Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
378 move and GOB to be DC?
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. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
GOB Class 172s | London Transport | |||
Class 378 in service | London Transport | |||
New platform markings for class 378 at Shepherd's Bush | London Transport | |||
OT - BA postpones long-haul move to T5 | London Transport | |||
Waterloo - KX post Eurostar move | London Transport |