On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:13:26 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
I think they'd be more useful in the middle than the end! Actually, all
the 378s are bing lengthened to five cars, starting now; the first 5-car

Are these extra cars going to be powered or will they be unpowered trailers
so the 378s will be even slower?

--
Spud

wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:13:26 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
I think they'd be more useful in the middle than the end! Actually, all
the 378s are bing lengthened to five cars, starting now; the first 5-car

Are these extra cars going to be powered or will they be unpowered trailers
so the 378s will be even slower?

I think they're motored. Class 378s have a 75mph top speed, much more than
modern LU stock, but they seem to accelerate more slowly. With stations
typically 2 mins apart, they rarely get up to speed.

On 25.11.14 10:22, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:13:26 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
I think they'd be more useful in the middle than the end! Actually, all
the 378s are bing lengthened to five cars, starting now; the first 5-car

Are these extra cars going to be powered or will they be unpowered trailers
so the 378s will be even slower?

I think they're motored. Class 378s have a 75mph top speed, much more than
modern LU stock, but they seem to accelerate more slowly. With stations
typically 2 mins apart, they rarely get up to speed.

They appear to take a while to brake as well.

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 10:22:40 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:13:26 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
I think they'd be more useful in the middle than the end! Actually, all
the 378s are bing lengthened to five cars, starting now; the first 5-car

Are these extra cars going to be powered or will they be unpowered trailers
so the 378s will be even slower?

I think they're motored. Class 378s have a 75mph top speed, much more than
modern LU stock, but they seem to accelerate more slowly. With stations
typically 2 mins apart, they rarely get up to speed.

I suppose the top speed is so they can be cascaded in the future to elsewhere
around the country because its certainly overkill on their current routes.

I still think S stock running on the ELL as a tube route terminating at
new cross + gate would have been a better choice despite extra traffic
from further south since interchange would have been fairly easy.

--
Spud

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 09:49:37AM +0000, d wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 07:49:27 -0800 (PST)
Mark wrote:
I thought that too and that the ELL "extensions" were a white elephant -
creating a fake "new" service. I was wrong though, and the passenger
numbers seem to prove there was a latent demand there. I rarely use it
myself but the trains are standing only at Norwood Junction in the mornings,
and rammed by the time they get to the old ELL.
Strange. I wonder where they're all going. Hipsters commuting to/from shorditch

Lots of them get off at Canada Water. I presume that they're heading for
the Jubilee line and Canary Wharf.

--
David Cantrell | A machine for turning tea into grumpiness

All principles of gravity are negated by fear
-- Cartoon Law IV

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 09:13:26PM +0000, Recliner wrote:

Short platform lengths at some stations limit
future lengthening.

I don't understand this. Are people really too ****ing stupid to
understand announcements like "passengers for Some Station must travel
in the front four carriages"? Cos those work just fine elsewhere on the
rail network.

--
David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic

People from my sort of background needed grammar schools to
compete with children from privileged homes like ... Tony Benn
-- Margaret Thatcher

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 01:04:19PM +0000, d wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 12:32:45 +0000
David Cantrell wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 11:01:52AM +0000, d wrote:
Its supposed to be a turn up and go metro service. I doubt anyone seriously
checks the timetable beforehand. So long as trains turn up every 3 or 4
minutes thats all that matters.
They don't. They turn up every fifteen minutes, with a load of trains
going to places I don't care about in between.
Oh well, serves you right for living south of the river!

Unfortunately TfL seem to agree with you.

--
David Cantrell | Nth greatest programmer in the world

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity
-- Hanlon's Razor

Stupidity maintained long enough is a form of malice
-- Richard Bos's corollary

On 2014\11\26 14:18, David Cantrell wrote:

Lots of them get off at Canada Water. I presume that they're heading for
the Jubilee line and Canary Wharf.

I've just noticed that a straight line from Bermondsey Station to Canary
Wharf Station pretty much goes through Rotherhithe Station. Does anyone
know why Canada Water was built at all?

On Tuesday, 25 November 2014 19:06:56 UTC, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 10:22:40 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:13:26 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
I think they'd be more useful in the middle than the end! Actually, all
the 378s are bing lengthened to five cars, starting now; the first 5-car

Are these extra cars going to be powered or will they be unpowered trailers
so the 378s will be even slower?

I think they're motored. Class 378s have a 75mph top speed, much more than
modern LU stock, but they seem to accelerate more slowly. With stations
typically 2 mins apart, they rarely get up to speed.

I suppose the top speed is so they can be cascaded in the future to elsewhere
around the country because its certainly overkill on their current routes.

It isn't - the linespeed on the slow lines south of New Cross Gate is largely 60mph
(if probably not reached that often in normal service. ECS though...)

I still think S stock running on the ELL as a tube route terminating at
new cross + gate would have been a better choice despite extra traffic
from further south since interchange would have been fairly easy.

Where would the extra services from further south terminate? No terminating facility
at New Cross Gate, and no capacity at London Bridge.

Same applies for terminating from the north at New Cross Gate. Terminating 12 tph
there would be challenging, perhaps not impossible but the knock-on effect of
a problem would be far bigger than with multiple quieter terminuses.

People have always been able to change at New Cross Gate for the ELL (well, apart from
the long stretches of it being closed). They tended not to and interchange numbers were
tiny, probably due to the inconvenience, and the infrequency of the ELL and its limited
route. A train load of people changing at New Cross Gate would cause chaos there, even
after they've finished rebuilding it.

In message , at 14:22:25
on Wed, 26 Nov 2014, David Cantrell remarked:
Short platform lengths at some stations limit
future lengthening.

I don't understand this. Are people really too ****ing stupid to
understand announcements like "passengers for Some Station must travel
in the front four carriages"? Cos those work just fine elsewhere on the
rail network.

With ungangwayed 4-car units it's not always obvious which one you are
in without getting out and having a look. I've even been on an 8-car
(double 4-car) unit with a through gangway which was about to arrive at
a splitting station and just to confuse everyone they'd already locked
and closed the gangway.
--
Roland Perry