[original thread on uk.railway]
[crossposted to uk.transport.london]

On Jul 6, 6:46*pm, "Pat O'Neill" wrote:

"contrex" wrote:
A little bird whispered in my ear that 378 005 & 007 are to start
revenue service this week. It did not say which route(s).

On a very few occasions I have see the 378 units on the slow lines at
Purley.

Well they ain't going to be in revenue service down that way, that's
for sure!

Posts in another forum seems to suggest they'll be used on the North
London Line and/or West London Line routes (some NLL services run
through onto the WLL and v.v.).

If it is this week it's just that little bit too late for the hot
weather!

(Incidentally I note that the current May-September London Overground
timetable booklet features a 378 on the front cover picture I think
for the first time, alongside the roof of Stratford station, the
Hackney Empire and the Camden Market.)

On Jul 6, 7:10*pm, Mizter T wrote:

[original thread on uk.railway]
[crossposted to uk.transport.london]

On Jul 6, 6:46*pm, "Pat O'Neill" wrote:

"contrex" wrote:
A little bird whispered in my ear that 378 005 & 007 are to start
revenue service this week. It did not say which route(s).

On a very few occasions I have see the 378 units on the slow lines at
Purley.

Well they ain't going to be in revenue service down that way, that's
for sure!

Posts in another forum seems to suggest they'll be used on the North
London Line and/or West London Line routes (some NLL services run
through onto the WLL and v.v.).

An insider on the aforementioned forum (no need for me to be
secretive, it's the District Dave forum!) says that diagrams have been
issued showing the trains (two of them I think) being in service from
Monday 13 July - so it might happen then, or a bit later next week.
Looks to be sometime pretty soon at least.

On Jul 7, 7:59*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:

On the NLL / WLL? * I thought it was always planned that Euston -
Watford would see the 378s first?

There could be an argument that says something like if Euston Watford
is to get squadron 378 service first because it is more important
route, then it is the very place you do *not* do your initial in
service running.


--
Nick

On Jul 7, 8:56*pm, D7666 wrote:

On Jul 7, 7:59*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:

On the NLL / WLL? * I thought it was always planned that Euston -
Watford would see the 378s first?

There could be an argument that says something like if Euston Watford
is to get squadron 378 service first because it is more important
route, then it is the very place you do *not* do your initial in
service running.

If there is a hierarchy of LO routes, then the NLL would I think be a
"more important route" than Watford to Euston.

I too was under the impression that the new units would start off on
the Watford to Euston DC Line run, as a more gentle way of bringing
them into service. However there seems to be some suggestion of there
being an issue with the CCTV system of some sort - it's unclear
whether that problem is specifically related to running on DC Line, or
just a more general issue of some potential bugs with the units' CCTV
systems. Point being, the NLL and WLL are staying as guard and driver
operations at least for the moment, so any CCTV issues aren't show
stoppers. (My guess is that the push to go DOO on the NLL and WLL is a
fight that's being saved for another day.)

The latest gen is that the runs will all be in the NLL, apart from
three NLL & WLL turns - the 07:37 Stratford to Clapham Junction, the
08.53 CJ back to Stratford, and then in the evening the 18:39
Stratford to CJ. I am merely acting as a conduit for information from
elsewhere (see above), so of anyone is thinking of making a special
trip... well, to be blunt, I wouldn't make a special trip if I was you!

Mizter T wrote:

If there is a hierarchy of LO routes, then the NLL would I think be a
"more important route" than Watford to Euston.


Why do you think that?

I ask because, like Nick, I would have thought that the Watford-Euston
DC route was more important than the North London Line.

On Jul 7, 10:39*pm, Tony Polson wrote:
If there is a hierarchy of LO routes, then the NLL would I think be a
"more important route" than Watford to Euston.

Why do you think that? *

I ask because, like Nick, I would have thought that the Watford-Euston
DC route was more important than the North London Line.

Because it's duplicated long-distance by LM, short distance by the
Bakerloo, runs at a lower frequency than the NLL, and trains are
rarely as full as NLL trains.

Otherwise, yes, definitely more important.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Jul 7, 9:42*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On Jul 7, 8:56*pm, D7666 wrote:

On Jul 7, 7:59*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:

On the NLL / WLL? * I thought it was always planned that Euston -
Watford would see the 378s first?

There could be an argument that says something like if Euston Watford
is to get squadron 378 service first because it is more important
route, then it is the very place you do *not* do your initial in
service running.

If there is a hierarchy of LO routes, then the NLL would I think be a
"more important route" than Watford to Euston.

I too was under the impression that the new units would start off on
the Watford to Euston DC Line run, as a more gentle way of bringing
them into service. However there seems to be some suggestion of there
being an issue with the CCTV system of some sort - it's unclear
whether that problem is specifically related to running on DC Line, or
just a more general issue of some potential bugs with the units' CCTV
systems. Point being, the NLL and WLL are staying as guard and driver
operations at least for the moment, so any CCTV issues aren't show
stoppers. (My guess is that the push to go DOO on the NLL and WLL is a
fight that's being saved for another day.)

The latest gen is that the runs will all be in the NLL, apart from
three NLL & WLL turns - the 07:37 Stratford to Clapham Junction, the
08.53 CJ back to Stratford, and then in the evening the 18:39
Stratford to CJ. I am merely acting as a conduit for information from
elsewhere (see above), so of anyone is thinking of making a special
trip... well, to be blunt, I wouldn't make a special trip if I was you!

My understanding was that the 378s would initially be introduced onto
the Euston - Watford service to replace the 508s which should have
gone off-lease. Of course, any 313s released from the NLL/WLL services
can do that equally well. Another advantage of introduction on the DC
lines would be that the units would only need to run on one electric
system, but as mileage accumulation appears to mainly be happening on
AC power, this is probably irrelevant. Rescue of any failures might
well be easier on NLL/WLL routes as there'll be no 1972 stock in the
way!!

On Jul 7, 10:39*pm, Tony Polson wrote:
Mizter T wrote:

If there is a hierarchy of LO routes, then the NLL would I think be a
"more important route" than Watford to Euston.

Why do you think that? *

I ask because, like Nick, I would have thought that the Watford-Euston
DC route was more important than the North London Line.

Just look at the overcrowding (even with the enhanced peak service) on
the NLL. Highbury - Willesden Junction is overcrowded nearly all the
time, hence the extension of the WLL services from Willesden Junction
- Stratford during the peaks, giving a 10 minute interval. The WLL
similarly gets an increase in peak services from every 30 mins to
every 20 mins. The DC line service stays at every 20 mins throughout
the day and is normally only busy Euston - Willesden and then only
during the peaks or when LM is having problems. The DC service may be
more visible, but it certainly in less need of the extra standing room
that the 378s will provide, especially with most of the busy bit
shadowed by the Bakerloo.

Andy wrote:
On Jul 7, 10:39*pm, Tony Polson wrote:
Mizter T wrote:

If there is a hierarchy of LO routes, then the NLL would I think be a
"more important route" than Watford to Euston.

Why do you think that? *

I ask because, like Nick, I would have thought that the Watford-Euston
DC route was more important than the North London Line.

Just look at the overcrowding (even with the enhanced peak service) on
the NLL. Highbury - Willesden Junction is overcrowded nearly all the
time, hence the extension of the WLL services from Willesden Junction
- Stratford during the peaks, giving a 10 minute interval. The WLL
similarly gets an increase in peak services from every 30 mins to
every 20 mins. The DC line service stays at every 20 mins throughout
the day and is normally only busy Euston - Willesden and then only
during the peaks or when LM is having problems. The DC service may be
more visible, but it certainly in less need of the extra standing room
that the 378s will provide, especially with most of the busy bit
shadowed by the Bakerloo.


Now I understand. Thanks, Andy.

On Jul 8, 7:59*pm, Tony Polson wrote:

I ask because, like Nick, I would have thought that the Watford-Euston
DC route was more important than the North London Line.


Just look at the overcrowding

I did not say the Euston route was the most important to have 378s, I
said it was the most important route, and its importance means it
should NOT have them early.

I would argue that the priority for NLL to have 378s to relieve over
crowding is not the same as it being the most important route to avoid
having a 378 on, but it is more important to get it tright.

If the Euston Watford service were not there, the Bakerloo would be
desperately over loaded beyond capacity; the NLL is simply crowded.

A brand new out of the packet 378 failing during warranty / mileage
accumulation / crews-ramping-up-routine-familiarisation would screw
the Bakerloo completely if it happened in the wrong place i.e. between
Queens and Stonebridge Parks say just before the pm peak and stranding
X number of Bakerloo sets in depot. Bear in mind that 377/5s are
capably failing mosdt days every week of bringing TL core to a halt
for up to half an hour at a time for the most trivial issues, then
378s might be the same.

Thats why I think the Euston DC route is more important - not to have
378s (I never implied that) but because it is a more important route
full stop.

--
Nick