On Jul 13, 11:56*am, Neil Williams wrote:
On Jul 13, 11:52*am, John B wrote:

Removing the 3rd seat from the 313s (making them 2+2 with a wide
aisle) has significantly improved the travelling experience, on the
couple of times I've used full NLL trains since they made the change.
I'm sure that longitudinal seating will be similarly helpful.

One thing I really dislike about it is that there is nowhere to stand
where you're not in the way of someone.

Perhaps having a large open standback area with no seats at all, but
then 3+2 seating further in, would be better?

Eh? On 3+2 trains like (most) 319s and (all?) 321s, there's nowhere to
stand where you're not in the way of *everyone*. On narrow-seat wide-
aisle 2+2 trains like the LO 313s and the SWT 455s, you can stand in
the aisle and there's still room for people to go past you. Surely
that's an improvement...?

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

On Jul 13, 12:10*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
Presumably the logic is that if we're extending the GOBLIN platforms
it might as well be to 4 cars (which'd be either 2x172 or 1x378
depending on electrification status), hence ordering and carrying out
work for 3-car 172s would be completely pointless.

No, three car 172s are definitely the plan, but the idea is that the
other committed capacity increases will delay the necessity of three
car trains for some time.

Interesting. I have to admit that LO plans have changed so much I've
now got more or less no idea what's envisaged - I thought the medium-
term plan was 4-car GOBLIN trains running through to Clapham, have
they now been dropped?

Peak capacity goes up by 33% when they introduce the 4 tph timetable
at the end of this year, and a further "30%"* when they introduce the
two car 172s some time in 2010, then at some later date three car 172s
will be introduced.

(Using these numbers, four car 172s every 15 minutes would have 3.5
times the capacity of the current service, which is simply not
justified by current or any foreseeable near-future demand)

(* this is TfL's number for 150 vs 172 capacity)

I also thought the 172s were going to be fairly conventional 2+2 wide-
aisle train layout, rather than longitudinally seated like the 378s -
is that wrong too? Otherwise, I'm struggling to see how they'd have
much more nominal capacity than the 150s. Are there any pictures/mock-
ups of the LO 172s available?

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

On Jul 13, 11:52*am, John B wrote:

On Jul 13, 11:11*am, "Recliner" wrote:

From my occasional travels on the NLL, I get the impression that most of
the pax are only travelling a few stops, so having to stand may not be
too unacceptable. Although you're right that these are technically
suburban EMUs, in practise they seem to be used more like inner London
Tube services, so having similar seating may be OK. I think it's less
acceptable to have longitudinal seating on longer distance S stock
routes (anywhere beyond Harrow).

When I used to commute peak-hours on the NLL (Highbury to Frognal),
the issue was being able to physically get on the train. Seats were a
very long way from a priority for anyone.

Removing the 3rd seat from the 313s (making them 2+2 with a wide
aisle) has significantly improved the travelling experience, on the
couple of times I've used full NLL trains since they made the change.
I'm sure that longitudinal seating will be similarly helpful.

Agreed. There'll undoubtedly be copious comment on these newsgroups to
the effect that this signals the end of the world - however I doubt
any of those making such comments will ever have travelled on the NLL
in the crush hours (and the same applies to a slightly lesser extend
the WLL). If people are going to be indignant about this, I'd heartily
recommend they actually go and experience it for real.

Additionally, as Recliner has said, the NLL and WLL at least are
heavily used for relatively short hops - few passengers are making
anything like end-to-end journeys, especially during the peaks (that
comment applies only to the NLL - the WLL is so short that whilst many
are making an end-to-end journey, it's still a short hop). The NLL
does indeed have strong similarities to a Tube line, and the WLL
service would if it were more frequent (which it will be).

I admit I'm less familiar with the DC Lines service in particular
during peak times, so perhaps the seating arrangements might cause
some consternation up that way. The ELL meanwhile will perhaps be a
bit of a mix between the NLL and DC Lines - I'd expect it to be very
heavily used towards the centre in particular for short hops ala the
NLL, but it might also have some of the characteristics of the DC
Lines in that it stretches out to a town centre on the edge of London
(i.e. Croydon). We'll see how things work out and how the seating goes
down when extended ELL services start next year.

But I'd strongly urge people to consider the layout in the context of
(a) the route the new trains will be running on and (b) the issues
with crush-loading that it experiences. And go for a ride on the NLL
at busy times... if you dare!

On Jul 13, 12:14*pm, John B wrote:
On Jul 13, 11:56*am, Neil *Williams wrote:

On Jul 13, 11:52*am, John B wrote:

Removing the 3rd seat from the 313s (making them 2+2 with a wide
aisle) has significantly improved the travelling experience, on the
couple of times I've used full NLL trains since they made the change.
I'm sure that longitudinal seating will be similarly helpful.

One thing I really dislike about it is that there is nowhere to stand
where you're not in the way of someone.

Perhaps having a large open standback area with no seats at all, but
then 3+2 seating further in, would be better?

Eh? On 3+2 trains like (most) 319s and (all?) 321s, there's nowhere to
stand where you're not in the way of *everyone*. On narrow-seat wide-
aisle 2+2 trains like the LO 313s and the SWT 455s, you can stand in
the aisle and there's still room for people to go past you. Surely
that's an improvement...?

Have you tried the NLL at peak time lately? even with the 2+2, things
are somewhat wedged. Last week, I found myself in a vestibule area,
trying to prop myself up against the ceiling - and being very glad
that it doesn't form part of my usual commute.

On Jul 13, 12:14*pm, John B wrote:

Eh? On 3+2 trains like (most) 319s and (all?) 321s, there's nowhere to
stand where you're not in the way of *everyone*. On narrow-seat wide-
aisle 2+2 trains like the LO 313s and the SWT 455s, you can stand in
the aisle and there's still room for people to go past you. Surely
that's an improvement...?

That is, but longitudinal is not - I find that being right in front of
people feels a lot more "in the way" than by the side of a (2+2) seat.

A way to avoid this would be 3+2 in 2/3 of the coach and no seating at
all in the other third, thus giving (like the SWT 455s) a large
standback area by the doors. Twice the size of the SWT ones may be
better.

Neil

On Jul 13, 12:14*pm, John B wrote:

On Jul 13, 11:56*am, Neil *Williams wrote:

On Jul 13, 11:52*am, John B wrote:

Removing the 3rd seat from the 313s (making them 2+2 with a wide
aisle) has significantly improved the travelling experience, on the
couple of times I've used full NLL trains since they made the change.
I'm sure that longitudinal seating will be similarly helpful.

One thing I really dislike about it is that there is nowhere to stand
where you're not in the way of someone.

Perhaps having a large open standback area with no seats at all, but
then 3+2 seating further in, would be better?

Eh? On 3+2 trains like (most) 319s and (all?) 321s, there's nowhere to
stand where you're not in the way of *everyone*. On narrow-seat wide-
aisle 2+2 trains like the LO 313s and the SWT 455s, you can stand in
the aisle and there's still room for people to go past you. Surely
that's an improvement...?

Agreed. Perhaps in particular the context of the NLL route here is
important - lots of people are both getting off and on at each stop.
This isn't about whisking people into and then back out of town, where
there's a predominant flow. The flow is all over the place (yes, there
are some patterns, but it's still very varied). The WLL is like this a
bit. The DC Line less so, but that picture is complicated by the
Bakerloo line and also by the fast services from Watford Jn, Bushey
and Harrow & Wealdstone.

"Mr Thant" wrote in message
...
On 13 July, 11:55, John B wrote:
Presumably the logic is that if we're extending the GOBLIN platforms
it might as well be to 4 cars (which'd be either 2x172 or 1x378
depending on electrification status), hence ordering and carrying out
work for 3-car 172s would be completely pointless.

No, three car 172s are definitely the plan, but the idea is that the
other committed capacity increases will delay the necessity of three
car trains for some time.

Peak capacity goes up by 33% when they introduce the 4 tph timetable
at the end of this year, and a further "30%"* when they introduce the
two car 172s some time in 2010, then at some later date three car 172s
will be introduced.

