Class 378 in service
 

Andy wrote:
On Aug 1, 9:06 pm, Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

What is going to be the fate of the GOBLin? considering all the work
that they plan to do?
Will that line, for example, be electrified?
There are no current plans to electrify the GOBLin. A mistake, IMO.


There are plans and they are costed, what is lacking is the agreement
between TfL, DfT and Network Rail as to who pays for it.

Wouldn't they be able to hit up the DfT for the cash, or at least a
sizeable portion for it, under some rail development scheme? Then TfL
and Network Rail could each contribute whatever paltry sum they wanted to.

Are the 378s the same as the S stock for LUL's subsurface lines?

Class 378 in service
 

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 01:14:19 +0100, "
wrote:

Wouldn't they be able to hit up the DfT for the cash, or at least a
sizeable portion for it, under some rail development scheme?


This country is bankrupt, and then some. Haven't you noticed?

After 12 years of government handouts for this and that, economic
reality finally has to set in.

Class 378 in service
 

On Aug 2, 11:37*am, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 01:14:19 +0100, "

wrote:

Wouldn't they be able to hit up the DfT for the cash, or at least a
sizeable portion for it, under some rail development scheme?

This country is bankrupt, and then some. *Haven't you noticed?

No it isn't. Ignorant ****tard.

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

Class 378 in service
 

wrote in message


Are the 378s the same as the S stock for LUL's subsurface lines?

Nope. They're both built by Bombardier in the Derby factory at the same
time, but the designs are different. For example, the 378 carriages are
longer but they have fewer doors. The 378s are the latest incarnation of
the now quite long-running ElectroStar series, whereas the S Stock is
part of the Bombardier Movia family, like its cousin, the 2009 stock.

You'll be able to compare them side-by-side in a year or two on the
Richmond branch.

Class 378 in service
 

On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 12:57:18 +0100, Recliner wrote:

Are the 378s the same as the S stock for LUL's subsurface lines?

Nope. They're both built by Bombardier in the Derby factory at the same
time, but the designs are different. For example, the 378 carriages are
longer but they have fewer doors. The 378s are the latest incarnation of
the now quite long-running ElectroStar series, whereas the S Stock is
part of the Bombardier Movia family, like its cousin, the 2009 stock.

You'll be able to compare them side-by-side in a year or two on the
Richmond branch.

S Stock won't be on the District Line for quite some time (2020?).

Class 378 in service
 

"asdf" wrote in message

On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 12:57:18 +0100, Recliner wrote:


You'll be able to compare them side-by-side in a year or two on the
Richmond branch.

S Stock won't be on the District Line for quite some time (2020?).

I thought the S stock was all supposed to be in service by about 2014?
It's true that the District, with the newest current stock, will be the
last to be replaced, but I assume there will be test trains during
2010/11, with the first in service by 2013.

Class 378 in service
 

asdf wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 12:57:18 +0100, Recliner wrote:

Are the 378s the same as the S stock for LUL's subsurface lines?
Nope. They're both built by Bombardier in the Derby factory at the same
time, but the designs are different. For example, the 378 carriages are
longer but they have fewer doors. The 378s are the latest incarnation of
the now quite long-running ElectroStar series, whereas the S Stock is
part of the Bombardier Movia family, like its cousin, the 2009 stock.

You'll be able to compare them side-by-side in a year or two on the
Richmond branch.

S Stock won't be on the District Line for quite some time (2020?).

I figured that S Stock would initially start running on the Metropolitan
Line as the C and D stock haven't quite reached the end of their longevity.

Class 378 in service
 

wrote in message

asdf wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 12:57:18 +0100, Recliner wrote:

Are the 378s the same as the S stock for LUL's subsurface lines?
Nope. They're both built by Bombardier in the Derby factory at the
same time, but the designs are different. For example, the 378
carriages are longer but they have fewer doors. The 378s are the
latest incarnation of the now quite long-running ElectroStar
series, whereas the S Stock is part of the Bombardier Movia family,
like its cousin, the 2009 stock. You'll be able to compare them
side-by-side in a year or two on the
Richmond branch.

S Stock won't be on the District Line for quite some time (2020?).

I figured that S Stock would initially start running on the
Metropolitan Line as the C and D stock haven't quite reached the end
of their longevity.

Yes, the switchover will be in alphabetical order.

