On 24 Sep, 10:16, Chris Tolley wrote:

Neil Williams wrote:
Dunno, but there is no excuse for 2-car DMUs to be being used on this
kind of service.

Look at Merseyrail for how it should be done (and without any new
MUs)

Eh?

On the electric lines, new MUs were introduced as the loop line was
being developed. They certainly aren't *still* new, but they were new
for the current routes.


And by all accounts they're less than ideal for the city centre loop
as well.

Mizter T wrote:

On 24 Sep, 10:16, Chris Tolley wrote:

Neil Williams wrote:
Dunno, but there is no excuse for 2-car DMUs to be being used on this
kind of service.

Look at Merseyrail for how it should be done (and without any new
MUs)

Eh?

On the electric lines, new MUs were introduced as the loop line was
being developed. They certainly aren't *still* new, but they were new
for the current routes.


And by all accounts they're less than ideal for the city centre loop
as well.

AIUI, the curvature on the track gives rise to increased wear on the
wheels. If so, that's more a track problem than a train problem.

I suppose there are compounding features as well, given that the
Merseyrail loop line is an intensive service. F'rinstance, at
Farringdon, there's a fairly tight curve on Thameslink, but a particular
train will pass over it much less frequently.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p15036436.html
(33 110 at Basingstoke, Mar 1991)

On 24 Sep, 11:02, Chris Tolley wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

On 24 Sep, 10:16, Chris *Tolley wrote:

(snip)

On the electric lines, new MUs were introduced as the loop line was
being developed. They certainly aren't *still* new, but they were new
for the current routes.

And by all accounts they're less than ideal for the city centre loop
as well.

AIUI, the curvature on the track gives rise to increased wear on the
wheels. If so, that's more a track problem than a train problem.


Or a train not being suitable for the track (or more properly tight
alignment) problem. Depends upon where you approach it from really -
so I could have said the city centre loop is less than ideal for the
Merseyrail MUs!


I suppose there are compounding features as well, given that the
Merseyrail loop line is an intensive service. F'rinstance, at
Farringdon, there's a fairly tight curve on Thameslink, but a particular
train will pass over it much less frequently.


I presume its the line to Moorgate you speak of? In which case usage
will become zero come March next year when it gets disconnected as
part of the Thameslink 3000 works.

"Neil Williams" wrote
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:56:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert Candy
wrote:

Incidentally, why did they have to make a 'pretend Underground train'
out of a watered-down suburban train with only 2 doors per side?
Surely the future S stock would have made a much better base vehicle
for this sort of application?

Dunno, but there is no excuse for 2-car DMUs to be being used on this
kind of service. Nor should TfL be running 3 cars on the Watfords
when 6 would fit with a bit of power upgrading.

The whole of LO appears to me to be an almighty expensive cop-out for
a capital city. Look at Merseyrail for how it should be done (and
without any new MUs), then try again.

Merseyrail isn't a good example of how it should be done. The entire
electrified system including the loop and link lines were designed for
six-car operation, then after a very short time the trains were reduced to
three cars - which is why SET and LO ended up with Class 508 units.

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:41:31 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:


On 24 Sep, 10:15, Rupert Candy wrote:

I hadn't thought of that aspect. What about the Met 'main line'? Is
that under LUL control as far as Amersham? It's a long time since my
Met commuting days...

LUL owned, maintained to LU standards by the infraco Metronet (which
in its previous privately owned incarnation collapsed into
administration, but it has since been purchased by TfL). It becomes
Network Rail's responsibility at some point to the west of Amersham.

The boundary point is known as Mantle's Wood. An odd bit of railway
given it's LU property but never used by LU passenger trains - only
Chiltern.
--
Paul C

Mizter T wrote:

On 24 Sep, 11:02, Chris Tolley wrote:
I suppose there are compounding features as well, given that the
Merseyrail loop line is an intensive service. F'rinstance, at
Farringdon, there's a fairly tight curve on Thameslink, but a particular
train will pass over it much less frequently.


I presume its the line to Moorgate you speak of? In which case usage
will become zero come March next year when it gets disconnected as
part of the Thameslink 3000 works.

No, I was thinking of inner curve northbound from City Thameslink; the
line to Moorgate strikes me as being straighter. But one other
mitigating factor is that he trains are going over that more slowly
(because all trains stop at Farringdon) than they do around the
Liverpool loop.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632970.html
(43 133 at Reading, 17 Jan 1980)

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:36:19 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:44:18 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:56:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert Candy
wrote:

Incidentally, why did they have to make a 'pretend Underground train'
out of a watered-down suburban train with only 2 doors per side?
Surely the future S stock would have made a much better base vehicle
for this sort of application?

The whole of LO appears to me to be an almighty expensive cop-out for a
capital city. Look at Merseyrail for how it should be done (and
without any new MUs), then try again. Tube-style trains are a
compromise for the Tube. There is no need for a heavy-rail S-Bahn to
be like that.

That's an interesting comparison but I really don't see Overground being
remotely like a German style S Bahn service. I suspect that if TfL had
sought to construct Overground to the lavish specification that's
typically used in Germany we'd have got precisely nowhere in terms of
getting the lines improved.

Hang on, hang on: what are the differences between what we're getting and
what the Germans have got that are significant? I've never been to Germany
or gone on any kind of bahn, so i don't know what they're like.

They are like a mix of suburban train services with central area tunnel
sections to distribute people into the central business district as well
as providing a cross regional link. Not unlike Crossrail or the RER in
some respects. Berlin has orbital services and I think the Rhine Ruhr
does too but I don't see London Overground being remotely comparable to
those sorts of networks.

Is it seats vs standing space? Do S-bahnen have more? Isn't that because
they're like a RER or Thameslink, and run from far out? Whereas the Goblin
only runs for a few miles, so doesn't need to be all-seater, and since
it's going to be two cars every fifteen minutes but will hopefully attract
lots more people because of the rebranding, benefits from the extra
standing capacity that comes with longitudinal seating.

In my limited experience - I accept Neil will know more - the Germans
have typically done a comprehensive rebuild and separation of S Bahn
services from other services. Stations are rebuilt to a common standard,
conflicting junctions are removed, signalling is redone, new fleets of
trains are introduced and you usually get integrated ticketing. In some
cases you also get underground sections through city centres to link up
parts of the network and / or remove the problems of stub end terminals
with all the reversing issues that arise.

The service networks are often very extensive in their reach with pretty
intensive service levels but I think some more recent schemes have been
more modest in their scope to contain costs.

We are getting new trains, tarted up stations (ignoring ELLX which is on
a different scale), some signalling works and some limited segregation
Highbury - Camden Road. We've also got Oyster ticketing which is partly
integrated at the moment but obviously Overground is more to do with the
rail network that say buses or DLR. Much of the infrastructure work is
to try to accommodate ELLX reaching Highbury and to accommodate freight
not segregate it! We've also just had yet more cost cutting at Camden
Road which compromises the service offer and potentially service
quality.

I'm grateful we're getting the work done but a rebuild to S Bahn
standards it is not - perhaps because the lines that constitute
Overground could never really mirror what I see as a German S Bahn
network. Still I'm sure we'll see Neil's response in due time and see
what aspects he is critical of.

Basically i don't get the use of 'tube-style trains' as a diss. Tube-style
trains aren't a compromise, they're exactly what's needed on the tube.

If it's the paucity of doors that's being criticised, then i'm with that.

Given that none of us have travelled in a 378 or seen one in action yet
I think it's too early to be critical. Having seen one or two busy NLL
trains I can see why there is an emphasis on standing space rather than
seats. Whether the design is correct internally we shall wait and see. I
doubt it will prove impossible to rejig the interior if it is deemed not
to "work" correctly.

--
Paul C

On 24 Sep, 11:25, Chris Tolley wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

On 24 Sep, 11:02, Chris *Tolley wrote:
I suppose there are compounding features as well, given that the
Merseyrail loop line is an intensive service. F'rinstance, at
Farringdon, there's a fairly tight curve on Thameslink, but a particular
train will pass over it much less frequently.

I presume its the line to Moorgate you speak of? In which case usage
will become zero come March next year when it gets disconnected as
part of the Thameslink 3000 works.

No, I was thinking of inner curve northbound from City Thameslink; the
line to Moorgate strikes me as being straighter. But one other
mitigating factor is that he trains are going over that more slowly
(because all trains stop at Farringdon) than they do around the
Liverpool loop.


OK, I hadn't clocked that as a particularly tight curve, I'll look out
(or more likely listen out) for that next time I'm on a train up that
way. Of course once all the works are complete then the 'new'
Thameslink service is going to involve a very frequent train service
through this central section, with trains travelling faster courtesy
of ATO.

You're right about the line from Farringdon to Moorgate of course, not
least because it basically shadows the not very tightly curved
alignment of the Circle/Met line here. The first photo on this page
shows the line in question:
http://www.abandonedstations.org.uk/...t_station.html

On 24 Sep, 11:22, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:41:31 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

On 24 Sep, 10:15, Rupert Candy wrote:

I hadn't thought of that aspect. What about the Met 'main line'? Is
that under LUL control as far as Amersham? It's a long time since my
Met commuting days...

LUL owned, maintained to LU standards by the infraco Metronet (which
in its previous privately owned incarnation collapsed into
administration, but it has since been purchased by TfL). It becomes
Network Rail's responsibility at some point to the west of Amersham.

The boundary point is known as Mantle's Wood. *An odd bit of railway
given it's LU property but never used by LU passenger trains - only
Chiltern.


Well, there'll be the East London Line in that category soon!

In article ,
(John Salmon) wrote:

"Neil Williams" wrote
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:56:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert Candy
wrote:

Incidentally, why did they have to make a 'pretend Underground train'
out of a watered-down suburban train with only 2 doors per side?
Surely the future S stock would have made a much better base vehicle
for this sort of application?

Dunno, but there is no excuse for 2-car DMUs to be being used on this
kind of service. Nor should TfL be running 3 cars on the Watfords
when 6 would fit with a bit of power upgrading.

The whole of LO appears to me to be an almighty expensive cop-out for
a capital city. Look at Merseyrail for how it should be done (and
without any new MUs), then try again.

Merseyrail isn't a good example of how it should be done. The
entire electrified system including the loop and link lines were
designed for six-car operation, then after a very short time the
trains were reduced to three cars - which is why SET and LO ended
up with Class 508 units.

That's all very well but the 508s were built (as 4 car units) for what is
now SWT. One car from each 508 went into a 455 unit. Only then were the
508s sent to Merseyside.

--
Colin Rosenstiel