On 2 Apr, 11:20, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Mr Thant's blog *reckons the figures don't add up when you take into account
the earlier announcement for 4 extra trains, and now this 7 extra. Could
there be an element of double announcing (like what the DfT do)?

The total in the board papers is 54, which suggests the 3 missing
trains do exist, despite the 44+7 in yesterday's press release.

Not sure about the impact on the famous 1300 - other than that the redundant
313s are probably earmarked as 'new trains' for somewhere far away...

According to last month's Modern Railways, the rolling stock plan
includes 8 going to First Capital Connect, and these are counted as
extra capacity in the 1300. The 8 GOBLIN Sprinters go to Northern
(although LO only have 6 - 2 are currently leased to FGW). Again, also
counted as extra capacity.

I have my own island, you know.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On 1 Apr, 23:56, "Jack Taylor" wrote:
The 378 is very much a suburban main-line design (the
almost identical class 376 has been operating on SouthEastern suburban
services for the past three years). I'm not sure about the "without doors
between carriages" bit, though, I'm sure that the 376 has doors either side
of the corridor connection.

The 376s have a fairly conventional corridor connection. The 378s will
have a genuine full width gangway.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 15:54:32 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:


On 1 Apr, 22:43, Paul Corfield wrote:

Seems like TfL have exercised all their options for Class 378s with
another 7 ordered.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/7821.aspx

No idea how that relates to the "1300 extra carriages" but a 7-8 min
service on the core section of the NLL will be a pretty impressive
frequency.


Excellent news, though to be honest given both the great popularity of
the NLL route and the copious potential for attracting more custom -
or indeed, perhaps I should say the significant level of currently
suppressed demand - I don't think this is anything more than what is
justified for the NLL.

Quite possibly true but do you think that any of this would have
happened if the route was not under TfL control / direction? I could
not have seen either a DfT invitation to tender or a TOC bid including
even one tenth of the level of improvement that is on the way to being
delivered.

Let's hope that whoever wins the Mayoral election doesn't wreck all
this.

The irrepressible Mr Thant has had a tip off about the new NLL service
patterns and shares his discoveries with us grateful mortals here on
this blog post:
http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...e-upgrade.html

I've said it before but I really don't know how he manages to keep track
of all of this.

The link to the timetable study for TfL via the ORR website is
fascinating stuff. I've only skimmed bits of it but it's rather
reassuring to see things like a draft timetable showing GOBLIN trains
every 15 minutes.

Though whether the freight trains traversing the NLL are going to stop
failing so as to enable this frequency to be delivered is another
question! I dare say TfL is already piling the pressure on EWS, GBRf
et al to try and ensure their trains don't break down and cause log
jams.

I'm sure they are but this is where the ORR has a bit of tough job
because it has to weigh the advantages and disadvantages and if they've
said freight can run and Network Rail have sold the paths then we
potentially have a problem. Without some imaginative work elsewhere on
the network freight and the NLL are going to have to be bedfellows for
quite some time.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On 2 Apr, 11:20, "Paul Scott" wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

(snip)

The irrepressible Mr Thant has had a tip off about the new NLL service
patterns and shares his discoveries with us grateful mortals here on
this blog post:
http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...don-line-upgra...

Though whether the freight trains traversing the NLL are going to stop
failing so as to enable this frequency to be delivered is another
question! I dare say TfL is already piling the pressure on EWS, GBRf
et al to try and ensure their trains don't break down and cause log
jams.

Mr Thant (who I once wondered might have been a pseudonym of Mizter T - or
vice versa!) led me via his blog to this puzzling document on the ORR site,
which refers to the capacity of the old trains as 500 per car and the new as
667 per car. Which is pretty cozy...

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd..._appendix7.pdf


Longitudinal seating = more standing space thus more people in each
carriage. The current seating configuration of the 313 trains on the
NLL really isn't suitable - people here sometimes complain about
passengers preferring to stand and getting in the way rather than
parking themselves in a seat. However many passengers' journeys on the
NLL are short - the hassle of negotiating one's way past standees and
then legs and bags to a seat, just for the joy of making a reverse
upheaval just a few minutes later is evidently something many just
don't feel is worthwhile, and in large part I'd have to agree with
them.

And just for the record, U Thant is not a product of my imagination,
nor am I a product of his! The former secretary general is most
definitely a very distinct entity from myself, and I am just as in awe
of his prodigious output as everyone else is.

(Thinking about it, it might be wise for me to sign-off my infrequent
comments on his blog with some kind of disclaimer i.e. 'Mizter T not
Mr Thant' - otherwise I might find myself causing diplomatic ructions
ala [FYR] Macedonia's spat with Greece over Nato membership, and I'm
not sure how the experienced world statesman amongst us would be able
to help in mediation given the potential conflict of interest!)

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

On 2 Apr, 11:20, "Paul Scott" wrote:

Mr Thant led me via his blog to this puzzling document on the ORR site,
which refers to the capacity of the old trains as 500 per car and the new
as
667 per car. Which is pretty cozy...

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd..._appendix7.pdf


Longitudinal seating = more standing space thus more people in each
carriage. The current seating configuration of the 313 trains on the
NLL really isn't suitable - people here sometimes complain about
passengers preferring to stand and getting in the way rather than
parking themselves in a seat. However many passengers' journeys on the
NLL are short - the hassle of negotiating one's way past standees and
then legs and bags to a seat, just for the joy of making a reverse
upheaval just a few minutes later is evidently something many just
don't feel is worthwhile, and in large part I'd have to agree with
them.


I was aware of the change to layout - it's the absolute numbers given, of
500 and 667 'per carriage' that I'm totally bemused by. The latter being
133% of the former - this _ratio_ seems reasonable enough to account for the
changed design.

However a current 313 carriage has about 70-80 seats - can they really take
another 420-430 standees?

Paul S

On Apr 7, 2:17 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

I was aware of the change to layout - it's the absolute numbers given, of
500 and 667 'per carriage' that I'm totally bemused by. The latter being
133% of the former - this _ratio_ seems reasonable enough to account for the
changed design.

However a current 313 carriage has about 70-80 seats - can they really take
another 420-430 standees?

Sounds like a challenge for Indian Railways! :-)

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

Longitudinal seating = more standing space thus more people in each
carriage. The current seating configuration of the 313 trains on the
NLL really isn't suitable - people here sometimes complain about
passengers preferring to stand and getting in the way rather than
parking themselves in a seat. However many passengers' journeys on the
NLL are short - the hassle of negotiating one's way past standees and
then legs and bags to a seat, just for the joy of making a reverse
upheaval just a few minutes later is evidently something many just
don't feel is worthwhile, and in large part I'd have to agree with
them.

That sounds more like an argument for 2+2 rather imposing universal
longitudinal seating to me. The traditional compromise which provided
some transverse seating in the centre of cars did at least give a more
pleasant experience for long distance traveller.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Paul Scott wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

On 2 Apr, 11:20, "Paul Scott" wrote:

Mr Thant led me via his blog to this puzzling document on the ORR
site, which refers to the capacity of the old trains as 500 per car
and the new as 667 per car. Which is pretty cozy...

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd..._appendix7.pdf

Longitudinal seating

I was aware of the change to layout - it's the absolute numbers given,
of 500 and 667 'per carriage' that I'm totally bemused by. The latter
being 133% of the former - this _ratio_ seems reasonable enough to
account for the changed design.

However a current 313 carriage has about 70-80 seats - can they really
take another 420-430 standees?

Gauge amelioration work on the NLL, primarily for the benefit of freight,
means that trains up to 16 metres tall will be able to run on the line.
Passengers will be provided with ladders, and expected to arrange
themselves vertically.

tom

--
I'm not quite sure how that works but I like it ...