|
More Overground trains
Seems like TfL have exercised all their options for Class 378s with
another 7 ordered. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/7821.aspx No idea how that relates to the "1300 extra carriages" but a 7-8 min service on the core section of the NLL will be a pretty impressive frequency. -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
More Overground trains
"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
Seems like TfL have exercised all their options for Class 378s with another 7 ordered. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/7821.aspx I notice that these trains will have "state-of-the-art heating and air-conditioning systems, look and feel of Tube trains and be walk-through, without doors between carriages", which sounds just like the new S Stock trains. Are there any other similarities? I know these trains are shorter (4 vs 7/8 carriages), but they sound quite similar in other respects, including where they're being built. |
More Overground trains
On 1 Apr, 22:43, Paul Corfield wrote: Seems like TfL have exercised all their options for Class 378s with another 7 ordered. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/7821.aspx No idea how that relates to the "1300 extra carriages" but a 7-8 min service on the core section of the NLL will be a pretty impressive frequency. Excellent news, though to be honest given both the great popularity of the NLL route and the copious potential for attracting more custom - or indeed, perhaps I should say the significant level of currently suppressed demand - I don't think this is anything more than what is justified for the NLL. The irrepressible Mr Thant has had a tip off about the new NLL service patterns and shares his discoveries with us grateful mortals here on this blog post: http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...e-upgrade.html Though whether the freight trains traversing the NLL are going to stop failing so as to enable this frequency to be delivered is another question! I dare say TfL is already piling the pressure on EWS, GBRf et al to try and ensure their trains don't break down and cause log jams. |
More Overground trains
Recliner wrote:
I notice that these trains will have "state-of-the-art heating and air-conditioning systems, look and feel of Tube trains and be walk-through, without doors between carriages", which sounds just like the new S Stock trains. Are there any other similarities? I know these trains are shorter (4 vs 7/8 carriages), but they sound quite similar in other respects, including where they're being built. No, there are no similarities between the Underground S stock and the class 378 Electrostars. The 378 is very much a suburban main-line design (the almost identical class 376 has been operating on SouthEastern suburban services for the past three years). I'm not sure about the "without doors between carriages" bit, though, I'm sure that the 376 has doors either side of the corridor connection. Perhaps it's felt that with such a regular stopping pattern any draughts from the corridor connection would not be significant. |
More Overground trains
On Apr 1, 11:56 pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:
I notice that these trains will have "state-of-the-art heating and air-conditioning systems, look and feel of Tube trains and be walk-through, without doors between carriages", which sounds just like the new S Stock trains. Are there any other similarities? I know these trains are shorter (4 vs 7/8 carriages), but they sound quite similar in other respects, including where they're being built. No, there are no similarities between the Underground S stock and the class 378 Electrostars. ?! While the S-stock certainly isn't an Electrostar, suggesting that the Electrostar hasn't been one of key design inputs on which the S-stock was based would be an utter and rather weird lie. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
More Overground trains
On 2 Apr, 00:32, John B wrote: On Apr 1, 11:56 pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote: I notice that these trains will have "state-of-the-art heating and air-conditioning systems, look and feel of Tube trains and be walk-through, without doors between carriages", which sounds just like the new S Stock trains. Are there any other similarities? I know these trains are shorter (4 vs 7/8 carriages), but they sound quite similar in other respects, including where they're being built. No, there are no similarities between the Underground S stock and the class 378 Electrostars. ?! While the S-stock certainly isn't an Electrostar, suggesting that the Electrostar hasn't been one of key design inputs on which the S-stock was based would be an utter and rather weird lie. A "misunderstanding" (as opposed to a lie) would be a kinder and perhaps more accurate way of putting it. |
More Overground trains
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Mizter T wrote:
The irrepressible Mr Thant ITYM Thant the Mighty. He's a cousin of Tharg of that ilk, on his beta-mother's side. At least that's what i heard. tom -- We don't contact anybody or seek anybody's permission for what we do. Even if it's impersonating postal employees. -- Birdstuff |
More Overground trains
Recliner wrote:
