|
Post by thc on Mar 12, 2009 15:22:22 GMT
Not convinced they are better than the 442s they replaced on the SWML for passenger comfort... driving environment I would say is probably better on the Desiros though. Sorry to split hairs, but the 442s are Mk3 derivatives, apart from the traction equipment "recovered" from the 4-REPs (and you sure can hear it when they're accelerating!) THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Mar 11, 2009 12:20:09 GMT
"Disastros"? I can only assume that you don't use them as a passenger. I do, and consider them way better in terms of the passenger environment and experience than the Mk1 derivatives that went before. Indeed, I've only ever heard favourable comments from other users. IMO, they beat the Junipers and Electrostars, as used elsewhere on ex-SR services, hands down.
THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Mar 9, 2009 17:24:22 GMT
That would be the Class 350/1s, which are the trains to be used temporarily on the WLL as they have third-rail shoegear. The Clsss 350/2s currently being delivered to LM are 3+2 seating and AC-equipped only.
THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Sept 26, 2008 23:02:30 GMT
prjb = legend.
Not only did he sort out our preview, but was a most genial, informative and entertaining host for the hour I spent at the exhibition this evening.
Thank you prjb, your efforts on our behalf are much appreciated!
THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Sept 18, 2008 8:17:20 GMT
I had the misfortune of being stuck with a busker today from Turnham Green to Hammersmith. I've seen him maybe 10+ times in the last couple of years, singing only one song - 'Ashes to Ashes' by David Bowie - and annoying the hell out of me I saw the same "musician" board a District line train at Hammersmith yesterday evening. Guess what he played? "This one's a David Bowie number..." Aaaaarrrggghhh! Soft get that I am, I still gave him the little change I had (less in encouragement and more in the hope that he'd go away). ;D THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Aug 1, 2008 6:38:49 GMT
Claiming that lines currrently have a "good" service, when in fact they have a normal or scheduled service, really doesn't earn LU any brownie points with the passengers. In any case, surely it's for the recipient of a service, rather than its provider, to determine whether it is "good" or not.
Many's the time I've been stood on Shepherds Bush H&C platforms to be told over the long-line PA that the H&C has a "good" service, when clearly it's nothing of the sort. The groan from fellow platform-dwellers is audible each time.
THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Jul 18, 2008 17:29:34 GMT
one unit is already booked for the museum, i will ask around and find out which one. Thank you, I'd be interested to hear. but its too early for concrete plans to be made, if the unit is a top liner, ( the most reliable units ) it might remain in service right till the end. Is it too early? I should have made myself clear in that I was thinking of preservation for operational use rather than static display; the urgency is therefore financial/organisational rather than simply a case of ensuring species survival. For various reasons 'A' stock trains were a big part of my childhood and growing up. I'd therefore love to see one of these grand old trains retained and restored for active use in the afterlife, so was looking for someone to pledge a few quid to in order to help their efforts. Maybe I should start saving myself to fund an active preservation, although with my wedding a matter of weeks away, that will take all the cash going for a while! THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Jul 18, 2008 17:00:49 GMT
Yes.
THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Jul 16, 2008 9:20:18 GMT
Does anyone know of any plans to save a unit of 'A' stock for preservation? I've been looking on t'web but not found anything to date. I thought Cravens Heritage Trains might have been considering this, but it appears that they have their work cut out maintaining their existing stock and with the new 1962 stock acquisition.
While the introduction of 'S' stock in squadron service is some way off, the time will go quickly, so now seems like the time to be formulating such a plan.
Your thoughts people?
THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Apr 16, 2008 20:54:30 GMT
Tom, if your auntie had balls she'd be your uncle, it's as simple as that.
The simple fact is that TfL don't have a say in all TOCs with a London presence. Read my post again - there is simply no way that DfT would allow greater TfL (or PTA outside London) involvement unless it resulted in a much-improved overall service. End of story.
THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Apr 16, 2008 20:06:50 GMT
Really, TfL should have nothing to do with things outwith London - however then what do we say about the TOCs which enter London? Again, really, TfL ought not to interfere with these - because whilst the TOC will try to do what is best for the franchise as a whole, TfL will want to do what is best for London - screw the rest of the franchise. I can't agree with you there Tom. Franchise shapes are arbitrary but the shape of Greater London hasn't changed since 1965. TfL isn't interested in the inter-city TOCs and, after all, we can't have the operational tail wagging the administrative dog. c.f. more train paths on the ECML - if TfL had a say no doubt they would want them to be used for local services, whereas overall it might be better for them to be used for Leeds/Lincoln/Newcastle/Edinburgh/Aberdeen. Waaaay too simplistic. This is not a zero-sum game; if anything, TfL/LO involvement in service specification and delivery will result in a clear overall service improvement for the route. It would be in the RUS for starters. There is absolutely no way the DfT micro-managers would allow TfL to become involved unless tangible service improvements (paid for by someone else) were the order of the day. THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Dec 3, 2005 8:19:58 GMT
I've just picked up a copy of "London's Lost Tube Schemes" by Antony Badsey-Ellis, £19.95 and published by Capital Transport. The title suggests a far broader coverage than the book actually gives, as it concentrates only on the bills placed before Parliament at the end of the noineteenth and start of the twentieth centuries, rather than continuing further to look at the New Works Programmes of 1935-40 and 1940-45. Nevertheless, I'm enjoying it so far - the maps it contains, for example, show just how different things could have been had some of the other schemes come to fruition. Well worth twenty squid.
THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Feb 16, 2008 20:09:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thc on Apr 29, 2006 19:28:34 GMT
This time we really are listening and really are waiting for your opinions, I promise. I believed you the first time you said that but, like Phil, I'm not LU staff and so, given your earlier answer to him, I'm not so sure I do now! And in any case you've not answered my question about the proposals for 'S' stock to deal effectively with the divergent needs of Amersham commuters and H&C short-hoppers. How do your team plan to deal with this? And don't tell me standing in the extra room provided by a gangway from Chorleywood to GPS is the answer! THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Apr 29, 2006 6:12:07 GMT
Seating - Trying to meet the needs of all customers (Met/Distrcit/C&H). Gangway - yes. Air Con - yes. Firstly congratulations for being so proactive with internal communications. You seem keen to bring everyone involved on board with 'S' stock development, which can only be a good thing. Now for my one negative comment. I don't mean to pee on your chips but I find it difficult to see how you will cope with the divergent needs of Amersham commuters and H&C short-hoppers in one uniform seating arrangement. Unless the plan is for three sub-fleets to address the different requirements of each line? (in which case why all the hoo-ha about uniform SSL stock?) THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Apr 28, 2006 6:26:27 GMT
I've read in all sorts of places that one recurring theme during the life of the Aldwych branch was that it ought to be extended via Temple to Waterloo... Was this idea ever seriously considered? AIUI powers for an extension from Aldwych to Waterloo lapsed as recently as 1972. (I think JF Howson can be thanked for that little nugget...) THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Mar 30, 2008 11:02:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thc on Mar 21, 2006 21:00:58 GMT
They're just not suitable for ELL working, what with aircon, toilets and only two double-doors per car side. Added to this Ken is looking to combine the ELL order with new units for North London Railways. 458s on the ELL are but a gricer's dream. THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Jul 22, 2006 15:49:41 GMT
Not in the new cars they don't. It's most definitely written as "Alstom", despite your earlier assertion to the contrary.
THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Jan 26, 2006 19:34:23 GMT
Indeed it is Arbor, as is the topic itself. Great first post! THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Mar 11, 2006 8:51:39 GMT
Thanks very much for your detailed reply. I too own a copy of Tony Beard's book and thought - only after my initial post in this thread - to go and re-read what he had to say about the W&ER. Truth told it was the bit in your post about extending to Rickmansworth that grabbed my eye, which indeed would have been possible had the original 1906 W&ER plans, with the triangular junction at Watford, come to fruition. Anyway, that'll teach me to read my books properly before making enquiries of other posters!
As an aside, it was also interesting to re-read in that same book the overtures made to the GNR by the town of High Wycombe for an extension of the Edgware branch. Morden-High Wycombe via Bank and Edgware - now that would definitely need an express tube to Morden. How's that for bringing this diversion back round to the thread topic!
THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Mar 10, 2006 6:23:33 GMT
Reminds me of the original intent of the Watford & Edgware railway (and thus, later the Aldenham extension of the Northern line) where they wanted to go out as far as Watford High street and then take over the line to Rickmansworth and then potentially extend the line on from there! Have you a source for this? I've never come across any such W&ER ambition in the printed literature and would be extremely interested to find out more... THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Dec 11, 2005 9:34:28 GMT
You could do worse than spend six quid on Mike Horne's excellent book for Capital Transport, "The Victoria Line: An Illustrated History", as he gives the answer in quite some detail. Anyhow, to cut a long story short, several options were looked at for a NE-S tube railway in the years immediately after the end of WWII, most of which went from Walthamstow to KX, Oxford Circus, Victoria, Brixton and on to East Croydon (with one option coming in from Hitchin to Finsbury Park, then as above but southwards from East Croydon to Coulsdon North and Sanderstead). The plans as finally approved (in 1962!) were to take the line from Wood Street to Victoria but the business case for building the line from Wood Street to Hoe Street (now Walthamstow Central) were marginal and so this section was dropped.
Hope this helps!
THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Jun 14, 2006 20:38:01 GMT
That's a shame. Surely it would prove more advantageous in both operational and interchanhge terms to extend a Stratford-QP NLL service to Willesden Junction Low Level where it could reverse without conflict and directly meet NLL/WLL/Orbirail services. I find it hard to believe that the extra four trains per hour would cause huge capacity problems over the QP/WJLL section.
THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Jan 3, 2006 20:49:37 GMT
None of these proposals are incompatible, but you've got to plug away on different jobs at different times... Point taken SP but we do get excited by all the possibilities... ;D THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Jan 3, 2006 8:29:43 GMT
I work in S&SD and confirm that this is being seriously looked at. We would take over stations from Queens Park to Watford Jn (excl H&W) from Silverlink. Service 6 tph from H&W to Watford Jn. The Silverlink Metro sub-franchise is controlled by London Rail, part of TfL. They're considering running a service Queens Pk - North London Line. The Euston - Watford dc service would be withdrawn. Both South Hampstead and Kilburn High Rd would become part of the new service Queens Pk - Stratford which would put more capacity on the NLL and give the option of re-opening Primrose Hill. We'll have to see if the money is available and if the business case stacks up. Whilst not wishing to run before walking and all that metaphorical claptrap, would it not make more operational sense to run the proposed new Stratford - QP service to Willesden Junction LL? Or, heaven forbid, extend the ELL phase 2 from Highbury and Islington (well, the proposed Caledonian Road turnback siding) to WJLL instead? THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Nov 20, 2005 20:05:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thc on Nov 21, 2006 12:47:34 GMT
On the other hand, it seems that by calling the new H&C line station "Wood Lane", TfL/LU are missing a trick. IMO this passes up a great chance to publicly embed a new H&C/Central line interchange by referring to the new station as "White City", even if the connection is on-street. I'm also very surprised that Westfield (the developers of the adjacent retail complex) are not insisting on "White City" since they are paying for it. Since posting this, it has been brought to my attention that the new shopping complex is to be known as "Westfield London" and not "White City" so that removes some of the issue around the naming of the new station. However my concerns regarding the loss of potential interchange still stand. THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Nov 21, 2006 10:36:34 GMT
The change to the name of Shepherd's Bush H&C station to Shepherd's Bush Market is a very sensible development to reflect the distinct nature of the surrounding area and also the separateness from the Central/"London Overground" station at the other end of Shepherd's Bush Green.
On the other hand, it seems that by calling the new H&C line station "Wood Lane", TfL/LU are missing a trick. IMO this passes up a great chance to publicly embed a new H&C/Central line interchange by referring to the new station as "White City", even if the connection is on-street. I'm also very surprised that Westfield (the developers of the adjacent retail complex) are not insisting on "White City" since they are paying for it.
THC
|
|
|
Post by thc on Sept 19, 2006 19:21:43 GMT
Erm, it's still going to be almost, but not quite... www.alwaystouchout.com/project/24The H&C line White City station will be to the south of the Central line's White City station. By about 150m. The only interchange is between the H&C and the WLL at the new station -- the Central is yet again left out. Wrong - the only interchange at the new White City H&C station will be on-street with the Central line station 150m away. No interchange will be made with the WLL other than at Shepherd's Bush (Central). The H&C Shepherd's Bush will probably be renamed Shepherd's Bush Market. As has been mentioned elsewhere on this very board. This is the second thread on the same subject: districtdave.proboards39.com/index.cgi?board=hc&action=display&thread=1157637904Mods - they're probably worth merging. THC
|
|