(Using these numbers, four car 172s every 15 minutes would have 3.5
times the capacity of the current service, which is simply not
justified by current or any foreseeable near-future demand)

U

(* this is TfL's number for 150 vs 172 capacity)

Capacity figures can vary hour by hour apparently, when I first posted the
link this morning the 4 car 378 was 400, now it is up to 700, possibly the
difference between full and comfortable standing, and completely wedged?

The figure on the ORR website is an amazing 667 per car - they did
acknowledge by email it was a cockup, and should be per 4 car train, so the
whole table is misleading:
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd..._appendix7.pdf
They clearly don't understand the concept of a percentage rise either, all
grist to the spin doctor's mill...

Paul

John B wrote:

I also thought the 172s were going to be fairly conventional 2+2 wide-
aisle train layout, rather than longitudinally seated like the 378s -
is that wrong too? Otherwise, I'm struggling to see how they'd have
much more nominal capacity than the 150s. Are there any pictures/mock-
ups of the LO 172s available?

I'm sure that has been the understanding in the past, particularly because
the LO 172s were always intended to be passed on elsewhere relatively soon
(in railway terms of course). IIRC they were also always going to be leased
from one of the mainstream Roscos for that reason, rather than owned by TfL.
(Although that subsequently changed and a new Rosco emerged for the
dedicated LO stock).

Paul

On 13 July, 12:10, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 13 July, 11:55, John B wrote:

Presumably the logic is that if we're extending the GOBLIN platforms
it might as well be to 4 cars (which'd be either 2x172 or 1x378
depending on electrification status), hence ordering and carrying out
work for 3-car 172s would be completely pointless.

No, three car 172s are definitely the plan, but the idea is that the
other committed capacity increases will delay the necessity of three
car trains for some time.


Must admit that I hadn't seen mention of possible 3 car class 172s for
Gospel Oak - Barking.

Peak capacity goes up by 33% when they introduce the 4 tph timetable
at the end of this year, and a further "30%"* when they introduce the
two car 172s some time in 2010, then at some later date three car 172s
will be introduced.


The 172s are 23m coaches compared to the 20m class 150s, so there will
certainly be more room overalll.
I don't think we'll ever see longer class 172s on the line, instead
we'll see 378s on the route. The 4tph and introduction of 172s give a
substantial increase in capacity and assuming the electrification cash
has been sorted out, I'd expect to see an additional order for the
378s.

(Using these numbers, four car 172s every 15 minutes would have 3.5
times the capacity of the current service, which is simply not
justified by current or any foreseeable near-future demand)


But the 378s will be 4 car and so better to undertake the work now,
rather than having a small sub-fleet with only 3 cars for GOBLIN. It
will also give the option of running 2 x 2 car 172s on particularly
busy services.

On Jul 13, 12:29*pm, Neil Williams wrote:
On Jul 13, 12:14*pm, John B wrote:

Eh? On 3+2 trains like (most) 319s and (all?) 321s, there's nowhere to
stand where you're not in the way of *everyone*. On narrow-seat wide-
aisle 2+2 trains like the LO 313s and the SWT 455s, you can stand in
the aisle and there's still room for people to go past you. Surely
that's an improvement...?

That is, but longitudinal is not - I find that being right in front of
people feels a lot more "in the way" than by the side of a (2+2) seat.

Each to their own, I guess - having spent a few years commuting on the
deep Tube, I've no problem with standing in front of people
longitudinally. Which is lucky, as otherwise I'd doubtless have been
lynched by angry 'MOVE DOWN THE CAR!"-ers. I suspect most of LO's
North London-dwelling audience will have a similar take on matters...

A way to avoid this would be 3+2 in 2/3 of the coach and no seating at
all in the other third, thus giving (like the SWT 455s) a large
standback area by the doors. *Twice the size of the SWT ones may be
better.

I really don't think 3+2 would be appropriate anywhere, given the
loadings and rapid emptying/filling that you get on LO. Agreed that
2+2 plus wider door standing areas might also have worked.

DIGRESSION: anyone know whether the 378s are actually running today?

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