|
Overground
On Sep 18, 7:36*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 03:12:52 -0700 (PDT), EE507 wrote: Had a trip from Clapham Junction to Highbury & Islington yesterday afternoon - a bargain £1.10 with Oyster. Can anyone help with the following queries? Why are most LO station name and platform number boards marked with 'This is a temporary sign'? What's wrong with them? The old Silverlink signs were stickered over with the Overground orange signs. They are intended to be temporary because all Overground stations will get a refresh which involves replacement of all signage as well as CCTV, passenger info systems etc. *This programme is starting around about now after what seems like something of a delay. I'd not be really surprised if the planned scope has been trimmed to try to save as much money as possible. I have not seen anything to suggest signage has been cut. I shall now hide under a table before the residents of utl re-ignite previous rantings about signage and London Overground. Judging from comments and queries from other pax e.g. "does this train go to Camden Road?" overheard at CLJ, I think the assumption that most pax are doing 2-3 station hops is incorrect. Source? I've never heard or read anything about such an assumption existing. The three other occupants of my bay from Willesden Junction hadn't left the train by Highbury. The train - 17:30 ex-CLJ - had plenty of standees but was not crush loaded. A non-scientific survey, but in conclusion seating in the 378s will be totally inadequate: was a compromise of 2+1 seating considered? It doesn't surprise me that people travel a fair old distance on Overground services. Nonetheless it is also true (and sometimes a surprise to me!) that loadings can be high or very high and that is why the trains are designed as they are. Here are two photo links that perhaps illustrate the point. http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicohog...72157594559110... Hmmm, that's deeply unpleasant. At least the trains now run every 10 mins in the peaks. Roll on the 4-car NLL! I haven't quite seen the same scale of crowds at Stratford in the peaks but I have seen crowds a bit smaller than that alight from a train at Stratford - on a Sunday when the headway is every 30 minutes! checks timetable That's ridiculous - second busiest shopping day of the week and all that. When oh when will we adopt standard 7-day timetables [1]? I know we'd all love a seat - I certainly do - but the fact is that most people just want to get home in the peaks and if that means a train designed for standees is needed then that's what's needed. Off peak the lack of seats may be more of an issue but the trains will be 4 car and the service levels more frequent than today (barring services Willesden - Richmond and Watford - Euston). I'd agree with that - going 4-car will help offset the net loss of seats. I actually think GOBLIN will be more an issue because a x15 headway will probably unleash a lot of suppressed demand on that route and 2 car DMUs may struggle to cope. At least the 172s will provide an extra 6m train length. What is the proposed seating layout? Is this http://www.therailwaycentre.com/New%...0/DMU_172.html correct in saying it will be 3+2? [1] With peak extras obviously. |
Overground
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:03:37 -0700 (PDT), EE507 wrote: At least the 172s will provide an extra 6m train length. What is the proposed seating layout? Is this http://www.therailwaycentre.com/New%...0/DMU_172.html correct in saying it will be 3+2? I've not seen or read anything about the layout for GOBLIN other than the link you provided. Given that LOROL removed some of the 3+2 seating on the 150s to create more space I'm a bit surprised to see 3+2 seating proposed for the 172s. Perhaps it will be limited in scale to allow more standing space closer to the doors? All I recall reading is that they will definitely not have the 378's 'tube style' interior as they want to be able to lease them elsewhere in due course. I'd presume (in view of the small numbers involved) that they might just have whatever London Midland and Chiltern are getting... Paul S |
Overground
"Willms" wrote in message
Am Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:17:58 UTC, schrieb Arthur Figgis auf uk.railway : No, I think that "London Overground" is perfect companion to "London Underground", using more or less the same sign just in a different color (orange instead of red). But it confuses the public, who for a long time have called all non-Underground/DLR services "overground", even the services which the authorities have not now officially called "Overground". There is 'overground' as generic term, and "London Overground" as a brand name, using the same barred circle of "London Underground", just in a different color. I understand that DLR also uses the same form, just in blue instead of red or orange. It forms a family of products, stressing the common and the distinct. At least it is not counter-intuitive, like calling the DLR "underground", e.g. It just makes some of the overground services stand out from the rest of it by calling it "London Overground" with this copyrighted symbol we all know. And it is different from the "National Rail" with its double arrow of the late British Railways. But many Overground trains will use National Rail stations, complete with double-arrows. In any case, though you may think it's illogical, imperfect Londoners do tend to refer to all non-Underground/DLR services as 'overground trains'. |
