On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:44:18 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:56:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert Candy
wrote:

Incidentally, why did they have to make a 'pretend Underground train'
out of a watered-down suburban train with only 2 doors per side?
Surely the future S stock would have made a much better base vehicle
for this sort of application?

Dunno, but there is no excuse for 2-car DMUs to be being used on this
kind of service.

While I'd love electric trains on the GOBLIN at least we are going to
get a 15 minute service and yes with 2 car diesels. That's one heck of
an improvement from where we are today. I'd rather have that a 3 or 4
car unit every 30 minutes. I recognise that might unleash a lot of
demand but at least something is being done to improve the service and
it's being done now. And our lovely Mayor has already said the GOBLIN
will get *3* car trains (choke!).

Nor should TfL be running 3 cars on the Watfords
when 6 would fit with a bit of power upgrading.

Can't comment on this service as I've only used it once in the last year
and it was busy considering it was a Saturday.

The whole of LO appears to me to be an almighty expensive cop-out for
a capital city. Look at Merseyrail for how it should be done (and
without any new MUs), then try again.

Eh? Sorry but you'll have to explain why you think it's a cop out. TfL
have been quite clear that the concept is to emulate the best of the
Tube's service quality and not to try to be some TfL version of a train
service that in most cases is inadequate. Silverlink Metro certainly
was inadequate for many years with no sign of anyone in National Rail
land wishing to do anything about it.

Tube-style trains are a compromise for the Tube. There is no need for
a heavy-rail S-Bahn to be like that.

That's an interesting comparison but I really don't see Overground being
remotely like a German style S Bahn service. I suspect that if TfL had
sought to construct Overground to the lavish specification that's
typically used in Germany we'd have got precisely nowhere in terms of
getting the lines improved.

--
Paul C

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:44:18 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:56:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert Candy
wrote:

Incidentally, why did they have to make a 'pretend Underground train'
out of a watered-down suburban train with only 2 doors per side?
Surely the future S stock would have made a much better base vehicle
for this sort of application?

The whole of LO appears to me to be an almighty expensive cop-out for a
capital city. Look at Merseyrail for how it should be done (and
without any new MUs), then try again. Tube-style trains are a
compromise for the Tube. There is no need for a heavy-rail S-Bahn to
be like that.

That's an interesting comparison but I really don't see Overground being
remotely like a German style S Bahn service. I suspect that if TfL had
sought to construct Overground to the lavish specification that's
typically used in Germany we'd have got precisely nowhere in terms of
getting the lines improved.

Hang on, hang on: what are the differences between what we're getting and
what the Germans have got that are significant? I've never been to Germany
or gone on any kind of bahn, so i don't know what they're like.

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

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.

tom

--
Know who said that? ****ing Terrorvision, that's who. -- D

On 23 Sep, 22:44, (Neil Williams)
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:56:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert Candy

wrote:
Incidentally, why did they have to make a 'pretend Underground train'
out of a watered-down suburban train with only 2 doors per side?
Surely the future S stock would have made a much better base vehicle
for this sort of application?

Dunno, but there is no excuse for 2-car DMUs to be being used on this
kind of service. *Nor should TfL be running 3 cars on the Watfords
when 6 would fit with a bit of power upgrading.

The whole of LO appears to me to be an almighty expensive cop-out for
a capital city. *Look at Merseyrail for how it should be done (and
without any new MUs), then try again.

Tube-style trains are a compromise for the Tube. *There is no need for
a heavy-rail S-Bahn to be like that.


Like Paul Corfield I'm *genuinely* perplexed by your comments. TfL and
the previous Mayor played a hard game of political poker with central
government to get improvements on these services - indeed they have
already improved and more is in the pipeline, the new trains forming
part of that.

What's the "almighty expensive cop-out"? The new trains? Well please
come and travel on the NLL during the peaks, really, do so - they are
completely crush-loaded (the juice has been squeezed out, the pulp is
dry and and the pips are squeaking against the juicer). The old trains
are totally inappropriate for the task in hand. If you use the NLL
then you'll understand why longitudinal seating makes sense - or at
least understand why it is a decent compromise.

If there really was all this enormous amount of money swilling round
then yes, the NLL could have longer platforms and thus longer trains -
and elsewhere the GOBLIN would be electrified and have three car or
longer EMUs running every 15 minutes, there'd be enough units to run
the Watfords as 6 car trains (if they really justify that level of
service, I'm not an expert on that line so can't comment) and upgrade
the power supply, and the Camden Road NLL improvements would be going
ahead in their original, unreduced form.

As it is the LO improvements that TfL has managed to progress are a
god send - they are actually making stuff happen on the ground. The
reduced scope of the Camden Road NLL improvements, discussed here
recently, perhaps show just how fragile getting changes to this
network actually was.

I doubt the Merseyrail comparison would really stands up to a lot of
scrutiny - sure, they're both run for the local transport organisation
(Merseytravel and TfL), but I don't think Merseyrail has the same
demands in terms of being so packed that people are climbing up the
walls on its trains, nor does Merseyrail have to share some of its
rails with an abundance of freight traffic.

In a sense one of Livingstone's aspirations was for London to have S-
Bahn-esque services, but it's no good just dreaming about it, he did
what he could to try and start making such a thing happen.
Unfortunately I doubt Boris really harbours any similar aspirations,
but this part of the project at least is in place.

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?

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.

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.

On Sep 24, 7:37*am, 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.

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.-

Although I realise that the sloping profile of the 378s will make any
area intended for standing more difficult to use. Perhaps that's part
of the reason for longitudinal seats, to keep heads away from the
sloping walls (or am I crediting the designers with too much
thought?). With a better design of train body, standing space would
be more usable.

On 24 Sep, 07:37, 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.


If it's bleedin obvious it ain't bleedin obvious to me. The seating
configuration on the 376 is obviously different, indeed one could say
that the longitudinal seats on the 378s are a result of this
experience.


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.


It seems to work OK on the Underground.

On Sep 23, 10:35*pm, "John Tattersall"
wrote:
"Rupert Candy" wrote in message

...

Incidentally, why did they have to make a 'pretend Underground train'
out of a watered-down suburban train with only 2 doors per side?
Surely the future S stock would have made a much better base vehicle
for this sort of application?

Probably because the Electrostar bodyshell already meets existing safety
standards for the mainline railway, where as S stock is designed for
metro-type operation, so would need to go through acceptance procedures for
the NR system. Presumably Bombardier felt it was a lot easier (and less
risky) to get acceptance on a variant of an existing, in service design.

I hadn't thought of that aspect. What about the Met 'main line'? Is
that under LUL control as far as Amersham? It's a long time since my
Met commuting days...

Neil Williams wrote:

Dunno, but there is no excuse for 2-car DMUs to be being used on this
kind of service.

Look at Merseyrail for how it should be done (and without any new
MUs)

Eh?

On the electric lines, new MUs were introduced as the loop line was
being developed. They certainly aren't *still* new, but they were new
for the current routes.

As for the diesel services, by common consent the Merseyrail version of
the 142 (a stubby 2-car train) is the least favourite train in .uk.

It's hard to see what point you are making, and how Merseyrail
demonstrates it.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10589963.html
(47 583 at Stratford Depot, 11 Jul 1981)

On 24 Sep, 10:15, Rupert Candy wrote:

On Sep 23, 10:35*pm, "John Tattersall"
wrote:

"Rupert Candy" wrote:

Incidentally, why did they have to make a 'pretend Underground train'
out of a watered-down suburban train with only 2 doors per side?
Surely the future S stock would have made a much better base vehicle
for this sort of application?

Probably because the Electrostar bodyshell already meets existing safety
standards for the mainline railway, where as S stock is designed for
metro-type operation, so would need to go through acceptance procedures for
the NR system. Presumably Bombardier felt it was a lot easier (and less
risky) to get acceptance on a variant of an existing, in service design..

I hadn't thought of that aspect. What about the Met 'main line'? Is
that under LUL control as far as Amersham? It's a long time since my
Met commuting days...

LUL owned, maintained to LU standards by the infraco Metronet (which
in its previous privately owned incarnation collapsed into
administration, but it has since been purchased by TfL). It becomes
Network Rail's responsibility at some point to the west of Amersham.
Oh, and south of Harrow-on-the-Hill the double track into Marylebone
is also Network Rail territory.

Nonetheless you make a good point about the S-stock, but John's point
about acceptance is also very apt - TfL wanted new trains sooner
rather than later. Its possible the whole new train deal might never
have happened if they hadn't grabbed the bull by its horns and got the
new trains ordered early on.