378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

On 24 Sep, 13:47, Tom Anderson wrote:
Is that just an illusion due to the angle of the shot? From the outside,
it looks like there are windows either side of the central one, but
they're obscured by the monitors.

The driver looks out of the left side window (or the right from
outside). It looks to me like the centre cab door is opaque, so the
monitors in front of it aren't obscuring anything, and the monitor on
the left of the picture is against the side wall. There's a tiny
window to the left of it for seeing stopping marks and such. Pretty
much the same view as in other trains with cab-end doors.

U

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

Neil Williams wrote:

(re Merseyrail)

6 cars are still used in the peaks.

Indeed they are, but on surprisingly few trains. My observation is that
only on the heaviest-loaded trains is there any need for them, and even
that only extends to a couple of stops out of the loop. I don't know so
well what things are like on Hunts Cross to Southport.


--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632878.html
(33 106 at Reading, 4 Mar 1980)

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

"Neil Williams" wrote
"John Salmon" wrote:

Merseyrail isn't a good example of how it should be done. The entire
electrified system including the loop and link lines were designed for
six-car operation, then after a very short time the trains were reduced to
three cars - which is why SET and LO ended up with Class 508 units.

No. The 508s were spare because they didn't need to go to 6-car on
all trains due to lower demand than expected, and because MTL thought
they could make do with fewer (and us passengers saw the short-
formations and cancellations start straight away). 6 cars are still
used in the peaks.

Quite. So when you typed 'No' you meant 'Yes'. I don't think we're actually
disagreeing about anything.

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

In article ,
(John Salmon) wrote:

wrote
John Salmon wrote:
Merseyrail isn't a good example of how it should be done. The
entire electrified system including the loop and link lines were
designed for six-car operation, then after a very short time the
trains were reduced to three cars - which is why SET and LO ended
up with Class 508 units.

That's all very well but the 508s were built (as 4 car units) for
what is now SWT. One car from each 508 went into a 455 unit. Only
then were the 508s sent to Merseyside.

True, *all* the 3-car 508s went north but then several of them came
back south again, after the six-car trains were reduced to
three-car. So I'm not clear what point you're making.

Only a few came back South, relatively speaking. Merseyside isn't the only
place running 3-car trains of PEP stock.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

On 24 Sep, 13:42, Tom Anderson wrote:

Have you ever actually used the tube? Specifically, C stock, which has the
most comparable layout? The space between the seats can be and is used for
plenty of standing.

And is bloody inconvenient as such, because there is nowhere to stand
in C stock where you are not in the way of someone.

The OP has a good point - if TfL won't/can't fund longer trains (which
is the optimal solution), fewer seats and proper standbacks might
actually be better.

Neil

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

On 24 Sep, 14:50, Chris Tolley wrote:

Indeed they are, but on surprisingly few trains. My observation is that
only on the heaviest-loaded trains is there any need for them, and even
that only extends to a couple of stops out of the loop. I don't know so
well what things are like on Hunts Cross to Southport.

The Link lines are generally far busier - not sure about the Southport
line but a 3 car would load full and standing as far as Maghull or
Kirkby, easily.

Neil

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

On 24 Sep, 13:42, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, MIG wrote:
On Sep 24, 1:40*am, Mizter T wrote:
On 23 Sep, 21:56, Rupert Candy wrote:

On Sep 22, 5:58*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

'Rail Manager online' reporting the first 378 to travel south tomorrow, and
the possibility of Third Rail electrification of the GOB line...

http://91.186.0.3/~keepingt/rm/164/RMAN_164.pdf

There's a sizeable feature in this week's Railway Herald
(www.railwayherald.com) about the 378s, with several pictures. Anyone
else struck by the lack of handles at useful heights for that massive
standing space in between the seats? You'd think they'd have learnt
their lesson from the 376s.

I'd seen this photo and had a similar thought about the lack of
handles:http://www.upmain.fotopic.net/p53614368.html

However I wonder if the bars which are suspended from the ceiling
might actually be low enough for many people to use. If not perhaps
they might have to add straps or handles to those bars - indeed,
perhaps that's already part of the plan?

After the way the 376s were delivered, I could believe anything.

I entirely accept the need for standing space, but surely by now it's
bleedin obvious that this can't be achieved by mixing seating and
standing space in the same part of the carriage.

No.

It would be better to have areas purely for standing either side of the
doors (slighly bigger than in 376s, without obstructions and with plenty
to hold on to) and short areas of transverse seating in between.
Longitudinal seating may appear to leave standing space according to
calculations, but in real life, space full of seated people's legs and
heads can't realistically be used for anything like as much standing as
a dedicated standing area.

Have you ever actually used the tube? Specifically, C stock, which has the
most comparable layout? The space between the seats can be and is used for
plenty of standing.

Of course I have. The layout on the Jubilee, for example, is awful,
with space for one and half people to stand between the end of the
seats and the first obstruction. The C stock has so many doors that
it wouldn't really be possible to have both standing and sitting space
between them.

Of course the space between can be used for standing, but not as
efficiently as it might.

A similar layout was tried and abandoned (thank gawd) on the DLR, and
the current DLR arrangement is pretty damn good.

The problem with 376s (really a reply to Mizter T, sorry) is that the
seated area is too long and the standing area too small and cluttered
to be taken proper advantage of.

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

Paul Corfield wrote:

The boundary point is known as Mantle's Wood. An odd bit of railway
given it's LU property but never used by LU passenger trains - only
Chiltern.

And last time I went up there the boundary between the two was rather
noticeable, as you had an obvious transition from sectional track (LU)
to continuous welded rail (NR), and from LU high density signalling to
incredibly long signal sections. (If memory serves, there are only three
or four signals between Mantles Wood and Aylesbury).

Cheers,

Barry

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

Mr Thant wrote:
On 24 Sep, 12:33, Boltar wrote:
And a few hundred people from each thameslink train walk over the
small bridge try and squash onto a circle line train to finish their
journey. Farringdon will be utter chaos every morning and evening.

Which is why they're putting in a much bigger bridge.

If memory serves, the 1990s plan for Crossrail featured Farringdon and
Liverpool Street being "double ended", affording interchange with
Barbican and Moorgate, respectively.

Cheers,

Barry

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

"Barry Salter" wrote in message
...
Mr Thant wrote:
On 24 Sep, 12:33, Boltar wrote:
And a few hundred people from each thameslink train walk over the
small bridge try and squash onto a circle line train to finish their
journey. Farringdon will be utter chaos every morning and evening.

Which is why they're putting in a much bigger bridge.

If memory serves, the 1990s plan for Crossrail featured Farringdon and
Liverpool Street being "double ended", affording interchange with Barbican
and Moorgate, respectively.

As does the recently agreed plan (for Crossrail). As for Thameslink, the
new Blackfriars and existing 'ity Thameslink are double ended, perhaps St
Pancras International should have been built similarly, as we've discussed
before.

However, doesn't the eventual Farringdon Thameslink/LU have access direct
to the street from the east side of one of the widened footbridges, so it
will at least have double entrances? I believe the initial arrangement with
steps down to the 'Circle' platforms is only a transitional stage towards an
eventual new entrance?

Paul S

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

Neil Williams wrote:
On 24 Sep, 13:42, Tom Anderson wrote:

Have you ever actually used the tube? Specifically, C stock, which has the
most comparable layout? The space between the seats can be and is used for
plenty of standing.

And is bloody inconvenient as such, because there is nowhere to stand
in C stock where you are not in the way of someone.

The OP has a good point - if TfL won't/can't fund longer trains (which
is the optimal solution), fewer seats and proper standbacks might
actually be better.

The main issue with the NLL, GOB and "core" ELL is one of platform
length, or lack thereof (though in the case of the GOB route, it's more
a lack of *serviceable* platform length, as a few of the stations still
retain their full length platforms, albeit with most of the length
fenced off).

Particular lengthening pinch points include:

Camden Road - Crossover and junction between Primrose Hill and "main"
NLL at the West end, bridge over the eponymous road at the East end

Willesden Junction (High Level) - Bridges over the WCML at the South
end, and the DC Lines and City Goods Lines at the North end.

Canada Water - Platforms only built long enough for 4 car A60/62 Stock.

South Tottenham - Junction with Seven Sisters Curve at the West end, and
curve onto West Anglia Main Line at the East end.

Cheers,

Barry

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

On 24 Sep, 14:27, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:26:20 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:

(snip)

We are getting new trains, tarted up stations (ignoring ELLX which is on
a different scale), some signalling works and some limited segregation
Highbury - Camden Road. We've also got Oyster ticketing which is partly
integrated at the moment but obviously Overground is more to do with the
rail network that say buses or DLR. Much of the infrastructure work is
to try to accommodate ELLX reaching Highbury and to accommodate freight
not segregate it! We've also just had yet more cost cutting at Camden
Road which compromises the service offer and potentially service
quality.

What's the real story with the reduced works package at Camden Road?
Is it simply that there is an allocated pot of money for these works,
and after some more detailed surveying had been done TfL and Network
Rail realised that the remedial works to bring the rail bridges up to
the required standard was going to cost significantly more than
originally estimated? That certainly appears to be the public line
that TfL are taking, and it's not like the rationale is totally
unbelievable.

I am told the costs from Network Rail came in higher than expected.
Attempts to reduce the costs and preserve the scheme failed so therefore
scope got the chop instead.


Thanks. It is, as I thought likely, basically as simple as that. The
four bridges over roads do look to be in a pretty crummy condition it
must be said, and I suppose their location in a tightly packed urban
environment can only increase costs.


Or has the allocated pot of money shrunk, or indeed was the allocated
amount never set in stone and thus was somewhat flexible - i.e. have
costs literally been cut for these works? That would fit in with the
notion that Boris is cutting budgets, though I was under the half-
impression that the new Mayoral administration had agreed that TfL's
budget was not under any major threat? (Or were the planned works
deemed as not delivering enough "taxpayer value"?)

TfL's budget is under huge threat from all sorts of issues - Crossrail
and PPP being just two. There are huge reviews and reorganisations being
undertaken to reduce costs. These started prior to the Mayoral election
but the intended arrival of Mr Parker certainly added some "emphasis" to
the process. Even though he's not turning up you'll note the quote from
Mr Hendy in the fares increase press release about a review process
inside TfL to "release funds".


Yes, I was well aware of the enormous pressures on the budget from
Crossrail and Metronet (the former in particular). I think my comment
came more from the news that the 'Boris budget cut backs' that were
going to affect other parts of the GLA (various City Hall functions in
particular) were not being extended to TfL - i.e. TfL's budget was not
going to be cut - but this doesn't mean that there isn't the
possibility of cuts of all sorts across TfL to enable funds to be
diverted towards Crossrail and Metronet.

Interesting what you say about the cost reviews starting prior to the
new administration but actually thinking about it that makes perfect
sense. I missed any discussions that happened here at the time but I'm
very glad that the so-called 'Prince of Darkness' Mr Parker won't be
the one swinging the knife - his talk of how "my shareholders will be
the taxpayers of London" missed a rather crucial point I feel, which
is that said Londoners would also be "his" customers. (I've read some
speculation that Bob Crow scared him off!) Mr Parker's departure seems
to secure the position of Peter Hendy as Transport Commissioner, the
deal being that he gets to hold the knife instead - but if there is to
be surgery I'd far prefer him to be doing it. (The "release funds"
quote is an interesting bit of spin it must be said - AFAICS "generate
funds" is really what he's saying!)

Back to the reduced scope of the Camden Road works, I've read
elsewhere people decrying this as the first concrete (or rather rusty
bridge) example of the widely feared Boris cutbacks affecting
transport schemes, but I did feel like this was too simple an analysis
- given the money pressures elsewhere would the same course of action
(or inaction) happened under the custodianship of Livingstone I asked
myself, and obviously there's no definitive answer but I think it
quite possible. He was also a pragmatist, and whilst he may have been
persuasive when it came to getting cash out of central government I
don't think the Treasury is remotely in the mood for loosening the
purse strings right now.


If the problem is the former - i.e. that the money available simply
doesn't cover the proposed works - then of course that's a big shame,
and it's also a shame that TfL couldn't find the money elsewhere or
pursuade the DfT to rustle up some cash for them, though of course (a)
the new Mayor isn't going to wield anything like the same amount of
pursuasive influence with central government as his predecessor, and
(b) perhaps just as importantly budgets are being squeezed all across
central government and (to some extent) the wider public sector now,
so the money isn't there for the taking anyway.

I think there are massive pressures and risks on costs and the lack of a
Transport Strategy doesn't help set a direction or allow for persuasive
argument with government. ELLX2 is different as it eases the pain on a
government scheme and is advantageous in its own right.


ELLX2 would take the pressure off London Bridge at a very opportune
time - that of the Thameslink reconstruction - but the service that's
getting kicked out of London Bridge because there's not enough space,
the Victoria to LB South London Line service, is going to get a quasi-
replacement that will run from Victoria to Bellingham via Peckham Rye
(or at least that's the strong recommendation of the sarf lahndon
RUS). I just fear that the DfT might think that it has done its bit
with that and thus ignore calls for ELLX2.


Nonetheless I still can't help but feel that the Mayor should've put
in more of a fight to make the original scheme happen. Perhaps it's
part of some faustian bargain with the DfT whereby ELLX phase 2 gets
funded? (I wish!) Or is ELLX phase 2 going to hit the rocks as well? :-
(

I had half expected an announcement on this during the Labour Party
conference but perhaps they're waiting for all the conferences to be
over before making any announcement at all. This avoids triumphalism on
the part of Boris in "winning" a battle with the government over this
scheme. The last I read there was a £50m gap which is relatively peanuts
in terms of government budgets but the money that's been chucked around
for other reasons may be making it hard to fill the gap. If it doesn't
happen now I don't see it happening for at least 10 years.


Mwmbwls had already speculated that this might happen, and I have to
say that I thought it unlikely - as much as the Labour government
might wish to claim credit for it, Boris would be the one out there on
the photo-op next to Millwall's stadium or wherever (actually perhaps
more likely at Clapham Junction, people there are more likely to vote
Tory!) proclaiming the arrival of a brand new line - even if he didn't
publicly proclaim it as a 'Boris victory' then that's certainly how
his people would spin it and how parts of the media would report it.
(Of course the new SoS Transport could make Boris look awkward by
demanding they appear together at a joint announcement!)

I do hope it gets the go ahead - I'm encouraged by Ken's 'gaffe' on
the London Tonight news programme's Mayoral election special where he
said that the DfT had basically agreed to give it the go-ahead. I hope
that this was the case and remains the case, and the delay in publicly
announcing it is merely a bit of news management (don't give Boris any
easy wins during his first 100 days) rather than the result of some
rethink.

The idea of running straight through to constructing phase 2 after
phase 1 has been finished of course has a lot to be said for it. Phase
2 basically requires a grade separated junction at Silwood Triangle
(south of Surrey Quays), and it would make every bit of sense for this
to be built now whilst the line is shut, but I haven't heard of any
announcements to this effect yet. I hope its coming soon...

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:01:24 +0100, Barry Salter
wrote:

The main issue with the NLL, GOB and "core" ELL is one of platform
length, or lack thereof (though in the case of the GOB route, it's more
a lack of *serviceable* platform length, as a few of the stations still
retain their full length platforms, albeit with most of the length
fenced off).

True, but none of the examples you cite are on the Euston-Watford
line, which is very much a poor relation compared with Merseyrail and
its ilk - a service with which it has many potential similarities.

Are there any actual 2-car platforms on the GOBLIN? I thought they
were all far longer than the trains, hence my criticism of the use of
2-car DMUs when maybe 4 would be more suitable.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:18:54 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

Of course I have. The layout on the Jubilee, for example, is awful,
with space for one and half people to stand between the end of the
seats and the first obstruction. The C stock has so many doors that
it wouldn't really be possible to have both standing and sitting space
between them.

This is true, though that makes them awful trains to travel in when
there aren't enough seats, because when standing it is impossible not
to be in somebody's way.

I think something like the D stock layout would work best, but instead
of having those side-facing seats make that space a standback on both
sides of the doors. This, if done as 3+2, would give almost as many
seats as a longitudinal arrangement but also a far better space for
standing in without being in people's way. Even as 2+2 with wider
seats it'd give a better balance, IMO. Maybe like SWT have done to
their 455s?

Elsewhere, though, I still take the view that once "Metroland" gets to
see the S-stock and how it compares with the civilised A-stock, they
are *not* going to be impressed, and Chiltern are suddenly going to
get an influx of new passengers. And I'm not convinced the money
wouldn't in the case of the S-stock have been better spent on
completely relaying the track, as it is in an absolutely woeful state
for a major city. (This is one of the things that the Germans tend to
take great pride in).

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

Mizter T wrote:
The idea of running straight through to constructing phase 2 after
phase 1 has been finished of course has a lot to be said for it. Phase
2 basically requires a grade separated junction at Silwood Triangle
(south of Surrey Quays), and it would make every bit of sense for this
to be built now whilst the line is shut, but I haven't heard of any
announcements to this effect yet. I hope its coming soon...

The grade separated junction has been confirmed, Mr Thant covered it a while
ago:

http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...rks-to-go.html

To save drilling down through the links it's mentioned in he

http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/ACOLLATEDOCS/36608_1.pdf

Paul S

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:39:23 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

They are like a mix of suburban train services with central area tunnel
sections to distribute people into the central business district as well
as providing a cross regional link. Not unlike Crossrail or the RER in
some respects. Berlin has orbital services and I think the Rhine Ruhr
does too but I don't see London Overground being remotely comparable to
those sorts of networks.

An S-Bahn is essentially a middle-distance heavy-rail metro. I would
say that its closest equivalent in London might be the Metropolitan
Line or maybe the District, or elsewhere Merseyrail and its ilk.

Is it seats vs standing space? Do S-bahnen have more?

They tend to have wide 2+2 but with a lot of standing space between.

Isn't that because
they're like a RER or Thameslink, and run from far out? Whereas the Goblin
only runs for a few miles, so doesn't need to be all-seater, and since
it's going to be two cars every fifteen minutes but will hopefully attract
lots more people because of the rebranding, benefits from the extra
standing capacity that comes with longitudinal seating.

This is a fair point...

I'm grateful we're getting the work done but a rebuild to S Bahn
standards it is not - perhaps because the lines that constitute
Overground could never really mirror what I see as a German S Bahn
network. Still I'm sure we'll see Neil's response in due time and see
what aspects he is critical of.

Mainly that money is being spent on new, replacement stock under the
banner of "London's new train set", when the problem with the lines
isn't the stock per-se, but the *quantity* of it, and the platform
lengths in the case of the NLL and potentially GOBLIN.

IOW, I accept that with LUL the cost of extending platforms is
absolutely prohibitive because of the tunnelling required. However, I
don't accept the same of the NLL etc, as it's mainly above ground. I
therefore don't think LUL "solutions" should be applied to that kind
of railway, because the problem just isn't the same.

I do see the political "spend it now, look good" thing, though I don't
see why anything needed to be spent on such wasteful things as
removing the Silverlink "swish" from Bushey's mainline platforms, for
instance. I also think they'd have been best saving up the money to
do things properly overall.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 24 Sep, 13:47, Tom Anderson wrote:
Is that just an illusion due to the angle of the shot? From the outside,
it looks like there are windows either side of the central one, but
they're obscured by the monitors.

The driver looks out of the left side window (or the right from
outside).

Aaah, that makes sense. I'd assumed his window was in the middle!

It looks to me like the centre cab door is opaque, so the monitors in
front of it aren't obscuring anything, and the monitor on the left of
the picture is against the side wall. There's a tiny window to the left
of it for seeing stopping marks and such. Pretty much the same view as
in other trains with cab-end doors.

Can the driver, or anyone else, see out of the right-hand window? Or is
that opaque too?

If people want to use the door, what happens to the monitors? Do they fold
out of the way or something?

tom

--
Pizza: cheap, easy, and portable. Oh, wait, that's me. Never mind. -- edda

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Neil Williams wrote:

On 24 Sep, 13:42, Tom Anderson wrote:

Have you ever actually used the tube? Specifically, C stock, which has the
most comparable layout? The space between the seats can be and is used for
plenty of standing.

And is bloody inconvenient as such, because there is nowhere to stand
in C stock where you are not in the way of someone.

There's nowhere to stand in *London* where you are not in the way of
someone!

The OP has a good point - if TfL won't/can't fund longer trains (which
is the optimal solution), fewer seats and proper standbacks might
actually be better.

I'm not against trading seats for more standing space (to a certain degree
- although i would certainly like to see all-standing trains on the
Northern line in the peaks!). But i understood that one of the things MIG
was arguing for was using the seating space for transverse rather than
longitudinal seating, and to me, that seems retrograde, since that
requires takes away more area per seat from the standing room.

The core of our argument is MIG's assertion that "in real life, space full
of seated people's legs and heads can't realistically be used for anything
like as much standing as a dedicated standing area": he thinks that the
conventional wisdom that longitudinal seats can easily be stood next to is
wrong, and thus that they don't have an advantage over transverse seats -
indeed, that they're less good. I don't agree with him. I think this is a
disagreement that can't be settleed by argument - we need data, really.

tom

--
Pizza: cheap, easy, and portable. Oh, wait, that's me. Never mind. -- edda

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:44:13 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:01:24 +0100, Barry Salter
wrote:

The main issue with the NLL, GOB and "core" ELL is one of platform
length, or lack thereof (though in the case of the GOB route, it's more
a lack of *serviceable* platform length, as a few of the stations still
retain their full length platforms, albeit with most of the length
fenced off).

True, but none of the examples you cite are on the Euston-Watford
line, which is very much a poor relation compared with Merseyrail and
its ilk - a service with which it has many potential similarities.

Are there any actual 2-car platforms on the GOBLIN? I thought they
were all far longer than the trains, hence my criticism of the use of
2-car DMUs when maybe 4 would be more suitable.

From memory (so possibly incorrect!)

Gospel Oak - can certainly take 2 two car units as the peak extra unit
stables there midday.
Upper Holloway - loads of space on existing platform
Crouch Hill - loads of space on existing platform
Harringey Green Lanes - not overly long but could be extended eastwards.
South Tottenham - Barry has discussed this one already.
Blackhorse Road - just over 2 car lengths long but could be extended.
Walthamstow Queens Road - loads of space on existing platform
Leyton Midland Road - loads of space on existing platform
Leytonstone High Road - loads of space on existing platform
Wanstead Park - loads of space on existing platform
Woodgrange Park - loads of space on existing platform
Barking - not 100% certain but I think there's plenty of room.

Where the old platforms were removed or stations moved the replacement
platforms have tended to be much shorter than their predecessors.

--
Paul C

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

Neil Williams wrote:

Are there any actual 2-car platforms on the GOBLIN? I thought they
were all far longer than the trains, hence my criticism of the use of
2-car DMUs when maybe 4 would be more suitable.

Quail gives the shortest platform as being South Tottenham Eastbound, at
3 coaches. Next shortest are Blackhorse Road (both roads) and South
Tottenham Westbound, at 4 coaches. Longest are Harringay Green Lanes
(both roads) at 11 coaches.

The Rules of the Plan, meanwhile, give the following platform lengths
(number of Class 150/1 vehicles, at 20.06m, in brackets):

Gospel Oak - Bay : 97m (4 vehicles)
Upper Holloway - Both : 124m (6 vehicles)
Crouch Hill - Both : 122m (6 vehicles)
Harringay Green Lanes - Both : 220m (10 vehicles)
South Tottenham - Eastbound : 52m (2 vehicles)
Westbound : 81m (4 vehicles)
Blackhorse Road - Both : 84m (4 vehicles)
Walthamstow Queens Road - Eastbound : 154m (7 vehicles)
Westbound : 181m (9 vehicles)
Leyton Midland Road - Both : 156m (7 vehicles)
Leytonstone High Road - Both : 163m (8 vehicles)
Wanstead Park - Both : 147m (7 vehicles)
Woodgrange Park - Both : 165m (8 vehicles)
Barking - Platform 1 : 183m (9 vehicles)

NB: The above are the *TOTAL* length, and do not necessarily represent
the *OPERATIONAL* length of the platforms in question.

Cheers,

Barry

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

It looks to me like the centre cab door is opaque, so the monitors in
front of it aren't obscuring anything, and the monitor on the left of
the picture is against the side wall. There's a tiny window to the
left of it for seeing stopping marks and such. Pretty much the same
view as in other trains with cab-end doors.

Can the driver, or anyone else, see out of the right-hand window? Or
is that opaque too?

If people want to use the door, what happens to the monitors? Do they
fold out of the way or something?

Yes - that aspect is fairly standard on gangway fitted EMUs. The Electrostar
cabs have a fair amount of kit that gets repositioned (towards the drivers
seat) when the gangway between units is in use IIRC.

Paul S

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

ELLX2 would take the pressure off London Bridge at a very opportune
time - that of the Thameslink reconstruction - but the service that's
getting kicked out of London Bridge because there's not enough space,
the Victoria to LB South London Line service, is going to get a quasi-
replacement that will run from Victoria to Bellingham via Peckham Rye
(or at least that's the strong recommendation of the sarf lahndon
RUS). I just fear that the DfT might think that it has done its bit
with that and thus ignore calls for ELLX2.

So if I got to Denmark Hill station, how would I get to Central London
without the South London Line service?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

On 24 Sep, 20:47, Barry Salter wrote:
Neil Williams wrote:
Are there any actual 2-car platforms on the GOBLIN? *I thought they
were all far longer than the trains, hence my criticism of the use of
2-car DMUs when maybe 4 would be more suitable.

Quail gives the shortest platform as being South Tottenham Eastbound, at
3 coaches. Next shortest are Blackhorse Road (both roads) and South
Tottenham Westbound, at 4 coaches. Longest are Harringay Green Lanes
(both roads) at 11 coaches.

The Rules of the Plan, meanwhile, give the following platform lengths
(number of Class 150/1 vehicles, at 20.06m, in brackets):

* * * * * * * Gospel Oak - Bay : 97m (4 vehicles)
* * * * * Upper Holloway - Both : 124m (6 vehicles)
* * * * * * *Crouch Hill - Both : 122m (6 vehicles)
* *Harringay Green Lanes - Both : 220m (10 vehicles)
* * * * *South Tottenham - Eastbound : 52m (2 vehicles)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *Westbound : 81m (4 vehicles)
* * * * *Blackhorse Road - Both : 84m (4 vehicles)
Walthamstow Queens Road - Eastbound : 154m (7 vehicles)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *Westbound : 181m (9 vehicles)
* * *Leyton Midland Road - Both : 156m (7 vehicles)
* *Leytonstone High Road - Both : 163m (8 vehicles)
* * * * * *Wanstead Park - Both : 147m (7 vehicles)
* * * * *Woodgrange Park - Both : 165m (8 vehicles)
* * * * * * * * *Barking - Platform 1 : 183m (9 vehicles)

NB: The above are the *TOTAL* length, and do not necessarily represent
the *OPERATIONAL* length of the platforms in question.

Cheers,

Barry

So if I read that correctly, if you could lengthen the eastbound at
South Tottenham by doubling it (and looking at Google Maps shows no
apparent obstacles to extending that much eastwards - not to mention
you could probably get a few metres by going west up closer to the
bridge), you could have a four-car DMU service with little to no
*major* works?

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

On Sep 24, 7:48*pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:18:54 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:
Of course I have. *The layout on the Jubilee, for example, is awful,
with space for one and half people to stand between the end of the
seats and the first obstruction. *The C stock has so many doors that
it wouldn't really be possible to have both standing and sitting space
between them.

This is true, though that makes them awful trains to travel in when
there aren't enough seats, because when standing it is impossible not
to be in somebody's way.

I think something like the D stock layout would work best, but instead
of having those side-facing seats make that space a standback on both
sides of the doors. *This, if done as 3+2, would give almost as many
seats as a longitudinal arrangement but also a far better space for
standing in without being in people's way. *Even as 2+2 with wider
seats it'd give a better balance, IMO. *Maybe like SWT have done to
their 455s?

Yes, I think that the SWT 455 refurbishments are another example of
good design, and really show up the lack of thought that went into the
nearly new 376s.

A short section of transverse seating (so no one needs to queue to get
in and out of it) is an efficient way of making room for seated
passengers, because the knees can be at least as close to each other
as they ever could to a standing person, without the person opposite
dangling bags in one's face etc.

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

Jamie Thompson wrote:

So if I read that correctly, if you could lengthen the eastbound at
South Tottenham by doubling it (and looking at Google Maps shows no
apparent obstacles to extending that much eastwards - not to mention
you could probably get a few metres by going west up closer to the
bridge), you could have a four-car DMU service with little to no
*major* works?

The best bet for lengthening at South Tottenham would be at the East
end, but even then you haven't got much room to play with before the
junction.

It's been a while since I've been there, but ISTR the Westbound platform
extends right to the bridge over the High Road already, but the
Eastbound doesn't go all that far.

Cheers,

Barry

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

On 24 Sep, 22:04, wrote:

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

ELLX2 would take the pressure off London Bridge at a very opportune
time - that of the Thameslink reconstruction - but the service that's
getting kicked out of London Bridge because there's not enough space,
the Victoria to LB South London Line service, is going to get a quasi-
replacement that will run from Victoria to Bellingham via Peckham Rye
(or at least that's the strong recommendation of the sarf lahndon
RUS). I just fear that the DfT might think that it has done its bit
with that and thus ignore calls for ELLX2.

So if I got to Denmark Hill station, how would I get to Central London
without the South London Line service?


The South London Line isn't the only service that serves Denmark Hill.
I'll run through them - (these are off-peak service patters BTW,
there's a few extra rush hour trains to and from Victoria though none
of these are SLL services).

* The aforementioned South London Line (SLL) service - half-hourly
service calling at all stations between Victoria and London Bridge via
Peckham Rye. Runs seven days a week.

* Blackfriars to Sevenoaks service - half hourly service calling at
all stations from Blackfriars to Sevenoaks via Peckham Rye and
Swanley. Runs Monday to Saturday, on Sunday this service does run but
from Victoria rather than Blackfriars - hence it doesn't call at
Elephant & Castle, instead it runs fast between Victoria and Denmark
Hill.

* Victoria to Dartford service via Lewisham - half hourly service,
runs fast between Victoria and Denmark Hill then all stations to
Dartford via Lewisham and Bexleyheath. Runs Monday to Saturday only,
no Sunday service. Also this service finishes altogether in mid-
evening.

---

So, let's fast forward to the brave new world. The SLL service as it
stands is set to finish for three main reasons - (1) there's not going
to be enough space in the rebuilt London Bridge to accommodate it
because the station will have fewer terminating platforms;
(2) the main platforms at Battersea Park are set to be extended to
handle longer suburban trains - because of the layout of the station
this will mean that the extended platforms will foul the junction with
the SLL and hence SLL services are to be sacrificed to this end;
(3) the south central side of Victoria station is too busy, getting
rid of the SLL will provide more platform capacity for other suburban
services.

However, there is a plan for a replacement South London Line service -
I've called it "SLL2" before so I will do so again but do note that's
not its official name! SLL2 will run from the less congested south
eastern side of Victoria, it will completely bypass Battersea Park
station altogether by taking a different route, it will then call at
all stations from Wandsworth Road via Denmark Hill to Peckham Rye,
then instead of turning towards London Bridge it will carry on along
the Catford Loop line calling at Nunhead, Crofton Park, Catford and
then terminate at Bellingham (where there are sidings it can make use
of).

In this new world there will not be any direct trains from Denmark
Hill to London Bridge - those wishing to make this journey by rail
will need to take the first train from DH to Peckham Rye then one of
the frequent services from there to London Bridge. Alternatively
people might wish to consider travelling by bus (route 40 from DH
station, or routes 35, 40 and 45 from Camberwell Green), or possibly
walking to/starting from Peckham Rye instead, if that's convenient.

Note that changes to the SLL service will not affect the Sevenoaks or
Dartford services.

---

*If* ELLX phase 2 gets the go-ahead then on top of the services
outlined above trains will run every 15 minutes on the route Clapham
Junction - Wandsworth Road - then all stations (i,e. Clapham High
Street - Denmark Hill - Peckham Rye) to Queen's Road Peckham - then
onto the new ELLX phase 2 route and call at the new Surrey Canal Road
station before a junction with the existing ELL route and Surrey Quays
station then on northwards.

ELLX phase 2 would not in itself provide any extra direct connections
to central London, but it would (a) provide extra trains between DH
and Peckham Rye for connections to London Bridge, and (b) provide an
easy interchange with the Jubilee line at Canada Water. I don't think
that going via Canada Water to get to London Bridge necessarily makes
a lot of sense (though time wise it might actually be OK), but if
passengers were intending on travelling on the Jubilee to points west
then the Canada Water interchange becomes more attractive - esp.
compared to the slightly awkward change onto the Jubilee from the
above ground platforms at LB.

It's also possible that the extra ELLX trains might make changing to
the Northern line at Clapham High Street/ Clapham North (just across
the road from each other) more attractive - though in the rush hour
the Northern line is already packed solid by this point for northbound
journeys. I suppose it's remotely possible that some pax might prefer
getting on the Northern line here compared to joining the scrum at the
tube station at London Bridge, though I have to say there's probably a
better way of doing their journey!

---

One final thing - the Blackfriars to Sevenoaks trains are going to be
extended from Blackfriars through the central section of Thameslink to
terminate at Kentish Town, This is an intermediate measure because
Blackfriars station is going to be redeveloped as part of Thameslink
3000 and will be losing its bay platforms for a while - however it now
looks as though the Catford Loop line route to Sevenoaks will form one
of the permanent Thameslink routes once all the works have finished
(in effect swapping with the Sutton Loop line, which is currently
served by Thameslink but will in future years have trains terminating
at new bay platforms on the other side of Blackfriars station to where
the current bay platforms are situated).

New through services via the Thameslink route across central London
might help to lessen the blow to users of DH for the loss of the
direct London Bridge services (though courtesy of works in the central
Thameslink section it's unlikely said services will run through during
most weekends).

I trust that's all clear as mud! I'm happy to clarify any of the above.

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

On Sep 25, 1:38*am, Mizter T wrote:
On 24 Sep, 22:04, wrote:





In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

ELLX2 would take the pressure off London Bridge at a very opportune
time - that of the Thameslink reconstruction - but the service that's
getting kicked out of London Bridge because there's not enough space,
the Victoria to LB South London Line service, is going to get a quasi-
replacement that will run from Victoria to Bellingham via Peckham Rye
(or at least that's the strong recommendation of the sarf lahndon
RUS). I just fear that the DfT might think that it has done its bit
with that and thus ignore calls for ELLX2.

So if I got to Denmark Hill station, how would I get to Central London
without the South London Line service?

The South London Line isn't the only service that serves Denmark Hill.
I'll run through them - (these are off-peak service patters BTW,
there's a few extra rush hour trains to and from Victoria though none
of these are SLL services).

* The aforementioned South London Line (SLL) service - half-hourly
service calling at all stations between Victoria and London Bridge via
Peckham Rye. Runs seven days a week.

* Blackfriars to Sevenoaks service - half hourly service calling at
all stations from Blackfriars to Sevenoaks via Peckham Rye and
Swanley. Runs Monday to Saturday, on Sunday this service does run but
from Victoria rather than Blackfriars - hence it doesn't call at
Elephant & Castle, instead it runs fast between Victoria and Denmark
Hill.

* Victoria to Dartford service via Lewisham - half hourly service,
runs fast between Victoria and Denmark Hill then all stations to
Dartford via Lewisham and Bexleyheath. Runs Monday to Saturday only,
no Sunday service. Also this service finishes altogether in mid-
evening.

---

So, let's fast forward to the brave new world. The SLL service as it
stands is set to finish for three main reasons - (1) there's not going
to be enough space in the rebuilt London Bridge to accommodate it
because the station will have fewer terminating platforms;
(2) the main platforms at Battersea Park are set to be extended to
handle longer suburban trains - because of the layout of the station
this will mean that the extended platforms will foul the junction with
the SLL and hence SLL services are to be sacrificed to this end;
(3) the south central side of Victoria station is too busy, getting
rid of the SLL will provide more platform capacity for other suburban
services.

However, there is a plan for a replacement South London Line service -
I've called it "SLL2" before so I will do so again but do note that's
not its official name! SLL2 will run from the less congested south
eastern side of Victoria, it will completely bypass Battersea Park
station altogether by taking a different route,

I didn't know that. Sounds like the loss of a useful diversion route.

So it will have to use Stewarts Lane in both directions, which will be
a bit of a pinch.

it will then call at
all stations from Wandsworth Road via Denmark Hill to Peckham Rye,
then instead of turning towards London Bridge it will carry on along
the Catford Loop line calling at Nunhead, Crofton Park, Catford and
then terminate at Bellingham (where there are sidings it can make use
of).

In this new world there will not be any direct trains from Denmark
Hill to London Bridge - those wishing to make this journey by rail
will need to take the first train from DH to Peckham Rye then one of
the frequent services from there to London Bridge.

(Significantly less frequent without the service from Denmark Hill
though.)

But only the potential ELLX services could provide a convenient
interchange at Peckham Rye by the sound of it. Otherwise a trek
through ****-soaked, concrete staircases for people who don't normally
see Peckham except through the train window.

Not a very attractive route to London Bridge for people who currently
have a regular train service, including large numbers of hospital
staff.

My bet is that with the coming recession, extended platforms at
Battersea Park won't be used, and ELLX2 won't happen, so it will be a
loss of service with no corresponding benefit. Happy to be proved
wrong though ...

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

MIG wrote in news:051823b7-ea14-4958-bcfa-
:

Yes, I think that the SWT 455 refurbishments are another example of
good design, and really show up the lack of thought that went into the
nearly new 376s.

Hmm, to a point, yes. The 455s still quite often depart from Clapham Jn
and Vauxhall inbound during the morning peak before all those wanting to
get off are able to do so. The main problem with the redesign is the
airline-style seats: if the person in the window seat wants out then the
person in the aisle seat has to get up and move into the aisle, but when
that's full of standing passengers (or passengers queueing to get off),
they can't do so in time.

At CJ in particular, the passengers waiting to board usually start doing so
before those leaving are all out, which only adds to the problem.

A guard said to me that SWT is judged on trains arriving at Waterloo on
time. Passengers complaining don't cost them money.

Peter

--
Peter Campbell Smith ~ London ~ pjcs00 (a) gmail.com

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

In article
,
(MIG) wrote:

Yes, I think that the SWT 455 refurbishments are another example of
good design, and really show up the lack of thought that went into the
nearly new 376s.

The SWT refurbished 455s compare very favourably with the various 317
refurbishments which are pants by comparison.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

Barry Salter wrote:

The best bet for lengthening at South Tottenham would be at the East
end, but even then you haven't got much room to play with before the
junction.

Wouldn't staggered platforms work there - extend the eastbound platform at
the east end and the westbound at the west end? It wouldn't matter if they
extended beyond the junctions as the only trains stopping at South Tottenham
are those on the T&H line (in fact services from Copper Mill heading to or
from Seven Sisters can't stop as the up/down crossover is midway along the
platforms).

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

"Jack Taylor" wrote

Wouldn't staggered platforms work there - extend the eastbound platform at
the east end and the westbound at the west end? It wouldn't matter if they
extended beyond the junctions as the only trains stopping at South
Tottenham
are those on the T&H line (in fact services from Copper Mill heading to or
from Seven Sisters can't stop as the up/down crossover is midway along the
platforms).

There's a sort of bite out of the westbound platform, to allow for the
throw-over when trains use the crossover.

Peter

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

On Sep 24, 10:04*pm, wrote:

So if I got to Denmark Hill station, how would I get to Central London
without the South London Line service?

On a Dartford - Victoria or Sevenoaks - Blackfriars service. (Of
course, the latter will be a Sevenoaks - somewhere in Thameslink North
land service from next March...)

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

In article
,
(Rupert Candy) wrote:

On Sep 24, 10:04*pm, wrote:

So if I got to Denmark Hill station, how would I get to Central London
without the South London Line service?

On a Dartford - Victoria or Sevenoaks - Blackfriars service. (Of
course, the latter will be a Sevenoaks - somewhere in Thameslink North
land service from next March...)

Not exactly on the way to Liverpool Street though.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, wrote:

In article
,
(Rupert Candy) wrote:

On Sep 24, 10:04*pm, wrote:

So if I got to Denmark Hill station, how would I get to Central London
without the South London Line service?

On a Dartford - Victoria or Sevenoaks - Blackfriars service. (Of
course, the latter will be a Sevenoaks - somewhere in Thameslink North
land service from next March...)

Not exactly on the way to Liverpool Street though.

Once the trains are running through, you can change at Farringdon.

tom

--
Demolish serious culture!

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, wrote:

In article


,
(Rupert Candy) wrote:

On Sep 24, 10:04*pm, wrote:

So if I got to Denmark Hill station, how would I get to Central
London without the South London Line service?

On a Dartford - Victoria or Sevenoaks - Blackfriars service. (Of
course, the latter will be a Sevenoaks - somewhere in Thameslink
North land service from next March...)

Not exactly on the way to Liverpool Street though.

Once the trains are running through, you can change at Farringdon.

A long way round though. Denmark Hill - London Bridge - Liverpool St is a
fairly direct route.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

On 26 Sep, 22:26, wrote:

In article
,
(Rupert Candy) wrote:

On Sep 24, 10:04*pm, wrote:

So if I got to Denmark Hill station, how would I get to Central London
without the South London Line service?

On a Dartford - Victoria or Sevenoaks - Blackfriars service. (Of
course, the latter will be a Sevenoaks - somewhere in Thameslink North
land service from next March...)

Not exactly on the way to Liverpool Street though.


For a Denmark Hill aka Camberwell to Liverpool Street journey I have
to say that going via the SLL to London Bridge would not be the first
thing that popped into my head.

Incidentally I don't know how you get from London Bridge to Liverpool
Street - do you take the Northern line to Moorgate and walk round the
corner, or do you take a bus?
(One can take a Circle/Met/H&C train one stop from Moorgate to
Liverpool St station, but I'd choose to walk it at street level as I
think it's just as quick - I suppose the Circle line at Liverrpool
Street does deliver you fairly close to the concourse though. That
said, if I was using Oyster PAYG for my journey on the mainline trains
out of LST then I'd quite possibly go to Liverpool St Underground
station so I could take advantage of being charged for one continuous
journey rather than two separate journeys.)

Anyway, my alternate routes from DH/Camberwell to Liverpool St would
either be to take a bus (routes 185/ 36/ 436) up Camberwell New Road
to Oval tube station then Northern line to Moorgate, or just take a
bus all the way - the 35 and 42 go from Camberwell Green to Liverpool
St, the 40 goes to Aldgate which is a v short walk away, or if one is
feeling adventurous and is prepared to grapple with the somewhat
esoteric ways of Elephant & Castle one can bus hop (i.e. first bus
from Camberwell to E&C, then one of three bus routes on to Liverpool
St). And yes, I'd genuinely say that taking a bus off-peak might well
compare quite favourably to your option of taking a train from DH to
London Bridge and then doing whatever it is that you do. However I'm
aware that often my efforts to persuade people that the bus is a
legitimate option worthy of consideration are just exercises in
futility!

Yet more options could involve taking the train from DH to E&C then
taking the Northern line to Moorgate, or taking a bus from Camberwell
to E&C then the tube, or variations thereof.

Tom Anderson's suggestion of the possibility of taking a direct train
from DH to Farringdon (post-March '09) is also actually a very good
one in my mind - but I'll address what I think are your slightly
misplaced concerns about that downthread...

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

On 27 Sep, 10:06, wrote:

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, wrote:

In article
,
(Rupert Candy) wrote:

On Sep 24, 10:04*pm, wrote:

So if I got to Denmark Hill station, how would I get to Central
London without the South London Line service?

On a Dartford - Victoria or Sevenoaks - Blackfriars service. (Of
course, the latter will be a Sevenoaks - somewhere in Thameslink
North land service from next March...)

Not exactly on the way to Liverpool Street though.

Once the trains are running through, you can change at Farringdon.

A long way round though. Denmark Hill - London Bridge - Liverpool St is a
fairly direct route.


Err, not really - in fact, I'd argue that the via Farringdon route is
as direct as going via London Bridge.

I'm not sure how you get from London Bridge to Liverpool Street? If
it's by tube, then one has to negotiate one's way to the tube station
at London Bridge which is a bit convoluted - then the Northern line
will take you to Moorgate, from whence you either walk or take the
Circle line one stop to Liverpool Street.

If instead you take the bus from London Bridge to Liverpool Street,
then whilst there are four routes that do this journey only two of
them (the 48 and 149) actually go from the bus station directly
outside the concourse - if one wants the possibility of catching any
of them one has to makes ones way to the bus stop on the south side of
London Bridge itself.

Meanwhile the train from DH will take you directly to Farringdon,
whence you just need to cross over to the eastbound Cicle/Met/H&C
platform (possibly using the new wide footbridge that's currently
under construction) and then it's just three stops to Liverpool Street
itself. I will grant you that the train is likely to dawdle a bit from
Blackfriars to Farringdon, as all Thameslink trains currently do -
when Thameslink 2000 (sic) is eventually complete this will be far
nippier.

With regards to which route is "direct" - well the train from DH to
London Bridge swings right out to the east through east Peckham and
Bermondsey before approaching LB, which is hardly geographically very
direct as . Meanwhile the train from DH to Farringdon instead takes a
route that more or less goes directly north into and then through
central London.- then from Farringdon one just needs to go due east
for about a mile.

So I'd have to take you up on your assertion that the Farringdon route
would be "the long way round" and the London Bridge route is "fairly
direct".

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

On 27 Sep, 14:48, Mizter T wrote:

On 27 Sep, 10:06, wrote:

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, wrote:

In article
,
(Rupert Candy) wrote:

On Sep 24, 10:04*pm, wrote:

So if I got to Denmark Hill station, how would I get to Central
London without the South London Line service?

On a Dartford - Victoria or Sevenoaks - Blackfriars service. (Of
course, the latter will be a Sevenoaks - somewhere in Thameslink
North land service from next March...)

Not exactly on the way to Liverpool Street though.

Once the trains are running through, you can change at Farringdon.

A long way round though. Denmark Hill - London Bridge - Liverpool St is a
fairly direct route.

Err, not really - in fact, I'd argue that the via Farringdon route is
as direct as going via London Bridge.

(snip)

One thing I forgot to mention in my reply above (which incidentally
perhaps sounds a bit harsh when I re-read it, that wasn't the
intention) is ELLX phase 2!

This would offer the opportunity of catching a direct train from DH to
the new Shoreditch High Street station, which is just up the road from
Liverpool Street. It's certainly not the direct route from DH to
Liverpool Street that the crow would fly, but it would offer a
frequent (every 15 mins) and direct train service to the eastern edge
of the City by going 'round the outside'. I think it'd be ideal for
journeys from DH to Liverpool Street, with a short walk of 5 mins or
so along Bishopsgate and Norton Folgate between the stations.