On 2017\02\22 10:53, d wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 10:44:50 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
As you well know, you can't just run a train on a line without fully testing
and certifying it first. Are they planning on doing that with the 710s on
the NLL?

The 710s will be running on the NLL every day to Willesden in any case.

Thats not much help when the line goes all the way to richmond and stratford.

Maybe they should have made them tube gauge in case they decide to run
them on the Island Line?

In article ,
Recliner wrote:
The LU RMT branch seems particularly militant. Not so on LO.

There is no LU RMT Branch; there are about 15 branches covering LU.
Likewise, there is no LO branch. I'm not familiar enough with the
way they organize, but I would expect there to be at least 3 branches
with LO staff as members.

It looks, to my very uninformed eye, to be one branch per depot or
so, which makes a great deal of sense from a logistics POV. There
is also a fairly hard split between LU and NR branches, which makes
sense too, but here from a "sort of issues likely to be faced by
members" POV.

I don't think a single RMT branch with both LO and LU members is
likely anytime soon, regardless of the operating model.

--
Mike Bristow

d writes:

As you well know, you can't just run a train on a line without fully testing
and certifying it first. Are they planning on doing that with the 710s on
the NLL?

So go back to the old system of carriages being C1 or C3 and locos have
an RA and have common clearance/weight restriction classes so that any
train MU or LHCS in a class can operate on any line (subject to electric
supply for electric stock) of equal or lesser restriction.

On Wednesday, 22 February 2017 09:39:56 UTC, wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 09:56:48 -0800 (PST)
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Monday, 20 February 2017 13:15:34 UTC, wrote:
So in other words they didn't order enough 378s in the first place.

Oh for goodness sake. Of course they ordered enough trains. Things change. =

Really? So there was no expectation that the ELL from a major interchange like
highbury to canada water for a one stop to canary wharf would attract many
commuters? They should hire some new planners then.

hich doesn't need 5 car trains, to the ELL/NLL/WLL to allow *extra* peak se=
rvices to run because overcrowding is now so severe. This was not the case=

Overcrowding was severe back in 2014-15 when I used it which wasn't helped by
the incomprehensible decision to only have 2 doorways per car on the 378s
so it could literally take 1-2 minutes for people to unload at highbury and
canada water in the rush hour before anyone could get on.

It is also worth noting that the Class 710s come in two variants - AC only =
for West Anglia and Romford - Upminster servics and dual voltage for the GO=
BLIN and Watford routes. Therefore through services, if desired, will be p=
erfectly possible from the GOBLIN to NLL.

As you well know, you can't just run a train on a line without fully testing
and certifying it first. Are they planning on doing that with the 710s on
the NLL?

--
Spud

I think it is fair to say that rail demand growth has been more robust and for longer than anyone expected. Of course there would have been an assumption that demand would grow but reality is at odds with what was forecast. Furthermore the works at London Bridge and ongoing nightmares on Southern has affected the scale of demand on the ELL. If remarks made about demand for Crossrail upon opening prove correct then I dare say a lot of people will be moaning about planners then as well. The fact is that circumstances have changed in ways that were not anticipated.

Yes I do know the class 710s will have to go through a rigorous acceptance process before they can be used. I expect that some of the work being done in respect of the Class 345 acceptance should be transferable to the 710s as they're effectively the same type of train underneath. If nothing else it should ease the acceptance process but route specific clearance tests will still be needed. Whether the 710s will be passed for the entire Overground I have no idea. However given the way stock is sometimes transferred I suspect they may well be passed for not only the Overground but also some other routes in South London - to give access to New Cross Gate depot which I believe has a wheel lathe whereas Willesden doesn't (happy to be corrected on this). The AC only versions will be maintained at Ilford which I expect does have a wheel lathe given the vast fleet (Crossrail and LO) that will be maintained there.

--
Paul C
via Google

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 07:02:15 -0800 (PST)
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 February 2017 09:39:56 UTC, wrote:
er routes in South London - to give access to New Cross Gate depot which I =
believe has a wheel lathe whereas Willesden doesn't (happy to be corrected =
on this). The AC only versions will be maintained at Ilford which I expect=
does have a wheel lathe given the vast fleet (Crossrail and LO) that will =
be maintained there.

I'm surprised they've ordered an AC only version. Shoegear doesn't add any
significant weight to a train unlike adding a transformer for AC so why not
just spec the whole lot as dual voltage so they can be mixed and matched as
and when?

--
Spud

On Wednesday, 22 February 2017 15:17:43 UTC, wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 07:02:15 -0800 (PST)
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 February 2017 09:39:56 UTC, wrote:
er routes in South London - to give access to New Cross Gate depot which I =
believe has a wheel lathe whereas Willesden doesn't (happy to be corrected =
on this). The AC only versions will be maintained at Ilford which I expect=
does have a wheel lathe given the vast fleet (Crossrail and LO) that will =
be maintained there.

I'm surprised they've ordered an AC only version. Shoegear doesn't add any
significant weight to a train unlike adding a transformer for AC so why not
just spec the whole lot as dual voltage so they can be mixed and matched as
and when?

--
Spud

A guess but I wonder if not speccing dual voltage for the routes out of Liv St is a way of avoiding a whole pile of survey and inspection work and possible rectification work. It is possible that there is equipment in the way or which infringes standards for clearances for shoegear on the lines out of Liv St. It's not really an issue for the NLL route as it was previously third rail so would almost certainly be compliant. I assume that the work on the GOBLIN includes checking for clearances anyway, given track lowering and platform works, so it's not an issue there either.

--
Paul C
via Google

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:51:38 -0600
wrote:
I'm sure that clearance issues were very much on TfL's minds. Rightly so as
things are turning out with the 700s for Thameslink. Both initial trips
north of Hitchin, to Peterborough and Cambridge, came to grief with lost
shoes AIUI due to high ballast shoulders, in the Cambridge case at Foxton on
the return journey.

Why would Thameslink trains be sent up the ECML and cambridge line? Weren't
there enough free slots to test on the MML?

--
Spud

On 2017-02-23, d wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:51:38 -0600
wrote:
I'm sure that clearance issues were very much on TfL's minds. Rightly so as
things are turning out with the 700s for Thameslink. Both initial trips
north of Hitchin, to Peterborough and Cambridge, came to grief with lost
shoes AIUI due to high ballast shoulders, in the Cambridge case at Foxton on
the return journey.

Why would Thameslink trains be sent up the ECML and cambridge line? Weren't
there enough free slots to test on the MML?


We should probably frame this one. Such a lovely demonstration of
ignorance.

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 10:44:50 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 09:56:48 -0800 (PST)
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Monday, 20 February 2017 13:15:34 UTC, wrote:
So in other words they didn't order enough 378s in the first place.

Oh for goodness sake. Of course they ordered enough trains. Things change. =

Really? So there was no expectation that the ELL from a major interchange like
highbury to canada water for a one stop to canary wharf would attract many
commuters? They should hire some new planners then.

hich doesn't need 5 car trains, to the ELL/NLL/WLL to allow *extra* peak se=
rvices to run because overcrowding is now so severe. This was not the case=

Overcrowding was severe back in 2014-15 when I used it which wasn't helped by
the incomprehensible decision to only have 2 doorways per car on the 378s
so it could literally take 1-2 minutes for people to unload at highbury and
canada water in the rush hour before anyone could get on.

It is also worth noting that the Class 710s come in two variants - AC only =
for West Anglia and Romford - Upminster servics and dual voltage for the GO=
BLIN and Watford routes. Therefore through services, if desired, will be p=
erfectly possible from the GOBLIN to NLL.

As you well know, you can't just run a train on a line without fully testing
and certifying it first. Are they planning on doing that with the 710s on
the NLL?

The 710s will be running on the NLL every day to Willesden in any case.


Isn't there an AC-only route from the NLL to Willesden DED via the
electrified freight chord just to the east of Willesden Junction
Station, possibly reversing in or near Wembley Yard?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 20:26:04 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:51:38 -0600
wrote:
I'm sure that clearance issues were very much on TfL's minds. Rightly so as
things are turning out with the 700s for Thameslink. Both initial trips
north of Hitchin, to Peterborough and Cambridge, came to grief with lost
shoes AIUI due to high ballast shoulders, in the Cambridge case at Foxton on
the return journey.

Why would Thameslink trains be sent up the ECML and cambridge line? Weren't
there enough free slots to test on the MML?

Part of the Thameslink Project includes direct services on the ECML
through Thameslink such as between Cambridge and Brighton and Peterborough
and Horsham.

The (closed) timetable consultation is at
http://www.thameslinkrailway.com/you...e-consultation