On 23 Dec, 13:16, "Recliner" wrote:
"Spyke" wrote in message




I believe the original plan was to run the 4-car 1938TS in public
service, but the unions refused to allow it and LU was unable to
persuade them.

Why did they object? Was it to be driven by a non-union member?

It wasn't union objections (though they were looking closely at
running the '38 last week), but more that it couldn't stop at Canada
Water because of the floor height differences.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, MIG wrote:

An orbital route might be a nice to have, but only in addition to the
radial routes, not replacing them. I've mentioned many times that the
trains from the Forest Hill direction are appallingly overcrowded. I
can't see how it improves things to shorten them to fit the ELL and
divert them to Hackney.

Because if they go to Hackney, no bugger'll get on them. SOLVED!

tom

--
Ten years on, and there is still nothing like this bizarre tale of
biomechanical space madness.

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

I don't know what the deal is with regards to whether the new trains
will fit on the existing platforms - I think this might not be an
issue as the existing platforms are (from memory) a bit longer that a
4-car A stock train. However for arguments sake let's say the new 4-
car Electrostars won't fit on the existing ELL platforms - this could
be dealt with by stopping the leading and trailing cab-ends still in
the tunnel, and if that still doesn't solve the issue then selective
door opening (SDO) can be bought into play - and suddenly the problem
is no more.

The platforms must be longer than 4 cars of A stock. The line had 5 car
trains of CO/CP stock for a time in the 1970s.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Stuart wrote:

MIG wrote:

My objection would not be how long it takes, but that it's the wrong
project. I don't understand why an orbital railway is such an
important goal. Well, I do. It's a way for a politician to make his
mark an a more obvious way than any general improvement in transport.

An orbital route might be a nice to have, but only in addition to the
radial routes, not replacing them.

An orbital route is a very good thing to have. London is teaming with
radial transport,

Yes, but there *still* *isn't* *enough*! Look at where the most
overcrowded lines go - they're all radial!

there's very little that goes round!

Because there are very few people who go round.

I'm not saying there's no use for orbital services - quite clearly, there
is, and i look forward to the NLL having a frequency and last train time
which make it a viable option for me to travel between my friends in
Kilburn and Camden and my house in Islington instead of taking a tube via
the middle of town. But the simple fact is that the vast majority of the
demand is for radial travel, not orbital. We could, and in fact we will,
argue about how much the demand follows the existing provision until the
cows come home, but that's the situation now, and the situation that needs
addressing.

I should declare, to fend off counter-anti-orbitalist outrage, that i'm in
favour of the ELL and its X. It's pretty cheap, and the station at
Shoreditch High Street is close enough to the City that it functions as a
semi-radial line, so it will be a very useful commuting link for the inner
suburbs, as well as being a handy way to dodge between north- and
south-eastern suburbs. Indeed, when it opens up, i may even ask out that
nice girl who lives in Bexleyheath ...

The North London Line as it is at the moment is too infrequent and
passes too many radial tube lines without connecting to them

Agreed, but i'm not aware of any plans to do anything about the latter.

tom

--
Ten years on, and there is still nothing like this bizarre tale of
biomechanical space madness.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, wrote:

On the subject of the power supplies, and in particular the conversion
to 3rd rail, since the conversion of the New Line and NLL in the 1970s,
the legal situation has changed considerably. The use of the running
rails for traction return does lead to stray currents, which can and do
corrode anything metallic, especially in damp areas like tunnels. Under
the EMC (Electro-magnetic compatibility) regulations 1992, the railway
must demonstrate that following the conversion, the EM emissions from it
are no greater than those pertaining at present. This will probably
require the installation of additional conductors in parallel with the
running rails in order to reduce the resistance of the return circuit
(cf Farringdon, where an additional "fourth" rail is laid in the
four-foot and bonded to the running rails for this purpose) and to
"encourage" the return currents to flow via the rails and not via earth.
This can also be achieved by the replacement of jointed bullhead rail
(which is largely still used on the ELL) with CWR using heavier flat
bottom rail, which will have a significantly lower resistance in its own
right.

