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

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.

"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

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...!

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.

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!

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?

In article
,
(Andy) wrote:

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?

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.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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

"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