5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

I read in a magazine that Overground trains on the Euston-Watford service
won't be able to be extended to 5 cars until power supply upgrades have
taken place. I don't understand why power supply upgrades are is needed.
This route used to be served by 7 car Bakerloo Line trains.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

On 21/12/2014 21:49, wrote:
I read in a magazine that Overground trains on the Euston-Watford service
won't be able to be extended to 5 cars until power supply upgrades have
taken place. I don't understand why power supply upgrades are is needed.
This route used to be served by 7 car Bakerloo Line trains.


Guessing but perhaps "used to" are the operative words in that sentence,
i.e. the power supply kit / arrangements on the line have changed since
1982.

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

Mizter T wrote:
On 21/12/2014 21:49, wrote:
I read in a magazine that Overground trains on the Euston-Watford service
won't be able to be extended to 5 cars until power supply upgrades have
taken place. I don't understand why power supply upgrades are is needed.
This route used to be served by 7 car Bakerloo Line trains.


Guessing but perhaps "used to" are the operative words in that sentence,
i.e. the power supply kit / arrangements on the line have changed since 1982.

And maybe 5-car 378s, with modern traction equipment, need more power than
old tube trains (1972 stock, presumably)?

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

In article

rg, (Recliner) wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
On 21/12/2014 21:49, wrote:
I read in a magazine that Overground trains on the Euston-Watford
service won't be able to be extended to 5 cars until power supply
upgrades have taken place. I don't understand why power supply upgrades
are is needed. This route used to be served by 7 car Bakerloo Line
trains.

Guessing but perhaps "used to" are the operative words in that sentence,
i.e. the power supply kit / arrangements on the line have changed
since 1982.

And maybe 5-car 378s, with modern traction equipment, need more power than
old tube trains (1972 stock, presumably)?

1938 stock actually. I guessed it's the same as the Southern. Massive power
supply upgrades were needed for the switch from camshaft-controlled stock to
power electronics.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 06:14:01 -0600
wrote:
In article

rg, (Recliner) wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
On 21/12/2014 21:49, wrote:
I read in a magazine that Overground trains on the Euston-Watford
service won't be able to be extended to 5 cars until power supply
upgrades have taken place. I don't understand why power supply upgrades
are is needed. This route used to be served by 7 car Bakerloo Line
trains.

Guessing but perhaps "used to" are the operative words in that sentence,
i.e. the power supply kit / arrangements on the line have changed
since 1982.

And maybe 5-car 378s, with modern traction equipment, need more power than
old tube trains (1972 stock, presumably)?

1938 stock actually. I guessed it's the same as the Southern. Massive power
supply upgrades were needed for the switch from camshaft-controlled stock to
power electronics.

You have to wonder why it was necessary if the claims about electronic control
being more efficient are true. Surely that couldn't have been marketing fluff
could it?

--
Spud

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

In article , d
() wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 06:14:01 -0600
wrote:
In article

-september.
org, (Recliner) wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
On 21/12/2014 21:49, wrote:
I read in a magazine that Overground trains on the Euston-Watford
service won't be able to be extended to 5 cars until power supply
upgrades have taken place. I don't understand why power supply
upgrades are is needed. This route used to be served by 7 car
Bakerloo Line trains.

Guessing but perhaps "used to" are the operative words in that
sentence, i.e. the power supply kit / arrangements on the line have
changed since 1982.

And maybe 5-car 378s, with modern traction equipment, need more power
than old tube trains (1972 stock, presumably)?

1938 stock actually. I guessed it's the same as the Southern. Massive
power supply upgrades were needed for the switch from camshaft-controlled
stock to power electronics.

You have to wonder why it was necessary if the claims about
electronic control being more efficient are true. Surely that
couldn't have been marketing fluff
could it?

I now recall reading about it at the time. The characteristics are different
and break old supplies. The efficiency mainly comes from regeneration of
course.

I think my question was really because I didn't realise the new 5th cars
were powered.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 15:49:04 -0600,
wrote:

I read in a magazine that Overground trains on the Euston-Watford service
won't be able to be extended to 5 cars until power supply upgrades have
taken place. I don't understand why power supply upgrades are is needed.
This route used to be served by 7 car Bakerloo Line trains.

