On Jul 4, 7:27 pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:
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.



I use 376s frequently and, unlike the intelligently refurbished 455s
on SWT, they are an appalling realisation of a generally good idea.

The space is made unusable by chunky obstructions and a neglect of the
fact that two people with legs can't lean at right angles to each
other.

And they were purpose-designed for standing in with hardly any
handholds (until some were eventually added).

In message
"Jack Taylor" wrote:

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?



I couldn't possibly comment...

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

MIG wrote:

I use 376s frequently and, unlike the intelligently refurbished 455s
on SWT, they are an appalling realisation of a generally good idea.

The space is made unusable by chunky obstructions and a neglect of the
fact that two people with legs can't lean at right angles to each
other.

And they were purpose-designed for standing in with hardly any
handholds (until some were eventually added).

I must admit that I generally only use them off-peak, as a result of which I
hadn't noticed the problem with fully occupied seating. When I have used
them in the peak I don't even try to sit - I prefer to stand. I certainly
find them acceptable at those times but I agree that, as delivered, there
was a woeful lack of grab-rails. To South Eastern and Bombardier's credit,
they resolved that problem quite quickly.

The only complaint that I do still have is regarding the perch seats
adjacent to the door areas. For some reason perch cushions are provided at
ninety degrees to each other, one on the inner body skin and the other on
the back of the seat nearest the window, meaning that when one is in use it
is impossible for the other to be used, which seems rather pointless!

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 18:38:11 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

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?

The junctions should be far enough away but expansion in either
direction from Willesden Junction High Level involves intruding into
space occupied by bridges. I would have thought that the easier option
would be expansion northwards (possibly with some realignment) over
the DC line involving two new (or one wide) short bridges rather than
messing about with the relatively recently-installed bridge over the
WCML.
snip

Kev wrote:
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.

Don't worry! The passenger numbers will decrease for a while. How so you
say? TfL will install gates where there presently are none and hopefully
have more grippers on the line - so the multitudinous bands of NLL fare
dodgers, for it is they, will have to resort to another mode of transport.

ESB

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 18:38:11 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

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?

The junctions should be far enough away but expansion in either
direction from Willesden Junction High Level involves intruding into
space occupied by bridges. I would have thought that the easier
option would be expansion northwards (possibly with some
realignment) over the DC line involving two new (or one wide)
short bridges rather than messing about with the relatively
recently-installed bridge over the WCML.

I agree. A quick measurement on Google Earth of the westbound/down
platform, which is on the inside of the curve and therefore with less
room for extension, shows the current platform as about 72 m long, but
with room for expansion to at least 200 m before the gap between the
tracks gets too narrow for an island platform.

I'm not sure which is the "junction with the City Goods Line" that Peter
Masson mentioned, but the nearest junction east of WJ High Level is
Kensal Green junction which is about 400 m from the High Level
platforms.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Jul 4, 11:20 pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:
MIG wrote:

I use 376s frequently and, unlike the intelligently refurbished 455s
on SWT, they are an appalling realisation of a generally good idea.

The space is made unusable by chunky obstructions and a neglect of the
fact that two people with legs can't lean at right angles to each
other.

And they were purpose-designed for standing in with hardly any
handholds (until some were eventually added).

I must admit that I generally only use them off-peak, as a result of which I
hadn't noticed the problem with fully occupied seating. When I have used
them in the peak I don't even try to sit - I prefer to stand. I certainly
find them acceptable at those times but I agree that, as delivered, there
was a woeful lack of grab-rails. To South Eastern and Bombardier's credit,
they resolved that problem quite quickly.

The only complaint that I do still have is regarding the perch seats
adjacent to the door areas. For some reason perch cushions are provided at
ninety degrees to each other, one on the inner body skin and the other on
the back of the seat nearest the window, meaning that when one is in use it
is impossible for the other to be used, which seems rather pointless!



Yeah, that's what I meant about leaning at right-angles to each other
if both people have legs.

They would be much better without the transverse chunky bit and
withouth the huge chunky ridge either side of the door bay which
limits the perch space along the edge to about one and a half bums
(therefore one, unless people are very friendly), when the space from
doors to seats would easily allow two bums if it wasn't for that
obstruction.

Even better, there could be two flip-up seats. I think that a leaning
person's legs splay out further than feet tucked under a seat,
particularly when the tilt-like profile of the coaches prevents
leaning back to balance.

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 23:24:39 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 18:38:11 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

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?

The junctions should be far enough away but expansion in either
direction from Willesden Junction High Level involves intruding into
space occupied by bridges. I would have thought that the easier
option would be expansion northwards (possibly with some
realignment) over the DC line involving two new (or one wide)
short bridges rather than messing about with the relatively
recently-installed bridge over the WCML.

I agree. A quick measurement on Google Earth of the westbound/down
platform, which is on the inside of the curve and therefore with less
room for extension, shows the current platform as about 72 m long, but
with room for expansion to at least 200 m before the gap between the
tracks gets too narrow for an island platform.

I'm not sure which is the "junction with the City Goods Line" that Peter
Masson mentioned, but the nearest junction east of WJ High Level is
Kensal Green junction which is about 400 m from the High Level
platforms.

The City Goods Line is the line leaving the WCML west of WJ which
passes over the DC line (bridge 26B?), then to the north of WJ DC line
platforms and joins the NLL to the east of the bridge with the
bendybus on it. IIRC "Kensal Green Junction" covers the general area
where the City Goods Line joins the NLL on the north side and the City
Lines (from WJ New station) join on the south side. If Google Earth
ever gets a TARDIS mode you would also see a large signal box and a
few sidings in the area if you were able to wind back about 25 years.

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 23:24:39 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 18:38:11 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

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?

The junctions should be far enough away but expansion in either
direction from Willesden Junction High Level involves intruding into
space occupied by bridges. I would have thought that the easier
option would be expansion northwards (possibly with some
realignment) over the DC line involving two new (or one wide)
short bridges rather than messing about with the relatively
recently-installed bridge over the WCML.

I agree. A quick measurement on Google Earth of the westbound/down
platform, which is on the inside of the curve and therefore with less
room for extension, shows the current platform as about 72 m long, but
with room for expansion to at least 200 m before the gap between the
tracks gets too narrow for an island platform.

I'm not sure which is the "junction with the City Goods Line" that Peter
Masson mentioned, but the nearest junction east of WJ High Level is
Kensal Green junction which is about 400 m from the High Level
platforms.

The City Goods Line is the line leaving the WCML west of WJ which
passes over the DC line (bridge 26B?), then to the north of WJ DC line
platforms and joins the NLL to the east of the bridge with the
bendybus on it.

Quail just calls it the 'City Line', and puts the junction at 5 miles and
10 chains on the NLL, the platforms being at 5 miles 39 chains; 29 chains
is 583 metres. I don't know where on the platforms the 5:39 point is, and
there is a point before the junction where the down City crosses the up
NL. There's also a junction with what Quail calls the 'New' line, the link
from the DC lines to the NLL that Charles calls the City Line, at 5:13.
And, as Richard mentioned, not all of that distance is wide enough for
platforms anyway.

IIRC "Kensal Green Junction" covers the general area where the City
Goods Line joins the NLL on the north side and the City Lines (from WJ
New station) join on the south side.

Quail seems to use it that way. Although there's also a Kensal Green
Junction on the WCML next door!

tom

--
DO NOT WANT!

Tom Anderson wrote:

Quail just calls it the 'City Line', and puts the junction at 5 miles
and 10 chains on the NLL, the platforms being at 5 miles 39 chains;
29 chains is 583 metres. I don't know where on the platforms the 5:39
point is, and there is a point before the junction where the down
City crosses the up NL. There's also a junction with what Quail calls
the 'New' line, the link from the DC lines to the NLL that Charles
calls the City Line, at 5:13. And, as Richard mentioned, not all of
that distance is wide enough for platforms anyway.

There's also the fact that the signalling is currently at the end of the
platform and would need to be moved nearer to the junction if the platforms
were extended that way, retaining the required overlap, for safety reasons.