Class 378 in service
 

On Aug 2, 1:14*am, "
wrote:
Andy wrote:
On Aug 1, 9:06 pm, Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
* * * * wrote:

What is going to be the fate of the GOBLin? considering all the work
that they plan to do?
Will that line, for example, be electrified?
There are no current plans to electrify the GOBLin. *A mistake, IMO.

There are plans and they are costed, what is lacking is the agreement
between TfL, DfT and Network Rail as to who pays for it.

Wouldn't they be able to hit up the DfT for the cash, or at least a
sizeable portion for it, under some rail development scheme? Then TfL
and Network Rail could each contribute whatever paltry sum they wanted to..


DfT has already offered to pay for the majority of the work, but is
expecting TfL to pay the remaining £20m and importantly take the full
risk for any cost overruns. It is the last bit that TfL has problems
with as things stand.

Class 378 in service
 

On 31 July, 18:41, MIG wrote:
On 31 July, 15:16, John B wrote:





On Jul 31, 3:06*pm, Neil *Williams wrote:

Why oh why do they still manufacture trains with such horrifically
slow procedures that result in completely unnecessarily extended dwell
times? Totally unsuitable for LO.

TBH, I'm amazed that these new trains weren't accompanied by a
conversion to DOO. *They could have been fitted with cameras to avoid
any need for station infrastructure.

I believe "that ******* Crow" is the reason. If the trains weren't
*originally planned* for DOO, then I'm the king of the monkey people.

I fail to see any need forguards(other than as a security presence
in the evenings, in which case one on their own is little use) on LO.

None whatsoever. Or on any other commuter stock. Sadly, unless we've
got the collective stomach for a Thatcher-and-the-miners standoff,
we're stuck with the buggers.

Maybe we could pay them extra to not open the doors and just stand
around looking reassuring, in the same way Victoria Line drivers get
paid more than other grades to not drive the trains.

But none of this is anything to do with having guards. *It's to do
with the procedure. *It would be even worse if drivers on DOO trains
had to open their door, step out etc.

And there were guards on the Underground till recently, with no such
delays. *In fact less delays, because they were already leaning out
when the train stopped, which a driver can't do.

Also, I note the slow procedure on SWT and LM, but not on South Eastern
in the sections and trains where there are guards.

I know it's hard to resist abusing Bob Crow, but I wonder if the
ridiculous procedures have been introduced by TOCs to create delays
that they can blame on guards.

To follow up: yesterday I travelled on a Southern Service from
Bletchley to Shepherds Bush, operated by LM stock on LM territory, and
the doors were always released instantly*.

They seem to have a different rule that allows the guard to lean out
of the back cab.


*The actual doors are still very slow.

Class 378 in service
 

On 13 Aug, 10:35, MIG wrote:
On 31 July, 18:41, MIG wrote:





On 31 July, 15:16, John B wrote:

On Jul 31, 3:06*pm, Neil *Williams wrote:

Why oh why do they still manufacture trains with such horrifically
slow procedures that result in completely unnecessarily extended dwell
times? Totally unsuitable for LO.

TBH, I'm amazed that these new trains weren't accompanied by a
conversion to DOO. *They could have been fitted with cameras to avoid
any need for station infrastructure.

I believe "that ******* Crow" is the reason. If the trains weren't
*originally planned* for DOO, then I'm the king of the monkey people.

I fail to see any need forguards(other than as a security presence
in the evenings, in which case one on their own is little use) on LO.

None whatsoever. Or on any other commuter stock. Sadly, unless we've
got the collective stomach for a Thatcher-and-the-miners standoff,
we're stuck with the buggers.

Maybe we could pay them extra to not open the doors and just stand
around looking reassuring, in the same way Victoria Line drivers get
paid more than other grades to not drive the trains.

But none of this is anything to do with having guards. *It's to do
with the procedure. *It would be even worse if drivers on DOO trains
had to open their door, step out etc.

And there were guards on the Underground till recently, with no such
delays. *In fact less delays, because they were already leaning out
when the train stopped, which a driver can't do.

Also, I note the slow procedure on SWT and LM, but not on South Eastern
in the sections and trains where there are guards.

I know it's hard to resist abusing Bob Crow, but I wonder if the
ridiculous procedures have been introduced by TOCs to create delays
that they can blame on guards.

To follow up: yesterday I travelled on a Southern Service from
Bletchley to Shepherds Bush, operated by LM stock on LM territory, and
the doors were always released instantly*.

They seem to have a different rule that allows the guard to lean out
of the back cab.

*The actual doors are still very slow.

