Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,416
|
Post by Chris M on Jun 18, 2015 23:32:19 GMT
And I think the subway at Moor Park has paid and unpaid sides?
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jun 19, 2015 3:46:57 GMT
And I think the subway at Moor Park has paid and unpaid sides? It does
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jun 19, 2015 9:24:08 GMT
And I think the subway at Moor Park has paid and unpaid sides? It does Surbiton has a similar arrangement, with a further bridge accessible only from the lifts.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 19, 2015 9:26:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dazz285 on Jun 19, 2015 9:57:13 GMT
snoggle.. You beat me to it.. Makes sense that Bombardier got the contract. Look forward to finding out what class etc I'm going to drive on the D.C. & Gob
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Jun 19, 2015 10:03:35 GMT
Makes sense for LOROL to only be dealing with 1 type of equipment. Even though they are different trains, I can't imagine underframe equipment, bogies, TMS, HVAC, etc will be much different to those used on the 378s. I can't remember if TfL wanted corridor connections or not on these trains, seeing as they will be working WA services coupled together, but I expect it to not be hugely dissimilar to the new 345s. I'm also expecting a number in the 7XX range
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 19, 2015 12:01:55 GMT
snoggle.. You beat me to it.. Makes sense that Bombardier got the contract. Look forward to finding out what class etc I'm going to drive on the D.C. & Gob I guess we will find out more about the train type once we get past the 10 day contract standstill period. When I looked earlier there wasn't a press release on the Bombardier website and I guess they'll wait for the signed contract and then say more.
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Jun 19, 2015 15:27:18 GMT
I don't like the phrase high-density. Does this mean perimeter seating? If so, it'll be a big loss of comfort cf the 317s
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jun 19, 2015 16:45:33 GMT
I don't like the phrase high-density. Does this mean perimeter seating? If so, it'll be a big loss of comfort cf the 317s This is what it used to mean - doors to each seating bay, and no space wasted in vestibules. As distinct from this
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jun 19, 2015 20:01:56 GMT
I don't like the phrase high-density. Does this mean perimeter seating? If so, it'll be a big loss of comfort cf the 317s This is what it used to mean - doors to each seating bay, and no space wasted in vestibules. As distinct from thisThere was a recent hint that they might have the S8 layout. Original plan was as the rest of the LOROL fleet.
|
|
|
Post by dazz285 on Jun 19, 2015 20:03:11 GMT
There was a recent hint that they might have the S8 layout. Original plan was as the rest of the LOROL fleet. That's what I had read somewhere as well..
|
|
Dom K
Global Moderator
The future is bright
Posts: 1,820
|
Post by Dom K on Jun 19, 2015 20:30:29 GMT
The official Twitter for London Overground just tweeted "A good service is now operating on all routes, honest that's what I've been told". That's got to be her best tweet by them ever haha
|
|
|
Post by pridley on Jun 19, 2015 21:40:13 GMT
I don't like the phrase high-density. Does this mean perimeter seating? If so, it'll be a big loss of comfort cf the 317s Obviously, the layout should be similar to the Metropolitan Line, with seats that comfy. Frankly, ELL perimeter seats are hard as rock. Perimeter needed for it because of restricted train length plus the congested section between Shoreditch High Street and Canada Water requiring much standing between interchanges, but West Anglia does not need that level of standing given that it can take more than eight carriages.
|
|
|
Post by pridley on Jun 19, 2015 21:41:31 GMT
There was a recent hint that they might have the S8 layout. Original plan was as the rest of the LOROL fleet. Is S8 layout the one used in Metropolitan Line? If so, I am so excited!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2015 21:51:50 GMT
Is S8 layout the one used in Metropolitan Line? That is correct
|
|
|
Post by ashlar on Jun 19, 2015 22:03:34 GMT
Makes sense for LOROL to only be dealing with 1 type of equipment. Even though they are different trains, I can't imagine underframe equipment, bogies, TMS, HVAC, etc will be much different to those used on the 378s. I can't remember if TfL wanted corridor connections or not on these trains, seeing as they will be working WA services coupled together, but I expect it to not be hugely dissimilar to the new 345s. I'm also expecting a number in the 7XX range These will be Aventra trains, so likely very similar to the 345s (eg think orange Crossrail trains). They will have walk through carriages but the two four car units will not have a gangway - hard to put in with swoopy nosed Aventras.
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Jun 19, 2015 23:21:30 GMT
Aventra is a modular family, so it is entirely possible for an Aventra to have an inter-unit gangway should the customer request it much like the original '-star' family where there are units with/without inter-unit walkways (eg 357 vice 377)- but in most cases, fixed-formation trains (such as the Thameslink Desiro Cities) seem to be the way forward. It is also more likely that the new LO units will be conventional car lengths for commuter trains (20m v 23m on the 345s) and will likely only have 2 sliding pocket doors per side instead of the 3 plug doors as found on the 345s. This will only be the second variation of an Aventra, and hopefully there will be more to come yet.
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Jun 20, 2015 7:05:06 GMT
I don't like the phrase high-density. Does this mean perimeter seating? If so, it'll be a big loss of comfort cf the 317s Obviously, the layout should be similar to the Metropolitan Line, with seats that comfy. Frankly, ELL perimeter seats are hard as rock. Perimeter needed for it because of restricted train length plus the congested section between Shoreditch High Street and Canada Water requiring much standing between interchanges, but West Anglia does not need that level of standing given that it can take more than eight carriages. Pridley- I don't think WA could take 12-car trains. The Chingford/Enfield lines used to take 3x 305s (=9 cars; and even for that St James St, eg, needed wooden platform extensions) but wouldn't 12 need a great deal of expensive platform lengthening? Or failing that an extra trailer car inserted in half the 4-car sets? Agree with you about the very poor seating on the ELL and NLL units - as hard as Yugoslav trolleybuses. An extra inch or so of foam can't be that expensive, and might even bring them up to class 317 comfort.
|
|
|
Post by pridley on Jun 20, 2015 8:48:54 GMT
Obviously, the layout should be similar to the Metropolitan Line, with seats that comfy. Frankly, ELL perimeter seats are hard as rock. Perimeter needed for it because of restricted train length plus the congested section between Shoreditch High Street and Canada Water requiring much standing between interchanges, but West Anglia does not need that level of standing given that it can take more than eight carriages. Pridley- I don't think WA could take 12-car trains. The Chingford/Enfield lines used to take 3x 305s (=9 cars; and even for that St James St, eg, needed wooden platform extensions) but wouldn't 12 need a great deal of expensive platform lengthening? Or failing that an extra trailer car inserted in half the 4-car sets? Agree with you about the very poor seating on the ELL and NLL units - as hard as Yugoslav trolleybuses. An extra inch or so of foam can't be that expensive, and might even bring them up to class 317 comfort. I did not quantify, but I was aware 9 used to be the number. With TFL having an option to increase to 5 carriages. They may, if demand justifies a shift to that? But that is very long term surely, because I would imagine that service frequency is the primary initial concern. Demand could transform, because many areas in the new West Anglia Line north of Seven Sisters are poverty struck (at the moment) and yet have a good quantity of decent family sized houses, and so more commuters could move in over time. We are living example of that, having bought a large 3 bed house with a very large garden in Edmonton for the price of a 1 bed flat south of Bruce Grove. Shifting to 10 carriage trains in the very long run does not seem beyond the scope of possibility if we see the doubling in ridership that Overground has in the past achieved. Particularly if they cannot significantly increase peak time frequencies. Of course, as per other threads, my preference is increased frequency, noting that if only they could connect to the Metropolitan Line, you can have 16 Metropolitan tph, peak once SSR re-signaling is complete, with four spare terminating platforms at Moorgate and two at Barbican probably allowing 32 trains per hour overall. Of course, this would require major re-signalling on West Anglia, so you would not get that frequency north of Liverpool Street for quite some time. Though even without the terminating platforms, it seems reasonable to have eight trains per hour, all through trains to each branch, 16tph until Edmonton Green. Yes, the curve of the old connection was sharp, but modern engineers could surely find a solution, and yes it needs re-working of Liverpool Street, but Network Rail already plan to overhaul it to cram in a load more platforms. 1906 map showing the link between West Anglia and Metropolitan Lines.
My own preference would be to see all Chingfords run to Liverpool Street via Stratford. You could then have six Hertford East trains per hour running a metro service, stopping all stations from Hertford East to Ponders End and then Clapton, Hackney Downs, Bethnal Green, Liverpool Street. Not sure what happens to Clapton once CR2 comes along. On the West Anglia Mainline, there is a desire by Network Rail to move to 12 car trains, but this suggestion of diverting Chingford and upping Hertford East trains to use the free slots may delay the time that this is required.
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Jun 20, 2015 13:38:27 GMT
I think the problem you'll always have there is the limited track capacity between the Met and Bethnal Green. When I last looked at this you could do a bit of demolition of redundant rail assets (eg. the ramp up to Bishopsgate) and get 8 tracks roughly to Bishopsgate, but west of there your only option is either massive demolition of very expensive property, or to tunnel. If you were to tunnel, then you'd already be below track level at Liverpool St, and could then run blow the Met for a grade-separated connection. A short bit of widening under Finsbury Circus and a re-jig at Moorgate and you could have more useful arrangements there as well (i.e. the new connection being the outer lines and the current met running on the central pair or vice-versa, with central turnback platforms at Moorgate too). If you realigned things and abandoned platform 1 at Moorgate and used platforms 2-5 then you would have cross-platform interchange too.
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Jun 20, 2015 13:46:18 GMT
These will be Aventra trains, so likely very similar to the 345s (eg think orange Crossrail trains). They will have walk through carriages but the two four car units will not have a gangway - hard to put in with swoopy nosed Aventras. According to someone on WNXX, Bombardier have in fact offered another electrostar, despite their earlier claims to have shut down the electrostar line - supposedly because by offering an electrostar they are able to offer a better product cheaper, so we may well have a 378/3 coming our way, the main difference being (possibly) the S8 style seating and (probably) the bombardier infrastructure monitoring kit - ie the light in the front fairing, track recording camera, and pantograph camera
|
|
|
Post by ashlar on Jun 20, 2015 14:11:01 GMT
These will be Aventra trains, so likely very similar to the 345s (eg think orange Crossrail trains). They will have walk through carriages but the two four car units will not have a gangway - hard to put in with swoopy nosed Aventras. According to someone on WNXX, Bombardier have in fact offered another electrostar, despite their earlier claims to have shut down the electrostar line - supposedly because by offering an electrostar they are able to offer a better product cheaper, so we may well have a 378/3 coming our way, the main difference being (possibly) the S8 style seating and (probably) the bombardier infrastructure monitoring kit - ie the light in the front fairing, track recording camera, and pantograph camera Interesting. I suspect Electrostars would appeal to TfL for a number of reasons, not just the cost saving but also differentiation from the premium Crossrail line.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jun 20, 2015 14:44:59 GMT
I think the problem you'll always have there is the limited track capacity between the Met and Bethnal Green. Connecting up lines across the middle is worth it if the constraint is terminal capacity rather than capacity out on the track. (This was the rationale behind the original Thameslink scheme (with the very constrained termini at Moorgate and Holborn Viaduct), but the tail is now wagging the dog as capacity is having to be increased on the approaches. Connecting the Met and West Anglia would make sense if you could squirt more trains through the connected route than you already can into the termini at Aldgate (from the west) and Liverpool Street (from the NE). Otherwise, it is simply not worth adding the extra complexity just to save people the walk from the Met to the main line platforms at LST. If Bethnal Green bank is the limiting factor, reducing terminal time at Liverpool Street isn't the answer. This is something that may have been overlooked with the lengthening of trains on other lines. If trains into Waterloo, say, are all extended from eight cars to ten, and no change is made to the station other than extending the platforms, it will take 25% longer for the passengers to clear the platform and get through the barriers. This will, surely, have an effect on turn-round times.
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Jun 20, 2015 15:08:41 GMT
The extra time taken to run via Stratford would be unacceptable to Chingford line users; and the capacity at Stratford (all flat junctions) would be insufficient. Also, the traditional links for Chingford and Walthamstow are with Clapton and Hackney.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2015 16:21:57 GMT
Boris answered a question for a London assembly member last February: An Invitation to Tender was issued by TfL in August 2014 for new four car trains to serve the West Anglia, Romford to Upminster, Gospel Oak to Barking and Watford to Euston Junction lines. Trains on the Gospel Oak to Barking line will be increased from two cars to four cars once the new trains arrive and the line is electrified. Trains on the West Anglia routes will be configured as eight cars during peak periods and four cars during less busy times of the day. On the Watford to Euston line, the design process for the train lengthening programme has identified the need to upgrade the power supply on this route. The programme for this work is currently under discussion with Network Rail, which owns the infrastructure, so TfL is unable to provide further details at present. TfL will update you once more information becomes available. Consideration is being given to including some transverse seating in the overall seating layout for the new trains. This will not be finalised until after TfL award the contract for them later this year. - See more at: questions.london.gov.uk/QuestionSearch/searchclient/#sthash.dASecDNS.dpuf
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 20, 2015 17:38:01 GMT
I think the problem you'll always have there is the limited track capacity between the Met and Bethnal Green. When I last looked at this you could do a bit of demolition of redundant rail assets (eg. the ramp up to Bishopsgate) and get 8 tracks roughly to Bishopsgate, but west of there your only option is either massive demolition of very expensive property, or to tunnel. If you were to tunnel, then you'd already be below track level at Liverpool St, and could then run blow the Met for a grade-separated connection. A short bit of widening under Finsbury Circus and a re-jig at Moorgate and you could have more useful arrangements there as well (i.e. the new connection being the outer lines and the current met running on the central pair or vice-versa, with central turnback platforms at Moorgate too). If you realigned things and abandoned platform 1 at Moorgate and used platforms 2-5 then you would have cross-platform interchange too. I'm sorry but this is nonsense. Crossrail is completely in the way of this scheme at Finsbury Circus and at Moorgate. You will never justify massive reconstruction of tens of millions of pounds of construction effort for Crossrail's Liverpool Street station. Can we just forget about running through off West Anglia on to the Met or anywhere else? It simply isn't going to happen. Look at Crossrail 2 and even though it is going to parallel a significant part of West Anglia through Hackney and Haringey it is not making any attempt to use the existing tracks nor is it trying to add tunnel portals in inner London. The line is either entirely underground or any portal is way out in Zone 3 or 4. What on earth would be the point of trying to run 16 tph across a flat 2 track junction at Liverpool St? It just recreates the operating nightmare that is Baker St plus it adds another complication in terms of running a balanced and co-ordinated Circle Line service that can mesh with other LU lines. The more complex you make something the more difficult it is to ensure a reliable operation. Look at the criticism being put at TfL's door over the unreliable start to Overground taking over West Anglia. Capacity, reliability and timekeeping at the essentials for passengers. Far too much risk of delays if you tie together too many complicated service groups.
|
|
Rich32
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 1,506
|
Post by Rich32 on Jun 20, 2015 18:32:34 GMT
Any further discussion about links to the Met at Liverpool Street really belong to RIPAS and are creating thread drift here. Back on track please.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2015 19:36:54 GMT
Well perhaps if we extended this thread over the old RIPAS curve, to allow through running of RIPAS posts, it would avoid an inconvenient interchange between two different boards...
|
|
|
Post by pridley on Jun 21, 2015 22:48:00 GMT
WOW, options for 249 additional cars, which would equal 62.25 4 car EMU's (For train lengthening and possible future extensions of the Overground Network. Any idea what kind of plan would require this? www.railwaygazette.com/news/urban/single-view/view/bombardier-wins-london-overground-emu-contract.htmlTransport for London announced on June 19 that it had selected Bombardier Transportation to supply 45 four-car electric multiple-units to operate London Overground services. The order includes an option for up to 249 additional cars, to be used for train lengthening and possible future extensions of the Overground network. The £260m contract is subject to the statutory 10-day standstill period before signing. CAF, Hitachi and Siemens had also been shortlisted for the contract. The high-density air-conditioned trains with wide gangways are to be built at Bombardier’s Derby factory for entry into service from 2018; 31 will run only on 25 kV overhead electrification and the rest will be dual-voltage to enable them to run on third-rail power supply too. Eight trainsets would be used to operate the Gospel Oak – Barking route, currently operated with two-car diesel multiple-units. Electrification of this route is due to be completed in 2017. A further 30 would replace the fleet of Class 315 and Class 317 EMUs on the West Anglia routes from Liverpool Street, which were transferred to the Overground operating concession on May 31, and one would be used on the Romford – Upminster line. Six EMUs are to be put into service on the remaining Overground routes. ‘These 45 new trains will significantly improve the comfort, reliability and overall quality of train services for our customers’, said TfL’s Managing Director of London Rail Mike Brown. ‘Some of the trains we have inherited along the West Anglia route are over 30 years old and have not been in use for some time.’ TfL is to spend £2m on refurbishment of the existing West Anglia fleet until the new trains arrive.
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Jun 21, 2015 23:21:38 GMT
The original tender said that it was an option to bring the fleet to a total of 249 cars (ie option for 69 cars), but apparently, a recent board paper suggests that TfL do in fact want to change the wording to give an option of 249 cars, which does seem incredibly unrealistic. The fact that no matter which way round it is, they wouldn't be able to lengthen all trains to 5 car, and have a whole number of 5 car units left (there would always be 1x 4 car train) does irk me though!
Perhaps Snoggle might be able to enlighten us as to whether any board papers had anything on this.
|
|