On 16 Aug, 10:40, solar penguin wrote:
Trouble is, the trail is a vital part of the Capital Ring footpath
network. If you convert it back to a railway, you'll have to find
other trails connecting Highgate to Finsbury Park to replace it. (Or
find an alternative route for the Capital Ring to get from Finchley to
Stoke Newington avoiding Highgate and Finsbury Park altogether.)

Seven Sisters Road, Holloway Road, Archway Road. Sorted (they've all
got pavements...)

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

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:14:06 +0100, somersetchris wrote:

I still think that the best thing they could do is extend the ELL to
Finsbury Park and then in the future extend it to Highgate/Muswell
Hill/Ally Pally. One bit at a time.-

What's your solution to the flat-junction-with-NLL-in-steep-cutting-
with-houses-on-both-sides-hence-no-room-for-flyover problem, then?

There will be a flat junction at Dalston which will have the lines from
Stratford and the ELL meeting. There will also be a flat junction so
both of these lines can access both number 1 and 2 lines through
Highbury & Islington. So that is where the flat junction will be
anyway, so why not use it and then send the trains via Canonbury tunnel
to Finsbury Park?

Because with the planned routes there would only be conflicts between
westbound NLL and eastbound ELL trains, whereas your idea would add
conflicts between westbound ELL and eastbound NLL trains.

Still, perhaps it could be modified so that there is a diveunder there
from the ELL to the number 1 lines? If the number 1 lines only connect
to the ELL (except for a flat junction with the number 2 lines further
west), there would be no need to widen the formation.

John B wrote:

Are you sure about 'equally'? I've always found it far easier to get
on the NCL at Finsbury Park at 0830 than, say, the Northern Line at
Kentish Town at the same time. The full-size trains seems to have a
significantly larger passenger capacity (which would be further
increased if the 2x3 seating were replaced with 2x2 wide-aisle, as in
SWT's 455s).


Perception is a wonderful thing. The FCC 313s have a seated capacity
of 232 per three car unit, with probably around 310 including standing
passengers at 33% PIXC (Passengers In eXcess of Capacity).

According to the TfL site, the 95 stock has a seated capacity of 268 per
six car train (including tip-up and 'perch' seats), with a total
capacity of 914.

Cheers,

Barry

On Aug 21, 4:46 am, Barry Salter wrote:
John B wrote:
Are you sure about 'equally'? I've always found it far easier to get
on the NCL at Finsbury Park at 0830 than, say, the Northern Line at
Kentish Town at the same time. The full-size trains seems to have a
significantly larger passenger capacity (which would be further
increased if the 2x3 seating were replaced with 2x2 wide-aisle, as in
SWT's 455s).

Perception is a wonderful thing. The FCC 313s have a seated capacity
of 232 per three car unit, with probably around 310 including standing
passengers at 33% PIXC (Passengers In eXcess of Capacity).

According to the TfL site, the 95 stock has a seated capacity of 268 per
six car train (including tip-up and 'perch' seats), with a total
capacity of 914.



This is probably based on dividing the volume of the "standing" area
by the volume of the average person, and assuming that you can jam
people in at any angle, chopping their bodies in half or crushing them
into rectangles where necessary to fill the remaining gaps.

Unfortunately, modern designs don't allow for human bodies with curved
edges or with both a top and a bottom half or for the fact that people
won't lean on someone's head, or the fact that some obstructions are
very painful to lean against, or the fact that bodies can't bend at
certain angles etc etc.

I wouldn't trust any capacity figures.

On 13 Aug, 16:56, Tom Anderson wrote:

It did. But didn't someone suggest that it couldn't be redoubled while
also maintaining a freight-suitable loading gauge there? The curve is
quite an important link for freight, so that's rather important.

Wasn't the reason for the singling to create enough height for
overhead line equipment, by moving the single remaining line to the
centre of the tunnel?

On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, wrote:

On 13 Aug, 16:56, Tom Anderson wrote:

It did. But didn't someone suggest that it couldn't be redoubled while
also maintaining a freight-suitable loading gauge there? The curve is
quite an important link for freight, so that's rather important.

Wasn't the reason for the singling to create enough height for overhead
line equipment, by moving the single remaining line to the centre of the
tunnel?

Yes, i think it was.

tom

--
Finals make a man mean; let's fusc up and write!