Overground
Paul Scott wrote:
wrote in message ... In article Don't Merseyrail also maintain the tack, There have been a number of proposals for Merseyrail to maintain their own track, because it can be segregated from the wider network (unlike the 'Overground') but so far nothing has changed, as NR fundamentally disagree. Paul Doesn't Nederlandse Spoorwegen run Merseyrail? |
Overground
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:29:38 +0200, "Willms"
wrote: At least it is not counter-intuitive, like calling the DLR "underground", It isn't called the Underground any more than the Overground is. But it's not really much worse than the U3 "Hochbahn" in Hamburg, which is not very "U" for much of its length (though to be fair a good chunk is). Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Overground
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:36:31 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote: I shall now hide under a table before the residents of utl re-ignite I did wonder if it was because they weren't compliant with some regulation or other - particularly because the orange background makes them quite difficult to read. A very odd choice - I'm surprised they didn't just go for white with an orange stripe at the bottom or something. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Overground
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:49:52 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote: All I recall reading is that they will definitely not have the 378's 'tube style' interior as they want to be able to lease them elsewhere in due course. I'd presume (in view of the small numbers involved) that they might just have whatever London Midland and Chiltern are getting... Surprised LM (or anybody else) are going for 3+2 in a 23m almost-tilt-profile bodyshell. That'll be cramped. (It works on the 323s only just, and only because they're 2.82m wide rather than 2.7something of the Turbostars). But, yes, I believe they are to be "off the shelf" because they'll likely end up somewhere else once the line eventually gets electrified. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Overground
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:51:02 +0200, "Willms"
wrote: I don't know this station, but if the question is how different platforms of the same station could serve different train systems which are being branded differently -- why not? I note that at both Bushey and Harrow the mainline platforms have plain white signage, and at Watford only the bays have LO style - so it *is* done. Similarly, the Southern and SWT parts of Clapham Junction have always been quite distinct in style from one another - indeed, at one point, the then Connex installed a new PIS in only their half, though it was later replaced with an SWT one across the station. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Overground
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:17:10 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote: On 18 Sep, 11:10, Sim wrote: On 18 Sep, 10:47, MIG wrote: On 18 Sep, 09:44, "John Salmon" wrote: "Sim" wrote Now let's be nice to each other! I did not know the details Charles kindly provided, but it does make sense. Interestingly, not only does fourth rail (however wired) exist as far north as Harrow, but the last time I looked there was quite a lot left further on, although some of it was lying rather dismally in the four foot rather than perched on insulators. It was never formally removed, in other words, although doubtless disconnected. Previous discussions have suggested that it is still there because it is still connected. *I think the running rails must be wired to the fourth rail and then the fourth rail wired to earth in the way that the running rails are in other third rail systems. *(Not technical, but I assume that it saved connecting the running rails for one sort of train and duplicating the connections for another sort of train.) Question: was this the system at Euston and Broad Street etc, ie positive to earth, rather than a bit positive to a bit negative? Presumably for an LU train, the difference between the rails is all that matters, whereas for a three-rail train it's the difference between positive and earth that matters, so a NR train on conventional LU track would only be at 420 V or something? I really doubt that the old fourth rail is in circuit with anything. Some is missing, and other sections are lying in the four foot. Not much continuity there, I would have thought! It is still wired to the running rails, if you look from a train at the other track, you can see the connections. The running rails were never the continuous electrical return and were not bonded together. The fact that the rail lies in the four foot doesn't matter as it is earthed, It isn't deliberately earthed, it just isn't insulated from earth. The "official" connection to earth is back at the substation. If the fourth rail was removed it would increase the resistance of the path through which the traction current flows with consequential wastage of power. missing sections will have been bypassed with cabling and very little is actually missing if you look for it. If nothing else, it has to be connected to something, due to possible induction from the 25kV AC running along side. ITYF connecting the end distant from the substation to earth would actually aid any induction by turning it into one half of a transformer. Counteracting this would require multiple earthing. |
Overground
|
Overground
On Sep 18, 11:44*pm, Charles Ellson
wrote: On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:17:10 -0700 (PDT), Andy wrote: On 18 Sep, 11:10, Sim wrote: On 18 Sep, 10:47, MIG wrote: On 18 Sep, 09:44, "John Salmon" wrote: "Sim" wrote Now let's be nice to each other! I did not know the details Charles kindly provided, but it does make sense. Interestingly, not only does fourth rail (however wired) exist as far north as Harrow, but the last time I looked there was quite a lot left further on, although some of it was lying rather dismally in the four foot rather than perched on insulators. It was never formally removed, in other words, although doubtless disconnected. Previous discussions have suggested that it is still there because it is still connected. *I think the running rails must be wired to the fourth rail and then the fourth rail wired to earth in the way that the running rails are in other third rail systems. *(Not technical, but I assume that it saved connecting the running rails for one sort of train and duplicating the connections for another sort of train.) Question: was this the system at Euston and Broad Street etc, ie positive to earth, rather than a bit positive to a bit negative? Presumably for an LU train, the difference between the rails is all that matters, whereas for a three-rail train it's the difference between positive and earth that matters, so a NR train on conventional LU track would only be at 420 V or something? I really doubt that the old fourth rail is in circuit with anything. Some is missing, and other sections are lying in the four foot. Not much continuity there, I would have thought! It is still wired to the running rails, if you look from a train at the other track, you can see the connections. The running rails were never the continuous electrical return and were not bonded together. The fact that the rail lies in the four foot doesn't matter as it is earthed, It isn't deliberately earthed, it just isn't insulated from earth. The "official" connection to earth is back at the substation. If the fourth rail was removed it would increase the resistance of the path through which the traction current flows with consequential wastage of power. Earth was the wrong term, I should have said near earth potential, but I was writing in a hurry. This, slightly dated, document has the details http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_G...lling%20Stock/ Other/GMTT0108%20Iss%201a.pdf, section 5.4 is especially relevant for the 'disused' 4th rail north of Harrow & Wealdstone. missing sections will have been bypassed with cabling and very little is actually missing if you look for it. If nothing else, it has to be connected to something, due to possible induction from the 25kV AC running along side. ITYF connecting the end distant from the substation to earth would actually aid any induction by turning it into one half of a transformer. Counteracting this would require multiple earthing. See above, it is still better to have the rail 'in circuit' than not. |
Overground
On Sep 18, 8:34*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:03:37 -0700 (PDT), EE507 wrote: On Sep 18, 7:36*pm, Paul Corfield wrote: I haven't quite seen the same scale of crowds at Stratford in the peaks but I have seen crowds a bit smaller than that alight from a train at Stratford - on a Sunday when the headway is every 30 minutes! checks timetable That's ridiculous - second busiest shopping day of the week and all that. When oh when will we adopt standard 7-day timetables [1]? http://www.flickr.com/photos/2475974.../set-721576156... Some of the crowd has dissipated by this point - I waited so I stood a chance of getting the train in the photo! Ridiculous is the word but it's worth considering that, at present, there is no service at all on Sundays on the NLL, part of the WLL and the entire GOBLIN. It's all buses! I actually think GOBLIN will be more an issue because a x15 headway will probably unleash a lot of suppressed demand on that route and 2 car DMUs may struggle to cope. At least the 172s will provide an extra 6m train length. What is the proposed seating layout? Is this http://www.therailwaycentre.com/New%...0/DMU_172.html correct in saying it will be 3+2? I've not seen or read anything about the layout for GOBLIN other than the link you provided. Given that LOROL removed some of the 3+2 seating on the 150s to create more space I'm a bit surprised to see 3+2 seating proposed for the 172s. Perhaps it will be limited in scale to allow more standing space closer to the doors? The Platform 5 Locomotives and Coaching stock book says all the 172s will be 2+2 seating, but only gives the numbers for the London Midland order (53+4 tip up and 2 wheelchairs in the DMSL and 68+3 tip up in the DMS. |
Overground
On Sep 18, 11:30*pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote: On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:49:52 +0100, "Paul Scott" wrote: All I recall reading is that they will definitely not have the 378's 'tube style' interior as they want to be able to lease them elsewhere in due course. I'd presume (in view of the small numbers involved) that they might just have whatever London Midland and Chiltern are getting... Surprised LM (or anybody else) are going for 3+2 in a 23m almost-tilt-profile bodyshell. *That'll be cramped. The LM units are down to be 2+2 in the all the source I can find. |
Overground
"MIG" wrote
On 18 Sep, 09:44, "John Salmon" wrote: "Sim" wrote Now let's be nice to each other! I did not know the details Charles kindly provided, but it does make sense. Interestingly, not only does (remainder snipped) Previous discussions have suggested that it is still there because it (remainder snipped) MIG - there is something wrong with your quoting - I didn't write any of the stuff you've attributed to me. Can you please try and get this right, as it makes it impossible to tell who wrote what further down the thread. |
Overground
"Recliner" wrote in message ... "Willms" wrote in message Am Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:17:58 UTC, schrieb Arthur Figgis auf uk.railway : No, I think that "London Overground" is perfect companion to "London Underground", using more or less the same sign just in a different color (orange instead of red). But it confuses the public, who for a long time have called all non-Underground/DLR services "overground", even the services which the authorities have not now officially called "Overground". There is 'overground' as generic term, and "London Overground" as a brand name, using the same barred circle of "London Underground", just in a different color. I understand that DLR also uses the same form, just in blue instead of red or orange. It forms a family of products, stressing the common and the distinct. At least it is not counter-intuitive, like calling the DLR "underground", e.g. It just makes some of the overground services stand out from the rest of it by calling it "London Overground" with this copyrighted symbol we all know. And it is different from the "National Rail" with its double arrow of the late British Railways. But many Overground trains will use National Rail stations, complete with double-arrows. In any case, though you may think it's illogical, imperfect Londoners do tend to refer to all non-Underground/DLR services as 'overground trains'. That's something that has developed since 1987, when I returned to Oz. Certainly, none of US called anything the overground. The whole concept of Network South East was to give the whole home counties and beyond a product concept built on the Underground model of clarity (if not frequency). If calling everything local on rails that's not LU "overground" developed in a generation, by 2027, all will be clear again! :) DW downunder |
Overground
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:25:54 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote: On Sep 18, 11:44*pm, Charles Ellson wrote: On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:17:10 -0700 (PDT), Andy wrote: On 18 Sep, 11:10, Sim wrote: On 18 Sep, 10:47, MIG wrote: On 18 Sep, 09:44, "John Salmon" wrote: "Sim" wrote Now let's be nice to each other! I did not know the details Charles kindly provided, but it does make sense. Interestingly, not only does fourth rail (however wired) exist as far north as Harrow, but the last time I looked there was quite a lot left further on, although some of it was lying rather dismally in the four foot rather than perched on insulators. It was never formally removed, in other words, although doubtless disconnected. Previous discussions have suggested that it is still there because it is still connected. *I think the running rails must be wired to the fourth rail and then the fourth rail wired to earth in the way that the running rails are in other third rail systems. *(Not technical, but I assume that it saved connecting the running rails for one sort of train and duplicating the connections for another sort of train.) Question: was this the system at Euston and Broad Street etc, ie positive to earth, rather than a bit positive to a bit negative? Presumably for an LU train, the difference between the rails is all that matters, whereas for a three-rail train it's the difference between positive and earth that matters, so a NR train on conventional LU track would only be at 420 V or something? I really doubt that the old fourth rail is in circuit with anything. Some is missing, and other sections are lying in the four foot. Not much continuity there, I would have thought! It is still wired to the running rails, if you look from a train at the other track, you can see the connections. The running rails were never the continuous electrical return and were not bonded together. The fact that the rail lies in the four foot doesn't matter as it is earthed, It isn't deliberately earthed, it just isn't insulated from earth. The "official" connection to earth is back at the substation. If the fourth rail was removed it would increase the resistance of the path through which the traction current flows with consequential wastage of power. Earth was the wrong term, I should have said near earth potential, but I was writing in a hurry. This, slightly dated, document has the details http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_G...lling%20Stock/ Other/GMTT0108%20Iss%201a.pdf, section 5.4 is especially relevant for the 'disused' 4th rail north of Harrow & Wealdstone. It is interesting to see as much as 60v allowed WRT earth. With the currents that might be caused by a train drawing full power this would still seem to leave the opportunity for some damage to be caused by accidental/unintentional contact between a local (true) earth and the traction return rail via assorted metallic objects. I've seen the damage that 50v (200A circuit fuse IIRC) can do to a screwdriver and other assorted things that should not have been near a busbar and it isn't pretty. missing sections will have been bypassed with cabling and very little is actually missing if you look for it. If nothing else, it has to be connected to something, due to possible induction from the 25kV AC running along side. ITYF connecting the end distant from the substation to earth would actually aid any induction by turning it into one half of a transformer. Counteracting this would require multiple earthing. See above, it is still better to have the rail 'in circuit' than not. |
Overground
"Willms" wrote in message
... There is 'overground' as generic term, and "London Overground" as a brand name, using the same barred circle of "London Underground", just in a different color... The "barred circle", as you call it, is often known as a roundel. -- MatSav |
Overground
"MatSav" matthew | dot | savage | at | dsl | dot | pipex | dot | com wrote The "barred circle", as you call it, is often known as a roundel. It's now the logo of Transport for London, and appears, for example, on the licence plate on the back of black cabs. Peter |
Overground
On 19 Sep, 01:39, "John Salmon" wrote:
"MIG" wrote On 18 Sep, 09:44, "John Salmon" wrote: "Sim" wrote Now let's be nice to each other! I did not know the details Charles kindly provided, but it does make sense. Interestingly, not only does (remainder snipped) Previous discussions have suggested that it is still there because it (remainder snipped) MIG - there is something wrong with your quoting - I didn't write any of the stuff you've attributed to me. *Can you please try and get this right, as it makes it impossible to tell who wrote what further down the thread. Ah, in fact it was your quoting that went wrong. I can see now that in your reply to Sim, the first line (only) of his/her paragraphs had a while the rest didn't, so I replied to the paragraph as if it was from you. So I was replying to Sim's paragraph in a message from you that had failed to quote it correctly. (In fact, I thought I was replying to Sim, and then carelessly clicked on the latest message which had his/her paragraph unindented, which was yours.) |
Overground
|
Overground
"Neil Williams" wrote in message ... On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:36:31 +0100, Paul Corfield wrote: I shall now hide under a table before the residents of utl re-ignite I did wonder if it was because they weren't compliant with some regulation or other - particularly because the orange background makes them quite difficult to read. A very odd choice - I'm surprised they didn't just go for white with an orange stripe at the bottom or something. White with an orange strip is the permanent style for overhead signage, as seen at Stratford, Clapham Junction so far IIRC. There are supposed to be '3D' LT style roundels eventually, as platform running in signs, but only where there is sufficient room. Paul S |
Overground
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 08:21:08 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote: It's now the logo of Transport for London, and appears, for example, on the licence plate on the back of black cabs. And of the Indian railways! Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Overground
wrote in message ... Paul Scott wrote: wrote in message ... In article Don't Merseyrail also maintain the tack, There have been a number of proposals for Merseyrail to maintain their own track, because it can be segregated from the wider network (unlike the 'Overground') but so far nothing has changed, as NR fundamentally disagree. Paul Doesn't Nederlandse Spoorwegen run Merseyrail? Only the train service. The infrastructure is definitely Network Rail as I said... Paul S |
Overground
On Sep 18, 10:47 pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
No it isn't. All London Overground services are also part of National Rail so every station that those trains serve will have the double arrow sign outside. Interestingly that will mean that Whitechapel - in modern times just LUL - will gain NR signage (or at least should do). So, I read this and thought "I'm sure I remember reading in a signs standard that Dalston Junction-Surrey Quays will be Overground roundel only". This one says you are right: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/corporate/...ardIssue02.pdf However, if you change Issue02 to Issue01, you get the first version, which did have the idea that part of the Overground network wouldn't be part of National Rail, and so therefore the arrowheads wouldn't be displayed... Curious. -- Abi |
Overground
On 18 Sep, 19:12, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 02:17:37 -0700 (PDT), Sim wrote: In the old days, Queen's Park was the last LT-managed station on the route to Watford, which was firmly BR (and before that LMS) thereafter all the way to Watford. The Bakerloo was the "guest". When did LT ever manage Queens Park Station? *All the time I have been with LT it was either a BR operated station and then post franchising it passed to Silverlink. Only at the time when Silverlink ceased and LOROL took over did it transfer to LU operation and even then things like ticketing remain on NR equipment and NR ticketing rules (the same applies all the way up to Harrow, barring Willesden Junction which is LOROL operated). Happy to be corrected if LT did run it back from 1933 or whenever and it then later passed to BR. I'd be surprised that LT would have ceded ownership (and the revenue) if it had had any choice. -- Paul C Absolutely right: thanks Paul. Too many late nights, I think. Please delete Queen's Park in the original post and substitute Kilburn Park. Who owns the depot/reversing building at QP, though? I think it's the only one on LU where service trains actually run through the middle of it. |
Overground
On Sep 19, 12:11*pm, Sim wrote:
On 18 Sep, 19:12, Paul Corfield wrote: On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 02:17:37 -0700 (PDT), Sim wrote: In the old days, Queen's Park was the last LT-managed station on the route to Watford, which was firmly BR (and before that LMS) thereafter all the way to Watford. The Bakerloo was the "guest". When did LT ever manage Queens Park Station? *All the time I have been with LT it was either a BR operated station and then post franchising it passed to Silverlink. Only at the time when Silverlink ceased and LOROL took over did it transfer to LU operation and even then things like ticketing remain on NR equipment and NR ticketing rules (the same applies all the way up to Harrow, barring Willesden Junction which is LOROL operated). Happy to be corrected if LT did run it back from 1933 or whenever and it then later passed to BR. I'd be surprised that LT would have ceded ownership (and the revenue) if it had had any choice. -- Paul C Absolutely right: thanks Paul. Too many late nights, I think. Please delete Queen's Park in the original post and substitute Kilburn Park. Who owns the depot/reversing building at QP, though? I think it's the only one on LU where service trains actually run through the middle of it. The boundary between NR and LU is just outside the north end of the shed at 3 miles 67 chains, the junction between the DC line and the Bakerloo tracks is at 3 miles 71 chains. |
Overground
1506 wrote:
This is something I have wondered for some time. The Overground name is contrived. The East London Line is a former Underground line anyway. If you want a stupid contrived use of the word, FirstBus titled the Bristol bus map "Overground"... a BUS map!!! Matt |
Overground
In message
Cruithne3753 wrote: 1506 wrote: This is something I have wondered for some time. The Overground name is contrived. The East London Line is a former Underground line anyway. If you want a stupid contrived use of the word, FirstBus titled the Bristol bus map "Overground"... a BUS map!!! They did the same in Southampton for a while. -- Graeme Wall This address not read, substitute trains for rail Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Overground
DW downunder reply@newsgroup wrote
That's something that has developed since 1987, when I returned to Oz. Certainly, none of US called anything the overground. The whole concept of Network South East was to give the whole home counties and beyond a product concept built on the Underground model of clarity (if not frequency). If calling everything local on rails that's not LU "overground" developed in a generation, by 2027, all will be clear again! :) The OED has a quote from 1931 about a bus line (Hadley Wood/ Barnet to Victoria) which was branded as Overground ! -- Mike D |
Overground
|
Overground
wrote in message
One small question - does newer dual voltage stock (since the 313s) have the capability to switch between third rail and overhead on the fly between North Pole and Shepherd's Bush? The 313s were designed only to switch in stations (Drayton Park actually) but no-one envisaged a changeover point between stations in the 1970s. No, Desiros and ElectroStars also come to a complete stop for what seems like an age for the voltage change. If anything, it seems like they take longer than the 313s, presumably because of the complex electronics and computers that may need rebooting. |
Overground
On Sep 20, 2:10*pm, "Recliner" wrote:
wrote in message One small question - does newer dual voltage stock (since the 313s) have the capability to switch between third rail and overhead on the fly between North Pole and Shepherd's Bush? The 313s were designed only to switch in stations (Drayton Park actually) but no-one envisaged a changeover point between stations in the 1970s. No, Desiros and ElectroStars also come to a complete stop for what seems like an age for the voltage change. If anything, it seems like they take longer than the 313s, presumably because of the complex electronics and computers that may need rebooting. The Electrostars can change over on the move, but normally don't. I've never been on a unit that's done it myself, but know of people who have. On the West London Line at North Pole Junction, there's little difference in the time spent stationary between a 313 and a 377, although the PIS system on a 377 is sometimes still rebooting after Shepherd's Bush when heading south. Class 313s can actually change over on the move, very occasionally a 313 will leave Euston on AC and won't stop until arriving at South Hampstead on DC, I've managed this maneuver at least once during the rebuild of the Euston station throat. |
Overground
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 06:23:35 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote: The Electrostars can change over on the move, but normally don't. I've never been on a unit that's done it myself, but know of people who have. On the West London Line at North Pole Junction, there's little difference in the time spent stationary between a 313 and a 377, although the PIS system on a 377 is sometimes still rebooting after Shepherd's Bush when heading south. It always struck me as very poor design that the PIS reboots when changing voltage. Wouldn't it make more sense for it to operate from a battery? Or were the units not designed for changing "on the fly"? Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Overground
|
Overground
DW downunder reply@newsgroup wrote on 19 September 2009 05:51:41 ...
"Recliner" wrote in message But many Overground trains will use National Rail stations, complete with double-arrows. In any case, though you may think it's illogical, imperfect Londoners do tend to refer to all non-Underground/DLR services as 'overground trains'. That's something that has developed since 1987, when I returned to Oz. Certainly, none of US called anything the overground. The whole concept of Network South East was to give the whole home counties and beyond a product concept built on the Underground model of clarity (if not frequency). I've come to the conclusion that this must be a generation thing. I've never used 'overground' to refer to anything but LO. In my own experience, people have tended to stick with out-of-date or inaccurate terms like 'British Rail' or 'main-line' when referring to National Rail services as a whole. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
Overground
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 11:58:29 -0500,
wrote: Hmm. Was that one of the the mods for NLL/Silverlink Metro use? I know they changed the controls so they can run on DC in parallel as well as in series. Interesting - that may make them very useful indeed for any future extensions of Merseyrail. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Overground
On 20 Sep, 18:10, "Richard J." wrote:
DW downunder reply@newsgroup wrote on 19 September 2009 05:51:41 ... "Recliner" wrote in message But many Overground trains will use National Rail stations, complete with double-arrows. In any case, though you may think it's illogical, imperfect Londoners do tend to refer to all non-Underground/DLR services as 'overground trains'. That's something that has developed since 1987, when I returned to Oz. Certainly, none of US called anything the overground. The whole concept of Network South East was to give the whole home counties and beyond a product concept built on the Underground model of clarity (if not frequency). I've come to the conclusion that this must be a generation thing. *I've never used 'overground' to refer to anything but LO. *In my own experience, people have tended to stick with out-of-date or inaccurate terms like 'British Rail' or 'main-line' when referring to National Rail services as a whole. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) It may also be geographical. Anywhere outside of northish London, there would be no need to make the contrast. I don't think I used the term myself, but I know that others did, particularly where there was a choice, eg Stratford to Liverpool Street, or Walthamstow Central into central London. |
Overground
Richard J. wrote:
In my own experience, people have tended to stick with out-of-date or inaccurate terms like 'British Rail' Perhaps they are saying 'British rail', in which case it isn't inaccurate. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p14486542.html (FY SW1001 44 (no TOPS class) at Merehead, 26 Jun 1994) |
Overground
In article , aooy65
@dsl.pipex.com says... On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 02:17:37 -0700 (PDT), Sim wrote: In the old days, Queen's Park was the last LT-managed station on the route to Watford, which was firmly BR (and before that LMS) thereafter all the way to Watford. The Bakerloo was the "guest". When did LT ever manage Queens Park Station? All the time I have been with LT it was either a BR operated station and then post franchising it passed to Silverlink. Only at the time when Silverlink ceased and LOROL took over did it transfer to LU operation and even then things like ticketing remain on NR equipment and NR ticketing rules (the same applies all the way up to Harrow, barring Willesden Junction which is LOROL operated). Happy to be corrected if LT did run it back from 1933 or whenever and it then later passed to BR. I'd be surprised that LT would have ceded ownership (and the revenue) if it had had any choice. Queens Park certainly issued LTE tickets whereas the stations further on had BR tickets. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk