|
378 move and GOB to be DC?
'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 Paul S |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
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... I can't see the HSE/HMRI/Network Rail allowing that [3rd rail], as it wouldn't be an extension of existing 3rd rail electrification. That notwithstanding, there aren't exactly very many 3rd rail freight locos around either. ;-) Having said that, I believe they're putting in a connection between the GOB and Eastbound District at Barking to allow easier access for Engineering trains. Cheers, Barry |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
In uk.railway 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... Is it really much more expensive to electrify with 25kV than with third rail? Even if you have basic substations that can't take heavy freight (but could be upgraded in future)? Or does the funding come out of different pots? Theo |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
On 22 Sep, 17:58, "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 Reading the article, I wonder if they're just throwing the suggestion into the arena as the result of frustration in trying to get any progress on 25kV electrification. If the DfT is receptive to cheaper third rail electrification, then perhaps they can be gradually persuaded that going the full 25kV hog is worthwhile. Perhaps this is just a gambit to get other "industry partners" to stand up and be counted and get behind TfL's campaign for OHLE - possibly the assumption thus far from freight operators is that TfL were going to make it happen so they didn't need to do anything? My other more cynical thought is whether this is the result of Boris budget cuts at TfL - but AFAICS TfL were never going to be the primary source of funding for this, the majority of the dosh was going to come from the DfT. |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
Barry Salter wrote:
I can't see the HSE/HMRI/Network Rail allowing that [3rd rail], as it wouldn't be an extension of existing 3rd rail electrification. That notwithstanding, there aren't exactly very many 3rd rail freight locos around either. ;-) Oh, I don't know, a good lawyer and a proposal to extend from Camden Road to Barking, reverse at Gospel Oak could be argued as an extension of existing electrification using existing stock? Then just declare the CR-GO section as surplus to requirements, not funded in the current budget, an aspiration for Control Period 8000 or something... Properly approached, safety regulation is a catalyst for creative sophistry. Tom |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
On 22 Sep, 18:24, Barry Salter wrote:
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... I can't see the HSE/HMRI/Network Rail allowing that [3rd rail], as it wouldn't be an extension of existing 3rd rail electrification. That notwithstanding, there aren't exactly very many 3rd rail freight locos around either. ;-) I think the locals on the route would probably prefer 3rd rail over ugly OHLE not to mention the irratating buzzing you get with it in the rain. Is there a case for freight on the goblin anyway? B2003 |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
"Boltar" wrote Is there a case for freight on the goblin anyway? Yes. It already has quite a bit, as it's the route from the LTSR (e.g. Ripple Lane, Dagenham, Tilbury, etc) to anywhere without crossing all four tracks of the GEML between Forest Gate Junction and Stratford. There will be a lot more traffic with the develoment of a container port at Thames Haven. Potentially Channel Tunnel freight could use HS1 (after all, Parliament insisted on provision of Goods Loops), the Rainham freight connection, and Goblin - I don't think anyone really wants freight in the London tunnels, or cluttering up the connections to the NLL in the St Pancras throat. Peter |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
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. 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? |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
"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. |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
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. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
|
378 move and GOB to be DC?
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 |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
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. |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
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? |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
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. |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
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. |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
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. |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
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... |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
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) |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
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. |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
On 24 Sep, 10:16, Chris Tolley wrote: 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. And by all accounts they're less than ideal for the city centre loop as well. |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
Mizter T wrote:
On 24 Sep, 10:16, Chris Tolley wrote: 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. And by all accounts they're less than ideal for the city centre loop as well. AIUI, the curvature on the track gives rise to increased wear on the wheels. If so, that's more a track problem than a train problem. I suppose there are compounding features as well, given that the Merseyrail loop line is an intensive service. F'rinstance, at Farringdon, there's a fairly tight curve on Thameslink, but a particular train will pass over it much less frequently. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p15036436.html (33 110 at Basingstoke, Mar 1991) |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
On 24 Sep, 11:02, Chris Tolley wrote: Mizter T wrote: On 24 Sep, 10:16, Chris *Tolley wrote: (snip) 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. And by all accounts they're less than ideal for the city centre loop as well. AIUI, the curvature on the track gives rise to increased wear on the wheels. If so, that's more a track problem than a train problem. Or a train not being suitable for the track (or more properly tight alignment) problem. Depends upon where you approach it from really - so I could have said the city centre loop is less than ideal for the Merseyrail MUs! I suppose there are compounding features as well, given that the Merseyrail loop line is an intensive service. F'rinstance, at Farringdon, there's a fairly tight curve on Thameslink, but a particular train will pass over it much less frequently. 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. |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
"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. 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. |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:41:31 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote: On 24 Sep, 10:15, Rupert Candy wrote: 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. 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. -- Paul C |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
Mizter T wrote:
On 24 Sep, 11:02, Chris Tolley wrote: I suppose there are compounding features as well, given that the Merseyrail loop line is an intensive service. F'rinstance, at Farringdon, there's a fairly tight curve on Thameslink, but a particular train will pass over it much less frequently. 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. No, I was thinking of inner curve northbound from City Thameslink; the line to Moorgate strikes me as being straighter. But one other mitigating factor is that he trains are going over that more slowly (because all trains stop at Farringdon) than they do around the Liverpool loop. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632970.html (43 133 at Reading, 17 Jan 1980) |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:36:19 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote: 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. 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. 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. In my limited experience - I accept Neil will know more - the Germans have typically done a comprehensive rebuild and separation of S Bahn services from other services. Stations are rebuilt to a common standard, conflicting junctions are removed, signalling is redone, new fleets of trains are introduced and you usually get integrated ticketing. In some cases you also get underground sections through city centres to link up parts of the network and / or remove the problems of stub end terminals with all the reversing issues that arise. The service networks are often very extensive in their reach with pretty intensive service levels but I think some more recent schemes have been more modest in their scope to contain costs. 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. 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. 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. -- Paul C |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
On 24 Sep, 11:25, Chris Tolley wrote: Mizter T wrote: On 24 Sep, 11:02, Chris *Tolley wrote: I suppose there are compounding features as well, given that the Merseyrail loop line is an intensive service. F'rinstance, at Farringdon, there's a fairly tight curve on Thameslink, but a particular train will pass over it much less frequently. 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. No, I was thinking of inner curve northbound from City Thameslink; the line to Moorgate strikes me as being straighter. But one other mitigating factor is that he trains are going over that more slowly (because all trains stop at Farringdon) than they do around the Liverpool loop. OK, I hadn't clocked that as a particularly tight curve, I'll look out (or more likely listen out) for that next time I'm on a train up that way. Of course once all the works are complete then the 'new' Thameslink service is going to involve a very frequent train service through this central section, with trains travelling faster courtesy of ATO. You're right about the line from Farringdon to Moorgate of course, not least because it basically shadows the not very tightly curved alignment of the Circle/Met line here. The first photo on this page shows the line in question: http://www.abandonedstations.org.uk/...t_station.html |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
On 24 Sep, 11:22, Paul Corfield wrote: On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:41:31 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T wrote: On 24 Sep, 10:15, Rupert Candy wrote: 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. 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. Well, there'll be the East London Line in that category soon! |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
|
378 move and GOB to be DC?
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 |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
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 |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
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 |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
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! |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
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 |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
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 |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
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 |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
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. |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
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 |
378 move and GOB to be DC?
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 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk