Bye North London Line
 

On 23 Jun, 22:13, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
"sweek" wrote in message

ups.com...

How about moving Chiswick Park to where the North London Line crosses
the Piccadilly and District platforms, and biulding platforms for all
three of them? I suppose it'd be quite expensive, but that way a
single line could be kept, and interchange between the three lines
could be provided quite easily. there's quite a bit of space on the
sout-western side of the tracks for a station building according to
Google Earth.

I haven't lloked at GE but I suspect the land you're referring to is the old
Chiswick Works. Oh, and close Gunnersbury?

It's this location, if you think you can recognise it. I don't know
the actual area, so I'm not really sure if this is a suitable
location. It just seems theoretically possible.
I wouldn't close Gunnersbury, because the situation stays pretty much
the same as it is now. The distance between Chiswick Park and
Gunnersbury now is the same as it would be in the new situation. And
they serve different branches of the District line, so I guess they
both have their use.

http://www.google.co.uk/maps?ie=UTF8...&t=h&z=18&om=1

Bye North London Line
 

sweek wrote:
On 23 Jun, 22:13, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
"sweek" wrote in message

ups.com...

How about moving Chiswick Park to where the North London Line
crosses the Piccadilly and District platforms, and biulding
platforms for all three of them? I suppose it'd be quite expensive,
but that way a single line could be kept, and interchange between
the three lines could be provided quite easily. there's quite a bit
of space on the sout-western side of the tracks for a station
building according to Google Earth.

I haven't lloked at GE but I suspect the land you're referring to is
the old Chiswick Works. Oh, and close Gunnersbury?

It's this location, if you think you can recognise it. I don't know
the actual area, so I'm not really sure if this is a suitable
location. It just seems theoretically possible.
I wouldn't close Gunnersbury, because the situation stays pretty much
the same as it is now. The distance between Chiswick Park and
Gunnersbury now is the same as it would be in the new situation. And
they serve different branches of the District line, so I guess they
both have their use.

http://www.google.co.uk/maps?ie=UTF8...&t=h&z=18&om=1


It is the old Chiswick works, now one of the nicer business parks in London.
The NLL is curvy in this area, possibly ruling out new platforms.

Bye North London Line
 

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 21:14:59 +0100, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

Sounds like how a railway should be used. The (rhetorical) question is why
don't the *powers that be* don't provide stock better suited to the task.

I believe that, now TfL are taking over, that is exactly what they
intend to do.

Neil

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

Bye North London Line
 

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, sweek wrote:

On 23 Jun, 22:13, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
"sweek" wrote in message

ups.com...

How about moving Chiswick Park to where the North London Line crosses
the Piccadilly and District platforms, and biulding platforms for all
three of them? I suppose it'd be quite expensive, but that way a
single line could be kept, and interchange between the three lines
could be provided quite easily. there's quite a bit of space on the
sout-western side of the tracks for a station building according to
Google Earth.

That's more or less what i was suggesting.

I haven't lloked at GE but I suspect the land you're referring to is
the old Chiswick Works. Oh, and close Gunnersbury?

I wouldn't close Gunnersbury, because the situation stays pretty much
the same as it is now. The distance between Chiswick Park and
Gunnersbury now is the same as it would be in the new situation. And
they serve different branches of the District line, so I guess they both
have their use.

Indeed. A trianglur situation like this is actually quite annoying from a
station point of view, because there's nowhere you can put a single
station that will allow all interchanges, except in the middle - and in
this case, it's a nature reserve!

I would close South Acton, though.

Now, while we've got out A-Zs on the same page, i should mention the
shameful lack of interchange between any of these lines and the Brentford
Loop. Two curves and some platforms, and you could route the NLL and
District via Kew Bridge, plus you'd create an opportunity for the
three-way interchange discussed above - in fact, you could get both
branches of the District. Bit in the middle of nowhere, though. Although
if some future mayor decided to turn that cluster of industrial estates
into a high-density housing project ...

tom

--
Once you notice that something doesn't seem to have all the necessary
parts to enable its functions, it is going to mildly bug you until you
figure it out. -- John Rowland

Bye North London Line
 

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 21:14:59 +0100, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

Sounds like how a railway should be used. The (rhetorical) question is
why
don't the *powers that be* don't provide stock better suited to the task.

I believe that, now TfL are taking over, that is exactly what they
intend to do.

Neil

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

What, with sufficient space for bikes, prams and kitchen sinks (otherwise
known as a *guards van*)? My understanding was Electrostars optimised for
passengers (longitudinal seats - lots of standing room).

Bye North London Line
 

On 25 Jun, 14:44, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

What, with sufficient space for bikes, prams and kitchen sinks (otherwise
known as a *guards van*)? My understanding was Electrostars optimised for
passengers (longitudinal seats - lots of standing room).

....which has the happy knock-on effect of providing more space for
bikes, prams and kitchen sinks off-peak.

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

Bye North London Line
 

Graham Harrison wrote:

What, with sufficient space for bikes, prams and kitchen sinks
(otherwise known as a *guards van*)? My understanding was
Electrostars optimised for passengers (longitudinal seats - lots of
standing room).

The class 378s are supposed to be class 376-derivatives. Those suburban
Electrostars have limited 2+2 seating bays, with enlarged standing areas
around the doors, with extensive use of grab-rails and perch seats.

Bye North London Line
 

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...
Graham Harrison wrote:

What, with sufficient space for bikes, prams and kitchen sinks
(otherwise known as a *guards van*)? My understanding was
Electrostars optimised for passengers (longitudinal seats - lots of
standing room).

The class 378s are supposed to be class 376-derivatives. Those suburban
Electrostars have limited 2+2 seating bays, with enlarged standing areas
around the doors, with extensive use of grab-rails and perch seats.

TfL's Overground brochure shows longitudinal seating - althought how the
wide end gangway works in the Electrostar carriage ends is another matter
entirely...

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...d_brochure.pdf page
3 of 4 refers.

Paul

Bye North London Line
 

"John B" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 25 Jun, 14:44, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

What, with sufficient space for bikes, prams and kitchen sinks (otherwise
known as a *guards van*)? My understanding was Electrostars optimised
for
passengers (longitudinal seats - lots of standing room).

...which has the happy knock-on effect of providing more space for
bikes, prams and kitchen sinks off-peak.

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


Off peak maybe but the OP referred to the 0808 train (hardly off peak) and
sharing with all shorts of baggage including (now I check) kitchen units
(not sinks as I said). If we're going to be able to use public transport
instead of cars they need to be capable of carrying not just the passengers.

I accept that guards vans may not be the answer but take a look at
http://www.cycling-in-switzerland.ch...velo_bahn.html .
That's just an example of what can be achieved (in this case with bikes).

Bye North London Line
 

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:44:07 +0100, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

What, with sufficient space for bikes, prams and kitchen sinks (otherwise
known as a *guards van*)? My understanding was Electrostars optimised for
passengers (longitudinal seats - lots of standing room).

And thus lots of multipurpose space for bikes, prams and kitchen
sinks. The guard's van is not a solution to every problem, especially
where it leaves wheelchair users travelling in unpleasant conditions,
bicycles away from their owners (I wouldn't like to leave mine
unattended on the NLL) and fewer seats than could otherwise be
provided for the peaks, when said bicycles aren't allowed and kitchen
sinks may be frowned upon.

Neil

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