"Barry Salter" wrote in message
...
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.

As does the recently agreed plan (for Crossrail). As for Thameslink, the
new Blackfriars and existing 'ity Thameslink are double ended, perhaps St
Pancras International should have been built similarly, as we've discussed
before.

However, doesn't the eventual Farringdon Thameslink/LU have access direct
to the street from the east side of one of the widened footbridges, so it
will at least have double entrances? I believe the initial arrangement with
steps down to the 'Circle' platforms is only a transitional stage towards an
eventual new entrance?

Paul S

Neil Williams wrote:
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.

The main issue with the NLL, GOB and "core" ELL is one of platform
length, or lack thereof (though in the case of the GOB route, it's more
a lack of *serviceable* platform length, as a few of the stations still
retain their full length platforms, albeit with most of the length
fenced off).

Particular lengthening pinch points include:

Camden Road - Crossover and junction between Primrose Hill and "main"
NLL at the West end, bridge over the eponymous road at the East end

Willesden Junction (High Level) - Bridges over the WCML at the South
end, and the DC Lines and City Goods Lines at the North end.

Canada Water - Platforms only built long enough for 4 car A60/62 Stock.

South Tottenham - Junction with Seven Sisters Curve at the West end, and
curve onto West Anglia Main Line at the East end.

Cheers,

Barry

On 24 Sep, 14:27, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:26:20 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:

(snip)

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.

What's the real story with the reduced works package at Camden Road?
Is it simply that there is an allocated pot of money for these works,
and after some more detailed surveying had been done TfL and Network
Rail realised that the remedial works to bring the rail bridges up to
the required standard was going to cost significantly more than
originally estimated? That certainly appears to be the public line
that TfL are taking, and it's not like the rationale is totally
unbelievable.

I am told the costs from Network Rail came in higher than expected.
Attempts to reduce the costs and preserve the scheme failed so therefore
scope got the chop instead.


Thanks. It is, as I thought likely, basically as simple as that. The
four bridges over roads do look to be in a pretty crummy condition it
must be said, and I suppose their location in a tightly packed urban
environment can only increase costs.


Or has the allocated pot of money shrunk, or indeed was the allocated
amount never set in stone and thus was somewhat flexible - i.e. have
costs literally been cut for these works? That would fit in with the
notion that Boris is cutting budgets, though I was under the half-
impression that the new Mayoral administration had agreed that TfL's
budget was not under any major threat? (Or were the planned works
deemed as not delivering enough "taxpayer value"?)

TfL's budget is under huge threat from all sorts of issues - Crossrail
and PPP being just two. There are huge reviews and reorganisations being
undertaken to reduce costs. These started prior to the Mayoral election
but the intended arrival of Mr Parker certainly added some "emphasis" to
the process. Even though he's not turning up you'll note the quote from
Mr Hendy in the fares increase press release about a review process
inside TfL to "release funds".


Yes, I was well aware of the enormous pressures on the budget from
Crossrail and Metronet (the former in particular). I think my comment
came more from the news that the 'Boris budget cut backs' that were
going to affect other parts of the GLA (various City Hall functions in
particular) were not being extended to TfL - i.e. TfL's budget was not
going to be cut - but this doesn't mean that there isn't the
possibility of cuts of all sorts across TfL to enable funds to be
diverted towards Crossrail and Metronet.

Interesting what you say about the cost reviews starting prior to the
new administration but actually thinking about it that makes perfect
sense. I missed any discussions that happened here at the time but I'm
very glad that the so-called 'Prince of Darkness' Mr Parker won't be
the one swinging the knife - his talk of how "my shareholders will be
the taxpayers of London" missed a rather crucial point I feel, which
is that said Londoners would also be "his" customers. (I've read some
speculation that Bob Crow scared him off!) Mr Parker's departure seems
to secure the position of Peter Hendy as Transport Commissioner, the
deal being that he gets to hold the knife instead - but if there is to
be surgery I'd far prefer him to be doing it. (The "release funds"
quote is an interesting bit of spin it must be said - AFAICS "generate
funds" is really what he's saying!)

Back to the reduced scope of the Camden Road works, I've read
elsewhere people decrying this as the first concrete (or rather rusty
bridge) example of the widely feared Boris cutbacks affecting
transport schemes, but I did feel like this was too simple an analysis
- given the money pressures elsewhere would the same course of action
(or inaction) happened under the custodianship of Livingstone I asked
myself, and obviously there's no definitive answer but I think it
quite possible. He was also a pragmatist, and whilst he may have been
persuasive when it came to getting cash out of central government I
don't think the Treasury is remotely in the mood for loosening the
purse strings right now.


If the problem is the former - i.e. that the money available simply
doesn't cover the proposed works - then of course that's a big shame,
and it's also a shame that TfL couldn't find the money elsewhere or
pursuade the DfT to rustle up some cash for them, though of course (a)
the new Mayor isn't going to wield anything like the same amount of
pursuasive influence with central government as his predecessor, and
(b) perhaps just as importantly budgets are being squeezed all across
central government and (to some extent) the wider public sector now,
so the money isn't there for the taking anyway.

I think there are massive pressures and risks on costs and the lack of a
Transport Strategy doesn't help set a direction or allow for persuasive
argument with government. ELLX2 is different as it eases the pain on a
government scheme and is advantageous in its own right.


ELLX2 would take the pressure off London Bridge at a very opportune
time - that of the Thameslink reconstruction - but the service that's
getting kicked out of London Bridge because there's not enough space,
the Victoria to LB South London Line service, is going to get a quasi-
replacement that will run from Victoria to Bellingham via Peckham Rye
(or at least that's the strong recommendation of the sarf lahndon
RUS). I just fear that the DfT might think that it has done its bit
with that and thus ignore calls for ELLX2.


Nonetheless I still can't help but feel that the Mayor should've put
in more of a fight to make the original scheme happen. Perhaps it's
part of some faustian bargain with the DfT whereby ELLX phase 2 gets
funded? (I wish!) Or is ELLX phase 2 going to hit the rocks as well? :-
(

I had half expected an announcement on this during the Labour Party
conference but perhaps they're waiting for all the conferences to be
over before making any announcement at all. This avoids triumphalism on
the part of Boris in "winning" a battle with the government over this
scheme. The last I read there was a £50m gap which is relatively peanuts
in terms of government budgets but the money that's been chucked around
for other reasons may be making it hard to fill the gap. If it doesn't
happen now I don't see it happening for at least 10 years.


Mwmbwls had already speculated that this might happen, and I have to
say that I thought it unlikely - as much as the Labour government
might wish to claim credit for it, Boris would be the one out there on
the photo-op next to Millwall's stadium or wherever (actually perhaps
more likely at Clapham Junction, people there are more likely to vote
Tory!) proclaiming the arrival of a brand new line - even if he didn't
publicly proclaim it as a 'Boris victory' then that's certainly how
his people would spin it and how parts of the media would report it.
(Of course the new SoS Transport could make Boris look awkward by
demanding they appear together at a joint announcement!)

I do hope it gets the go ahead - I'm encouraged by Ken's 'gaffe' on
the London Tonight news programme's Mayoral election special where he
said that the DfT had basically agreed to give it the go-ahead. I hope
that this was the case and remains the case, and the delay in publicly
announcing it is merely a bit of news management (don't give Boris any
easy wins during his first 100 days) rather than the result of some
rethink.

The idea of running straight through to constructing phase 2 after
phase 1 has been finished of course has a lot to be said for it. Phase
2 basically requires a grade separated junction at Silwood Triangle
(south of Surrey Quays), and it would make every bit of sense for this
to be built now whilst the line is shut, but I haven't heard of any
announcements to this effect yet. I hope its coming soon...

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:01:24 +0100, Barry Salter
wrote:

The main issue with the NLL, GOB and "core" ELL is one of platform
length, or lack thereof (though in the case of the GOB route, it's more
a lack of *serviceable* platform length, as a few of the stations still
retain their full length platforms, albeit with most of the length
fenced off).

True, but none of the examples you cite are on the Euston-Watford
line, which is very much a poor relation compared with Merseyrail and
its ilk - a service with which it has many potential similarities.

Are there any actual 2-car platforms on the GOBLIN? I thought they
were all far longer than the trains, hence my criticism of the use of
2-car DMUs when maybe 4 would be more suitable.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:18:54 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

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.

This is true, though that makes them awful trains to travel in when
there aren't enough seats, because when standing it is impossible not
to be in somebody's way.

I think something like the D stock layout would work best, but instead
of having those side-facing seats make that space a standback on both
sides of the doors. This, if done as 3+2, would give almost as many
seats as a longitudinal arrangement but also a far better space for
standing in without being in people's way. Even as 2+2 with wider
seats it'd give a better balance, IMO. Maybe like SWT have done to
their 455s?

Elsewhere, though, I still take the view that once "Metroland" gets to
see the S-stock and how it compares with the civilised A-stock, they
are *not* going to be impressed, and Chiltern are suddenly going to
get an influx of new passengers. And I'm not convinced the money
wouldn't in the case of the S-stock have been better spent on
completely relaying the track, as it is in an absolutely woeful state
for a major city. (This is one of the things that the Germans tend to
take great pride in).

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Mizter T wrote:
The idea of running straight through to constructing phase 2 after
phase 1 has been finished of course has a lot to be said for it. Phase
2 basically requires a grade separated junction at Silwood Triangle
(south of Surrey Quays), and it would make every bit of sense for this
to be built now whilst the line is shut, but I haven't heard of any
announcements to this effect yet. I hope its coming soon...

The grade separated junction has been confirmed, Mr Thant covered it a while
ago:

http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...rks-to-go.html

To save drilling down through the links it's mentioned in he

http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/ACOLLATEDOCS/36608_1.pdf

Paul S

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:39:23 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

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.

An S-Bahn is essentially a middle-distance heavy-rail metro. I would
say that its closest equivalent in London might be the Metropolitan
Line or maybe the District, or elsewhere Merseyrail and its ilk.

Is it seats vs standing space? Do S-bahnen have more?

They tend to have wide 2+2 but with a lot of standing space between.

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.

This is a fair point...

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.

Mainly that money is being spent on new, replacement stock under the
banner of "London's new train set", when the problem with the lines
isn't the stock per-se, but the *quantity* of it, and the platform
lengths in the case of the NLL and potentially GOBLIN.

IOW, I accept that with LUL the cost of extending platforms is
absolutely prohibitive because of the tunnelling required. However, I
don't accept the same of the NLL etc, as it's mainly above ground. I
therefore don't think LUL "solutions" should be applied to that kind
of railway, because the problem just isn't the same.

I do see the political "spend it now, look good" thing, though I don't
see why anything needed to be spent on such wasteful things as
removing the Silverlink "swish" from Bushey's mainline platforms, for
instance. I also think they'd have been best saving up the money to
do things properly overall.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

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).

Aaah, that makes sense. I'd assumed his window was in the middle!

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.

Can the driver, or anyone else, see out of the right-hand window? Or is
that opaque too?

If people want to use the door, what happens to the monitors? Do they fold
out of the way or something?

tom

--
Pizza: cheap, easy, and portable. Oh, wait, that's me. Never mind. -- edda

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Neil Williams wrote:

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.

There's nowhere to stand in *London* 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.

I'm not against trading seats for more standing space (to a certain degree
- although i would certainly like to see all-standing trains on the
Northern line in the peaks!). But i understood that one of the things MIG
was arguing for was using the seating space for transverse rather than
longitudinal seating, and to me, that seems retrograde, since that
requires takes away more area per seat from the standing room.

The core of our argument is MIG's assertion that "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": he thinks that the
conventional wisdom that longitudinal seats can easily be stood next to is
wrong, and thus that they don't have an advantage over transverse seats -
indeed, that they're less good. I don't agree with him. I think this is a
disagreement that can't be settleed by argument - we need data, really.

tom

--
Pizza: cheap, easy, and portable. Oh, wait, that's me. Never mind. -- edda

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:44:13 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:01:24 +0100, Barry Salter
wrote:

The main issue with the NLL, GOB and "core" ELL is one of platform
length, or lack thereof (though in the case of the GOB route, it's more
a lack of *serviceable* platform length, as a few of the stations still
retain their full length platforms, albeit with most of the length
fenced off).

True, but none of the examples you cite are on the Euston-Watford
line, which is very much a poor relation compared with Merseyrail and
its ilk - a service with which it has many potential similarities.

Are there any actual 2-car platforms on the GOBLIN? I thought they
were all far longer than the trains, hence my criticism of the use of
2-car DMUs when maybe 4 would be more suitable.

From memory (so possibly incorrect!)

Gospel Oak - can certainly take 2 two car units as the peak extra unit
stables there midday.
Upper Holloway - loads of space on existing platform
Crouch Hill - loads of space on existing platform
Harringey Green Lanes - not overly long but could be extended eastwards.
South Tottenham - Barry has discussed this one already.
Blackhorse Road - just over 2 car lengths long but could be extended.
Walthamstow Queens Road - loads of space on existing platform
Leyton Midland Road - loads of space on existing platform
Leytonstone High Road - loads of space on existing platform
Wanstead Park - loads of space on existing platform
Woodgrange Park - loads of space on existing platform
Barking - not 100% certain but I think there's plenty of room.

Where the old platforms were removed or stations moved the replacement
platforms have tended to be much shorter than their predecessors.

--
Paul C