"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
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.

I'm sorry, but you've swallowed propaganda and/or the situation as it is.
There is no good reason to stop people bringing bicycles, prams, kitchen
sinks etc. on to trains at any time except the fact that successve
governments of all persuasions have restricted the investment in rolling
stock so that there is only space for passengers. I'll say it again, if
we're going to encourage people to use public transport (and I accept not
everyone believes in that idea) then we need to make it practical for people
to use. That means they have to be able to bring their baggage (in the
widest sense of that word) and find somewhere to stow it. Whether that
space is a guards van is not the point - I was simply trying to make the
point, not suggest it as the only solution. The real issue is two fold (1)
there has to be enough stock to make it feasible and (2) that stock has to
be designed in such a way as to accommodate bulky and unusually sized items.
In my view a simple train with any form of seating (logitudinal or
transverse) and a wheelchair space that might be availabel for other items
doesn't cut the mustard.

I will admit to a particular prediliction regarding bikes and trains. I
regard the two together as a very potent travel tool and the current
situation where (1) the rules vary by TOC (2) in many cases you cannot
simply turn up and go (3) there may be a ludicrously low (two) limit on the
number of bikes per train (4) you have to pay sometimes (5) there may be
time restrictions on when a bike can be take on a train all mitigate against
one of the quickest and most efficient combinations of transport I know.

On Jun 25, 10:25 am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"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

Looking at the brochure, I am surprised to not see the Camden Road to
Chalk Farm/Primrose Hill link. Somehow, I had cottoned on to the
notion that this would be part of the "new" network.

Adrian

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Graham Harrison wrote:

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
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,

Roof rack?

On the third rail sections, anyway.

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.

I'll say it again, if we're going to encourage people to use public
transport (and I accept not everyone believes in that idea) then we need
to make it practical for people to use. That means they have to be able
to bring their baggage (in the widest sense of that word) and find
somewhere to stow it. Whether that space is a guards van is not the
point - I was simply trying to make the point, not suggest it as the
only solution. The real issue is two fold (1) there has to be enough
stock to make it feasible and (2) that stock has to be designed in such
a way as to accommodate bulky and unusually sized items. In my view a
simple train with any form of seating (logitudinal or transverse) and a
wheelchair space that might be availabel for other items doesn't cut the
mustard.

May i suggest that there's a question of degree here? There's a difference
between a train that can carry bikes, kitchen units, washing machines,
seaman's chests, etc, and one that can carry beds, grand pianos,
motorcycles with sidecars, etc. Loads of the former size could be
accomodated in the vestibules of a C-stock-like train (provided there
weren't poles in the way), as Neil says. Loads of the latter size could
not, as you, i think, say. Really, i think you're in vigorously agreement.

There's obviously a tradeoff between the goods-carrying ability of a train
and its passenger-carrying ability. We may currently be too far towards
the latter, but to go much beyond the C stock case is to sacrifice too
much passenger capacity.

Personally, i think the acid test should be whether a train can handle an
ISO-sized pallet, with cart, and still let people get on and off. People
rarely move things bigger than pallet-sized by hand, and a pallet is a
nice standard size.

I will admit to a particular prediliction regarding bikes and trains.
I regard the two together as a very potent travel tool and the current
situation where (1) the rules vary by TOC (2) in many cases you cannot
simply turn up and go (3) there may be a ludicrously low (two) limit on
the number of bikes per train (4) you have to pay sometimes (5) there
may be time restrictions on when a bike can be take on a train all
mitigate against one of the quickest and most efficient combinations of
transport I know.

Yes, i'm very unhappy about this too. Train + bike is, as you say, the
winning combination for essentially any trip anywhere in the UK, and it's
not sufficiently well supported at present.

That said, it's provision on inter-urban service that's the problem; any
time you take your bike on the NLL for, you could probably cycle!

tom

--
.... and the children still cry "Make mine a 99"

On 25 Jun, 23:38, Adrian wrote:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...d_brochure.pdf page
3 of 4 refers.

