Mr Thant wrote:
TfL have announced a follow on order for Electrostars, mainly for 4th
cars for their North London Railway fleet:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/5432.aspx

I could never understand why they didn't order four-car units for the North
London line from the outset. You only have to look at the loadings on the
313s to see that additional capacity was desperately needed.

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...
Mr Thant wrote:
TfL have announced a follow on order for Electrostars, mainly for 4th
cars for their North London Railway fleet:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/5432.aspx

I could never understand why they didn't order four-car units for the
North
London line from the outset. You only have to look at the loadings on the
313s to see that additional capacity was desperately needed.

How much platform lengthening will be needed? In most cases it will merely
involve reopening sections of platfrom which have been out of use for years,
but lengthening Willesden Junction high level looks as though it will be
expensive.

Peter

On Jul 4, 7:48 am, "Peter Masson" wrote:

but lengthening Willesden Junction high level looks as though it will be
expensive.


I'd say lengthening Willesden Juunction high level looks as though it
will be horrendously expensive - possibly out of all proportion.

One hopes that such an extensive piece of work willl be done to allow
at least 8car (two units of of the proposed 4car Electrostars) if not
12car.


--
Nick

Peter Masson wrote:

How much platform lengthening will be needed? In most cases it will
merely involve reopening sections of platfrom which have been out of
use for years, but lengthening Willesden Junction high level looks as
though it will be expensive.

That's the main culprit. Quite a lot need little work other than
stripping/resurfacing/drainage cleaning. WJ is the difficult one to squeeze
another car length out of. Even SDO (to use the inner doors only of the end
cars) wouldn't work, due to the siting of the signalling.

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.

Longitudinal seating is simply needed on routes like this It might be
slightly less comfortable, but that's not what peak train travellers
will be thinking about. They're just happy to be able to get on.

"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.

Peter

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

probably need a lengthy closure of the WCML.

Peter

Merely continue as today then )

--
Nick

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.

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

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?