The line is basically full of old restrictive "make do and mend"
signalling and traction current. It's no shock that putting bigger
trains on to the route might be enough to tip things over. The
traction supply has been strengthened or replaced on all the LU routes
that are getting major upgrades and new rolling stock.

I think the TfL game plan is simply to put new 4 car trains on the
route. These have been added to the GOBLIN / West Anglia order. The 5
car trains displaced will be diverted to strengthen other Overground
routes. Clearly those trains won't turn up until 2017.

As reported elsewhere there are also issues with the traction current
supply nearer to Watford where the Met extension would run over NR
tracks. Costs have gone up because of the need to do something to the
traction current supply. There is little detail in public at the
moment but I'd guess the parsimony and cut backs of the 80s are now
having an impact at far, far greater cost.

So true! I've been watching the Borders Railway videos and can't stop
thinking how much they would have saved by not closing the line in the first
place.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

wrote:
In article , d
() wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 06:14:01 -0600
wrote:
In article

-september.
, (Recliner) wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
On 21/12/2014 21:49, wrote:
I read in a magazine that Overground trains on the Euston-Watford
service won't be able to be extended to 5 cars until power supply
upgrades have taken place. I don't understand why power supply
upgrades are is needed. This route used to be served by 7 car
Bakerloo Line trains.

Guessing but perhaps "used to" are the operative words in that
sentence, i.e. the power supply kit / arrangements on the line have
changed since 1982.

And maybe 5-car 378s, with modern traction equipment, need more power
than old tube trains (1972 stock, presumably)?

1938 stock actually. I guessed it's the same as the Southern. Massive
power supply upgrades were needed for the switch from camshaft-controlled
stock to power electronics.

You have to wonder why it was necessary if the claims about
electronic control being more efficient are true. Surely that
couldn't have been marketing fluff
could it?

I now recall reading about it at the time. The characteristics are different
and break old supplies. The efficiency mainly comes from regeneration of
course.

I think my question was really because I didn't realise the new 5th cars
were powered.

I think the new traction packages draw a much heavier current during the
initial acceleration phase. It was one of the urgent projects the SRA had
to deal with when the new 'lardbutt' Siemens Desiro trains were introduced
by SWT. I seem to remember Roger Ford writing about in MR at the time. The
old traction supplies might also need beefing up to cope with regeneration
as well.

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

On 22.12.14 15:03, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
In article , d
() wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 06:14:01 -0600
wrote:
In article

-september.
, (Recliner) wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
On 21/12/2014 21:49, wrote:
I read in a magazine that Overground trains on the Euston-Watford
service won't be able to be extended to 5 cars until power supply
upgrades have taken place. I don't understand why power supply
upgrades are is needed. This route used to be served by 7 car
Bakerloo Line trains.

Guessing but perhaps "used to" are the operative words in that
sentence, i.e. the power supply kit / arrangements on the line have
changed since 1982.

And maybe 5-car 378s, with modern traction equipment, need more power
than old tube trains (1972 stock, presumably)?

1938 stock actually. I guessed it's the same as the Southern. Massive
power supply upgrades were needed for the switch from camshaft-controlled
stock to power electronics.

You have to wonder why it was necessary if the claims about
electronic control being more efficient are true. Surely that
couldn't have been marketing fluff
could it?

I now recall reading about it at the time. The characteristics are different
and break old supplies. The efficiency mainly comes from regeneration of
course.

I think my question was really because I didn't realise the new 5th cars
were powered.

I think the new traction packages draw a much heavier current during the
initial acceleration phase. It was one of the urgent projects the SRA had
to deal with when the new 'lardbutt' Siemens Desiro trains were introduced
by SWT. I seem to remember Roger Ford writing about in MR at the time. The
old traction supplies might also need beefing up to cope with regeneration
as well.

Forgive me, please, if I asked this question earlier, but what's the
deal at this point with re-extending the Bakerloo Line out to Watford
Junction? Or is that dead with the emphasis now on extending further
south from Elephant & Castle?

IIRC, one of the reasons that LUL service has not developed much south
of the river is because that part of town is largely on sand.

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

" wrote:
On 22.12.14 15:03, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
In article , d
() wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 06:14:01 -0600
wrote:
In article

-september.
, (Recliner) wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
On 21/12/2014 21:49, wrote:
I read in a magazine that Overground trains on the Euston-Watford
service won't be able to be extended to 5 cars until power supply
upgrades have taken place. I don't understand why power supply
upgrades are is needed. This route used to be served by 7 car
Bakerloo Line trains.

Guessing but perhaps "used to" are the operative words in that
sentence, i.e. the power supply kit / arrangements on the line have
changed since 1982.

And maybe 5-car 378s, with modern traction equipment, need more power
than old tube trains (1972 stock, presumably)?

1938 stock actually. I guessed it's the same as the Southern. Massive
power supply upgrades were needed for the switch from camshaft-controlled
stock to power electronics.

You have to wonder why it was necessary if the claims about
electronic control being more efficient are true. Surely that
couldn't have been marketing fluff
could it?

I now recall reading about it at the time. The characteristics are different
and break old supplies. The efficiency mainly comes from regeneration of
course.

I think my question was really because I didn't realise the new 5th cars
were powered.

I think the new traction packages draw a much heavier current during the
initial acceleration phase. It was one of the urgent projects the SRA had
to deal with when the new 'lardbutt' Siemens Desiro trains were introduced
by SWT. I seem to remember Roger Ford writing about in MR at the time. The
old traction supplies might also need beefing up to cope with regeneration
as well.

Forgive me, please, if I asked this question earlier, but what's the deal
at this point with re-extending the Bakerloo Line out to Watford
Junction? Or is that dead with the emphasis now on extending further
south from Elephant & Castle?

That's been dead for years, long before the southern extension of the
Bakerloo became an active proposal. And there's no chance if it now, with
the Met also going to Watford Junction.

IIRC, one of the reasons that LUL service has not developed much south of
the river is because that part of town is largely on sand.

That was part of the original reason a century or more ago, but it's not
much of an issue with modern tunnelling methods. Ditto with building larger
diameter tunnels, so we won't see any all-new small gauge tube lines.

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 16:03:18 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
" wrote:
Forgive me, please, if I asked this question earlier, but what's the deal
at this point with re-extending the Bakerloo Line out to Watford
Junction? Or is that dead with the emphasis now on extending further
south from Elephant & Castle?

That's been dead for years, long before the southern extension of the
Bakerloo became an active proposal. And there's no chance if it now, with
the Met also going to Watford Junction.

Seems odd given its the cheapest line "extension" they could do. Just plonk
the 4th rail back on its insulators and bobs your uncle. The power supply
system is already in place.

--
Spud

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 16:03:18 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
" wrote:
Forgive me, please, if I asked this question earlier, but what's the deal
at this point with re-extending the Bakerloo Line out to Watford
Junction? Or is that dead with the emphasis now on extending further
south from Elephant & Castle?

That's been dead for years, long before the southern extension of the
Bakerloo became an active proposal. And there's no chance if it now, with
the Met also going to Watford Junction.

Seems odd given its the cheapest line "extension" they could do. Just plonk
the 4th rail back on its insulators and bobs your uncle. The power supply
system is already in place.

There's not enough traffic to warrant it, and there won't be enough
platforms for Bakerloo trains to terminate and reverse at Watford Junction.

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

I always thought modern traction actually used less current during initial acceleration but continued to draw high currents giving them better acceleration at higher speeds.

378s are quite slow to accelerate on the Watford DC lines so I suspect the current draw is too mahoosive

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

On Wed, 7 Jan 2015 07:09:03 -0800 (PST)
David B wrote:
I always thought modern traction actually used less current during initial
acceleration but continued to draw high currents giving them better
acceleration at higher speeds.

378s are quite slow to accelerate on the Watford DC lines so I suspect the
current draw is too mahoosive

They're just slow full stop. They're completely the wrong sort of train for a
metro service. But no doubt the slight design mod of an existing outer suburban
train was the cheaper option.

