378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8147134.stm

I wonder if they'll actually enter passenger service today as well?

Paul

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

"Paul Scott" wrote in message

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8147134.stm

I wonder if they'll actually enter passenger service today as well?

I love the way that BBC London thinks that the North London line is "the
northern part of the network". Tell that to the citizens of Richmond!

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

On 13 July, 10:23, "Recliner" wrote:
"Paul Scott" wrote in message



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8147134.stm

I wonder if they'll actually enter passenger service today as well?

I love the way that BBC London thinks that the North London line is "the
northern part of the network". Tell that to the citizens of Richmond!

That and the wording implies there will be 24 new trains introduced
this week (I assume they mean 24 services will be operated with the
two units so far accepted). Also they claim that they'll be the first
new trains introduced in 30 years. Well, the lines havn't had new
trains since the 1950s when the 501s were introduced to the DC and
North London lines, the 313s certainly wern't new when they arrived.

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

On Jul 13, 10:23*am, "Recliner" wrote:

I love the way that BBC London thinks that the North London line is "the
northern part of the network". Tell that to the citizens of Richmond!

And will they be popular when they'll reduce the number of seats? I'm
not convinced by the use of longitudinal seating on suburban EMUs at
all, particularly not when platforms are so short and money should be
spent on lengthening them properly.

The planned continuing of 2-car DMUs on the Goblin is nothing short of
a joke.

Neil

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

"Neil Williams" wrote in message

On Jul 13, 10:23 am, "Recliner" wrote:

I love the way that BBC London thinks that the North London line is
"the northern part of the network". Tell that to the citizens of
Richmond!

And will they be popular when they'll reduce the number of seats? I'm
not convinced by the use of longitudinal seating on suburban EMUs at
all, particularly not when platforms are so short and money should be
spent on lengthening them properly.

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).

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

On 13 July, 11:07, Neil Williams wrote:
On Jul 13, 10:23*am, "Recliner" wrote:

I love the way that BBC London thinks that the North London line is "the
northern part of the network". Tell that to the citizens of Richmond!

And will they be popular when they'll reduce the number of seats? *I'm
not convinced by the use of longitudinal seating on suburban EMUs at
all, particularly not when platforms are so short and money should be
spent on lengthening them properly.

The planned continuing of 2-car DMUs on the Goblin is nothing short of
a joke.


If it allows them to double the frequency on GOBLIN, then I'm all for
2 car units (to start with). A 2-car unit every 15 mins is preferable
to a 3 car unit every 30 mins, although the increased frequency will
probably lead to a need for longer trains as demand builds up. If DfT
and TfL ever get the money sorted out, electrification and 4 car 378
units would then appear.

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

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.

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

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

On Jul 13, 11:31*am, Andy wrote:
The planned continuing of 2-car DMUs on the Goblin is nothing short of
a joke.

If it allows them to double the frequency on GOBLIN, then I'm all for
2 car units (to start with). A 2-car unit every 15 mins is preferable
to a 3 car unit every 30 mins, although the increased frequency will
probably lead to a need for longer trains as demand builds up. If DfT
and TfL ever get the money sorted out, electrification and 4 car 378
units would then appear.

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.

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

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

On Jul 13, 11:52*am, 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.

One thing I really dislike about it is that there is nowhere to stand
where you're not in the way of someone.

Perhaps having a large open standback area with no seats at all, but
then 3+2 seating further in, would be better?

Neil

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

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.

(Using these numbers, four car 172s every 15 minutes would have 3.5
times the capacity of the current service, which is simply not
justified by current or any foreseeable near-future demand)

U

(* this is TfL's number for 150 vs 172 capacity)

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

On Jul 13, 11:56*am, Neil Williams wrote:
On Jul 13, 11:52*am, 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.

One thing I really dislike about it is that there is nowhere to stand
where you're not in the way of someone.

Perhaps having a large open standback area with no seats at all, but
then 3+2 seating further in, would be better?

Eh? On 3+2 trains like (most) 319s and (all?) 321s, there's nowhere to
stand where you're not in the way of *everyone*. On narrow-seat wide-
aisle 2+2 trains like the LO 313s and the SWT 455s, you can stand in
the aisle and there's still room for people to go past you. Surely
that's an improvement...?

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

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

On Jul 13, 12:10*pm, Mr Thant
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.

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?

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.

(Using these numbers, four car 172s every 15 minutes would have 3.5
times the capacity of the current service, which is simply not
justified by current or any foreseeable near-future demand)

(* this is TfL's number for 150 vs 172 capacity)

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?

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

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

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!

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

On Jul 13, 12:14*pm, John B wrote:
On Jul 13, 11:56*am, Neil *Williams wrote:

On Jul 13, 11:52*am, 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.

One thing I really dislike about it is that there is nowhere to stand
where you're not in the way of someone.

Perhaps having a large open standback area with no seats at all, but
then 3+2 seating further in, would be better?

Eh? On 3+2 trains like (most) 319s and (all?) 321s, there's nowhere to
stand where you're not in the way of *everyone*. On narrow-seat wide-
aisle 2+2 trains like the LO 313s and the SWT 455s, you can stand in
the aisle and there's still room for people to go past you. Surely
that's an improvement...?

Have you tried the NLL at peak time lately? even with the 2+2, things
are somewhat wedged. Last week, I found myself in a vestibule area,
trying to prop myself up against the ceiling - and being very glad
that it doesn't form part of my usual commute.

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

On Jul 13, 12:14*pm, John B wrote:

Eh? On 3+2 trains like (most) 319s and (all?) 321s, there's nowhere to
stand where you're not in the way of *everyone*. On narrow-seat wide-
aisle 2+2 trains like the LO 313s and the SWT 455s, you can stand in
the aisle and there's still room for people to go past you. Surely
that's an improvement...?

That is, but longitudinal is not - I find that being right in front of
people feels a lot more "in the way" than by the side of a (2+2) seat.

A way to avoid this would be 3+2 in 2/3 of the coach and no seating at
all in the other third, thus giving (like the SWT 455s) a large
standback area by the doors. Twice the size of the SWT ones may be
better.

Neil

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

On Jul 13, 12:14*pm, John B wrote:

On Jul 13, 11:56*am, Neil *Williams wrote:

On Jul 13, 11:52*am, 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.

One thing I really dislike about it is that there is nowhere to stand
where you're not in the way of someone.

Perhaps having a large open standback area with no seats at all, but
then 3+2 seating further in, would be better?

Eh? On 3+2 trains like (most) 319s and (all?) 321s, there's nowhere to
stand where you're not in the way of *everyone*. On narrow-seat wide-
aisle 2+2 trains like the LO 313s and the SWT 455s, you can stand in
the aisle and there's still room for people to go past you. Surely
that's an improvement...?

Agreed. Perhaps in particular the context of the NLL route here is
important - lots of people are both getting off and on at each stop.
This isn't about whisking people into and then back out of town, where
there's a predominant flow. The flow is all over the place (yes, there
are some patterns, but it's still very varied). The WLL is like this a
bit. The DC Line less so, but that picture is complicated by the
Bakerloo line and also by the fast services from Watford Jn, Bushey
and Harrow & Wealdstone.

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

"Mr Thant" wrote in message
...
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.

(Using these numbers, four car 172s every 15 minutes would have 3.5
times the capacity of the current service, which is simply not
justified by current or any foreseeable near-future demand)

U

(* this is TfL's number for 150 vs 172 capacity)

Capacity figures can vary hour by hour apparently, when I first posted the
link this morning the 4 car 378 was 400, now it is up to 700, possibly the
difference between full and comfortable standing, and completely wedged?

The figure on the ORR website is an amazing 667 per car - they did
acknowledge by email it was a cockup, and should be per 4 car train, so the
whole table is misleading:
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd..._appendix7.pdf
They clearly don't understand the concept of a percentage rise either, all
grist to the spin doctor's mill...

Paul

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

John B wrote:

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?

I'm sure that has been the understanding in the past, particularly because
the LO 172s were always intended to be passed on elsewhere relatively soon
(in railway terms of course). IIRC they were also always going to be leased
from one of the mainstream Roscos for that reason, rather than owned by TfL.
(Although that subsequently changed and a new Rosco emerged for the
dedicated LO stock).

Paul

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

On 13 July, 12:10, 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.


Must admit that I hadn't seen mention of possible 3 car class 172s for
Gospel Oak - Barking.

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.


The 172s are 23m coaches compared to the 20m class 150s, so there will
certainly be more room overalll.
I don't think we'll ever see longer class 172s on the line, instead
we'll see 378s on the route. The 4tph and introduction of 172s give a
substantial increase in capacity and assuming the electrification cash
has been sorted out, I'd expect to see an additional order for the
378s.

(Using these numbers, four car 172s every 15 minutes would have 3.5
times the capacity of the current service, which is simply not
justified by current or any foreseeable near-future demand)


But the 378s will be 4 car and so better to undertake the work now,
rather than having a small sub-fleet with only 3 cars for GOBLIN. It
will also give the option of running 2 x 2 car 172s on particularly
busy services.

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

On Jul 13, 12:29*pm, Neil Williams wrote:
On Jul 13, 12:14*pm, John B wrote:

Eh? On 3+2 trains like (most) 319s and (all?) 321s, there's nowhere to
stand where you're not in the way of *everyone*. On narrow-seat wide-
aisle 2+2 trains like the LO 313s and the SWT 455s, you can stand in
the aisle and there's still room for people to go past you. Surely
that's an improvement...?

That is, but longitudinal is not - I find that being right in front of
people feels a lot more "in the way" than by the side of a (2+2) seat.

Each to their own, I guess - having spent a few years commuting on the
deep Tube, I've no problem with standing in front of people
longitudinally. Which is lucky, as otherwise I'd doubtless have been
lynched by angry 'MOVE DOWN THE CAR!"-ers. I suspect most of LO's
North London-dwelling audience will have a similar take on matters...

A way to avoid this would be 3+2 in 2/3 of the coach and no seating at
all in the other third, thus giving (like the SWT 455s) a large
standback area by the doors. *Twice the size of the SWT ones may be
better.

I really don't think 3+2 would be appropriate anywhere, given the
loadings and rapid emptying/filling that you get on LO. Agreed that
2+2 plus wider door standing areas might also have worked.

DIGRESSION: anyone know whether the 378s are actually running today?

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

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

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

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

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

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

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

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

"...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..

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

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!

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

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.

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

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?

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

"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)

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

"Graham Harrison" wrote in
message


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

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

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

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

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
" wrote:


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.

Good. The last thing needed on a packed rush hour train is some numpty trying
to squeeze a bicycle on. As for wheelchairs - if the stations arn't wheelchair
accessable theres little point making the trains so.

B2003

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

Mizter T wrote:

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 thought the Cross Town LinkLine connecting Camden Road to North Woolwich
opened in 1979, before Livingstone was running the GLC?

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

On Jul 13, 4:25*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:08:34 -0700 (PDT)

" wrote:

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.

Good. The last thing needed on a packed rush hour train is some numpty trying
to squeeze a bicycle on. As for wheelchairs - if the stations arn't wheelchair
accessable theres little point making the trains so.


Whilst agreeing about peak-hour bikes, there are plenty of wheelchair
accessible stations on the LO routes. On the Watford - Euston route,
Watford Junction, Carpenders Park, Harrow and Wealdstone, Willesden
Junction and Euston are all accessible. On Willesden - Richmond, only
Gunnersbury isn't; on Willesden - Clapham Junction only Clapham
Junction isn't (and work is underway here it give step free access).
On Willesden - Stratford, currently only the eastern three stations
(Homerton, Hackney Wick and Stratford) have step-free access, so the
North London line itself is a bit of a weak spot. Gospel Oak - Barking
also has access at Upper Holloway, Harringay Green Lane, Walthamstow
Queens Road and Barking (25% of stations). As well as the fully
accessible stations, there are a couple of other spots where one
platform has access. The number of accessible stations certainly mean
that the trains should be accessible as well, regardless of the law
saying that they must be.

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

On Jul 13, 5:21*pm, Andy wrote:
Whilst agreeing about peak-hour bikes, there are plenty of wheelchair
accessible stations on the LO routes. On the Watford - Euston route,
Watford Junction, Carpenders Park, Harrow and Wealdstone, Willesden
Junction and Euston are all accessible. On Willesden - Richmond, only
Gunnersbury isn't; on Willesden - Clapham Junction only Clapham
Junction isn't (and work is underway here it give step free access).
On Willesden - Stratford, currently only the eastern three stations
(Homerton, Hackney Wick and Stratford) have step-free access, so the
North London line itself is a bit of a weak spot. Gospel Oak - Barking
also has access at Upper Holloway, Harringay Green Lane, Walthamstow
Queens Road and Barking (25% of stations). As well as the fully
accessible stations, there are a couple of other spots where one
platform has access. The number of accessible stations certainly mean
that the trains should be accessible as well, regardless of the law
saying that they must be.

Indeed. Luckily for wheelchair users, the shared area isn't a problem,
as they unequivocally have priority in that space.

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

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote

I thought the Cross Town LinkLine connecting Camden Road to North Woolwich
opened in 1979, before Livingstone was running the GLC?
Indeed. Initially it was a dmu operation between North Woolwich and Camden
Road, with no intermediate stations between Stratford and Canonbury. At
first off-peak trains at least were very lightly loaded - on one occasion,
when I was the only passenger in the front coach (of 2), the driver invited
me into the cab.

Peter

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

On Jul 13, 10:08*am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8147134.stm

I wonder if they'll actually enter passenger service today as well?

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:
http://overgroundmicrosite.tfl.gov.uk

(This comes replete with what appears to be a few LO-only 2-for-1
ticket offers at attractions - though a quick glance suggests that
they're there for the taking for anyone who's able to say the magic
words...)

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

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.
--
R

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

On Jul 13, 8:06*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:25:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
" wrote:

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.

Good. The last thing needed on a packed rush hour train is some numpty trying
to squeeze a bicycle on. As for wheelchairs - if the stations arn't wheelchair
accessable theres little point making the trains so.

He did say *Saturday* which, while busy, is not the rush hour or at
least wasn't the last time I looked.

And Boltar knows he said Saturday, but it doesn't allow for quite as
much invective to be let forth as if one pretends the poster in fact
referred to a packed rush hour train, so helpfully that little fact is
forgotten before the rant commences ;)


I would be surprised if the 378s do not have at least one set of doors
labelled for wheelchair access with an assumed area for wheelchairs to
locate themselves.

They do - at least according to page 4.16 of the TfL's LO "train
graphic standards" - available here (N.B. 9.13MB PDF file):
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/corporate/...rd-issue02.pdf

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

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.

378s to be unveiled today - BBC
 

"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