8car (two units of of the proposed 4car Electrostars) if not
12car.


--
Nick

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

Wouldn't it be relatively cheap to lengthen the platforms even
further? With the high level of overcrowding now and even more
passengers using the route in the future, it seems like it will be
needed. 8 coaches seems like a good number indeed.

Longitudinal seating is simply needed on routes like this It might be
slightly less comfortable, but that's not what peak train travellers
will be thinking about. They're just happy to be able to get on.

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

"sweek" wrote in message
oups.com...
Wouldn't it be relatively cheap to lengthen the platforms even
further? With the high level of overcrowding now and even more
passengers using the route in the future, it seems like it will be
needed. 8 coaches seems like a good number indeed.

Getting a 4-coach platform length at Willesden High level will be expensive,
but do-able. To get 8 coaches here, because of the junction with the City
Goods Line, the only place is on a bridge over the WCML. To build it you'd
probably need a lengthy closure of the WCML.

Peter

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

On Jul 4, 8:48 am, "Peter Masson" wrote:

probably need a lengthy closure of the WCML.

Peter

Merely continue as today then :o)

--
Nick

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

In message
"Peter Masson" wrote:


"sweek" wrote in message
oups.com...
Wouldn't it be relatively cheap to lengthen the platforms even
further? With the high level of overcrowding now and even more
passengers using the route in the future, it seems like it will be
needed. 8 coaches seems like a good number indeed.

Getting a 4-coach platform length at Willesden High level will be
expensive, but do-able. To get 8 coaches here, because of the junction with
the City Goods Line, the only place is on a bridge over the WCML. To build
it you'd probably need a lengthy closure of the WCML.


Prefabricate the bridge off-site and swing it into position at three o'clock
on a Sunday morning, minimum closure time needed. More of a problem is
inserting it into the NNL without causing chaos the following Monday morning.

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

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

D7666 wrote:
On Jul 4, 8:48 am, "Peter Masson" wrote:

probably need a lengthy closure of the WCML.

Merely continue as today then :o)

It's closed today? ;-)

Better tell National Rail Enquiries.

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

Graeme Wall wrote:

More of a problem is inserting it into the NNL without causing chaos the
following Monday morning.

Would anyone notice the difference?

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007, Graeme Wall wrote:

In message
"Peter Masson" wrote:

"sweek" wrote in message
oups.com...

Wouldn't it be relatively cheap to lengthen the platforms even
further? With the high level of overcrowding now and even more
passengers using the route in the future, it seems like it will be
needed. 8 coaches seems like a good number indeed.

Getting a 4-coach platform length at Willesden High level will be
expensive, but do-able. To get 8 coaches here, because of the junction
with the City Goods Line, the only place is on a bridge over the WCML.

Not sure i buy that. How far is the junction from the present platforms?

To build it you'd probably need a lengthy closure of the WCML.

Prefabricate the bridge off-site and swing it into position at three
o'clock on a Sunday morning, minimum closure time needed.

Took the words right out of my fingers - if it's good enough for Bishop's
Bridge, it's good enough for the NLL.

More of a problem is inserting it into the NNL without causing chaos the
following Monday morning.

Split the NLL into Stratford - Kensal Rise and Richmond - Acton Central
bits while sorting out the bridge? AIUI, most of the demand is to the east
of WJ anyway. Not ideal, but it'd only be for a fortnight.

tom

--
Do more with less -- R. Buckminster Fuller

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

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.

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

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.

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

"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

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

On 4 Jul, 16:48, "Peter Masson" wrote:

Getting a 4-coach platform length at Willesden High level will be expensive,
but do-able. To get 8 coaches here, because of the junction with the City
Goods Line, the only place is on a bridge over the WCML. To build it you'd
probably need a lengthy closure of the WCML.

From the few pictures that I've seen of it, I think that's just about
where the original high-level station was. I don't know how long the
platforms were, but there were three of them. I believe that it was
replaced by the present platforms soon after the War.

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

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

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

"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

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

On Jul 4, 7:27 pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:
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.



I use 376s frequently and, unlike the intelligently refurbished 455s
on SWT, they are an appalling realisation of a generally good idea.

The space is made unusable by chunky obstructions and a neglect of the
fact that two people with legs can't lean at right angles to each
other.

And they were purpose-designed for standing in with hardly any
handholds (until some were eventually added).

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

In message
"Jack Taylor" wrote:

Graeme Wall wrote:

More of a problem is inserting it into the NNL without causing chaos the
following Monday morning.

Would anyone notice the difference?



I couldn't possibly comment...

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

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

MIG wrote:

I use 376s frequently and, unlike the intelligently refurbished 455s
on SWT, they are an appalling realisation of a generally good idea.

The space is made unusable by chunky obstructions and a neglect of the
fact that two people with legs can't lean at right angles to each
other.

And they were purpose-designed for standing in with hardly any
handholds (until some were eventually added).

I must admit that I generally only use them off-peak, as a result of which I
hadn't noticed the problem with fully occupied seating. When I have used
them in the peak I don't even try to sit - I prefer to stand. I certainly
find them acceptable at those times but I agree that, as delivered, there
was a woeful lack of grab-rails. To South Eastern and Bombardier's credit,
they resolved that problem quite quickly.

The only complaint that I do still have is regarding the perch seats
adjacent to the door areas. For some reason perch cushions are provided at
ninety degrees to each other, one on the inner body skin and the other on
the back of the seat nearest the window, meaning that when one is in use it
is impossible for the other to be used, which seems rather pointless!

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 18:38:11 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007, Graeme Wall wrote:

In message
"Peter Masson" wrote:

"sweek" wrote in message
oups.com...

Wouldn't it be relatively cheap to lengthen the platforms even
further? With the high level of overcrowding now and even more
passengers using the route in the future, it seems like it will be
needed. 8 coaches seems like a good number indeed.

Getting a 4-coach platform length at Willesden High level will be
expensive, but do-able. To get 8 coaches here, because of the junction
with the City Goods Line, the only place is on a bridge over the WCML.

Not sure i buy that. How far is the junction from the present platforms?

The junctions should be far enough away but expansion in either
direction from Willesden Junction High Level involves intruding into
space occupied by bridges. I would have thought that the easier option
would be expansion northwards (possibly with some realignment) over
the DC line involving two new (or one wide) short bridges rather than
messing about with the relatively recently-installed bridge over the
WCML.
snip

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

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

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 18:38:11 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007, Graeme Wall wrote:

In message
"Peter Masson" wrote:

"sweek" wrote in message
oups.com...

Wouldn't it be relatively cheap to lengthen the platforms even
further? With the high level of overcrowding now and even more
passengers using the route in the future, it seems like it will
be needed. 8 coaches seems like a good number indeed.

Getting a 4-coach platform length at Willesden High level will be
expensive, but do-able. To get 8 coaches here, because of the
junction with the City Goods Line, the only place is on a bridge
over the WCML.

Not sure i buy that. How far is the junction from the present
platforms?

The junctions should be far enough away but expansion in either
direction from Willesden Junction High Level involves intruding into
space occupied by bridges. I would have thought that the easier
option would be expansion northwards (possibly with some
realignment) over the DC line involving two new (or one wide)
short bridges rather than messing about with the relatively
recently-installed bridge over the WCML.

I agree. A quick measurement on Google Earth of the westbound/down
platform, which is on the inside of the curve and therefore with less
room for extension, shows the current platform as about 72 m long, but
with room for expansion to at least 200 m before the gap between the
tracks gets too narrow for an island platform.

I'm not sure which is the "junction with the City Goods Line" that Peter
Masson mentioned, but the nearest junction east of WJ High Level is
Kensal Green junction which is about 400 m from the High Level
platforms.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

On Jul 4, 11:20 pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:
MIG wrote:

I use 376s frequently and, unlike the intelligently refurbished 455s
on SWT, they are an appalling realisation of a generally good idea.

The space is made unusable by chunky obstructions and a neglect of the
fact that two people with legs can't lean at right angles to each
other.

And they were purpose-designed for standing in with hardly any
handholds (until some were eventually added).

I must admit that I generally only use them off-peak, as a result of which I
hadn't noticed the problem with fully occupied seating. When I have used
them in the peak I don't even try to sit - I prefer to stand. I certainly
find them acceptable at those times but I agree that, as delivered, there
was a woeful lack of grab-rails. To South Eastern and Bombardier's credit,
they resolved that problem quite quickly.

The only complaint that I do still have is regarding the perch seats
adjacent to the door areas. For some reason perch cushions are provided at
ninety degrees to each other, one on the inner body skin and the other on
the back of the seat nearest the window, meaning that when one is in use it
is impossible for the other to be used, which seems rather pointless!



Yeah, that's what I meant about leaning at right-angles to each other
if both people have legs.

They would be much better without the transverse chunky bit and
withouth the huge chunky ridge either side of the door bay which
limits the perch space along the edge to about one and a half bums
(therefore one, unless people are very friendly), when the space from
doors to seats would easily allow two bums if it wasn't for that
obstruction.

Even better, there could be two flip-up seats. I think that a leaning
person's legs splay out further than feet tucked under a seat,
particularly when the tilt-like profile of the coaches prevents
leaning back to balance.

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 23:24:39 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 18:38:11 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007, Graeme Wall wrote:

In message
"Peter Masson" wrote:

"sweek" wrote in message
oups.com...

Wouldn't it be relatively cheap to lengthen the platforms even
further? With the high level of overcrowding now and even more
passengers using the route in the future, it seems like it will
be needed. 8 coaches seems like a good number indeed.

Getting a 4-coach platform length at Willesden High level will be
expensive, but do-able. To get 8 coaches here, because of the
junction with the City Goods Line, the only place is on a bridge
over the WCML.

Not sure i buy that. How far is the junction from the present
platforms?

The junctions should be far enough away but expansion in either
direction from Willesden Junction High Level involves intruding into
space occupied by bridges. I would have thought that the easier
option would be expansion northwards (possibly with some
realignment) over the DC line involving two new (or one wide)
short bridges rather than messing about with the relatively
recently-installed bridge over the WCML.

I agree. A quick measurement on Google Earth of the westbound/down
platform, which is on the inside of the curve and therefore with less
room for extension, shows the current platform as about 72 m long, but
with room for expansion to at least 200 m before the gap between the
tracks gets too narrow for an island platform.

I'm not sure which is the "junction with the City Goods Line" that Peter
Masson mentioned, but the nearest junction east of WJ High Level is
Kensal Green junction which is about 400 m from the High Level
platforms.

The City Goods Line is the line leaving the WCML west of WJ which
passes over the DC line (bridge 26B?), then to the north of WJ DC line
platforms and joins the NLL to the east of the bridge with the
bendybus on it. IIRC "Kensal Green Junction" covers the general area
where the City Goods Line joins the NLL on the north side and the City
Lines (from WJ New station) join on the south side. If Google Earth
ever gets a TARDIS mode you would also see a large signal box and a
few sidings in the area if you were able to wind back about 25 years.

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 23:24:39 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 18:38:11 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007, Graeme Wall wrote:

In message
"Peter Masson" wrote:

"sweek" wrote in message
oups.com...

Wouldn't it be relatively cheap to lengthen the platforms even
further? With the high level of overcrowding now and even more
passengers using the route in the future, it seems like it will
be needed. 8 coaches seems like a good number indeed.

Getting a 4-coach platform length at Willesden High level will be
expensive, but do-able. To get 8 coaches here, because of the
junction with the City Goods Line, the only place is on a bridge
over the WCML.

Not sure i buy that. How far is the junction from the present
platforms?

The junctions should be far enough away but expansion in either
direction from Willesden Junction High Level involves intruding into
space occupied by bridges. I would have thought that the easier
option would be expansion northwards (possibly with some
realignment) over the DC line involving two new (or one wide)
short bridges rather than messing about with the relatively
recently-installed bridge over the WCML.

I agree. A quick measurement on Google Earth of the westbound/down
platform, which is on the inside of the curve and therefore with less
room for extension, shows the current platform as about 72 m long, but
with room for expansion to at least 200 m before the gap between the
tracks gets too narrow for an island platform.

I'm not sure which is the "junction with the City Goods Line" that Peter
Masson mentioned, but the nearest junction east of WJ High Level is
Kensal Green junction which is about 400 m from the High Level
platforms.

The City Goods Line is the line leaving the WCML west of WJ which
passes over the DC line (bridge 26B?), then to the north of WJ DC line
platforms and joins the NLL to the east of the bridge with the
bendybus on it.

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.

IIRC "Kensal Green Junction" covers the general area where the City
Goods Line joins the NLL on the north side and the City Lines (from WJ
New station) join on the south side.

Quail seems to use it that way. Although there's also a Kensal Green
Junction on the WCML next door!

tom

--
DO NOT WANT!

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

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.

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

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)

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

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!

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

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.

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

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.

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

"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

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

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

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

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

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

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.

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

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?

North London Line goes 4-car in early 2011
 

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.