--
Spud

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2015 07:09:03 -0800 (PST)
David B wrote:
I always thought modern traction actually used less current during initial
acceleration but continued to draw high currents giving them better
acceleration at higher speeds.

378s are quite slow to accelerate on the Watford DC lines so I suspect the
current draw is too mahoosive

They're just slow full stop. They're completely the wrong sort of train for a
metro service. But no doubt the slight design mod of an existing outer suburban
train was the cheaper option.

I happened to have my GPS with me on an LO trip to Watford yesterday, and
found that the peak speed was about 45mph. Considering how closely spaced
the stations are, that's probably not bad, and hardly slower than an S
stock train would do it. S stock trains reach their higher speeds of about
60mph only on the longer non-stop sections, such as Finchley Rd to Wembley
Park.

But LO trains have very relaxed schedules, and often wait longer than
necessary at stops, thus helping achieve their very good punctuality. LU
trains, with their lack of published schedules, don't have to do this.

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

In message -
september.org, at 17:06:28 on Sun, 11 Jan 2015, Recliner
remarked:
But LO trains have very relaxed schedules, and often wait longer than
necessary at stops, thus helping achieve their very good punctuality. LU
trains, with their lack of published schedules, don't have to do this.

Actually, they do have a timetable, it's just that they don't make a song
and dance about it to the public.

eg: https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cm...tropolitan.pdf
--
Roland Perry

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message -
september.org, at 17:06:28 on Sun, 11 Jan 2015, Recliner
remarked:
But LO trains have very relaxed schedules, and often wait longer than
necessary at stops, thus helping achieve their very good punctuality. LU
trains, with their lack of published schedules, don't have to do this.

Actually, they do have a timetable, it's just that they don't make a song
and dance about it to the public.

eg: https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cm...tropolitan.pdf

That's why I used the word "public". But the Amersham and Chesham branches
are infrequent enough that the scheduled times do matter; I doubt that many
people worry about the schedules on the Uxbridge and Watford branches,
except in the very early mornings and late at night.

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

In message
-septem
ber.org, Recliner wrote:
I happened to have my GPS with me on an LO trip to Watford yesterday, and
found that the peak speed was about 45mph. Considering how closely spaced
the stations are, that's probably not bad, and hardly slower than an S
stock train would do it.

It's possibly changed, but when I last checked the speed limit on that
line was 45 mph from South Hampstead to Bushey (with a few short bits
with a lower limit) and 35 from there to Watford. Trains without
tripcocks were restricted to 25 south of Harrow & Wealdstone. Goods
trains were restricted to 15 and 40 respectively.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 17:06:28 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2015 07:09:03 -0800 (PST)
David B wrote:
I always thought modern traction actually used less current during initial
acceleration but continued to draw high currents giving them better
acceleration at higher speeds.

378s are quite slow to accelerate on the Watford DC lines so I suspect the
current draw is too mahoosive

They're just slow full stop. They're completely the wrong sort of train for a
metro service. But no doubt the slight design mod of an existing outer
suburban
train was the cheaper option.

I happened to have my GPS with me on an LO trip to Watford yesterday, and
found that the peak speed was about 45mph. Considering how closely spaced
the stations are, that's probably not bad, and hardly slower than an S
stock train would do it. S stock trains reach their higher speeds of about
60mph only on the longer non-stop sections, such as Finchley Rd to Wembley
Park.

Their top speed isn't the issue - its 75mph according to wonkypedia. Its their
acceleration. On the ELL they're so slow off the mark they barely get up to any
decent speed before they have to slow down again for the next stop. I can only
assume the stations on the watford branch are further apart. Either that or we
enter conspiracy theory land and assume there's a deliberate policy on the ELL
to provide a slow service.

--
Spud

The stations on the ELL are very close together.

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

In message
-septem
ber.org, at 22:14:48 on Sun, 11 Jan 2015, Recliner
remarked:
But LO trains have very relaxed schedules, and often wait longer than
necessary at stops, thus helping achieve their very good punctuality. LU
trains, with their lack of published schedules, don't have to do this.

Actually, they do have a timetable, it's just that they don't make a song
and dance about it to the public.

eg: https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cm...tropolitan.pdf

That's why I used the word "public".

I said "public", you said "published" (tomato/potato)

But the Amersham and Chesham branches
are infrequent enough that the scheduled times do matter; I doubt that many
people worry about the schedules on the Uxbridge and Watford branches,
except in the very early mornings and late at night.

But the trains still have a schedule to keep to, and can just as easily
have to wait at a station for the recovery time to catch up.
--
Roland Perry

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

On 2015-01-12 09:04:22 +0000, d said:

Their top speed isn't the issue - its 75mph according to wonkypedia. Its their
acceleration. On the ELL they're so slow off the mark they barely get up to any
decent speed before they have to slow down again for the next stop. I can only
assume the stations on the watford branch are further apart. Either that or we
enter conspiracy theory land and assume there's a deliberate policy on the ELL
to provide a slow service.

Could there be something about not overloading the power systems? I
believe the acceleration on the S-stock is artificially impeded for
that kind of reason (also to stop them catching up any remaining
classic stock) - they *could* take off like European U-/S-Bahn stock
often does, or like the 350s do here.

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

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:01:07 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
But the trains still have a schedule to keep to, and can just as easily
have to wait at a station for the recovery time to catch up.

And Circle line trains frequently do, as announced by the driver, at Aldgate.

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:49:03 +0000, Neil Williams
wrote:

On 2015-01-12 09:04:22 +0000, d said:

Their top speed isn't the issue - its 75mph according to wonkypedia. Its their
acceleration. On the ELL they're so slow off the mark they barely get up to any
decent speed before they have to slow down again for the next stop. I can only
assume the stations on the watford branch are further apart. Either that or we
enter conspiracy theory land and assume there's a deliberate policy on the ELL
to provide a slow service.

Could there be something about not overloading the power systems? I
believe the acceleration on the S-stock is artificially impeded for
that kind of reason (also to stop them catching up any remaining
classic stock) - they *could* take off like European U-/S-Bahn stock
often does, or like the 350s do here.

I think that when the A stock were still in service, that S stock
performance was restricted, but hopefully the S8s are no longer
limited. But it's very likely that they do draw more power than an
equivalent length 378 would, which might be a problem on the Watford
Junction DC line if they weren't planning to upgrade the power supply.

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:49:03 +0000
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2015-01-12 09:04:22 +0000, d said:

Their top speed isn't the issue - its 75mph according to wonkypedia. Its
their
acceleration. On the ELL they're so slow off the mark they barely get up to
any
decent speed before they have to slow down again for the next stop. I can
only
assume the stations on the watford branch are further apart. Either that or
we
enter conspiracy theory land and assume there's a deliberate policy on the
ELL
to provide a slow service.

Could there be something about not overloading the power systems? I

I'd imagine the power systems on the northern part of the ELL are all brand
new so I wouldn't have thought so. But who knows these days, cost cutting seems
to be the #1 priority.

--
Spud

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

David Walters wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:01:07 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
But the trains still have a schedule to keep to, and can just as easily
have to wait at a station for the recovery time to catch up.

And Circle line trains frequently do, as announced by the driver, at Aldgate.

Yes, the Circle line is quite infrequent, so trains do need to be
regulated.

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:49:03 +0000
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2015-01-12 09:04:22 +0000, d said:

Their top speed isn't the issue - its 75mph according to wonkypedia. Its
their
acceleration. On the ELL they're so slow off the mark they barely get up to
any
decent speed before they have to slow down again for the next stop. I can
only
assume the stations on the watford branch are further apart. Either that or
we
enter conspiracy theory land and assume there's a deliberate policy on the
ELL
to provide a slow service.

Could there be something about not overloading the power systems? I

I'd imagine the power systems on the northern part of the ELL are all brand
new so I wouldn't have thought so. But who knows these days, cost cutting seems
to be the #1 priority.

There wouldn't be an Overground service at all if that was the case.