I think the difference here is that the Southern services are only
ever four car, so providing the train has not overshot the platform,
all the doors will always be in the platform. The delays on the LM
services come with the 8 and 12 car trains where it can't be
guaranteed that the whole train is in the platform, especially if the
guard isn't at the rear of the train but somewhere in the middle and
so needs to get out and check.

Class 378 in service
 

On 13 Aug, 11:22, Andy wrote:
On 13 Aug, 10:35, MIG wrote:





On 31 July, 18:41, MIG wrote:

On 31 July, 15:16, John B wrote:

On Jul 31, 3:06*pm, Neil *Williams wrote:

Why oh why do they still manufacture trains with such horrifically
slow procedures that result in completely unnecessarily extended dwell
times? Totally unsuitable for LO.

TBH, I'm amazed that these new trains weren't accompanied by a
conversion to DOO. *They could have been fitted with cameras to avoid
any need for station infrastructure.

I believe "that ******* Crow" is the reason. If the trains weren't
*originally planned* for DOO, then I'm the king of the monkey people.

I fail to see any need forguards(other than as a security presence
in the evenings, in which case one on their own is little use) on LO.

None whatsoever. Or on any other commuter stock. Sadly, unless we've
got the collective stomach for a Thatcher-and-the-miners standoff,
we're stuck with the buggers.

Maybe we could pay them extra to not open the doors and just stand
around looking reassuring, in the same way Victoria Line drivers get
paid more than other grades to not drive the trains.

But none of this is anything to do with having guards. *It's to do
with the procedure. *It would be even worse if drivers on DOO trains
had to open their door, step out etc.

And there were guards on the Underground till recently, with no such
delays. *In fact less delays, because they were already leaning out
when the train stopped, which a driver can't do.

Also, I note the slow procedure on SWT and LM, but not on South Eastern
in the sections and trains where there are guards.

I know it's hard to resist abusing Bob Crow, but I wonder if the
ridiculous procedures have been introduced by TOCs to create delays
that they can blame on guards.

To follow up: yesterday I travelled on a Southern Service from
Bletchley to Shepherds Bush, operated by LM stock on LM territory, and
the doors were always released instantly*.

They seem to have a different rule that allows the guard to lean out
of the back cab.

*The actual doors are still very slow.

I think the difference here is that the Southern services are only
ever four car, so providing the train has not overshot the platform,
all the doors will always be in the platform. The delays on the LM
services come with the 8 and 12 car trains where it can't be
guaranteed that the whole train is in the platform, especially if the
guard isn't at the rear of the train but somewhere in the middle and
so needs to get out and check.

That may explain this particular difference, but doesn't really
explain why it's not a problem on SouthEastern. If I get a long train
to Gillingham, a guard gets on at Strood, but doesn't take thirty
seconds to release the doors at Rochester or Chatham. Are LM and SWT
guards told to assume that their drivers can't pull up in the right
place?

I will have to make a point of checking whether the delay is less next
time I am on a 4 car LM train.

Class 378 in service
 

On 13 Aug, 14:52, MIG wrote:
On 13 Aug, 11:22, Andy wrote:





On 13 Aug, 10:35, MIG wrote:

On 31 July, 18:41, MIG wrote:

On 31 July, 15:16, John B wrote:

On Jul 31, 3:06*pm, Neil *Williams wrote:

Why oh why do they still manufacture trains with such horrifically
slow procedures that result in completely unnecessarily extended dwell
times? Totally unsuitable for LO.

TBH, I'm amazed that these new trains weren't accompanied by a
conversion to DOO. *They could have been fitted with cameras to avoid
any need for station infrastructure.

I believe "that ******* Crow" is the reason. If the trains weren't
*originally planned* for DOO, then I'm the king of the monkey people.

I fail to see any need forguards(other than as a security presence
in the evenings, in which case one on their own is little use) on LO.

None whatsoever. Or on any other commuter stock. Sadly, unless we've
got the collective stomach for a Thatcher-and-the-miners standoff,
we're stuck with the buggers.

Maybe we could pay them extra to not open the doors and just stand
around looking reassuring, in the same way Victoria Line drivers get
paid more than other grades to not drive the trains.

But none of this is anything to do with having guards. *It's to do
with the procedure. *It would be even worse if drivers on DOO trains
had to open their door, step out etc.

And there were guards on the Underground till recently, with no such
delays. *In fact less delays, because they were already leaning out
when the train stopped, which a driver can't do.

Also, I note the slow procedure on SWT and LM, but not on South Eastern
in the sections and trains where there are guards.

I know it's hard to resist abusing Bob Crow, but I wonder if the
ridiculous procedures have been introduced by TOCs to create delays
that they can blame on guards.

To follow up: yesterday I travelled on a Southern Service from
Bletchley to Shepherds Bush, operated by LM stock on LM territory, and
the doors were always released instantly*.

They seem to have a different rule that allows the guard to lean out
of the back cab.

*The actual doors are still very slow.

I think the difference here is that the Southern services are only
ever four car, so providing the train has not overshot the platform,
all the doors will always be in the platform. The delays on the LM
services come with the 8 and 12 car trains where it can't be
guaranteed that the whole train is in the platform, especially if the
guard isn't at the rear of the train but somewhere in the middle and
so needs to get out and check.

That may explain this particular difference, but doesn't really
explain why it's not a problem on SouthEastern. *If I get a long train
to Gillingham, a guard gets on at Strood, but doesn't take thirty
seconds to release the doors at Rochester or Chatham. *Are LM and SWT
guards told to assume that their drivers can't pull up in the right
place?

I will have to make a point of checking whether the delay is less next
time I am on a 4 car LM train.

The difference is that on LM trains it is still the conductor who
controls opening of the doors. On the Southern and South Eastern
Electrostar trains it is the driver who controls the door opening,
with the help of selective door opening via GPS where platforms are
short. The problem on LM isn't that the driver might not have stopped
in the correct place, it is that the conductor has to check that he is
in the correct spot for opening the doors. As I understand it, on the
Class 350s with SDO, doors can only be opened for complete units (So
if seven coaches are in the platform, only the front 4 can be opened),
I have certainly witnessed this at Wembley Central on an 8 car LM
service. The Desiro SDO seems to have a lot cruder level of control. I
don't even know if each Desiro coach 'knows' its position in the
train, the Electrostars do, as they are forever telling you that you
are in coach 7 of 11 (or whatever)

Class 378 in service
 

On 13 Aug, 17:23, Andy wrote:
On 13 Aug, 14:52, MIG wrote:





On 13 Aug, 11:22, Andy wrote:

On 13 Aug, 10:35, MIG wrote:

On 31 July, 18:41, MIG wrote:

On 31 July, 15:16, John B wrote:

On Jul 31, 3:06*pm, Neil *Williams wrote:

Why oh why do they still manufacture trains with such horrifically
slow procedures that result in completely unnecessarily extended dwell
times? Totally unsuitable for LO.

TBH, I'm amazed that these new trains weren't accompanied by a
conversion to DOO. *They could have been fitted with cameras to avoid
any need for station infrastructure.

I believe "that ******* Crow" is the reason. If the trains weren't
*originally planned* for DOO, then I'm the king of the monkey people.

I fail to see any need forguards(other than as a security presence
in the evenings, in which case one on their own is little use) on LO.

None whatsoever. Or on any other commuter stock. Sadly, unless we've
got the collective stomach for a Thatcher-and-the-miners standoff,
we're stuck with the buggers.

Maybe we could pay them extra to not open the doors and just stand
around looking reassuring, in the same way Victoria Line drivers get
paid more than other grades to not drive the trains.

But none of this is anything to do with having guards. *It's to do
with the procedure. *It would be even worse if drivers on DOO trains
had to open their door, step out etc.

And there were guards on the Underground till recently, with no such
delays. *In fact less delays, because they were already leaning out
when the train stopped, which a driver can't do.

Also, I note the slow procedure on SWT and LM, but not on South Eastern
in the sections and trains where there are guards.

I know it's hard to resist abusing Bob Crow, but I wonder if the
ridiculous procedures have been introduced by TOCs to create delays
that they can blame on guards.

To follow up: yesterday I travelled on a Southern Service from
Bletchley to Shepherds Bush, operated by LM stock on LM territory, and
the doors were always released instantly*.

They seem to have a different rule that allows the guard to lean out
of the back cab.

*The actual doors are still very slow.

I think the difference here is that the Southern services are only
ever four car, so providing the train has not overshot the platform,
all the doors will always be in the platform. The delays on the LM
services come with the 8 and 12 car trains where it can't be
guaranteed that the whole train is in the platform, especially if the
guard isn't at the rear of the train but somewhere in the middle and
so needs to get out and check.

That may explain this particular difference, but doesn't really
explain why it's not a problem on SouthEastern. *If I get a long train
to Gillingham, a guard gets on at Strood, but doesn't take thirty
seconds to release the doors at Rochester or Chatham. *Are LM and SWT
guards told to assume that their drivers can't pull up in the right
place?

I will have to make a point of checking whether the delay is less next
time I am on a 4 car LM train.

The difference is that on LM trains it is still the conductor who
controls opening of the doors. On the Southern and South Eastern
Electrostar trains it is the driver who controls the door opening,
with the help of selective door opening via GPS where platforms are
short. The problem on LM isn't that the driver might not have stopped
in the correct place, it is that the conductor has to check that he is
in the correct spot for opening the doors. As I understand it, on the
Class 350s with SDO, doors can only be opened for complete units (So
if seven coaches are in the platform, only the front 4 can be opened),
I have certainly witnessed this at Wembley Central on an 8 car LM
service. The Desiro SDO seems to have a lot cruder level of control. I
don't even know if each Desiro coach 'knows' its position in the
train, the Electrostars do, as they are forever telling you that you
are in coach 7 of 11 (or whatever)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah, you mean the guard presses the "open" button, but the driver may
control the SDO? I think there used to be something similar on LU,
depending on which end of the train was at risk of being off the
platform, where either the driver or the guard could cut out the
nearest end doors, eg on 1962 stock that I remember.

Class 378 in service
 

On 13 Aug, 17:35, MIG wrote:
On 13 Aug, 17:23, Andy wrote:





On 13 Aug, 14:52, MIG wrote:

On 13 Aug, 11:22, Andy wrote:

On 13 Aug, 10:35, MIG wrote:

On 31 July, 18:41, MIG wrote:

On 31 July, 15:16, John B wrote:

On Jul 31, 3:06*pm, Neil *Williams wrote:

Why oh why do they still manufacture trains with such horrifically
slow procedures that result in completely unnecessarily extended dwell
times? Totally unsuitable for LO.

TBH, I'm amazed that these new trains weren't accompanied by a
conversion to DOO. *They could have been fitted with cameras to avoid
any need for station infrastructure.

I believe "that ******* Crow" is the reason. If the trains weren't
*originally planned* for DOO, then I'm the king of the monkey people.

I fail to see any need forguards(other than as a security presence
in the evenings, in which case one on their own is little use) on LO.

None whatsoever. Or on any other commuter stock. Sadly, unless we've
got the collective stomach for a Thatcher-and-the-miners standoff,
we're stuck with the buggers.

Maybe we could pay them extra to not open the doors and just stand
around looking reassuring, in the same way Victoria Line drivers get
paid more than other grades to not drive the trains.

But none of this is anything to do with having guards. *It's to do
with the procedure. *It would be even worse if drivers on DOO trains
had to open their door, step out etc.

And there were guards on the Underground till recently, with no such
delays. *In fact less delays, because they were already leaning out
when the train stopped, which a driver can't do.

Also, I note the slow procedure on SWT and LM, but not on South Eastern
in the sections and trains where there are guards.

I know it's hard to resist abusing Bob Crow, but I wonder if the
ridiculous procedures have been introduced by TOCs to create delays
that they can blame on guards.

To follow up: yesterday I travelled on a Southern Service from
Bletchley to Shepherds Bush, operated by LM stock on LM territory, and
the doors were always released instantly*.

They seem to have a different rule that allows the guard to lean out
of the back cab.

*The actual doors are still very slow.

I think the difference here is that the Southern services are only
ever four car, so providing the train has not overshot the platform,
all the doors will always be in the platform. The delays on the LM
services come with the 8 and 12 car trains where it can't be
guaranteed that the whole train is in the platform, especially if the
guard isn't at the rear of the train but somewhere in the middle and
so needs to get out and check.

That may explain this particular difference, but doesn't really
explain why it's not a problem on SouthEastern. *If I get a long train
to Gillingham, a guard gets on at Strood, but doesn't take thirty
seconds to release the doors at Rochester or Chatham. *Are LM and SWT
guards told to assume that their drivers can't pull up in the right
place?

I will have to make a point of checking whether the delay is less next
time I am on a 4 car LM train.

The difference is that on LM trains it is still the conductor who
controls opening of the doors. On the Southern and South Eastern
Electrostar trains it is the driver who controls the door opening,
with the help of selective door opening via GPS where platforms are
short. The problem on LM isn't that the driver might not have stopped
in the correct place, it is that the conductor has to check that he is
in the correct spot for opening the doors. As I understand it, on the
Class 350s with SDO, doors can only be opened for complete units (So
if seven coaches are in the platform, only the front 4 can be opened),
I have certainly witnessed this at Wembley Central on an 8 car LM
service. The Desiro SDO seems to have a lot cruder level of control. I
don't even know if each Desiro coach 'knows' its position in the
train, the Electrostars do, as they are forever telling you that you
are in coach 7 of 11 (or whatever)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah, you mean the guard presses the "open" button, but the driver may
control the SDO? *I think there used to be something similar on LU,
depending on which end of the train was at risk of being off the
platform, where either the driver or the guard could cut out the
nearest end doors, eg on 1962 stock that I remember.

If you mean the Desiros, then no, it is the conductor who has complete
control, the SDO is limited to opening the doors of the unit(s) in
front of the position of the guard. On the Desiros, the driver is not
involved in the door opening at all, other than making sure that the
train is stopped at the correct point. This SDO is much more limited
than the Electrostar model.

The details are on the railsigns website: http://www.railsigns.co.uk/
sect21page4/sect21page4.html

"When two 4-car Class 350 'Desiro' units are working together in
multiple, 'Unit Deselect' (UDS) can be used at platforms that are too
short to accommodate all the train doors. When Unit Deselect is used,
only the doors on the front unit can be opened. At stations where this
applies, "UDS" boards are provided [21.80]. The driver should bring
the train to a stand at the "UDS" board to ensure that the leading cab
door of the rear unit is on the platform. The conductor will operate
Unit Deselect from the leading cab of the rear unit."

Class 378 in service
 

Just seen this tghread, hoping it would tell me where to see 378s in service
on my London trip next week. Seems to have drifted....

Also, how many 377/5s are out and about

Tony

Class 378 in service
 

"Tony Day" wrote in message
...
Just seen this tghread, hoping it would tell me where to see 378s in
service on my London trip next week. Seems to have drifted....

Also, how many 377/5s are out and about

Tony

Well 377 510 is out

Class 378 in service
 

On Aug 14, 6:35*pm, "Tony Day" wrote:
Just seen this tghread, hoping it would tell me where to see 378s in service
on my London trip next week. Seems to have drifted....


There are currently two 378 diagrams and rumour that a third will
start on Monday. The diagrams mostly cover Richmond - Stratford, none
on the Euston - Watford route yet.

Also, how many 377/5s are out and about


I saw 377 511 in service on 11/08

Class 378 in service
 

In article 6a9c599d-5aca-4734-bc19-
, says...

I don't even know if each Desiro coach 'knows' its position in the
train, the Electrostars do, as they are forever telling you that you
are in coach 7 of 11 (or whatever)

I was on a TPX Desiro which split at Preston yesterday and the customer
announcements seemed more advanced than those on the Electrostars, as
they are specific to the carriage they are announced in. For example "We
are approaching Preston where this train divides. This part of the train
will continue to Edinburgh calling at ... Customer traveling to
Windermere should get off at Preston and move to the rear 3 coaches."

The Electrostar announcements are generic for the whole train, but with
"you are in carriage x or y" tacked onto the end of every announcement.

Duncan

Class 378 in service
 

"Andy" wrote in message

On Aug 14, 6:35 pm, "Tony Day" wrote:
Just seen this tghread, hoping it would tell me where to see 378s in
service on my London trip next week. Seems to have drifted....


There are currently two 378 diagrams and rumour that a third will
start on Monday. The diagrams mostly cover Richmond - Stratford, none
on the Euston - Watford route yet.

I saw four of them parked at Willesden yesterday, but don't know if
they're all available for service.

Class 378 in service
 

On Aug 16, 11:27*am, "Recliner" wrote:
"Andy" wrote in message



On Aug 14, 6:35 pm, "Tony Day" wrote:
Just seen this tghread, hoping it would tell me where to see 378s in
service on my London trip next week. Seems to have drifted....

There are currently two 378 diagrams and rumour that a third will
start on Monday. The diagrams mostly cover Richmond - Stratford, none
on the Euston - Watford route yet.

I saw four of them parked at Willesden yesterday, but don't know if
they're all available for service.

Some are and some are not would be the answer. Units 005,007,013,015
and 016 have (I think) run in service, whilst units 008 and 017 have
recently arrived for commisioning. There will be a maximum of 5 units
for commisioning at any one time.

Class 378 in service
 

The doors can be operated by the driver in the cab as normal.

It is not necessary to a conductor.

url:http://myreader.co.uk/msg/142319467.aspx