D7666 wrote:

On Jul 8, 8:24*pm, D7666 wrote:
On Jul 8, 7:59*pm, Tony Polson wrote:

I ask because, like Nick, I would have thought that the Watford-Euston
DC route was more important than the North London Line.

Just look at the overcrowding

I did not say the Euston route was the most important to have 378s, I
said it was the most important route, and its importance means it
should NOT have them early.

I would argue that the priority for NLL to have 378s to relieve over
crowding is not the same as it being the most important route to avoid
having a 378 on, but it is more important to get it tright.

If the Euston Watford service were not there, the Bakerloo would be
desperately over loaded beyond capacity; the NLL is simply crowded.

A brand new out of the packet 378 failing during warranty / mileage
accumulation / crews-ramping-up-routine-familiarisation would screw
the Bakerloo completely if it happened in the wrong place i.e. between
Queens and Stonebridge Parks say just before the pm peak and stranding
X number of Bakerloo sets in depot. Bear in mind that 377/5s are
capably failing mosdt days every week of bringing TL core to a halt
for up to half an hour at a time for the most trivial issues, then
378s might be the same.

Thats why I think the Euston DC route is more important *- not to have
378s (I never implied that) but because it is a more important route
full stop.

--
Nick

OOps, apologies Tony, I cut too many quotes, looks like I'm quoting
all as if you said it, of course thats not right. I'm sure you know
what I meant to leave as quoted quotes.


No need to apologise, Nick, it was quite clear what you meant. It is an
interesting discussion; I am considering working in London and it would
mean a house move, so I am looking at a few alternative locations that
would keep commuting to a minimum.