Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

The speed of the Overground from highbury down to shadwell is underwhelming
to say the least. Slow ponderous acceleration up to probably nothing more than
25mph and then braking from what seems like 300m before the station. Are the
378s just not up to the job of running a metro service or is there a deliberate
policy of a leisurely pace to operations?

--
Spud

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

wrote in message
...
The speed of the Overground from highbury down to shadwell is
underwhelming
to say the least. Slow ponderous acceleration up to probably nothing more
than
25mph and then braking from what seems like 300m before the station. Are
the
378s just not up to the job of running a metro service or is there a
deliberate
policy of a leisurely pace to operations?

--
Spud


I did a trip from Sydenham to Hoxton the other day and the trains seem to
run to reasonable speed out on the main line south of New Cross Gate. The
East London Line was always a rather leisurely affair in its Underground
days so I suspect the Overground has inherited the same line speeds.

--
DAS

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 13:51:21 -0000
"D A Stocks" wrote:
wrote in message
...
The speed of the Overground from highbury down to shadwell is
underwhelming
to say the least. Slow ponderous acceleration up to probably nothing more
than
25mph and then braking from what seems like 300m before the station. Are
the
378s just not up to the job of running a metro service or is there a
deliberate
policy of a leisurely pace to operations?

--
Spud


I did a trip from Sydenham to Hoxton the other day and the trains seem to
run to reasonable speed out on the main line south of New Cross Gate. The
East London Line was always a rather leisurely affair in its Underground
days so I suspect the Overground has inherited the same line speeds.

I haven't been that far down on it so I'll take your word for it, but the
pace on the ELL is a joke. Coupled with waiting for the train to leave
highbury plus frequent pointless waits at Dalson Junction it makes it a poor
2nd choice for getting to east london from there when the Victoria+Jubilee
to canada water is - on my tests - is frequently 10 minutes faster to do
probably almost twice the distance.

--
Spud

Long, long ago the service from Richmond via Highbury & Islington terminated
at Broad Street, not Stratford. (There were no passenger trains between
Canonbury and Stratford!) Between Dalston Junction and Old Street, those
trains ran quite a bit faster than the current Overground trains.

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 22:19:04 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

I think TfL schedule the Overground services fairly loosely with
recovery margins to ensure good time keeping. I agree that the service
can be / feels slow on the ELL core.

Is good time keeping along the route important? Instead of having
faster journeys when possible with more recovery time at the ends.

--
jhk

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:07:15 +0000
Paul Corfield wrote:
making me nervous about making my connection. Once we were allowed to
depart (after umpteen freights and stock transfers were routed across
our path) the driver gave us a spritely run which probably clawed back
about 2 minutes of the delay. This meant it was less of a mad dash at
Gospel Oak for the Barking train. If that "catch up" time wasn't in
the run times then the connection may well have been missed extending
my journey time by 15 minutes.

Of course you could look at it from another point of view - if your train
had been going faster it could have got past the crossover before all
those other trains turned up.

Several of the routes do have closely spaced stations so there's
little point drawing a load of electricity to accelerate quickly and
then have to jam the brakes on. It's also not terribly comfortable for
passegers.

Doesn't seem to bother anyone on the ATO controlled tube lines which accelerate
the trains like scalded cats.

Punctuality and reliability are highly valued by passengers even if

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.

The final point to make is that the slowish running speed doesn't seem
to deter passengers given how overloaded the trains are. If they were

Well its detered me. If I continue on the victoria and change at green
park to the jubilee it almost always gets me to canada water quicker than
the ELL even though its a much longer distance.

see the point. Let's face it the network is vastly better than what
was there before and it is receiving hundreds of millions of extra
investment to raise capacity.

Personally I think the ELL should have remained a tube line and stayed on
its own tracks. Running over NR lines is just asking for delays plus the
longer the route is the more than can go wrong.

--
Spud

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

On Friday, 21 November 2014 22:32:05 UTC, Jarle Hammen Knudsen wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 22:19:04 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

I think TfL schedule the Overground services fairly loosely with
recovery margins to ensure good time keeping. I agree that the service
can be / feels slow on the ELL core.

Is good time keeping along the route important? Instead of having
faster journeys when possible with more recovery time at the ends.

Very much so, of the 4 southern routes only the single stop branch to New Cross
doesn't have to fit in with other services. Good timekeeping is also important when
each branch only has a 4tph service - it's only between Highbury & Islington and Surrey
Quays that it's truly a "turn up and go" service.

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

On Saturday, 22 November 2014 11:01:54 UTC, wrote:
Punctuality and reliability are highly valued by passengers even if

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.

It isn't though, passengers to/from the southern branches seem to treat it as a timetabled
service on the whole - at my local station (Norwood Junction) the bulk of passengers in the
morning peak turn up just before the train. It might be only 4tph but equally spaced at the
same times all day so it's easy for people to get used to the times, which helps.