Looking at the brochure, I am surprised to not see the Camden Road to
Chalk Farm/Primrose Hill link. Somehow, I had cottoned on to the
notion that this would be part of the "new" network.

In the short term, TfL will operate the existing North London Railways
routes (ie NLL, WLL, Goblin, DC Lines) with an enhanced service &
frequency. From 2010 this will also include the ELL.

Longer term plans are dependent on the interface between Network Rail,
TfL and central government. TfL's ideal outcome would be to transfer
the DC Lines service to the Bakerloo and to run Overground trains via
Primrose Hill to Queen's Park, but this has not yet been agreed with
all relevant parties.

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

On Jun 26, 10:48 am, John B wrote:
In the short term, TfL will operate the existing North London Railways
routes (ie NLL, WLL, Goblin, DC Lines) with an enhanced service &
frequency. From 2010 this will also include the ELL.

I'm not aware of any short term plans for improved frequency. I can
imagine longer operating hours and a few extra peak trains maybe, but
otherwise it looks like the standard service level will be no
different to Silverlink's for the first year or two.

U

"Mr Thant" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 26, 10:48 am, John B wrote:
In the short term, TfL will operate the existing North London Railways
routes (ie NLL, WLL, Goblin, DC Lines) with an enhanced service &
frequency. From 2010 this will also include the ELL.

I'm not aware of any short term plans for improved frequency. I can
imagine longer operating hours and a few extra peak trains maybe, but
otherwise it looks like the standard service level will be no
different to Silverlink's for the first year or two.


Agree - many of the TfL announcements describe improvements that cannot
happen until 2010 or 2011. Major service frequency improvement on the North
London Railway (today's NLL & WLL) are planned for 2011, although the
closure beyond Stratford does allow for a small number (3?) of extra units
to be diagrammed for a slightly improved service, there are many platforms
to be lengthened and signalling changes to be done as well...

Paul

Paul Scott wrote:

Agree - many of the TfL announcements describe improvements that cannot
happen until 2010 or 2011. Major service frequency improvement on the
North
London Railway (today's NLL & WLL)

Erm isn't the GOBLIN in there as well?

"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote in message
...
Paul Scott wrote:

Agree - many of the TfL announcements describe improvements that cannot
happen until 2010 or 2011. Major service frequency improvement on the
North
London Railway (today's NLL & WLL)

Erm isn't the GOBLIN in there as well?

Certainly - and it needs even more improvements, starting with
electrification - not likely in the next few years I suspect, hence the
thread about the mysterious new stock orders...

Paul

On 26 Jun, 11:37, Mr Thant
wrote:
On Jun 26, 10:48 am, John B wrote:

In the short term, TfL will operate the existing North London Railways
routes (ie NLL, WLL, Goblin, DC Lines) with an enhanced service &
frequency. From 2010 this will also include the ELL.

I'm not aware of any short term plans for improved frequency. I can
imagine longer operating hours and a few extra peak trains maybe, but
otherwise it looks like the standard service level will be no
different to Silverlink's for the first year or two.

U
Enhanced frequency should be coming in January 2011 according to that
brochure, which I think consists of 4 tph Clapham - Gospel Oak -
Barking, and the East London upgrades.

The trains and the Underground are such a wonderful part of London life.
Living in Vegas where we have more people than you can think of, with
everything above ground, can be a real pain.

Two cheers to the London Underground.

--
www.mysecretvegas.com, email from the contact button
Don Strevel, Box-777, Las Vegas, NV. 89125 USA

"Edward Cowling London UK" wrote in message
...

I've had four months on the North London Line and now happily I'm moving
to an office on more traditional tube routes.

I won't miss the NLL, and the constant overcrowding and sharing my travel
space with bikes, kitchen units and other assorted haulage :-)

It could be a great line and lets hope the new people taking over from
DrossLink spend a few bob on it.

Personally I hope never to set foot on the 8:08 out of Highbury to
Richmond again.


--
Edward Cowling "Must Go - The Wild Geese Are Calling"