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 14:10:18 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
I'd imagine the power systems on the northern part of the ELL are all brand
new so I wouldn't have thought so. But who knows these days, cost cutting
seems
to be the #1 priority.

There wouldn't be an Overground service at all if that was the case.

You've never heard the phrase "on the cheap" I take it? Because with the ELL
thats certainly what I have coming to mind in 10 foot high flashing neon lights.

--
Spud

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 14:10:18 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
I'd imagine the power systems on the northern part of the ELL are all brand
new so I wouldn't have thought so. But who knows these days, cost cutting
seems
to be the #1 priority.

There wouldn't be an Overground service at all if that was the case.

You've never heard the phrase "on the cheap" I take it? Because with the ELL
thats certainly what I have coming to mind in 10 foot high flashing neon lights.

Would you say Shoreditch High St was done "on the cheap"? But if you
really expected the LO to be engineered to your exacting standards, it
simply wouldn't have been built. We'd still have the old ELR with its
sparse service, which you'd never have used, and therefore never have
complained about.

I seem to recall that you've also criticised the original DLR for bing
built on the cheap, which it certainly was. But if you think anyone could
have found the budget back then to build something resembling today's much
extended DLR, you obviously would like to pay a lot more in taxes.

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:03:06 +0100
Robin9 wrote:
;146304 Wrote:
Their top speed isn't the issue - its 75mph according to wonkypedia. Its
their
acceleration. On the ELL they're so slow off the mark they barely get up
to any
decent speed before they have to slow down again for the next stop. I
can only
assume the stations on the watford branch are further apart. Either that
or we
enter conspiracy theory land and assume there's a deliberate policy on
the ELL
to provide a slow service.

--
Spud

The stations on the ELL are very close together.

No closer than on many tube lines including the met but tube trains get up to
speed much quicker because they have appropriate gearing.

--
Spud

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 16:38:48 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 14:10:18 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
I'd imagine the power systems on the northern part of the ELL are all brand
new so I wouldn't have thought so. But who knows these days, cost cutting
seems
to be the #1 priority.

There wouldn't be an Overground service at all if that was the case.

You've never heard the phrase "on the cheap" I take it? Because with the ELL
thats certainly what I have coming to mind in 10 foot high flashing neon
lights.

Would you say Shoreditch High St was done "on the cheap"? But if you

Well lets see - its 300m from liverpool street but they put the single
entrance on the other side to add another 100m onto the walk. The line can't
take 5 car trains at some stops - and don't tell me they couldn't have
enlarged station tunnels - the trains were indequate from the start and the
service frequency is poor.

sparse service, which you'd never have used, and therefore never have
complained about.

If they'd simply built the section north from whitechapel and instead of the
idiotic decision to stop at H&I instead of finsbury which would have
provided an interchange with the ECML it would have been a much more useful
line and cheaper. There was no need to co-opt pre existing sound london lines
since they were already perfectly well served.

I seem to recall that you've also criticised the original DLR for bing
built on the cheap, which it certainly was. But if you think anyone could
have found the budget back then to build something resembling today's much
extended DLR, you obviously would like to pay a lot more in taxes.

You don't think we payed for it in taxes anyway?

--
Spud

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

On Monday, 12 January 2015 17:31:56 UTC, wrote:

Well lets see - its 300m from liverpool street but they put the single
entrance on the other side to add another 100m onto the walk. The line can't
take 5 car trains at some stops - and don't tell me they couldn't have
enlarged station tunnels - the trains were indequate from the start and the
service frequency is poor.

It's been said for well over a decade now that lengthening Rotherhithe and Wapping
would either be too difficult or impossible. Selective door opening is common on
bits of the tube network which are far newer.

sparse service, which you'd never have used, and therefore never have
complained about.

If they'd simply built the section north from whitechapel and instead of the
idiotic decision to stop at H&I instead of finsbury which would have
provided an interchange with the ECML it would have been a much more useful
line and cheaper. There was no need to co-opt pre existing sound london lines
since they were already perfectly well served.