Or by soldering on some cables and laying them alongside the track. Why is
this going to take so long?

tom

--
Ten years on, and there is still nothing like this bizarre tale of
biomechanical space madness.

On Dec 23, 5:02*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, MIG wrote:
An orbital route might be a nice to have, but only in addition to the
radial routes, not replacing them. I've mentioned many times that the
trains from the Forest Hill direction are appallingly overcrowded. *I
can't see how it improves things to shorten them to fit the ELL and
divert them to Hackney.

Because if they go to Hackney, no bugger'll get on them. SOLVED!


Sadly not quite true if the supposed alternative route to London
Bridge is to change to the Jubilee at Canada Water.

So instead of overcrowded trains going direct to London Bridge, there
will be trains of half the length, and double the crowding, requiring
a longer journey and a change.

Nice and empty after Canada Water if one did go to Hackney though,
because anyone whose normal journey is from Surrey Quays to
Whitechapel won't be able to get on.

(Before anyone mentions it, I know that some people change to the
Jubilee anyway, so won't need an extra change, but certainly won't be
helped.)

On 23 Dec, 17:02, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, MIG wrote:
An orbital route might be a nice to have, but only in addition to the
radial routes, not replacing them. I've mentioned many times that the
trains from the Forest Hill direction are appallingly overcrowded. I
can't see how it improves things to shorten them to fit the ELL and
divert them to Hackney.

Because if they go to Hackney, no bugger'll get on them. SOLVED!

tom



I'm going to be revisiting this post later to set things straight!

In message
,
Mizter T writes
If you look elsewhere on that District Dave forum thread then you'll
read reports of how some 'enthusiasts' on the recent 1938TS tour of the
ELL behaved in what sounds like a pretty appallingly bad fashion. Maybe
some of the drivers didn't want to turn the last day into a circus with
such individuals clowning about.

In the short time I was about yesterday, I noted one individual who just
wandered through the barriers at Whitechapel to try to get his picture.
When told to get back on the platform his response was that it *is* the
last day - as if that should matter.

Later at New Cross Gate, another (I assume different, although I
wouldn't swear to it) was sat right on the edge of the platform trying
to take a picture of an approaching train. He exclaimed surprise that
the driver was sat outside the platform whistling. He only moved when
others pointed out that the driver was waiting to get in. He was so
close that had the train come in to the platform there was a good chance
of him getting hit.

We gave up and went to the pub at this point.

With this type of attitude to safety, I'm not surprised that staff get
annoyed. I've had similar things happen myself and we (LUL staff) all
know someone who has had a fatal one-under, which is frequently due to
stupidity.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

In message
,
EE507 writes
I believe the original plan was to run the 4-car 1938TS in public
service, but the unions refused to allow it and LU was unable to
persuade them.

Why did they object? *Was it to be driven by a non-union member?

I wonder if the union actually asked the drivers...

All this talk about unions is a red herring. It was nothing to do with
them and they haven't objected to anything to my knowledge.

The 38 stock couldn't be used in normal passenger service as it wouldn't
be able to stop at Canada Water due to the platform heights. As this
would have caused service problems, it was decided not to try to run it.

There was talk on the day of an un-refurbished 3 car D stock making an
appearance. I have no information if this was a serious consideration,
but I would doubt very much that the unions would care too much if it
did.

Had any of these trains actually run, they would have had to have been
driven by Test Train Operators as nobody else would have the stock
knowledge and line knowledge together to drive them. It may well be
that these operators are not licensed to drive trains in passenger
service. I don't know the answer to this, but I will attempt to find
out when I go back to work (on Boxing Day!). If so, that would be a
very good reason.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

MIG wrote in
:

An orbital route might be a nice to have, but only in addition to the
radial routes, not replacing them. I've mentioned many times that the
trains from the Forest Hill direction are appallingly overcrowded. I
can't see how it improves things to shorten them to fit the ELL and
divert them to Hackney. Even if changing at Canada Water is not
perceived as an extra burden, it doesn't resolve the issue of the
short trains.

Isn't the intention that these are extra trains south of New Cross Gate,
and not replacing the existing service?

David