The final point to make is that the slowish running speed doesn't seem
to deter passengers given how overloaded the trains are. If they were

Well its detered me. If I continue on the victoria and change at green
park to the jubilee it almost always gets me to canada water quicker than
the ELL even though its a much longer distance.

But with the inconvenience of the not very convenient change at Green Park.

Personally I think the ELL should have remained a tube line and stayed on
its own tracks. Running over NR lines is just asking for delays plus the
longer the route is the more than can go wrong.

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.

On that route it's also had the side-effect of a far better service to London
Bridge on the Croydon route, which surprised me - the reduced London Bridge
service has less crowding. The downside is stations between New Cross Gate
and Anerley have a far worse service to East Croydon and beyond than previously;
as a result Norwood Junction is actually used as an interchange these days.

Despite all the NR line running it's remarkably reliable!

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

On 2014-11-21 11:09:35 +0000, d said:

The speed of the Overground from highbury down to shadwell is underwhelming
to say the least. Slow ponderous acceleration up to probably nothing more than
25mph and then braking from what seems like 300m before the station. Are the
378s just not up to the job of running a metro service or is there a deliberate
policy of a leisurely pace to operations?

I remarked on this not long after it opened. Living by Dalston Junction
I use it a lot. The stations aren't that far apart and there's a fairly
tight curve between Hoxton and Shoreditch High Street. They go fairly
fast from DJ to Highbury. But yes, they don't work like tube trains.

E.

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

On 2014\11\22 15:49, Mark wrote:
On Saturday, 22 November 2014 11:01:54 UTC, wrote:
Punctuality and reliability are highly valued by passengers even if

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.

It isn't though, passengers to/from the southern branches seem to treat it as a timetabled
service on the whole - at my local station (Norwood Junction) the bulk of passengers in the
morning peak turn up just before the train. It might be only 4tph but equally spaced at the
same times all day so it's easy for people to get used to the times, which helps.

For much of the week, the trains to and from Crystal Palace and Croydon
follow each other on and off the main section instead of being about 7
minutes apart with the New Cross and Clapham trains between them. So
anyone commuting between, say Brockley and Wapping has a very bunched
service. Was that really the only way to fit the trains in?

https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cm...-timetable.pdf

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

On Saturday, 22 November 2014 17:45:30 UTC, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2014\11\22 15:49, Mark wrote:
On Saturday, 22 November 2014 11:01:54 UTC, wrote:
Punctuality and reliability are highly valued by passengers even if

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.

It isn't though, passengers to/from the southern branches seem to treat it as a timetabled
service on the whole - at my local station (Norwood Junction) the bulk of passengers in the
morning peak turn up just before the train. It might be only 4tph but equally spaced at the
same times all day so it's easy for people to get used to the times, which helps.

For much of the week, the trains to and from Crystal Palace and Croydon
follow each other on and off the main section instead of being about 7
minutes apart with the New Cross and Clapham trains between them. So
anyone commuting between, say Brockley and Wapping has a very bunched
service. Was that really the only way to fit the trains in?

https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cm...-timetable.pdf

As far as I understand it from what was said when it was introduced, yes. It required massive service
changes on the London Bridge - Croydons - beyond route to accommodate the Overground timetable,
and presumably a clockface timetable on the individual branches was a goal.

Stations beyond West Croydon lost their stopping services to London Bridge and their semi-fast services
other than a handful in the peaks. Many services via West Croydon were diverted to the fast lines
between Norwood and London Bridge (resulting in the pretty odd situation that Norwood Junction has
a better service to London Bridge between the peaks than in peak - 6tph fast and 2tph stopping)
Likewise stations south of London Bridge now have a poor direct service to East Croydon. Two of
the 6tph (Horsham via Gatwick) have since been changed to make a stop a New Cross Gate as a
slight improvement to that (with another benefit that the original ELL stations are now a single
change from Gatwick)

The losers were definitely passengers from south of the Croydons wanting the intermediate stops, and
passengers from those intermediate stops travelling south of Croydon.

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

On Sunday, 23 November 2014 01:27:50 UTC, Mark wrote:
As far as I understand it from what was said when it was introduced, yes. It required massive service
changes on the London Bridge - Croydons - beyond route to accommodate the Overground timetable,
and presumably a clockface timetable on the individual branches was a goal.

(And Sydenham - New Cross Gate is 12tph - at a very even pattern too - which must be close to the realistic maximum for the line I'd have thought? If I remember right from when I lived there that's
double the service there was before London Overground)

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 07:49:27 -0800 (PST)
Mark wrote:
On Saturday, 22 November 2014 11:01:54 UTC, wrote:
Well its detered me. If I continue on the victoria and change at green
park to the jubilee it almost always gets me to canada water quicker than
the ELL even though its a much longer distance.

But with the inconvenience of the not very convenient change at Green Park.

TBH the walk from the victoria to the jubilee at green park isn't that much
further than from the victoria to the ELL at highbury.

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
or Hoxton?

--
Spud

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

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.

