Discussion:
Top three transport things to do
Add Reply
Jarle Hammen Knudsen
2017-03-31 09:42:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In your opinion, what are the top three transport related things to do
in London?

London Transport Museum excepted, since I've done that.
--
jhk
Basil Jet
2017-03-31 10:50:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
In your opinion, what are the top three transport related things to do
in London?
London Transport Museum excepted, since I've done that.
Sit at the front on the DLR from Tower Gateway to Island Gardens.

Use the hand-wound self-propelled chain ferry to Trowlock Island


Visit Canary Wharf and Westminster Jubilee stations
Jarle Hammen Knudsen
2017-03-31 11:11:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Sit at the front on the DLR from Tower Gateway to Island Gardens.
Done that :) Let several trains go from Bank before I managed to
position myself perfectly to get to the seats first.
Post by Basil Jet
Use the hand-wound self-propelled chain ferry to Trowlock Island
http://youtu.be/D72EDEcKStM
Interesting :)
Post by Basil Jet
Visit Canary Wharf and Westminster Jubilee stations
Done Canary Wharf by accident in the evening peak. Train was crushed.
Putting Wesminster jubly on the list.
--
jhk
Steve Lewis
2017-03-31 12:27:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
If you want to see Canary Wharf Jubilee station from the same angle as its appearance in a Star Wars Rogue One, stand at the east end of the eastbound platform.
Clive Page
2017-04-02 09:31:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Use the hand-wound self-propelled chain ferry to Trowlock Island
http://youtu.be/D72EDEcKStM
How does that work in practice? If one person takes it across to the
Island, what happens when the next person comes along wanting to travel
in the same direction? Or what happens if it's been left on the land
side, and someone on the island wants to get off?

My own suggestion for a transport oddity would be London's only
funicular railway on the eastern side of the northern bank of the wobbly
(Millennium) bridge. One could call it a sloping lift, but it really is
a cable-hauled funicular, just a very short one. Best of all, it's free.
--
Clive Page
h***@yahoo.co.uk
2017-04-02 10:48:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clive Page
Post by Basil Jet
Use the hand-wound self-propelled chain ferry to Trowlock Island
http://youtu.be/D72EDEcKStM
How does that work in practice? If one person takes it across to the
Island, what happens when the next person comes along wanting to travel
in the same direction? Or what happens if it's been left on the land
side, and someone on the island wants to get off?
My own suggestion for a transport oddity would be London's only
funicular railway on the eastern side of the northern bank of the wobbly
(Millennium) bridge. One could call it a sloping lift, but it really is
a cable-hauled funicular, just a very short one. Best of all, it's free.
... assuming that it works as it is often out of service.
Neil Williams
2017-04-02 10:52:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clive Page
How does that work in practice? If one person takes it across to the
Island, what happens when the next person comes along wanting to travel
in the same direction? Or what happens if it's been left on the land
side, and someone on the island wants to get off?
It looks like you can both wind the ferry along the chain, and wind the
chain from bank to bank to bring it over.

Loading Image...


Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Basil Jet
2017-04-02 15:37:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Clive Page
How does that work in practice? If one person takes it across to the
Island, what happens when the next person comes along wanting to
travel in the same direction? Or what happens if it's been left on
the land side, and someone on the island wants to get off?
It looks like you can both wind the ferry along the chain, and wind the
chain from bank to bank to bring it over.
There is a separate winch and chain on each side of the ferry, linking
to a winch on each bank. Each chain is long enough to cross the channel
on its own. If the ferry is on the far side, you turn your winch until
the near chain tightens and lifts to the surface. As you keep turning,
the winch on the near side of the ferry spins until it's given all of
its chain to you. Then that winch stops spinning and the ferry starts
moving towards you as the two winches on the far chain spin and feed the
far chain to the fishes.