"Paul Corfield" wrote in message Seems like TfL have exercised all their options for Class 378s with another 7 ordered. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/7821.aspx I notice that these trains will have "state-of-the-art heating and air-conditioning systems, look and feel of Tube trains and be walk-through, without doors between carriages", which sounds just like the new S Stock trains. Are there any other similarities? I know these trains are shorter (4 vs 7/8 carriages), but they sound quite similar in other respects, including where they're being built. I think the main similarities will be in the passenger information systems, line coloured grab rails, longitudinal seating, strip line diagrams, central area tube maps and alll the other stuff stuck on the bulkheads of existing surface stock. Someone posted a link to a TfL document defining the internal appearance of the trains a while back, unfortunately it isn't easily found on the TfL downloads website, as its not linked to anywhere. As usual. Paul |
More Overground trains
Mizter T wrote:
On 1 Apr, 22:43, Paul Corfield wrote: Seems like TfL have exercised all their options for Class 378s with another 7 ordered. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/7821.aspx No idea how that relates to the "1300 extra carriages" but a 7-8 min service on the core section of the NLL will be a pretty impressive frequency. Mr Thant's blog reckons the figures don't add up when you take into account the earlier announcement for 4 extra trains, and now this 7 extra. Could there be an element of double announcing (like what the DfT do)? Not sure about the impact on the famous 1300 - other than that the redundant 313s are probably earmarked as 'new trains' for somewhere far away... Excellent news, though to be honest given both the great popularity of the NLL route and the copious potential for attracting more custom - or indeed, perhaps I should say the significant level of currently suppressed demand - I don't think this is anything more than what is justified for the NLL. The irrepressible Mr Thant has had a tip off about the new NLL service patterns and shares his discoveries with us grateful mortals here on this blog post: http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...e-upgrade.html Though whether the freight trains traversing the NLL are going to stop failing so as to enable this frequency to be delivered is another question! I dare say TfL is already piling the pressure on EWS, GBRf et al to try and ensure their trains don't break down and cause log jams. Mr Thant (who I once wondered might have been a pseudonym of Mizter T - or vice versa!) led me via his blog to this puzzling document on the ORR site, which refers to the capacity of the old trains as 500 per car and the new as 667 per car. Which is pretty cozy... http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd..._appendix7.pdf Not to mention the beginner's mistake in the use of percentages - 6000 to 10672 is not a 178% rise is it?... Paul S |
More Overground trains
|
More Overground trains
On 2 Apr, 11:20, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Mr Thant's blog *reckons the figures don't add up when you take into account the earlier announcement for 4 extra trains, and now this 7 extra. Could there be an element of double announcing (like what the DfT do)? The total in the board papers is 54, which suggests the 3 missing trains do exist, despite the 44+7 in yesterday's press release. Not sure about the impact on the famous 1300 - other than that the redundant 313s are probably earmarked as 'new trains' for somewhere far away... According to last month's Modern Railways, the rolling stock plan includes 8 going to First Capital Connect, and these are counted as extra capacity in the 1300. The 8 GOBLIN Sprinters go to Northern (although LO only have 6 - 2 are currently leased to FGW). Again, also counted as extra capacity. I have my own island, you know. U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
More Overground trains
On 1 Apr, 23:56, "Jack Taylor" wrote:
The 378 is very much a suburban main-line design (the almost identical class 376 has been operating on SouthEastern suburban services for the past three years). I'm not sure about the "without doors between carriages" bit, though, I'm sure that the 376 has doors either side of the corridor connection. The 376s have a fairly conventional corridor connection. The 378s will have a genuine full width gangway. U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
More Overground trains
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 15:54:32 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote: On 1 Apr, 22:43, Paul Corfield wrote: Seems like TfL have exercised all their options for Class 378s with another 7 ordered. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/7821.aspx No idea how that relates to the "1300 extra carriages" but a 7-8 min service on the core section of the NLL will be a pretty impressive frequency. Excellent news, though to be honest given both the great popularity of the NLL route and the copious potential for attracting more custom - or indeed, perhaps I should say the significant level of currently suppressed demand - I don't think this is anything more than what is justified for the NLL. Quite possibly true but do you think that any of this would have happened if the route was not under TfL control / direction? I could not have seen either a DfT invitation to tender or a TOC bid including even one tenth of the level of improvement that is on the way to being delivered. Let's hope that whoever wins the Mayoral election doesn't wreck all this. The irrepressible Mr Thant has had a tip off about the new NLL service patterns and shares his discoveries with us grateful mortals here on this blog post: http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...e-upgrade.html I've said it before but I really don't know how he manages to keep track of all of this. The link to the timetable study for TfL via the ORR website is fascinating stuff. I've only skimmed bits of it but it's rather reassuring to see things like a draft timetable showing GOBLIN trains every 15 minutes. Though whether the freight trains traversing the NLL are going to stop failing so as to enable this frequency to be delivered is another question! I dare say TfL is already piling the pressure on EWS, GBRf et al to try and ensure their trains don't break down and cause log jams. I'm sure they are but this is where the ORR has a bit of tough job because it has to weigh the advantages and disadvantages and if they've said freight can run and Network Rail have sold the paths then we potentially have a problem. Without some imaginative work elsewhere on the network freight and the NLL are going to have to be bedfellows for quite some time. -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
