Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2013 12:25:06 GMT
Only the New Cross Gate/QR Peckham platforms could accommodate 8-car trains though. You'd have to completely redesign some of the ELL platforms as Canada Water and others just about accommodate 4 car trains. I suppose 5 is a compromise here as it would only require minor platform extensions. No you wouldn't, customers will just have to alight in the Front 4 coaches. Many stations are like that, e.g Sunnymeads & Datchet. I know about selective door opening thanks. But what's the point in having 8 carriages if you have to fight your way through 4 carriages to get off and you can't get on 4 of the carriages until you're halfway down the line where you want to get off?
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Feb 7, 2013 12:30:46 GMT
No you wouldn't, customers will just have to alight in the Front 4 coaches. Many stations are like that, e.g Sunnymeads & Datchet. I know about selective door opening thanks. But what's the point in having 8 carriages if you have to fight your way through 4 carriages to get off and you can't get on 4 of the carriages until you're halfway down the line where you want to get off? Passengers not wanting stations with short platforms should sit in the rear 4 coaches. I personally think 5 carriages is not good enough. Proper trains most of them have 8 coaches. Plus Class 378 are slow. What LO have done is provided services with 4 coach trains which would run every half an hour with National Rail.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2013 12:39:53 GMT
I know about selective door opening thanks. But what's the point in having 8 carriages if you have to fight your way through 4 carriages to get off and you can't get on 4 of the carriages until you're halfway down the line where you want to get off? Passengers not wanting stations with short platforms should sit in the rear 4 coaches. I personally think 5 carriages is not good enough. Proper trains most of them have 8 coaches. Plus Class 378 are slow. What LO have done is provided services with 4 coach trains which would run every half an hour with National Rail. It wouldn't work like that though. Some of the most popular stations, Canada Water and Whitechapel have short platforms. You wouldn't be able to get on the back bit at any stations apart from those halfway down the line. And I don't like the idea of fighting through four packed full carriages just to sit in the end bit for 10 minutes. The usable half would be packed as usual and the back half would be empty. About 90% of the morning overcrowding seems to be people that then get off at Canada Water. Therefore you'd only alleviate 10% of the overcrowding by adding 4 extra carriages onto the train - which is pretty inefficient. Lumping 4 semi-useless carriages onto the train wouldn't help that crowding at all. Most journeys seem to involve an entry and/or exit at Canada Water and Whitechapel. The extra 4 cars would not help there. The only platforms which could take 8-car trains are already served by 8-car Southern trains! It's really irrelevant whether the Class 378, it's a timetable service that for the most part is pretty punctual.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Feb 7, 2013 13:15:01 GMT
Passengers not wanting stations with short platforms should sit in the rear 4 coaches. I personally think 5 carriages is not good enough. Proper trains most of them have 8 coaches. Plus Class 378 are slow. What LO have done is provided services with 4 coach trains which would run every half an hour with National Rail. It wouldn't work like that though. Some of the most popular stations, Canada Water and Whitechapel have short platforms. You wouldn't be able to get on the back bit at any stations apart from those halfway down the line. And I don't like the idea of fighting through four packed full carriages just to sit in the end bit for 10 minutes. The usable half would be packed as usual and the back half would be empty. About 90% of the morning overcrowding seems to be people that then get off at Canada Water. Therefore you'd only alleviate 10% of the overcrowding by adding 4 extra carriages onto the train - which is pretty inefficient. Lumping 4 semi-useless carriages onto the train wouldn't help that crowding at all. Most journeys seem to involve an entry and/or exit at Canada Water and Whitechapel. The extra 4 cars would not help there. The only platforms which could take 8-car trains are already served by 8-car Southern trains! It's really irrelevant whether the Class 378, it's a timetable service that for the most part is pretty punctual. That's because Canada Water and Whitechapel are busy interchange stations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2013 13:19:52 GMT
