|
|
Post by stapler on Nov 8, 2015 16:17:51 GMT
I see the lengthening work is now well under way at the TFL Rail stations.
Looks as if the fast line platforms, not to be served by Crossrail, are also being added to.
Is this just a precaution anticipating diversions, or is there any other reason?
BTW, is there now actually any good reason to keep the Ilford flyover - at Stratford the original idea of having the cross platform interchange between the Shenfields and Loughtons/Hainaults is now no more valid than it would be with the GEML fasts?
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Nov 8, 2015 16:57:10 GMT
I see the lengthening work is now well under way at the TFL Rail stations. Looks as if the fast line platforms, not to be served by Crossrail, are also being added to. Is this just a precaution anticipating diversions, or is there any other reason? BTW, is there now actually any good reason to keep the Ilford flyover - at Stratford the original idea of having the cross platform interchange between the Shenfields and Loughtons/Hainaults is now no more valid than it would be with the GEML fasts? Well it will still be useful for Central line passengers from Leyton and beyond to be able to have direct cross platform interchange with Crossrail at Stratford. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 8, 2015 19:33:24 GMT
I see the lengthening work is now well under way at the TFL Rail stations. Looks as if the fast line platforms, not to be served by Crossrail, are also being added to. Is this just a precaution anticipating diversions, or is there any other reason? BTW, is there now actually any good reason to keep the Ilford flyover - at Stratford the original idea of having the cross platform interchange between the Shenfields and Loughtons/Hainaults is now no more valid than it would be with the GEML fasts? Network Rail's maintenance plans for quadruple track routes need to rely on being able to shut 2 put of the 4 lines for engineering work on a regular basis. As such Crossrail trains will be using the fast lines on a regular basis both east and west of London, with a suitable reduction in service to cope. At other times FGW and GA services will be sharing the slow lines with Crossrail - and agin some reduction in service levels should be expected in such a situation. |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Nov 8, 2015 21:55:05 GMT
alas, platform lengthening will see Ilford lose its bay platform.
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Nov 8, 2015 22:18:38 GMT
alas, platform lengthening will see Ilford lose its bay platform. Simon It's hardly used these days is it - except to stable a train between the peaks. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris W on Nov 8, 2015 22:30:32 GMT
Once more regular... with the emphasis being on smooth alighting and boarding*... services commence, I suspect with the introduction of class 345 stock, then the need for an Ilford to Liverpool Street shuttle will, IMO, be negated. In my experience there is still a 'I must stand in the doorway or between the doorways, in case I am unable to alight and get stuck on the train all the way to Liverpool Street' mentality by those wishing to get out at Stratford. I say this even though, in my experience, no passenger has ever actually been stuck on a cl.315 at Stratford !! Works to extend Brentwood, Harold Wood and Romford to extend the platforms have already begun. Meanwhile at Shenfield, besides the sidings being shortened, the new platform 6 area having been cordoned off and works portacabins being erected, no new tracks or platforms have appeared so far  ? |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 8, 2015 23:12:34 GMT
In my experience there is still a 'I must stand in the doorway ' mentality by those wishing to get out at Stratford. I say this even though, in my experience, no passenger has ever actually been stuck on a cl.315 at Stratford !! You could argue that passengers don't get carried beyond Stratford only BECAUSE they stick by the doors! |
|
|
|
Post by Chris W on Nov 9, 2015 4:26:39 GMT
That could be argued, but in my experience (8+ years), it would be wrong. Usually at peak times, trains wait for anything up to 3 mins with at least 50% of passengers alighting for the DLR, Central Line or leaving at Stratford itself. From Seven Kings onwards, passengers squeeze themselves into the doorways, with a couple of individuals preventing the doors from closing (normally the first 4 cars), which slows progress. Drivers constantly remind passengers to keep the doorways clear. There is also almost always a queue of trains at Stratford waiting to get into platform 5 due to the long dwelling times. The 315s were never built to carry the numbers they do during the morning or evening crush hour. The design of the doorways invite passengers to stand in them, rather than to head down into the cars. There are always calls to "move down" being made by those wishing to embark, with those in/around the doors and passageway seamingly reluctant to do so, hence the slow progress towards Liverpool Street... and indeed eastwards again in the evening. I've seen platform 8 at Stratford with passengers of 2 or 3 thickness down its whole length on many an occasion... and worse when there have been delays. All issues re delays are down to: - Train length - longer trains = more passengers carried on a service
- Doorway design - to encourage passenger to use all available space
- More doors - shorter dwelling times at stations
|
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Nov 9, 2015 18:53:22 GMT
Well crossrail joins from the south side of the GEML and the terminus is on the north side as are all potential stabling points.
Door blocking is a perenial problem with the classic seating layout. With a train providing a mix of outer suburban and metro style service on one journey a compromise such as the S8 layout is needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Nov 10, 2015 0:11:56 GMT
alas, platform lengthening will see Ilford lose its bay platform. Simon It's hardly used these days is it - except to stable a train between the peaks. Local people would wish that it was used more, especially in the peaks. That way there would be some trains which were less crowded and for people who live at Ilford, a seat would be a possibility (in the mornings). It needs remembering that when the 315's were built the number of trains allocated to this route was greater than currently available. If this mistake was reversed then there would be available rolling stock too. If there were more trains which were less overcrowded so maybe the very long station stops at Stratford would become shorter. Simon |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 10, 2015 13:00:24 GMT
It needs remembering that when the 315's were built the number of trains allocated to this route was greater than currently available. The 315s were originally intended to only replace the class 306s, which were exclusively used on the Shenfield line. The 306s ran in threes (i.e nine cars) in the peaks, and there were 92 units, so the maximum number of trains they could form was thirty. The sixty-one 315s (which, being 4-car sets, only ran in pairs) were therefore just enough to replace them. It was only later that they started to spread their wings on the Enfield and Chingford lines, as more outer suburban services took over the "electric" lines on the GEML. (The class 315 cars are longer than a 306 was (65 feet instead of about 59*), so a nine car train of class 306 was only about 14 feet longer than an eight car 315, and most of that extra length is the extra two driving cabs in the middle unit. *can only find figures for the very similar class 506 |
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Nov 10, 2015 22:00:26 GMT
Another vote for retention of the Ilford bay - if it's long enough-- intermediate turning points make for less congestion in the inner sections
|
|
|
|
Post by egduf on Nov 11, 2015 10:32:54 GMT
I no longer live there, but when I did the trains that did start in the bay were extremely useful on crowded mornings.
|
|
?
