Dave Arquati wrote:

Bad news: Replacing the trains with carriages where the seats face
longitudal (all sideways). (Some of us actually prefer the transverse
seating, i.e. front-backward facing).

The reason for longitudinal seating is to provide more space for standing
passengers.

You mean mobile cattle trucks? I wouldn't want to stand for a long time on
most of the journeys I make on that line.

Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
Bad news: Replacing the trains with carriages where the seats face
longitudal (all sideways). (Some of us actually prefer the transverse
seating, i.e. front-backward facing).

The reason for longitudinal seating is to provide more space for standing
passengers.

You mean mobile cattle trucks? I wouldn't want to stand for a long time on
most of the journeys I make on that line.

Don't know what time of day you travel, but I /already/ have to stand
for a long time on most if the journeys I make on that line. And
standing would be a lot easier in Tube-style stock rather than the
stupidly narrow gangways of the 313s...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Dave Arquati wrote:

The reason for longitudinal seating is to provide more space for standing passengers.

If they make use of it, but I tend to find that passengers only stand
one abreadth regardless of the seating layout. Meanwhile, when you are
sitting, you don't have the inconvenience of having people stand right
over you.

In addition, transverse seating provides more seating space.

An interchange between the NLL and Northern line at Hampstead would be
so incredibly expensive it would be completely unfeasible - both the NLL
and Northern line are in deep tunnel at quite differing levels, and the
construction of an interchange station would therefore require extremely
difficult and complex tunnelling. The demand (which would chiefly be to
and from just six stations north of Hampstead) is very unlikely to
justify such costs.

Maybe. Most of those stations are moderately close to either the
"Thameslink" (now capital connect) or the Jubilee and can make the
change at West Hampstead for the stations west of Hampstead, while for
the stations eastward you make the Camden Town / Camden Road
interchange (which is about 4 minutes because I've made it).

It does mean if you wish to go West you are back-tracking on yourself,
i.e. you go from Hampstead towards Camden Town then back towards
Hampstead again. Or you make a longer walk. There is the option of
using buses to make part of the link.

The best hope for a Northern line interchange is Primrose Hill; if/when
Queen's Park to Stratford services start running, then they will pass
through disused platforms about 200m from Chalk Farm station. This would
still provide for flows to/from stations east of Camden, and would
cost a fraction of the price (especially if the old station structures,
which seem to be in situ, can be revived).

Other more-possible-than-Hampstead possibilities are Tufnell Park, and
even Camden Town to Camden Road (an additional exit from the northern
ends of the platforms at Camden Town to a second ticket office closer to
Camden Road was floated as a potential congestion-relief measure).

Archway and Upper Holloway are already not that far apart.

I'm pretty sure cycles will still be permitted outside the peak hours,
as is standard practice on all above-ground and subsurface sections of
the Underground.

At the moment on Silverlink they're allowed at any time (as far as I'm
aware) which is useful for commuting to work if you want to cycle at
either end (often quite necessary) but don't wish to cycle the whole
journey (possibly too long). Now if they really want to promote bike
use and they're going to make the trains more frequent how about
either:

1. A proper cycle area on the train (with no seats at all)
and / or
2. Allow cycles on alternate trains with such a facility.

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 03:52:42 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

Dave Arquati wrote:

Oh, and at what point is it easier to mark out stations that *aren't*
step-free? East London looks like a bit of a mess (albeit a good one
if you don't use steps).

They don't seem to have realised that most of the Goblin stations are
already step free.

They are? Upper Holloway is the only one I can think of.

Barking - I think this has lifts
Woodgrange Park - don't know
Wanstead Park - don't know
Leytonstone High Road - no
Leyton Midland Rd - no
Walthamstow Queens Rd - no
Blackhorse Road - no
South Tottenham - I think that has ramps
Harringay Green Lanes - no
Crouch Hill - don't know
Gospel Oak - no way!

I'm very happy to be corrected but I would not call the Goblin step
free.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

In article ,
Paul Corfield wrote:
Walthamstow Queens Rd - no

This station has ramps.

Blackhorse Road - no

And this is probably the most important interchange on the
line (probably more important than the termini)!

South Tottenham - I think that has ramps

It does.

Harringay Green Lanes - no

I /think/ this has ramps, too.

Crouch Hill - don't know

I don't think there are ramps here.

Gospel Oak - no way!

I'm very happy to be corrected but I would not call the Goblin step
free.

No, me neither.


--
I don't play The Game - it's for five-year-olds with delusions of adulthood.

Paul Corfield wrote:

They don't seem to have realised that most of the Goblin stations are
already step free.

They are? Upper Holloway is the only one I can think of.

There's one that has ramps and lifts - I don't think it's Upper Holloway
though.

Woodgrange Park - don't know

No.

Wanstead Park - don't know

No.

On 5 Sep 2006 11:42:20 -0700, Bob wrote:

Nice to see the clever integration of the blue disabled access symbol
on to the map. Becks foresighted modular flexibility triumphs again.

Except that the use of the disabled symbol actually removes one of
Beck's original innovations and makes the map provide less information
than it used to (discounting the obvious extra information about
step-free access!).

Until recently you could immediately see which stations were
interchanges and which weren't: a station represented by a white circle
with black outline was an interchange, whereas as a station represented
only with a small 'tick-mark' was not. Now, this still applies to
stations without step-free access, but step-free stations of both types
are given the same blue circle with the disabled icon in it.

I'm not sure what Beck would have made of it, although having read about
his obsessive nature I have little doubt he would have spent many
sleepless nights testing out different ways around the problem, much to
his wife's irritation!

Paul

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 00:26:33 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:

wrote:

It seems a bit mean not to at least make West
Croydon fully accessible though, which surely wouldn't be a very
difficult job?

Not sure - there isn't much in the way of direct vertical points between the
ticket hall and the platforms in the current layout. The area where the
steps from Platforms 1-3 meet the bridge from Platform 4 and the entrance to
the ticket hall has always been a nightmare - pre barriers the ticket
inspectors would stand in the small entry portal and any problem ticket
could cause chaos as no-one could get round.

A shaft that come down onto the old Platform 2, combined with some levelling
of platform 1/3, would still have the problem of the level of the bridge.
And the ramp down to Platform 4 is possibly too steep, even if you could
level off everything else.

While they were at it, they could open a new entrance between platform
4 and the bus station, remotely monitored by CCTV (like at St Albans
City).

Oink, flutter.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 19:26:31 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 03:52:42 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

Dave Arquati wrote:

Oh, and at what point is it easier to mark out stations that *aren't*
step-free? East London looks like a bit of a mess (albeit a good one
if you don't use steps).

They don't seem to have realised that most of the Goblin stations are
already step free.

They are? Upper Holloway is the only one I can think of.

Barking - I think this has lifts

Correct

Woodgrange Park - don't know

Steps only

Wanstead Park - don't know

Steps only

Walthamstow Queens Rd - no

Ramps

South Tottenham - I think that has ramps

I'm fairly sure it is steps only.

Harringay Green Lanes - no

Ramps.


I'm very happy to be corrected but I would not call the Goblin step
free.

Dave Arquati wrote:
TfL have announced their branding plans for the North London Railway
concession:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-cent...t.asp?prID=886
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5316358.stm


The Brixton stop, as a future upgrade, strikes me as vital: it's a key
interchange with buses and the Victoria line, and a major centre in
itself. It may be a lot of money but - unlike something like
Loughborough Junction - I think it'd be worth spending.

There are a couple of other stops I'd be keen to see as well (York
Road, North Pole/North Acton) that are less important and very possibly
not worth the money. Something that could be done relatively cheaply,
though, would be to improve signage so that other existing stations
could act as on street interchanges - Walthamstow, Hackney, Forest
Gate/Wanstead Park and Swiss Cottage/South Hampsted are all obvious
examples that it might be worth showing on the map.

Also, as a longer term idea, it strikes me that the idea some locals
have proposed for a Clapham Junction-South East London route could be a
good addition to the network. A route that ran Clapham Junction-Peckham
Rye-Lewisham-Woolwich-Abbey Wood would provide a link from Crossrail
and City Airport to south London. Be even better if they built those
extra platforms at Brockley.

Sorry, just babbling, really.

JE