378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

On 24 Sep, 13:47, Tom Anderson wrote:
Is that just an illusion due to the angle of the shot? From the outside,
it looks like there are windows either side of the central one, but
they're obscured by the monitors.

The driver looks out of the left side window (or the right from
outside). It looks to me like the centre cab door is opaque, so the
monitors in front of it aren't obscuring anything, and the monitor on
the left of the picture is against the side wall. There's a tiny
window to the left of it for seeing stopping marks and such. Pretty
much the same view as in other trains with cab-end doors.

U

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

Neil Williams wrote:

(re Merseyrail)

6 cars are still used in the peaks.

Indeed they are, but on surprisingly few trains. My observation is that
only on the heaviest-loaded trains is there any need for them, and even
that only extends to a couple of stops out of the loop. I don't know so
well what things are like on Hunts Cross to Southport.


--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632878.html
(33 106 at Reading, 4 Mar 1980)

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

"Neil Williams" wrote
"John Salmon" wrote:

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.

No. The 508s were spare because they didn't need to go to 6-car on
all trains due to lower demand than expected, and because MTL thought
they could make do with fewer (and us passengers saw the short-
formations and cancellations start straight away). 6 cars are still
used in the peaks.

Quite. So when you typed 'No' you meant 'Yes'. I don't think we're actually
disagreeing about anything.

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

In article ,
(John Salmon) wrote:

wrote
John Salmon wrote:
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.

True, *all* the 3-car 508s went north but then several of them came
back south again, after the six-car trains were reduced to
three-car. So I'm not clear what point you're making.

Only a few came back South, relatively speaking. Merseyside isn't the only
place running 3-car trains of PEP stock.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

On 24 Sep, 13:42, Tom Anderson wrote:

Have you ever actually used the tube? Specifically, C stock, which has the
most comparable layout? The space between the seats can be and is used for
plenty of standing.

And is bloody inconvenient as such, because there is nowhere to stand
in C stock where you are not in the way of someone.

The OP has a good point - if TfL won't/can't fund longer trains (which
is the optimal solution), fewer seats and proper standbacks might
actually be better.

Neil

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

On 24 Sep, 14:50, Chris Tolley wrote:

Indeed they are, but on surprisingly few trains. My observation is that
only on the heaviest-loaded trains is there any need for them, and even
that only extends to a couple of stops out of the loop. I don't know so
well what things are like on Hunts Cross to Southport.

The Link lines are generally far busier - not sure about the Southport
line but a 3 car would load full and standing as far as Maghull or
Kirkby, easily.

Neil

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

On 24 Sep, 13:42, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, MIG wrote:
On Sep 24, 1:40*am, Mizter T wrote:
On 23 Sep, 21:56, Rupert Candy wrote:

On Sep 22, 5:58*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

'Rail Manager online' reporting the first 378 to travel south tomorrow, and
the possibility of Third Rail electrification of the GOB line...

http://91.186.0.3/~keepingt/rm/164/RMAN_164.pdf

There's a sizeable feature in this week's Railway Herald
(www.railwayherald.com) about the 378s, with several pictures. Anyone
else struck by the lack of handles at useful heights for that massive
standing space in between the seats? You'd think they'd have learnt
their lesson from the 376s.

I'd seen this photo and had a similar thought about the lack of
handles:http://www.upmain.fotopic.net/p53614368.html

However I wonder if the bars which are suspended from the ceiling
might actually be low enough for many people to use. If not perhaps
they might have to add straps or handles to those bars - indeed,
perhaps that's already part of the plan?

After the way the 376s were delivered, I could believe anything.

I entirely accept the need for standing space, but surely by now it's
bleedin obvious that this can't be achieved by mixing seating and
standing space in the same part of the carriage.

No.

It would be better to have areas purely for standing either side of the
doors (slighly bigger than in 376s, without obstructions and with plenty
to hold on to) and short areas of transverse seating in between.
Longitudinal seating may appear to leave standing space according to
calculations, but in real life, space full of seated people's legs and
heads can't realistically be used for anything like as much standing as
a dedicated standing area.

Have you ever actually used the tube? Specifically, C stock, which has the
most comparable layout? The space between the seats can be and is used for
plenty of standing.

Of course I have. The layout on the Jubilee, for example, is awful,
with space for one and half people to stand between the end of the
seats and the first obstruction. The C stock has so many doors that
it wouldn't really be possible to have both standing and sitting space
between them.

Of course the space between can be used for standing, but not as
efficiently as it might.

A similar layout was tried and abandoned (thank gawd) on the DLR, and
the current DLR arrangement is pretty damn good.

The problem with 376s (really a reply to Mizter T, sorry) is that the
seated area is too long and the standing area too small and cluttered
to be taken proper advantage of.

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

Paul Corfield wrote:

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.

And last time I went up there the boundary between the two was rather
noticeable, as you had an obvious transition from sectional track (LU)
to continuous welded rail (NR), and from LU high density signalling to
incredibly long signal sections. (If memory serves, there are only three
or four signals between Mantles Wood and Aylesbury).

Cheers,

Barry

378 move and GOB to be DC?
 

Mr Thant wrote:
On 24 Sep, 12:33, Boltar wrote:
And a few hundred people from each thameslink train walk over the
small bridge try and squash onto a circle line train to finish their
journey. Farringdon will be utter chaos every morning and evening.

Which is why they're putting in a much bigger bridge.

If memory serves, the 1990s plan for Crossrail featured Farringdon and
Liverpool Street being "double ended", affording interchange with
Barbican and Moorgate, respectively.

Cheers,

Barry