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.

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

"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'.

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?

wrote:
In article ,
() wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
On Sep 16, 10:10 pm, "
wrote:

Graham Harrison wrote:

"Basil Jet" wrote:
Is there a reason why this is not just billed as part of the
Underground, especially since it will soon have some deep tube
bits? If the Underground can include the Chesham branch, why not
the North London Line? Do staff at Gospel Oak station get paid
less than staff at Chesham, in which case keeping the Overground
separate from the Underground is a divide-and-conquer wheeze
against the rail workers?
What is now called the "Overground" is actually part of "British
Rail". The government put those lines out to tender and "Overground"
won it. Therefore, it's not part of Tfl as such - for instance it
works under National Rail rules/signalling and passenger terms/
conditions not LU.
But doesn't the Metropolitan line between Uxbridge and Amersham?
No.
The starting signal at Amersham eastbound was definitely set up as
a National Rail signal, and it was not a road signal over a
repeater signal.

What about between Putney and Wimbledon and between Gunnersbury and
Richmond?

To some extent they are both - Network Rail signalling but with train
stops.


Besides the train stops, trains that carry both NR and Underground
trains are also equipped with AWS.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.