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

Looks like they had plenty of seating material left over from the old
tube D stock.

B2003

On Sep 24, 11:13 am, Mizter T wrote:
I presume its the line to Moorgate you speak of? In which case usage
will become zero come March next year when it gets disconnected as
part of the Thameslink 3000 works.

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.

B2003

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.

U

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.

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"?)

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.

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? :-
(


(snip)

Basically i don't get the use of 'tube-style trains' as a diss. Tube-style
trains aren't a compromise, they're exactly what's needed on the tube.

If it's the paucity of doors that's being criticised, then i'm with that.

Given that none of us have travelled in a 378 or seen one in action yet
I think it's too early to be critical. Having seen one or two busy NLL
trains I can see why there is an emphasis on standing space rather than
seats. Whether the design is correct internally we shall wait and see. I
doubt it will prove impossible to rejig the interior if it is deemed not
to "work" correctly.


FWIW there is going to be a large, open gangway between each carriage
that should ease the passage of people into less crowded carriages -
see:
http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...ain-photo.html

As you say, it's not going to be the end of the world if this new
arrangement doesn't work. I reckon that grab handles suspended from
the top bars might make an appearance... you heard it here first!

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, 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?

Passengers will be expected to carry hooks with which to grab onto the
rails.

During the peaks, a sliding system based on military static line
parchuting setups will be used for rapid egress.

tom

--
skin thinking

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.

tom

--
skin thinking

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Boltar 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

Looks like they had plenty of seating material left over from the old
tube D stock.

Indeed!

I'm also surprised by the narrow field of view the driver gets:

http://www.upmain.fotopic.net/p53614363.html

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.

tom

--
skin thinking

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.

On 24 Sep, 11:16, "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.

Neil

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.

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".

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.

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.
--
Paul C