|
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?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk