|
TfL Rail and Tube panel
The latest papers are at
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/abou...pers/1444.aspx Issues covered included HLOS2, East London Line Ph 2 or should I say "New South London Line", Overground performance, LUL performance, various projects including a confirmed delay to the DLR Stratford International project to "Autumn 2010". -- Paul C via Google |
TfL Rail and Tube panel
On Jul 12, 12:28*pm, Paul Corfield wrote: The latest papers are at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/abou...officers/paper... Issues covered included HLOS2, East London Line Ph 2 or should I say "New South London Line", Overground performance, LUL performance, various projects including a confirmed delay to the DLR Stratford International project to "Autumn 2010". The "New Souh London Line" moniker doesn't seem anything more than a Boris-esque presentational wheeze to deflate concerns about the forthcoming death of the Victoria-London Bridge South London Line service - this is reinforced by the fact that TfL/ LO do not refer to any of the London Overground routes by names such as "North London Line" "East London Line" etc in passenger facing communication - instead, the ultimate destinations of each service are referred to instead, e.g. "Richmond - Stratford", "Dalston Jn - West Croydon/ Crystal Palace" - according to a somewhat trenchant poster on the District Dave forum, this nomenclature was chosen as the result of passenger surveys and consultations done by TfL. |
TfL Rail and Tube panel
"Paul Corfield" wrote in message ... Ah the trenchant Mr T Dunning. Yes his posts can be a bit to the point can't they? I'm amazed he hasn't had someone give him a word in his "shell like" about what he posts. Must be a very important chap, I gather he put Boris right when he went 'off message' about Class 378 seating... Paul S |
TfL Rail and Tube panel
On Jul 12, 8:32*pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: "Paul Corfield" wrote: Ah the trenchant Mr T Dunning. *Yes his posts can be a bit to the point can't they? * I'm amazed he hasn't had someone give him a word in his "shell like" about what he posts. Must be a very important chap, I gather he put Boris right when he went 'off message' about Class 378 seating... Yeah, I saw that too, and also thought much the same thoughts...! |
TfL Rail and Tube panel
On Jul 12, 11:11*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On Jul 12, 8:32*pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: "Paul Corfield" wrote: Ah the trenchant Mr T Dunning. *Yes his posts can be a bit to the point can't they? * I'm amazed he hasn't had someone give him a word in his "shell like" about what he posts. Must be a very important chap, I gather he put Boris right when he went 'off message' about Class 378 seating... Yeah, I saw that too, and also thought much the same thoughts...! Especially as consultation is apparently OK for important things like naming lines, but not for the silly things like passengers having the chance of a seat. |
TfL Rail and Tube panel
On Jul 12, 11:28*pm, Andy wrote: On Jul 12, 11:11*pm, Mizter T wrote: On Jul 12, 8:32*pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: "Paul Corfield" wrote: Ah the trenchant Mr T Dunning. *Yes his posts can be a bit to the point can't they? * I'm amazed he hasn't had someone give him a word in his "shell like" about what he posts. Must be a very important chap, I gather he put Boris right when he went 'off message' about Class 378 seating... Yeah, I saw that too, and also thought much the same thoughts...! Especially as consultation is apparently OK for important things like naming lines, but not for the silly things like passengers having the chance of a seat. Says the man who seemingly has absolutely no idea how much most NLL and WLL users prefer the new trains because they can actually get on them without feeling like they're jammed in like cattle. No Andy, you're not going to succeed in attaching that misguided snipe on to my comments at all! |
TfL Rail and Tube panel
On Jul 12, 11:54*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On Jul 12, 11:28*pm, Andy wrote: On Jul 12, 11:11*pm, Mizter T wrote: On Jul 12, 8:32*pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: "Paul Corfield" wrote: Ah the trenchant Mr T Dunning. *Yes his posts can be a bit to the point can't they? * I'm amazed he hasn't had someone give him a word in his "shell like" about what he posts. Must be a very important chap, I gather he put Boris right when he went 'off message' about Class 378 seating... Yeah, I saw that too, and also thought much the same thoughts...! Especially as consultation is apparently OK for important things like naming lines, but not for the silly things like passengers having the chance of a seat. Says the man who seemingly has absolutely no idea how much most NLL and WLL users prefer the new trains because they can actually get on them without feeling like they're jammed in like cattle. No Andy, you're not going to succeed in attaching that misguided snipe on to my comments at all! I'm not talking about the current situation, I was talking about potential plans for fitting some extra seats to what will be at least four car trains, after the Olympics. Is it really alright for the 4 car class 378s to actually have less seating than the 3 car class 313s that they have replaced (and which have, correctly in my opinion, already had some seats removed) ? And I do use the WLL (and occasionally the NLL) during the peaks, so I know what a difference the 378s have made. However I can also foresee a time, when the frequencies finally increase (along with the extra car) that all that standing space won't be needed. Is it really OK not to at least consult passengers about this? |
TfL Rail and Tube panel
|
TfL Rail and Tube panel
wrote in message ... In article If the seats are only along the carriage side walls it is not clear how you can add seats. The 313s lost seats by a few 2+3 rows becoming 2+2. Easy to do. Agreed. I'd be assuming the proposed change is basically impossible, because so much of the equipment they normally fit in the corners of the carriages (like in 377s etc) must have been moved to new positions to make room for the gangways, and the only obvious other place is along the sides under the seats... Paul S |
TfL Rail and Tube panel
"Andy" wrote in message ... And I do use the WLL (and occasionally the NLL) during the peaks, so I know what a difference the 378s have made. However I can also foresee a time, when the frequencies finally increase (along with the extra car) that all that standing space won't be needed. Is it really OK not to at least consult passengers about this? When was the last major public consultation about either mainline or LU rolling stock seating layout? I don't recall such a consultation prior to various tube stocks losing transverse seating yet it's now the norm. IIRC the S stock 'consultation' was basically a take it or leave it exhibition, except for some tiny details... I think now that LO have 'broken the mould', there'll be more on mainline TOCs. The Greater Anglia RUS already suggests that new stock for some of their next inner suburban trains (eg Chingfords) will have the same layout as 378s. Paul S |
TfL Rail and Tube panel
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Paul Scott wrote:
I think now that LO have 'broken the mould', there'll be more on mainline TOCs. The Greater Anglia RUS already suggests that new stock for some of their next inner suburban trains (eg Chingfords) will have the same layout as 378s. You mean longitudinal seating? Seriously? I boggle. Not that i'm complaining. It's just something i never thought i'd see. tom -- The players listen very carefully and respectfully to all that the clever men have to say about what is to happen in the next generation. They players then wait until all the clever men are dead, and bury them nicely. Then they go and do something else. -- The Napoleon of Notting Hill, G. K. Chesterton |
TfL Rail and Tube panel
On Jul 13, 10:49*am, "Paul Scott"
wrote: [seating consultations] I think now that LO have 'broken the mould', there'll be more on mainline TOCs. The Greater Anglia RUS already suggests that new stock for some of their next inner suburban trains (eg Chingfords) will have the same layout as 378s. That's the first time I've heard of that. The franchise docs for Greater Anglia didn't have any suggestion of new stock being considered for the inner suburban lines which strikes me as a bit odd given their age. I appreciate the RUS is a different document with a different purpose but I thought the aspiration was for longer trains on the inner suburban lines given there's little scope for higher frequencies given the ambitions for more services via Harlow / Cambridge. I can imagine that if NXEA got a 378 style layout they'd never run a 8 car train on the Chingford line again. It would be cram them in Japanese style on the Chingford line (as they do today when they "forget" to stick the extra 4 carriages on for the peak) but on a permanent basis. -- Paul C via Google |
TfL Rail and Tube panel
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message th.li... On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Paul Scott wrote: I think now that LO have 'broken the mould', there'll be more on mainline TOCs. The Greater Anglia RUS already suggests that new stock for some of their next inner suburban trains (eg Chingfords) will have the same layout as 378s. You mean longitudinal seating? Seriously? I boggle. Not that i'm complaining. It's just something i never thought i'd see. I looked it up again, to get the full context: "It is recommended that this [9 car trains] should be implemented along with a scheme for replacement of the Class 315 rolling stock on the route. Consideration should be given to providing Class 378 or similar rolling stock with high passenger capacity layout, which it is expected will be necessary to accommodate long term increases in passenger demand on West Anglia Inner-suburban services and improve performance by reducing station dwell times in the peak." Paul S |
TfL Rail and Tube panel
"Paul Corfield" wrote in message ... I can imagine that if NXEA got a 378 style layout they'd never run a 8 car train on the Chingford line again. It would be cram them in Japanese style on the Chingford line (as they do today when they "forget" to stick the extra 4 carriages on for the peak) but on a permanent basis. My reply to Tom crossed unfortunately, but the mention of a '378 layout' is associated with 9 car trains as well... Paul S |
TfL Rail and Tube panel
"Paul Scott" wrote in message ... "Paul Corfield" wrote in message ... I can imagine that if NXEA got a 378 style layout they'd never run a 8 car train on the Chingford line again. It would be cram them in Japanese style on the Chingford line (as they do today when they "forget" to stick the extra 4 carriages on for the peak) but on a permanent basis. My reply to Tom crossed unfortunately, but the mention of a '378 layout' is associated with 9 car trains as well... IIRC before the 315s came along Chingford (and Enfield Town) did have 9 coach trains. And before the Victoria Line came to relieve the load, Chingford's peak service was 9 tph. Peter |
TfL Rail and Tube panel
On 13/07/2010 12:57, Peter Masson wrote:
"Paul Scott" wrote in message ... "Paul Corfield" wrote in message ... I can imagine that if NXEA got a 378 style layout they'd never run a 8 car train on the Chingford line again. It would be cram them in Japanese style on the Chingford line (as they do today when they "forget" to stick the extra 4 carriages on for the peak) but on a permanent basis. My reply to Tom crossed unfortunately, but the mention of a '378 layout' is associated with 9 car trains as well... IIRC before the 315s came along Chingford (and Enfield Town) did have 9 coach trains. And before the Victoria Line came to relieve the load, Chingford's peak service was 9 tph. Peter Indeed - I commuted to school from Chingford to Liv St. for 7 years in the late 60s / early 70s, and I remember the 9 trains per hour. They were in three groups of 3, one group every 20 minutes. The first two of the group were fast between St. James' St and Liv St. (missing Clapton, Hackney Downs and Bethnal Green), while the third was the stopper. And in the rush hours they were all 9 car (3x3) trains. Just a quick reminisce! Kevin |
TfL Rail and Tube panel
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 03:54:46PM -0700, Mizter T wrote:
Says the man who seemingly has absolutely no idea how much most NLL and WLL users prefer the new trains because they can actually get on them without feeling like they're jammed in like cattle. No Andy, you're not going to succeed in attaching that misguided snipe on to my comments at all! That's funny, I thought I *was* jammed in like cattle every evening on the way home from work. And people get left behind at Olympia and West Brompton southbound most days cos they can't get on the trains. The solution to overcrowding isn't to just faff about with the seating layout, but to run more trains (one every twenty minutes just isn't good enough) and longer trains. -- David Cantrell | Godless Liberal Elitist Languages for which ISO-Latin-$n is not necessary, #1 in a series: Latin |
TfL Rail and Tube panel
On 13 July, 13:28, Kevin Ayton wrote:
On 13/07/2010 12:57, Peter Masson wrote: "Paul Scott" wrote in message ... "Paul Corfield" wrote in message ... I can imagine that if NXEA got a 378 style layout they'd never run a 8 car train on the Chingford line again. It would be cram them in Japanese style on the Chingford line (as they do today when they "forget" to stick the extra 4 carriages on for the peak) but on a permanent basis. My reply to Tom crossed unfortunately, but the mention of a '378 layout' is associated with 9 car trains as well... IIRC before the 315s came along Chingford (and Enfield Town) did have 9 coach trains. And before the Victoria Line came to relieve the load, Chingford's peak service was 9 tph. Peter Indeed - I commuted to school from Chingford to Liv St. for 7 years in the late 60s / early 70s, and I remember the 9 trains per hour. They were in three groups of 3, one group every 20 minutes. The first two of the group were fast between St. James' St and Liv St. (missing Clapton, Hackney Downs and Bethnal Green), while the third was the stopper. And in the rush hours they were all 9 car (3x3) trains. Just a quick reminisce! They continued after the 315s were introduced as well, certainly through to the late 1980s and probably till the 321s were introduced to displace more 315s. 315s covered the off-peak, but the 9 x 305s appeared in the peaks. |
TfL Rail and Tube panel
Mizter T wrote:
Especially as consultation is apparently OK for important things like naming lines, but not for the silly things like passengers having the chance of a seat. Says the man who seemingly has absolutely no idea how much most NLL and WLL users prefer the new trains because they can actually get on them without feeling like they're jammed in like cattle. No Andy, you're not going to succeed in attaching that misguided snipe on to my comments at all! Having experienced a wedged Richmond-bound 378 arriving at Willesden Junction 20 minutes down on Saturday evening and emptying/reloading in the blink of an eye, the trains are extremely well suited to the route. In fact, I was using them instead of the Tube to get to/from Marylebone to take advantage of the aircon, which beats a seat any day*. There were three 172s parked up at the depot, too, DMU fans. Tom * Particularly days like last week's heatwave |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk