On 22 May, 17:34, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 22 May, 16:08, Mizter T wrote:
* As a follow on thought to the overcrowding issue, could the line
take 6-car trains, including somehow getting over the obstacle of
short platforms at Canada Water?

Very good bloody question. There seems to be no consistency to their
choices of platform lengths (SHS is 8 car; DJ has 4 car bay platforms
and 6 car through platforms, not sure about the other new stations).
An explanation is in order.

See, I'm aware of the reasoning behind the decision to run 4 car
trains. I'm fine with those. What I doubt I'll ever understand is why
new build stations aren't being built with the minimum lengths
required for 8 car operation, if nothing else then at least as
safeguarded spaces. That way, the funding required is a case of some
cheap platform extensions, signalling changes, and a few big spends on
the current crop of stations restricted to 4-car operation....as
opposed to...say...rebuilding everything.

Dalston Junction's having a tower block built over it, but they had
free reign over the station design. Why on earth not build passive
provision in rather than being forever locked into short formations?
Would it have been so hard to have the active area of the through
platforms and the bays line up and have both as 8 cars long? There's
plenty of room for the pointwork south of the station.

* At Dalston Jn, can you still see the alignment of the north-eastern
spur from the station site?

I can answer this one. They've safeguarded a route/tunnel within the
structure but it's now only wide enough to take a single track.

....as above, the alignment is highly unlikely to ever be used, but it
used to be double track (I think?)...and is it *really* that much
harder to leave a slightly wider formation clear...really?