In message
"Peter Masson" wrote:


"sweek" wrote in message
oups.com...
Wouldn't it be relatively cheap to lengthen the platforms even
further? With the high level of overcrowding now and even more
passengers using the route in the future, it seems like it will be
needed. 8 coaches seems like a good number indeed.

Getting a 4-coach platform length at Willesden High level will be
expensive, but do-able. To get 8 coaches here, because of the junction with
the City Goods Line, the only place is on a bridge over the WCML. To build
it you'd probably need a lengthy closure of the WCML.


Prefabricate the bridge off-site and swing it into position at three o'clock
on a Sunday morning, minimum closure time needed. More of a problem is
inserting it into the NNL without causing chaos the following Monday morning.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

D7666 wrote:
On Jul 4, 8:48 am, "Peter Masson" wrote:

probably need a lengthy closure of the WCML.

Merely continue as today then )

It's closed today? ;-)

Better tell National Rail Enquiries.

Graeme Wall wrote:

More of a problem is inserting it into the NNL without causing chaos the
following Monday morning.

Would anyone notice the difference?

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007, Graeme Wall wrote:

In message
"Peter Masson" wrote:

"sweek" wrote in message
oups.com...

Wouldn't it be relatively cheap to lengthen the platforms even
further? With the high level of overcrowding now and even more
passengers using the route in the future, it seems like it will be
needed. 8 coaches seems like a good number indeed.

Getting a 4-coach platform length at Willesden High level will be
expensive, but do-able. To get 8 coaches here, because of the junction
with the City Goods Line, the only place is on a bridge over the WCML.

Not sure i buy that. How far is the junction from the present platforms?

To build it you'd probably need a lengthy closure of the WCML.

Prefabricate the bridge off-site and swing it into position at three
o'clock on a Sunday morning, minimum closure time needed.

Took the words right out of my fingers - if it's good enough for Bishop's
Bridge, it's good enough for the NLL.

More of a problem is inserting it into the NNL without causing chaos the
following Monday morning.

Split the NLL into Stratford - Kensal Rise and Richmond - Acton Central
bits while sorting out the bridge? AIUI, most of the demand is to the east
of WJ anyway. Not ideal, but it'd only be for a fortnight.

tom

--
Do more with less -- R. Buckminster Fuller

On 4 Jul, 16:23, Kev wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:50 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:21 pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:

with the switch to longitudinal seating giving a short term capacity boost.

Oh f**k, everybody's answer to cramming even more people onto trains.
Why don't they go the whole way and remove all the seats. Just when I
thought that it might be worth using the NLL.

ISTR the original coaches of the Cathcart Circle had no seats, so more
people could get on, so it's been done before.

Pyromancer wrote:
On 4 Jul, 16:23, Kev wrote:
Why don't they go the whole way and remove all the seats. Just when I
thought that it might be worth using the NLL.

ISTR the original coaches of the Cathcart Circle had no seats, so more
people could get on, so it's been done before.

I don't really see what all the fuss is about. 376s have been plying their
trade very successfully on Southeastern for the last three years - the
proposed 378 is not that significantly different. I'd rather stand on a
purpose-designed 378 with plenty of grab-rails than on a wedged 313 with
virtually none.

"Kev" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 4, 3:50 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:21 pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:


with the switch to longitudinal seating giving a short term capacity
boost.

Oh f**k, everybody's answer to cramming even more people onto trains.
Why don't they go the whole way and remove all the seats. Just when I
thought that it might be worth using the NLL.


You've not been on a rebuilt District Line train yet then?

Paul

On 4 Jul, 16:48, "Peter Masson" wrote:

Getting a 4-coach platform length at Willesden High level will be expensive,
but do-able. To get 8 coaches here, because of the junction with the City
Goods Line, the only place is on a bridge over the WCML. To build it you'd
probably need a lengthy closure of the WCML.

From the few pictures that I've seen of it, I think that's just about
where the original high-level station was. I don't know how long the
platforms were, but there were three of them. I believe that it was
replaced by the present platforms soon after the War.

Kev wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:50 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:21 pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:


with the switch to longitudinal seating giving a short term capacity boost.

Oh f**k, everybody's answer to cramming even more people onto trains.
Why don't they go the whole way and remove all the seats. Just when I
thought that it might be worth using the NLL.

Given the loadings when I've been on the route, I don't think anyone
will miss one less passenger!

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

"Arthur Figgis" wrote in message
...
Kev wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:50 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:21 pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:


with the switch to longitudinal seating giving a short term capacity
boost.

Oh f**k, everybody's answer to cramming even more people onto trains.
Why don't they go the whole way and remove all the seats. Just when I
thought that it might be worth using the NLL.

Given the loadings when I've been on the route, I don't think anyone will
miss one less passenger!

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Seems to me that they could double the length of the trains and they would
still be full but they will add one coach and put in longitudinal seats.
Maybe if Ken wasn't spending so much money on the ELL he might have the
money to do it.

Kevin