More Overground trains
On 2 Apr, 11:20, "Paul Scott" wrote: Mizter T wrote: (snip) The irrepressible Mr Thant has had a tip off about the new NLL service patterns and shares his discoveries with us grateful mortals here on this blog post: http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...don-line-upgra... Though whether the freight trains traversing the NLL are going to stop failing so as to enable this frequency to be delivered is another question! I dare say TfL is already piling the pressure on EWS, GBRf et al to try and ensure their trains don't break down and cause log jams. Mr Thant (who I once wondered might have been a pseudonym of Mizter T - or vice versa!) led me via his blog to this puzzling document on the ORR site, which refers to the capacity of the old trains as 500 per car and the new as 667 per car. Which is pretty cozy... http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd..._appendix7.pdf Longitudinal seating = more standing space thus more people in each carriage. The current seating configuration of the 313 trains on the NLL really isn't suitable - people here sometimes complain about passengers preferring to stand and getting in the way rather than parking themselves in a seat. However many passengers' journeys on the NLL are short - the hassle of negotiating one's way past standees and then legs and bags to a seat, just for the joy of making a reverse upheaval just a few minutes later is evidently something many just don't feel is worthwhile, and in large part I'd have to agree with them. And just for the record, U Thant is not a product of my imagination, nor am I a product of his! The former secretary general is most definitely a very distinct entity from myself, and I am just as in awe of his prodigious output as everyone else is. (Thinking about it, it might be wise for me to sign-off my infrequent comments on his blog with some kind of disclaimer i.e. 'Mizter T not Mr Thant' - otherwise I might find myself causing diplomatic ructions ala [FYR] Macedonia's spat with Greece over Nato membership, and I'm not sure how the experienced world statesman amongst us would be able to help in mediation given the potential conflict of interest!) |
More Overground trains
"Mizter T" wrote in message ... On 2 Apr, 11:20, "Paul Scott" wrote: Mr Thant led me via his blog to this puzzling document on the ORR site, which refers to the capacity of the old trains as 500 per car and the new as 667 per car. Which is pretty cozy... http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd..._appendix7.pdf Longitudinal seating = more standing space thus more people in each carriage. The current seating configuration of the 313 trains on the NLL really isn't suitable - people here sometimes complain about passengers preferring to stand and getting in the way rather than parking themselves in a seat. However many passengers' journeys on the NLL are short - the hassle of negotiating one's way past standees and then legs and bags to a seat, just for the joy of making a reverse upheaval just a few minutes later is evidently something many just don't feel is worthwhile, and in large part I'd have to agree with them. I was aware of the change to layout - it's the absolute numbers given, of 500 and 667 'per carriage' that I'm totally bemused by. The latter being 133% of the former - this _ratio_ seems reasonable enough to account for the changed design. However a current 313 carriage has about 70-80 seats - can they really take another 420-430 standees? Paul S |
More Overground trains
On Apr 7, 2:17 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote: I was aware of the change to layout - it's the absolute numbers given, of 500 and 667 'per carriage' that I'm totally bemused by. The latter being 133% of the former - this _ratio_ seems reasonable enough to account for the changed design. However a current 313 carriage has about 70-80 seats - can they really take another 420-430 standees? Sounds like a challenge for Indian Railways! :-) |
More Overground trains
|
More Overground trains
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Paul Scott wrote:
"Mizter T" wrote in message ... On 2 Apr, 11:20, "Paul Scott" wrote: Mr Thant led me via his blog to this puzzling document on the ORR site, which refers to the capacity of the old trains as 500 per car and the new as 667 per car. Which is pretty cozy... http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd..._appendix7.pdf Longitudinal seating I was aware of the change to layout - it's the absolute numbers given, of 500 and 667 'per carriage' that I'm totally bemused by. The latter being 133% of the former - this _ratio_ seems reasonable enough to account for the changed design. However a current 313 carriage has about 70-80 seats - can they really take another 420-430 standees? Gauge amelioration work on the NLL, primarily for the benefit of freight, means that trains up to 16 metres tall will be able to run on the line. Passengers will be provided with ladders, and expected to arrange themselves vertically. tom -- I'm not quite sure how that works but I like it ... |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk