On Jul 14, 7:20*am, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"John B" wrote



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.

How do the number of (longitudinal) seats in a 4-car 378 compare with the
number of (transverse 2+2) seats in a 313 as currently used on LO?

Peter

Class 378s have about 30 seats less per car (DMSO are 36 in 378 to 66
in Class 313/1, centre cars are 40 (TSO) or 36 (MSO) in 378s compared
to 70 in the 313/1) so 90 less seats per unit of which 36 will be
regained when units are lengthened to 4 cars.

In article ,
Andy wrote:
The number of accessible stations certainly mean
that the trains should be accessible as well, regardless of the law
saying that they must be.

The accessibility of stations today is something of a red herring.

Trains tend to have wheels and can move from one route to another;
a non-accessible train will not be able to be used on routes which
do have accessible stations - or will be probably unacceptable
reduction in service if they do.

Secondly, trains have a lifetime of 20 or 30 years. In that time
accessibility is likely to improve on the current routes. It would
be a waste to have a station with platforms all can reach, but
trains that only some can use.


--
:wq

Mizter T wrote:
On Jul 13, 8:45 pm, "neverwas" wrote:

This has been accompanied by a new London Overground 'microsite' on
the TfL website, which sings the praises of LO and the routes they
operate:
Oddly they have used the (Google) map locations which appear to come
from nationalrail.co.uk rather than the ones with the tube symbol. So
some of the markers are way out: eg Homerton is marked about 300m East
of its proper location.

I think the use of Google Maps might possibly be a result of the
leaner TfL marketing operation post-Bozza cutbacks. I do think it
looks a bit cheap, though I'm sure it could be defended as making use
of free/low-cost tools that are out there etc.

Whatever the reason, it's got some obvious crap - they've got Westfield
located in the residential area of Shepherd's Bush north of Uxbridge
Road and west of the H&C bridge. The Emirates Stadium is moved a few
hundred yards east, too. If this is an example, the Bozza view of what
Londoners are interested in appears to be markets, shopping centres,
sport, healthy open air and the history of the upper classes.

Also, 'shopping' is defined as 'big shopping centre' or 'market' rather
than 'large collection of shops in a town centre conveniently near an
Overground station so you can leave the car at home', such as Richmond.
Are there really only eight places you can shop near LO stations?
It's one thing being cheap (and I do love Google Maps for knocking up
quick illustrations of things), it's another not doing the basic
research or apparently having much idea of what you're trying to achieve.

[some of them are rather tenuous, too - Syon House isn't exactly near an
Overground station, it's about a two mile hike from Gunnersbury, yet
they miss out Hampstead Heath, which has an LO station named after it]

Tom

On 14 July, 10:44, Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
* * * * Andy wrote:

* * * * * * * * * * *The number of accessible stations certainly mean
that the trains should be accessible as well, regardless of the law
saying that they must be.

The accessibility of stations today is something of a red herring.

Trains tend to have wheels and can move from one route to another;
a non-accessible train will not be able to be used on routes which
do have accessible stations - or will be probably unacceptable
reduction in service if they do.

Secondly, trains have a lifetime of 20 or 30 years. *In that time
accessibility is likely to improve on the current routes. *It would
be a waste to have a station with platforms all can reach, but
trains that only some can use.


Ahh, but the question would be do you make the trains fit the stations
or the stations fit the trains. One of the problems with accessibility
on the LO lines will be the section from Queens Park - Harrow &
Wealdstone where trains with different floor heights will be in use
for the foreseable future (1972 Mk II Bakerloo and 313/378 LO trains).
Any solution to allow level boarding of trains is going to have to
take this difference into account. The 'ideal' solution for this
route, in isolation, would be low-floor LO units allowing the
platforms to be lowered, but the 'real life' costs would be huge as
all the other routes would have to be adjusted to fit the trains and
you'd get the problem moved to lines shared with other high floor
stock such as Gunnersbury - Richmond and the West London Line. So the
stations will have to be made to fit the trains; level access at most
locations, but an alternative solution for the route shared between
Bakerloo and LO. The existing 313 units are already as accessible as
their replacements will be, from the point of view of level access and
having spaces for wheelchairs.

On Jul 14, 11:27 am, Tom Barry wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

On Jul 13, 8:45 pm, "neverwas" wrote:

This has been accompanied by a new London Overground 'microsite' on
the TfL website, which sings the praises of LO and the routes they
operate:

Oddly they have used the (Google) map locations which appear to come
from nationalrail.co.uk rather than the ones with the tube symbol. So
some of the markers are way out: eg Homerton is marked about 300m East
of its proper location.

I think the use of Google Maps might possibly be a result of the
leaner TfL marketing operation post-Bozza cutbacks. I do think it
looks a bit cheap, though I'm sure it could be defended as making use
of free/low-cost tools that are out there etc.

Whatever the reason, it's got some obvious crap - they've got Westfield
located in the residential area of Shepherd's Bush north of Uxbridge
Road and west of the H&C bridge. The Emirates Stadium is moved a few
hundred yards east, too. If this is an example, the Bozza view of what
Londoners are interested in appears to be markets, shopping centres,
sport, healthy open air and the history of the upper classes.

Also, 'shopping' is defined as 'big shopping centre' or 'market' rather
than 'large collection of shops in a town centre conveniently near an
Overground station so you can leave the car at home', such as Richmond.
Are there really only eight places you can shop near LO stations?
It's one thing being cheap (and I do love Google Maps for knocking up
quick illustrations of things), it's another not doing the basic
research or apparently having much idea of what you're trying to achieve.

[some of them are rather tenuous, too - Syon House isn't exactly near an
Overground station, it's about a two mile hike from Gunnersbury, yet
they miss out Hampstead Heath, which has an LO station named after it]

Perhaps we should do our own?! (Says he who has embarrassingly little
experience of knocking things up on Google Maps... afraid that my
preference for 'conventional' A-Z style cartography probably rather
blinded me to the possibilities of Google Mappery for quite a while.
Seems I might be something of a Luddite!)

The NLL (and WLL) are of course great for hacking round London and
getting to lots of interesting places. The NLL is a most fascinating
route!

Tom Barry wrote:

This has been accompanied by a new London Overground 'microsite' on
the TfL website, which sings the praises of LO and the routes they
operate:

If this is an example, the
Bozza view of what Londoners are interested in appears to be markets,
shopping centres, sport, healthy open air and the history of the
upper classes.

Do you really think Bozza himself decided what features would be on this
map? Or even that there would be a map?

Mizter T wrote:


Perhaps we should do our own?! (Says he who has embarrassingly little
experience of knocking things up on Google Maps... afraid that my
preference for 'conventional' A-Z style cartography probably rather
blinded me to the possibilities of Google Mappery for quite a while.
Seems I might be something of a Luddite!)

I've done a number for my own amusement, the Boris Airport one got quite
well received. Should be quite possible, although the buttons to switch
between various views are more intricate (and I haven't got a server to
run them on).

What we'd need would be a list of interesting things to see within, say,
half a mile (or an easy bus ride) of an LO station, plus good shopping
areas, sporting facilities, cinemas and anything people might normally
drive to that you can say 'look, you can get there on shiny new trains
for quite reasonable fares'.

The NLL (and WLL) are of course great for hacking round London and
getting to lots of interesting places. The NLL is a most fascinating
route!

Yes, it's just annoying how badly it integrates with all the lines it
crosses! You could hardly have done worse deliberately (particularly
the Northern and Piccadilly, for the way they manage to avoid
interchanging properly with both the NLL *and* the GOBLIN).

Tom

Basil Jet wrote:
Tom Barry wrote:
This has been accompanied by a new London Overground 'microsite' on
the TfL website, which sings the praises of LO and the routes they
operate:
If this is an example, the
Bozza view of what Londoners are interested in appears to be markets,
shopping centres, sport, healthy open air and the history of the
upper classes.

Do you really think Bozza himself decided what features would be on this
map? Or even that there would be a map?



Well, he he is Chairman of TfL and has well known views on history,
sport, getting outside for some fresh air and London's markets. I
shouldn't think he sat down and lectured the web designers, but it would
be foolish to assume he has no impact on TfL's website - his predecessor
definitely left his spirit all over the place - see here :
http://imovelondon.tfl.gov.uk/

Just because the boss doesn't order you around directly doesn't mean you
don't subconsciously consider what he might approve of.

Tom

"Tom Barry" wrote

Yes, it's just annoying how badly it integrates with all the lines it
crosses! You could hardly have done worse deliberately (particularly the
Northern and Piccadilly, for the way they manage to avoid interchanging
properly with both the NLL *and* the GOBLIN).

I agree that the Goblin doesn't connect well, other than at its ends and
with the Victoria at Blackhorse Road. But the NLL isn't as bad as you seem
to imply. Hackney Central/Hackney Downs are very close. At Highbury &
Islington there's a connection with the Victoria and Northern City lines,
which themselves connect with the GNML and the Piccadilly at Finsbury Park.
Camden Road is close to Camden Town, and it is impracticable to make great
improvements, though a lot could be done to improve interchange at West
Hampstead.

There does seem to be a need for a passenger service between Willesden
Junction and Ealing Broadway, as well as Slow Line platforms at Willesden
Junction.

Peter

Peter Masson wrote:

Hackney Central/Hackney Downs are very close.

I doubt if it's a fun walk after dark.