It wouldn't work like that though. Some of the most popular stations, Canada Water and Whitechapel have short platforms. You wouldn't be able to get on the back bit at any stations apart from those halfway down the line. And I don't like the idea of fighting through four packed full carriages just to sit in the end bit for 10 minutes. The usable half would be packed as usual and the back half would be empty. About 90% of the morning overcrowding seems to be people that then get off at Canada Water. Therefore you'd only alleviate 10% of the overcrowding by adding 4 extra carriages onto the train - which is pretty inefficient. Lumping 4 semi-useless carriages onto the train wouldn't help that crowding at all. Most journeys seem to involve an entry and/or exit at Canada Water and Whitechapel. The extra 4 cars would not help there. The only platforms which could take 8-car trains are already served by 8-car Southern trains! It's really irrelevant whether the Class 378, it's a timetable service that for the most part is pretty punctual. That's because Canada Water and Whitechapel are busy interchange stations. I'm aware of that
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 7, 2013 14:54:29 GMT
I think missing out Brixton & Loughborough Junction on the Overground is a more pressing matter IMO but I won't go into that again ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2013 15:04:29 GMT
Only the New Cross Gate/QR Peckham platforms could accommodate 8-car trains though. You'd have to completely redesign some of the ELL platforms as Canada Water and others just about accommodate 4 car trains. I suppose 5 is a compromise here as it would only require minor platform extensions. No you wouldn't, customers will just have to alight in the Front 4 coaches. Many stations are like that, e.g Sunnymeads & Datchet. I am sure there is a restriction on how many coaches can be powered by the driving coaches ... if you have to split the trian into 2 x 4 units ... the selective door opeening option goes out of the windows
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Feb 7, 2013 15:51:00 GMT
No you wouldn't, customers will just have to alight in the Front 4 coaches. Many stations are like that, e.g Sunnymeads & Datchet. I am sure there is a restriction on how many coaches can be powered by the driving coaches ... if you have to split the trian into 2 x 4 units ... the selective door opeening option goes out of the windows It doesn't say if the 5th coach will be powered, but I would assume as the trains were originally designed as 3 or 4 coach, the motor cars weren't designed to move an extra trailer car. Possibly they were overspec'd and power limited, otherwise the easy option is to put one powered bogie and one unpowered under the 5th car. Wont be a problem on DC power, but if the transformer doesn't have any reserve, wouldn't be able to add 20% to the amps without potentially cooking it. Some trains were designed to incorporate extra car, SW Trains desiros use same motors in 4 or 5 car versions (I think they are limited to 1500 and 1800 amps respectively, but all could do 2050 amps if power supplies were stronger), similarly Southerns new order is 5 car units, and S-Easterns 376s are 5 car (and the 378 is effectively a derivative of the 376) Regarding selective door opening, I think the electrostar derivatives are per car rather than per unit. The alternative is DLR style where front and rear door remains closed on shorter platforms. The problem with this is you need an extra stopping point half a car beyond platform where door opening can be monitored from. The changeover can be problematic, remember the long Christmas shutdown on Jubilee when trains went from 6 to 7 cars.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2013 16:31:13 GMT
I think missing out Brixton & Loughborough Junction on the Overground is a more pressing matter IMO but I won't go into that again ;D That might be a tad more expensive at least they're finally doing something about the fact people are ending up left behind in the peaks.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 7, 2013 17:09:19 GMT
The board paper does indicate that moving beyond 5 cars to 6 is a very expensive step change. 8 cars would be much more costly. You would not only have the cost of more carriages there are also vast costs with platform extensions, depot / siding space and signalling modifications. TfL have opted for the optimal solution that can be achieved for a relatively affordable cost now. It also gives a reasonable boost to capacity that should last for a number of years, assuming patronage growth doesn't accelerate.
I strongly suspect that selective door operation will come in to play at the ELL stations. There is the DLR precedent where 3 car trains straddle certain platforms with specific doors out of use - Cutty Sark and Island Gardens are two locations. I think there is one on the Beckton line too. I think platform extensions at Canada Water will be extremely expensive to achieve. Wapping and Rotherhithe will not be terribly easy given the proximity to the river and the listed Thames Tunnel. I would expect TfL have already reached a view in order to develop estimates for the project.
The stations to watch, apart from the ELL, are on the WLL. Imperial Wharf, West Brompton & Shepherds Bush really need extension to 8 cars so that Southern could double up the length of the Croydon - Milton Keynes trains. Hopefully the opportunity will be taken to do this work now making introduction of more capacity a relatively easy task of amended stopping points etc.
|
|
|
Post by bigbaddom1981 on Feb 7, 2013 17:25:20 GMT
It seems the electrifying of the GOBLIN line is now a broken record and isnt a priority!
One thing for certain, I might have more chance of seeing Spurs win the League and Champions League than seeing 4/5 Car EMUs on the GOBLIN line.
The 5 car plan on the electrified part of the Overground is a good plan, but I cant help feel that the time it takes to get it done, the capacity will be used up and there will be talk of 6/7/8 cars or an increase in frequency. The London Overground is a victim of it's own success now.
Personally, I'd like to see LO take over the majority of the inner London surburban services, but again, this could become a vicitim of its own success! At least they can operate longer trains on the other surburban lines!
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Feb 7, 2013 18:35:43 GMT
I think missing out Brixton & Loughborough Junction on the Overground is a more pressing matter IMO but I won't go into that again ;D New Platforms would have to be built. I've taken the line many times and it goes right over the top of Crossing the stations. I wouldn't put a Station at LBJ. Only Brixton.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 7, 2013 18:45:36 GMT
It seems the electrifying of the GOBLIN line is now a broken record and isnt a priority! One thing for certain, I might have more chance of seeing Spurs win the League and Champions League than seeing 4/5 Car EMUs on the GOBLIN line. The 5 car plan on the electrified part of the Overground is a good plan, but I cant help feel that the time it takes to get it done, the capacity will be used up and there will be talk of 6/7/8 cars or an increase in frequency. The London Overground is a victim of it's own success now. Personally, I'd like to see LO take over the majority of the inner London surburban services, but again, this could become a vicitim of its own success! At least they can operate longer trains on the other surburban lines! The electrification of the GOBLIN is caught up in govt vs Mayoral politics. The DfT say that TfL must pay for electrification as the responsibility has been devolved to them. The Mayor, as always, wants the government to pay - partly because freight trains will benefit from electric power. There is also an argument as to whether the developers of the new port facilities on the Thames should chip in some money. There is also a bit of a rumour about an extension beyond Barking down to the Barking Reach development area. Again this is a source of potential funding contribution but a new development with thousands of potential users would need longer and electric trains. TfL have apparently put £25m on the table as a maximum contribution but that leaves at least another £25m to find. Bizarrely it seems that GOBLIN electrification was going to be included in the Autumn Statement but it was pulled at the very last minute. This explains why Mr Hendy dropped a very heavy hint about good news to the London Assembly on the morning of the Statement but come the afternoon the scheme had disappeared from the Statement. The other arguments are about the cost of doing the electrification with Network Rail saying £90m and TfL saying £50m. There is also disagreement about the benefits and who they are attributed to - passengers, freight, external. Hopefully we will get a solution as the parties are, apparently, still talking and there is a lot of pressure from MPs and Assembly Members to get to a solution. TfL were never going to include the GOBLIN in the approval paper given all these arguments. It's a huge shame that all this nonsense is going on when there is generally a favourable view of railway electrification after decades of opposition. I agree with you that the Overground is a victim of its own success but that's what happens when you upgrade the service and then offer a decent service with reasonable fares. Without investment I do not think that the same trick can be played with Greater Anglia or South Eastern. There is no instant answer and there will be a much harder job of boosting services on those lines. I'm not saying TfL shouldn't try just that the job will be harder and longer than with the existing Overground.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 7, 2013 22:58:45 GMT
I think missing out Brixton & Loughborough Junction on the Overground is a more pressing matter IMO but I won't go into that again ;D New Platforms would have to be built. I've taken the line many times and it goes right over the top of Crossing the stations. I wouldn't put a Station at LBJ. Only Brixton. I know what happens. Platforms can be built at both stations but it'll be hugely expensive. Loughborough Junction links with the Thameslink and would provide a fantastic interchange. The alternative is to resurrect East Brixton Station which stood above Barrington Road and would provide an interchange for both stations. If Lea Bridge station can be resurrected, I'm sure East Brixton can, even if its on a high level rail line.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2013 23:00:41 GMT
New Platforms would have to be built. I've taken the line many times and it goes right over the top of Crossing the stations. I wouldn't put a Station at LBJ. Only Brixton. I know what happens. Platforms can be built at both stations but it'll be hugely expensive. Loughborough Junction links with the Thameslink and would provide a fantastic interchange. The alternative is to resurrect East Brixton Station which stood above Barrington Road and would provide an interchange for both stations. If Lea Bridge station can be resurrected, I'm sure East Brixton can, even if its on a high level rail line. The problem is partly establishing the station beneath the high level bridge.
|
|