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