You repeatedly say this, but repeating it doesn't mean it makes any more sense.
None of the southern branches are quiet, suggesting they weren't already perfectly
served. Admittedly, without those passengers it wouldn't be as crowded on the
northern section, but without them you wouldn't have the "poor" 16 train an
hour frequency.

Or an extended ELL at all. I can't imagine it having been funded just to extend
New Cross to Highbury & Islington. Would it even exist at all by now?

I was curious to find out how slow it is between H+I and Canada Water, and how
this compared to the Victoria + Jubilee line. It's timetabled 20 minutes direct by
Overground, and 9+11 minutes on the Underground. The same! Only wait, there's
the time involved in changing at Green Park, which TFL's journey planner seems to
put at around 4 minutes. I know such things can exaggerate changing time, but
there seems to be no way to do this journey quicker by tube.

The Underground route is about 2 miles longer and has one more stop so yes,
the average speed is higher. The average speed of the Underground trip including
stops is about 23mph, the Overground about 17mph. Neither are going to set the
world on fire. And on average, the Overground's stops *are* closer together, with
10 of them in less than 6 miles.

I was actually surprised the Underground wasn't faster by a bigger margin, especially
as both lines are ATO. I often wonder if people assume that deep level tubes are
travelling faster than they are due to their size, the small tunnels and the "zoom"
effect the cabling on the walls has.

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 11:05:15 -0800 (PST)
Mark wrote:
On Monday, 12 January 2015 17:31:56 UTC, wrote:
entrance on the other side to add another 100m onto the walk. The line can't
take 5 car trains at some stops - and don't tell me they couldn't have
enlarged station tunnels - the trains were indequate from the start and the
service frequency is poor.

It's been said for well over a decade now that lengthening Rotherhithe and
Wapping
would either be too difficult or impossible. Selective door opening is common
on
bits of the tube network which are far newer.

It was said that enlarging the connaught tunnel for crossrail was "impossible"
but they managed it.

If they'd simply built the section north from whitechapel and instead of the
idiotic decision to stop at H&I instead of finsbury which would have
provided an interchange with the ECML it would have been a much more useful
line and cheaper. There was no need to co-opt pre existing sound london
lines
since they were already perfectly well served.

You repeatedly say this, but repeating it doesn't mean it makes any more sense.

Well it makes more sense than thousands of people spilling out at finsbury,
shuffling onto the victoria line - which is already seriously overcrowded there
in the rush hour - for one stop then getting off at highbury when there is an
underused freight line - albeit single track - onto the NLL that could have
been used for passenger trains.

served. Admittedly, without those passengers it wouldn't be as crowded on the
northern section, but without them you wouldn't have the "poor" 16 train an
hour frequency.

No, it would be much higher.

Or an extended ELL at all. I can't imagine it having been funded just to extend
New Cross to Highbury & Islington. Would it even exist at all by now?

Well it has provided a sort of tube service to parts of london that were
reliant on a bus previously. What has it added to south london? The ability to
get to canada water without changing at london bridge. Big deal.

I was curious to find out how slow it is between H+I and Canada Water, and how
this compared to the Victoria + Jubilee line. It's timetabled 20 minutes
direct by
Overground, and 9+11 minutes on the Underground. The same! Only wait, there's
the time involved in changing at Green Park, which TFL's journey planner seems
to
put at around 4 minutes. I know such things can exaggerate changing time, but
there seems to be no way to do this journey quicker by tube.

Well it is quicker by tube. Incidenatly last night I decided against my better
judgement to give the overground another go. I spent FIFTEEN minutes waiting
at Dalston for a highbury train because one train just sailed on through without
stopping.

I was actually surprised the Underground wasn't faster by a bigger margin,

It is faster by a big margin. I suggest you try it instead of relying on the
fiction that is TfLs timetables.

--
Spud

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

In message , at 10:48:26 on Tue, 13 Jan
2015, d remarked:
It was said that enlarging the connaught tunnel for crossrail was "impossible"
but they managed it.

Only by a complete change of plan and draining the dock to
re-cut-and-cover, rather than widening from the inside.
--
Roland Perry

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

Mark wrote:

It's been said for well over a decade now that lengthening Rotherhithe and
Wapping
would either be too difficult or impossible. Selective door opening is
common on
bits of the tube network which are far newer.

Wasn't Rotherhith proposed for closing when the JLE opened with Canada Water
taking the strain? And again more recently with the ELL conversion weren't
they talking about closing both and screwing Wapping?

--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 11:03:08 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:48:26 on Tue, 13 Jan
2015, d remarked:
It was said that enlarging the connaught tunnel for crossrail was "impossible"
but they managed it.

Only by a complete change of plan and draining the dock to
re-cut-and-cover, rather than widening from the inside.

Doesn't matter - they did it. Given how long the ELL was closed for to convert
it they had plenty of time and compared to the works that were required to
raise the line out of the tunnel at shorditch I suspect it would have been
a relatively minor addition to lengthen platforms.

--
Spud

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

In message , at 14:36:50 on Tue, 13 Jan
2015, d remarked:
It was said that enlarging the connaught tunnel for crossrail was "impossible"
but they managed it.

Only by a complete change of plan and draining the dock to
re-cut-and-cover, rather than widening from the inside.

Doesn't matter - they did it. Given how long the ELL was closed for to convert
it they had plenty of time

The critical timing was how long they could close the dock for, as it's
on the route between the river and ExCel, which has an annual boat show.
There was a documentary about the project in the Autumn, and they
finished it by the skin of their teeth.
--
Roland Perry

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

In article , d
() wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 11:05:15 -0800 (PST)
Mark wrote:
On Monday, 12 January 2015 17:31:56 UTC, wrote:
entrance on the other side to add another 100m onto the walk. The line
can't take 5 car trains at some stops - and don't tell me they couldn't
have enlarged station tunnels - the trains were indequate from the
start and the service frequency is poor.

It's been said for well over a decade now that lengthening Rotherhithe
and Wapping would either be too difficult or impossible. Selective door
opening is common on bits of the tube network which are far newer.

It was said that enlarging the connaught tunnel for crossrail was
"impossible" but they managed it.

If they'd simply built the section north from whitechapel and instead
of the idiotic decision to stop at H&I instead of finsbury which would
have provided an interchange with the ECML it would have been a much
more useful line and cheaper. There was no need to co-opt pre existing
sound london lines since they were already perfectly well served.

You repeatedly say this, but repeating it doesn't mean it makes any more
sense.

Well it makes more sense than thousands of people spilling out at
finsbury, shuffling onto the victoria line - which is already seriously
overcrowded there in the rush hour - for one stop then getting off at
highbury when there is an underused freight line - albeit single track
- onto the NLL that could have been used for passenger trains.

It was singled to get it electrified through the tunnel which would
otherwise have been problematic. It's not really an answer here because it
would mean a flat crossing of the North London line.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:40:34 -0600
wrote:
Well it makes more sense than thousands of people spilling out at
finsbury, shuffling onto the victoria line - which is already seriously
overcrowded there in the rush hour - for one stop then getting off at
highbury when there is an underused freight line - albeit single track
- onto the NLL that could have been used for passenger trains.

It was singled to get it electrified through the tunnel which would
otherwise have been problematic. It's not really an answer here because it
would mean a flat crossing of the North London line.

So? Its not the M25. I've waited at H&I and not seen a train go past on the
NLL for 10 minutes.

--
Spud

5 car Overground trains to Watford Junction
 

In article , d
() wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:40:34 -0600
wrote:
Well it makes more sense than thousands of people spilling out at
finsbury, shuffling onto the victoria line - which is already seriously
overcrowded there in the rush hour - for one stop then getting off at
highbury when there is an underused freight line - albeit single track
- onto the NLL that could have been used for passenger trains.

It was singled to get it electrified through the tunnel which would
otherwise have been problematic. It's not really an answer here because
it would mean a flat crossing of the North London line.

So? Its not the M25. I've waited at H&I and not seen a train go past
on the NLL for 10 minutes.

ITYF that capacity is already constrained on the NLL, mainly unsatisfied
freight paths.

--
Colin Rosenstiel