On Nov 12, 1:37*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Nov 12, 1:02*pm, Jamie *Thompson wrote:

On Nov 12, 11:12*am, "Peter Masson" wrote:

IMHO there is a case for the Croxley Link also to be used by trains from
Chesham or Amersham. But I doubt that there's a business case for procuring
new trains for this, and the likely traffic won't justify 8-car trains.
Perhaps a few of the D78 trains could be arranged as 4-car sets and modified
as necessary for future Met signalling. Certainly a better place to use them
than Harrogate.

The maintenance issue would no doubt rear it's had again though on
operating non-standard stock. Perhaps keeping them away from the other
children at a rebuilt Wiggenhall Road might suffice...but I think
you'd far more likely end up with too few S7/S8s on an infrequent
service than a correct number of D78s on a frequent one (It's the same
problem as the St. Albans line - infrequent services push passengers
away, but longer services aren't justified by the current loadings.
Make them frequent enough and you'll get the custom I believe). TfL
does seem to prefer to operate for it's own operational convenience
more than passengers most of the time...

What a load of nonsense.

Sorry, that's a bit harsh - I should have said something like
"Really?".

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 22:36:54 -0000, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Not an insurmountable issue though, as seen on the Bakerloo and District,
and the new S stock has apparently been built to allow use on the raised
third rail supply voltage that NR are about to provide around London...

Compatibility is not inevitably a reversable function. The shared
sections all involve some re-arrangement of the power supply and/or
signalling systems. You can e.g. send LU and NR electric stock into
Richmond but neither can take the wrong direction at Gunnersbury as
one requires power between the 3rd and 4th rails and the other
requires the power supply between the 3rd rail and one running rail.
Normal LU signalling is not intended to have traction currents flowing
in the running rails.

So exactly as I said it is not an 'insurmountable issue'.

They build the NEW infrastructure to allow for third rail EMUs as well as LU
stock, and alter a section of the existing infrastructure to match. It is
all being completely resignalled anyway by 2018...

Paul S

On Nov 12, 2:18*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On Nov 12, 1:37*pm, Mizter T wrote:









On Nov 12, 1:02*pm, Jamie *Thompson wrote:

On Nov 12, 11:12*am, "Peter Masson" wrote:

IMHO there is a case for the Croxley Link also to be used by trains from
Chesham or Amersham. But I doubt that there's a business case for procuring
new trains for this, and the likely traffic won't justify 8-car trains.
Perhaps a few of the D78 trains could be arranged as 4-car sets and modified
as necessary for future Met signalling. Certainly a better place to use them
than Harrogate.

The maintenance issue would no doubt rear it's had again though on
operating non-standard stock. Perhaps keeping them away from the other
children at a rebuilt Wiggenhall Road might suffice...but I think
you'd far more likely end up with too few S7/S8s on an infrequent
service than a correct number of D78s on a frequent one (It's the same
problem as the St. Albans line - infrequent services push passengers
away, but longer services aren't justified by the current loadings.
Make them frequent enough and you'll get the custom I believe). TfL
does seem to prefer to operate for it's own operational convenience
more than passengers most of the time...

What a load of nonsense.

Sorry, that's a bit harsh - I should have said something like
"Really?".

Perhaps indeed that last bit of my comment was a bit unjustified...but
I've seen a fair few things lately that don't seem to make much sense.
I do however feel the need to thank you for taking the effort to tone
down your reply...measured response isn't exactly something the
internet in general - let alone usenet, is famous for, so it's worth
highlighting when it does happen Thanks.

On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 17:03:13 -0000, "Paul Scott"
wrote:



"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 22:36:54 -0000, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Not an insurmountable issue though, as seen on the Bakerloo and District,
and the new S stock has apparently been built to allow use on the raised
third rail supply voltage that NR are about to provide around London...

Compatibility is not inevitably a reversable function. The shared
sections all involve some re-arrangement of the power supply and/or
signalling systems. You can e.g. send LU and NR electric stock into
Richmond but neither can take the wrong direction at Gunnersbury as
one requires power between the 3rd and 4th rails and the other
requires the power supply between the 3rd rail and one running rail.
Normal LU signalling is not intended to have traction currents flowing
in the running rails.

So exactly as I said it is not an 'insurmountable issue'.

Not if you can get a rich uncle to pay for it.

They build the NEW infrastructure to allow for third rail EMUs as well as LU
stock, and alter a section of the existing infrastructure to match.

Watford to Amersham is not an insignificant distance.

It is
all being completely resignalled anyway by 2018...

On Nov 12, 9:37*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On Nov 12, 2:18*pm, Mizter T wrote:





On Nov 12, 1:37*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Nov 12, 1:02*pm, Jamie *Thompson wrote:

On Nov 12, 11:12*am, "Peter Masson" wrote:

IMHO there is a case for the Croxley Link also to be used by trains from
Chesham or Amersham. But I doubt that there's a business case for procuring
new trains for this, and the likely traffic won't justify 8-car trains.
Perhaps a few of the D78 trains could be arranged as 4-car sets and modified
as necessary for future Met signalling. Certainly a better place to use them
than Harrogate.

The maintenance issue would no doubt rear it's had again though on
operating non-standard stock. Perhaps keeping them away from the other
children at a rebuilt Wiggenhall Road might suffice...but I think
you'd far more likely end up with too few S7/S8s on an infrequent
service than a correct number of D78s on a frequent one (It's the same
problem as the St. Albans line - infrequent services push passengers
away, but longer services aren't justified by the current loadings.
Make them frequent enough and you'll get the custom I believe). TfL
does seem to prefer to operate for it's own operational convenience
more than passengers most of the time...

What a load of nonsense.

Sorry, that's a bit harsh - I should have said something like
"Really?".

Perhaps indeed that last bit of my comment was a bit unjustified...but
I've seen a fair few things lately that don't seem to make much sense.
I do however feel the need to thank you for taking the effort to tone
down your reply...measured response isn't exactly something the
internet in general - let alone usenet, is famous for, so it's worth
highlighting when it does happen Thanks.

Agreed.