On 13 July, 12:17, John B wrote:
Interesting. I have to admit that LO plans have changed so much I've
now got more or less no idea what's envisaged - I thought the medium-
term plan was 4-car GOBLIN trains running through to Clapham, have
they now been dropped?

I would think definitely until electrification occurs.

I also thought the 172s were going to be fairly conventional 2+2 wide-
aisle train layout, rather than longitudinally seated like the 378s -
is that wrong too? Otherwise, I'm struggling to see how they'd have
much more nominal capacity than the 150s. Are there any pictures/mock-
ups of the LO 172s available?

They're 23m vs 20m per car and I think the cab takes up less length.
The 150s were still 3+2 when I got this number, which may account for
the rest of the difference.

U

Mr Thant wrote:
On 13 July, 11:55, John B wrote:
Presumably the logic is that if we're extending the GOBLIN platforms
it might as well be to 4 cars (which'd be either 2x172 or 1x378
depending on electrification status), hence ordering and carrying out
work for 3-car 172s would be completely pointless.

No, three car 172s are definitely the plan, but the idea is that the
other committed capacity increases will delay the necessity of three
car trains for some time.

Peak capacity goes up by 33% when they introduce the 4 tph timetable
at the end of this year, and a further "30%"* when they introduce the
two car 172s some time in 2010, then at some later date three car 172s
will be introduced.


More mathematically challenged editorial he

"...but relief for passengers won't really come until next year when a
fourth car is added to the existing three, adding an additional 50% capacity
to each service."

http://londonist.com/2009/07/in_pict..._new_londo.php

Pictures as well - I see they have straps for standees...

Paul S

On Jul 13, 1:25*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
Mr Thant wrote:
On 13 July, 11:55, John B wrote:
Presumably the logic is that if we're extending the GOBLIN platforms
it might as well be to 4 cars (which'd be either 2x172 or 1x378
depending on electrification status), hence ordering and carrying out
work for 3-car 172s would be completely pointless.

No, three car 172s are definitely the plan, but the idea is that the
other committed capacity increases will delay the necessity of three
car trains for some time.

Peak capacity goes up by 33% when they introduce the 4 tph timetable
at the end of this year, and a further "30%"* when they introduce the
two car 172s some time in 2010, then at some later date three car 172s
will be introduced.

More mathematically challenged editorial he

"...but relief for passengers won't really come until next year when a
fourth car is added to the existing three, adding an additional 50% capacity
to each service."

http://londonist.com/2009/07/in_pict..._new_londo.php

Pictures as well - I see they have straps for standees...

Hmm. TfL's PR is ambiguous (the 50% refers to total addition provided
by extra seats + fourth car), but the Londonist have taken the
ambiguity and run a mile with it...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

"...but relief for passengers won't really come until next year when a
fourth car is added to the existing three, adding an additional 50%
capacity to each service."

http://londonist.com/2009/07/in_pict..._new_londo.php

Looks like the extra coaches are being built to the Indian specification..

On Jul 13, 12:12*pm, Charlie Hulme
wrote:

John B wrote:

When I used to commute peak-hours on the NLL (Highbury to Frognal),
the issue was being able to physically get on the train. Seats were a
very long way from a priority for anyone.

And that on a line Dr Beeching proposed for closure!

Indeed. The picture's a little more complex than that, of course - the
NLL back then ran from Broad Street up to Dalston Jn before heading
around to Richmond. AFAICS from just glancing at this map on Joyce
Whitchurch's website, the plan was to ditch the NLL service but retain
the Broad Street to Watford Jn service (and do something with the DC
Line service between Euston and Watford Jn too):
http://www.joyce.whitchurch.btintern...aps/lonmap.jpg

Today's NLL is a rather different beast - arguably created out of the
twin files of the 1980's, the Thatcherite expansion of the City, and
Red Ken Livingstone's pro-public transport policies. The former
because the little used Broad Street station was closed and the land
redeveloped as a large modern office complex with the faux-medieval
moniker Broadgate, situated on the edge of the square mile and
suitable as a modern open-plan venue for thrusting business keen to
move out of dowdy and pokey archaic City offices. The latter because
the GLC (under Ken) played an instrumental part in pushing for the NLL
to be re-routed from Dalston through Hackney to Stratford, and then
down to North Woolwich.

I'm sure those with a less tenuous grasp on the history will correct
me on my postulations above, but the point is that the change shifted
the NLL's centre of gravity eastwards somewhat... but that's not quite
the right metaphor, as actually the change shifted the NLL into being
even more of an orbital route. The growing importance of Stratford as
a major interchange, itself something of a knock-on effect from the
development of the Docklands, also led the NLL to become increasingly
important.

That's not to say that the section from Camden to Richmond that
Beeching proposed withdrawing entirely isn't an important link too.
And of course what was left - from the Primrose Hill link with the
WCML/ DC Line into Broad Street, doesn't look like it was going to get
much of a local service, if it got anything (I know, I know, I should
go off and read the damn report instead of just looking at the summary
map!). But it's interesting that it's the closure of Broad Street -
which wasn't proposed by Beeching (at least not the first report) -
that provided the impetus to create today's NLL service.

And it's also the closure of Broad Street that brought around the
proposals to extend the East London Line, reusing the trackbed from
Shoreditch up to Dalston Jn.

All that said, I dare say that if Broad Street station was still here
and the NLL was still running into it, it would likely be a well
patronised service today. And there would quite possibly have been
proposals to re-start passenger services on the Dalston to Stratford
stretch. And perhaps even a madcap scheme to extend the East London
Line to connect with the approaches to Broad Street.

Anyway... what was I saying... erm... only how times change... or
something like that!

On 13 July, 12:22, Mizter T wrote:
On Jul 13, 11:52*am, John B wrote:





On Jul 13, 11:11*am, "Recliner" wrote:

From my occasional travels on the NLL, I get the impression that most of
the pax are only travelling a few stops, so having to stand may not be
too unacceptable. Although you're right that these are technically
suburban EMUs, in practise they seem to be used more like inner London
Tube services, so having similar seating may be OK. I think it's less
acceptable to have longitudinal seating on longer distance S stock
routes (anywhere beyond Harrow).

When I used to commute peak-hours on the NLL (Highbury to Frognal),
the issue was being able to physically get on the train. Seats were a
very long way from a priority for anyone.

Removing the 3rd seat from the 313s (making them 2+2 with a wide
aisle) has significantly improved the travelling experience, on the
couple of times I've used full NLL trains since they made the change.
I'm sure that longitudinal seating will be similarly helpful.

Agreed. There'll undoubtedly be copious comment on these newsgroups to
the effect that this signals the end of the world - however I doubt
any of those making such comments will ever have travelled on the NLL
in the crush hours (and the same applies to a slightly lesser extend
the WLL). If people are going to be indignant about this, I'd heartily
recommend they actually go and experience it for real.

Additionally, as Recliner has said, the NLL and WLL at least are
heavily used for relatively short hops - few passengers are making
anything like end-to-end journeys, especially during the peaks (that
comment applies only to the NLL - the WLL is so short that whilst many
are making an end-to-end journey, it's still a short hop). The NLL
does indeed have strong similarities to a Tube line, and the WLL
service would if it were more frequent (which it will be).

I admit I'm less familiar with the DC Lines service in particular
during peak times, so perhaps the seating arrangements might cause
some consternation up that way. The ELL meanwhile will perhaps be a
bit of a mix between the NLL and DC Lines - I'd expect it to be very
heavily used towards the centre in particular for short hops ala the
NLL, but it might also have some of the characteristics of the DC
Lines in that it stretches out to a town centre on the edge of London
(i.e. Croydon). We'll see how things work out and how the seating goes
down when extended ELL services start next year.

But I'd strongly urge people to consider the layout in the context of
(a) the route the new trains will be running on and (b) the issues
with crush-loading that it experiences. And go for a ride on the NLL
at busy times... if you dare!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Whatever seating there is, the crucial thing is a properly bounded
standback area around the doors.

The 376s are a disaster because the standback area is full of
obstructions and doesn't allow for people with legs.

The experimental layout on the DLR a few years back was an even worse
disaster, because there was no boundary to the the standback area, and
no one was prepared to lean on seated people's heads.

The SWT 455 refurbishment is a helluva good job given the raw
materials, and should be the basis for everything.

On Jul 13, 1:25*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

[snip]

More mathematically challenged editorial he

"...but relief for passengers won't really come until next year when a
fourth car is added to the existing three, adding an additional 50% capacity
to each service."

http://londonist.com/2009/07/in_pict..._new_londo.php

Pictures as well - I see they have straps for standees...

I must admit that whilst I'm interested in the railways - a rail
enthusiast even - there are some things I'm not really clued up on,
and have rarely if ever seen out in the wild, my education coming
instead from photographic evidence and comment seen elsewhere.

That caveat aside... is Boris flailing in that photo above?

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

On Jul 13, 1:25 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

[snip]

More mathematically challenged editorial he

"...but relief for passengers won't really come until next year when a
fourth car is added to the existing three, adding an additional 50%
capacity
to each service."

http://londonist.com/2009/07/in_pict..._new_londo.php

Pictures as well - I see they have straps for standees...

I must admit that whilst I'm interested in the railways - a rail
enthusiast even - there are some things I'm not really clued up on,
and have rarely if ever seen out in the wild, my education coming
instead from photographic evidence and comment seen elsewhere.

That caveat aside... is Boris flailing in that photo above?



--------------------------


What/who are "frotteurists"? (caption for the last picture)

"Graham Harrison" wrote in
message


What/who are "frotteurists"? (caption for the last picture)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frotteurism

As a cyclist who uses the NLL on Saturday mornings/afternoon the thing
i don't like about the new trains is that there is NO dedicated
wheelchair/bicycle area.

I do not like the shared areas as they can always be the flashpoint
for arguments.

The refurb jobs on the SWT trains just show how you can get it right
IMO