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

Sobol's Law of Telecom Utilities:
Telcos are malicious; cablecos are simply clueless.

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

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!

--
Spud

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

On 2014-11-24 09:49:37 +0000, d said:

Strange. I wonder where they're all going. Hipsters commuting to/from shorditch
or Hoxton?

Shoreditch High Street is right by the square mile - it's an obvious
way to get to a lot of offices. Likewise changing at Shadwell and
Canada Water gets you both east and west. And Highbury is very busy
with the interchange to the Victoria line.

E.

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

On 2014\11\22 15:49, 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.

Maybe they could stick an extra couple of carriages on the back... the
trains are walk-though, after all.

Incidentally, I was on an S stock recently going through Mansion House,
I think, and messages appeared on the LED display warning that the rear
door would not open. However, I could see that the same message was
appearing on the displays all the way through the train. It seems lazy
to me that they tell people in the front carriage that the rear door
won't open.

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

On 2014-11-24 18:25:35 +0000, Basil Jet said:

Incidentally, I was on an S stock recently going through Mansion House,
I think, and messages appeared on the LED display warning that the rear
door would not open. However, I could see that the same message was
appearing on the displays all the way through the train. It seems lazy
to me that they tell people in the front carriage that the rear door
won't open.

The design element I'd change there is that the visual indication at
the door of "door out of use" does not display until the release is
pressed, whereas it'd be more useful if it appeared on departure from
the previous station.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2014\11\22 15:49, 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.

Maybe they could stick an extra couple of carriages on the back... the
trains are walk-though, after all.

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
unit has just been delivered. Short platform lengths at some stations limit
future lengthening.

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

In article , (Basil Jet)
wrote:

On 2014\11\22 15:49, 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.

Maybe they could stick an extra couple of carriages on the back...
the trains are walk-though, after all.

That makes it considerably harder to just "stick an extra couple of
carriages on the back" of course. With the equipment shared between
carriages and distributed through modern trains the days of such simple
shunting are long gone.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

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

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

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.

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

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.

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

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

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

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

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

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

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

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

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

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?

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

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.

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

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

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

On 2014\11\26 14:53, Roland Perry wrote:
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.

The answer is for separate warnings to be heard in separate carriages.

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

In message , at 15:32:21 on Wed, 26 Nov
2014, Basil Jet 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.

The answer is for separate warnings to be heard in separate carriages.

Ha! That's for too complicated for train designers.
--
Roland Perry

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

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.

I presume that is why the PIS on some 377s says which coach one is in.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

In article , (Basil Jet)
wrote:

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?

To serve docklands developments there?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

On 2014-11-26 18:32:41 +0000, said:

I presume that is why the PIS on some 377s says which coach one is in.

Yes, it's been modified to do that, which is why you get oddities like
the destination scrolling in the second row even where it doesn't need
to. Originally it was first line destination, second line scrolling
stopping points, no coach numbers.

Though it surprised me they didn't use the national standard of letters
rather than numbers.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 02:53:15PM +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
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 ...

Hence all the "this is coach [pause] 5 [pause] of [pause] 8"
announcements.

--
David Cantrell | semi-evolved ape-thing

If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you're reading it in English, thank Chaucer.

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 06:40:34 -0800 (PST)
Mark wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 November 2014 19:06:56 UTC, wrote:
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.

They could have had reversers further up the line. Lets be honest - the real
raison d'etre for the ELL now is to get people from highbury to shadwell or
canada water to get to canary wharf so bypassing a huge chunk of central
london. The south bit is mainly irrelevant since trains already went to
london bridge where people could already get the jubilee anyway.

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.

How do other tube lines cope then? Where there's a will...

route. A train load of people changing at New Cross Gate would cause chaos
there, even
after they've finished rebuilding it.

That logic didn't seem to stop the closure of the farringdon to moorgate
branch so its odd TfL seem to think it applies in south london but not north
london.

South london is already oversubscribed with national rail services, it didn't
need another. The ELL with a high frequency fast tube service would have been
a better option for those of us north of the river than the dog slow service
we ended up with.

--
Spud

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

In message , at 13:06:57
on Thu, 27 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 ...

Hence all the "this is coach [pause] 5 [pause] of [pause] 8"
announcements.

None of the (splitting) trains I've been on have that sort of
announcement.
--
Roland Perry

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
13:06:57 on Thu, 27 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 ...

Hence all the "this is coach [pause] 5 [pause] of [pause] 8"
announcements.

None of the (splitting) trains I've been on have that sort of
announcement.

Trains like that do have workings that split but I admit not having been on
one when it did.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Overground speed - or lack thereof
 

Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 13:06:57
on Thu, 27 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 ...

Hence all the "this is coach [pause] 5 [pause] of [pause] 8"
announcements.

None of the (splitting) trains I've been on have that sort of
announcement.

A standard Southern message on I think all 377s not just those that
split. (I forget if 455s have this as a screen message)

--
Mark