This is quite different from a normal chain ferry, which only has one
chain (or parallel group of chains) anchored to both banks and an engine
on the ferry driving along the chain(s). I don't know if there is a name
to differentiate the two systems.
Post by Neil Williams
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JvRES_yjKac/TnnAuCszR3I/AAAAAAAABrI/juba_TgYizM/s1600/Trowlock-Island-winch.jpg
Thanks. I'm not sure why the last sentence says that. It can't mean "out
of THE reach", i.e. into the main Thames, because the river always flows
downstream above Teddington Lock, so a ferry on slack chains would tend
to float further into the narrow channel rather than out into the
Thames. The ferry being "out of reach" of both sides is not a problem,
because you just reel the chain in.

What is theoretically needed is a priority rule about what should happen
if the ferry is floating away from both banks and people on both sides
want to use it, because if they both try to reel it in they might break
one of the chains. At least with separate chains linking the ferry to
the two banks, it should never head for France like the Dartmouth Higher
Ferry did in 2005.
Basil Jet
2017-04-02 16:00:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Neil Williams
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JvRES_yjKac/TnnAuCszR3I/AAAAAAAABrI/juba_TgYizM/s1600/Trowlock-Island-winch.jpg
Thanks. I'm not sure why the last sentence says that. It can't mean "out
of THE reach", i.e. into the main Thames, because the river always flows
downstream above Teddington Lock, so a ferry on slack chains would tend
to float further into the narrow channel rather than out into the
Thames. The ferry being "out of reach" of both sides is not a problem,
because you just reel the chain in.
Actually, a ferry floating in the middle of the channel could be a
problem to any boats trying to pass. After all, the whole reason the
ferry is not a footbridge is presumably to let boats pass.

Mr Google's Topographic Emporium seems to have stitched together two
photos and ended up showing the the ferry on both banks.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4237227,-0.3087936,21z/data=!3m1!1e3?force=lite
Richard J.
2017-04-02 19:58:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Neil Williams
Post by Clive Page
How does that work in practice? If one person takes it across to the
Island, what happens when the next person comes along wanting to
travel in the same direction? Or what happens if it's been left on
the land side, and someone on the island wants to get off?
It looks like you can both wind the ferry along the chain, and wind the
chain from bank to bank to bring it over.
There is a separate winch and chain on each side of the ferry, linking
to a winch on each bank. Each chain is long enough to cross the channel
on its own. If the ferry is on the far side, you turn your winch until
the near chain tightens and lifts to the surface. As you keep turning,
the winch on the near side of the ferry spins until it's given all of
its chain to you. Then that winch stops spinning and the ferry starts
moving towards you as the two winches on the far chain spin and feed the
far chain to the fishes.
This is quite different from a normal chain ferry, which only has one
chain (or parallel group of chains) anchored to both banks and an engine
on the ferry driving along the chain(s). I don't know if there is a name
to differentiate the two systems.
Post by Neil Williams
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JvRES_yjKac/TnnAuCszR3I/AAAAAAAABrI/juba_TgYizM/s1600/Trowlock-Island-winch.jpg
Thanks. I'm not sure why the last sentence says that. It can't mean "out
of THE reach", i.e. into the main Thames, because the river always flows
downstream above Teddington Lock, so a ferry on slack chains would tend
to float further into the narrow channel rather than out into the
Thames.
Wrong assumption! Although the river is generally regarded as non-tidal
above Teddington Lock, in practice this is not always true. The flow
gauge at Kingston can report a negative flow (i.e. a net upstream flow)
if the incoming tide is high enough to get through Teddington, and the
tidal flow exceeds the downstream river current (fluvial flow). For a
recent example of this on the spring tide last Friday morning, see
http://www.gaugemap.co.uk/#!Map/Summary/1249/1382/2017-03-30/2017-03-31
Note the brief negative flow early on 31 March, followed by a positive
surge as the water held up by the tide is released.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)
David Walters
2017-04-02 12:21:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clive Page
My own suggestion for a transport oddity would be London's only
funicular railway on the eastern side of the northern bank of the wobbly
(Millennium) bridge. One could call it a sloping lift, but it really is
a cable-hauled funicular, just a very short one. Best of all, it's free.
There is one at Greenford Station too.
Recliner
2017-04-02 14:28:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Walters
Post by Clive Page
My own suggestion for a transport oddity would be London's only
funicular railway on the eastern side of the northern bank of the wobbly
(Millennium) bridge. One could call it a sloping lift, but it really is
a cable-hauled funicular, just a very short one. Best of all, it's free.
There is one at Greenford Station too.
That's not a funicular, just an inclined lift.
Basil Jet
2017-04-02 14:51:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by David Walters
Post by Clive Page
My own suggestion for a transport oddity would be London's only
funicular railway on the eastern side of the northern bank of the wobbly
(Millennium) bridge. One could call it a sloping lift, but it really is
a cable-hauled funicular, just a very short one. Best of all, it's free.
There is one at Greenford Station too.
That's not a funicular, just an inclined lift.
Having used them both, I can see no difference, except the Greenford one
is indoors, and the Blackfriars one is a shoddy embarrassment.
Recliner
2017-04-02 14:57:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Post by David Walters
Post by Clive Page
My own suggestion for a transport oddity would be London's only
funicular railway on the eastern side of the northern bank of the wobbly
(Millennium) bridge. One could call it a sloping lift, but it really is
a cable-hauled funicular, just a very short one. Best of all, it's free.
There is one at Greenford Station too.
That's not a funicular, just an inclined lift.
Having used them both, I can see no difference, except the Greenford one
is indoors, and the Blackfriars one is a shoddy embarrassment.
Shouldn't a funicular railway have two cars that (approximately) balance
each other, one going up while the other descends?
Basil Jet
2017-04-02 15:49:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Post by David Walters
Post by Clive Page
My own suggestion for a transport oddity would be London's only
funicular railway on the eastern side of the northern bank of the wobbly
(Millennium) bridge. One could call it a sloping lift, but it really is
a cable-hauled funicular, just a very short one. Best of all, it's free.
There is one at Greenford Station too.
That's not a funicular, just an inclined lift.
Having used them both, I can see no difference, except the Greenford one
is indoors, and the Blackfriars one is a shoddy embarrassment.
Shouldn't a funicular railway have two cars that (approximately) balance
each other, one going up while the other descends?
They both have counterweights which do that, between the tracks.

It's the yellow thing in Greenford.


Light-coloured thing in Blackfriars


The previous Blackfriars lift in the same alignment seems to have had no
visible counterweight.
Recliner
2017-04-02 15:52:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Post by David Walters
Post by Clive Page
My own suggestion for a transport oddity would be London's only
funicular railway on the eastern side of the northern bank of the wobbly
(Millennium) bridge. One could call it a sloping lift, but it really is
a cable-hauled funicular, just a very short one. Best of all, it's free.
There is one at Greenford Station too.
That's not a funicular, just an inclined lift.
Having used them both, I can see no difference, except the Greenford one
is indoors, and the Blackfriars one is a shoddy embarrassment.
Shouldn't a funicular railway have two cars that (approximately) balance
each other, one going up while the other descends?
They both have counterweights which do that, between the tracks.
It's the yellow thing in Greenford.
http://youtu.be/sxScXvX1Dv4
Light-coloured thing in Blackfriars
http://youtu.be/b72PyyrFeYI
Yes, just like any lift. But I've always thought a funicular needed to have
two balanced cars, not just one car and a counterweight.

The inclined lift at Greenford doesn't purport to be anything other than a
normal lift, which just happens to run on an angled track.
Post by Basil Jet
The previous Blackfriars lift in the same alignment seems to have had no
visible counterweight.
d***@yahoo.co.uk
2017-04-02 17:26:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 15:52:26 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
They both have counterweights which do that, between the tracks.
Yes, just like any lift. But I've always thought a funicular needed to have
two balanced cars, not just one car and a counterweight.
The inclined lift at Greenford doesn't purport to be anything other than a
normal lift, which just happens to run on an angled track.
Post by Basil Jet
The previous Blackfriars lift in the same alignment seems to have had no
visible counterweight.
The two terms do seem to have become interchangeable to an extent over
the years, even this website on funiculars which some may have seen
before and has been on the www for 20 years seems to allow them under
its definitions, not that one web site is proof of anything.
http://www.funimag.com/Funimag-Definitions.htm

The Funicular dos Guindais in Porto next to lower deck of the Ponte
D. Luís bridge raises an interesting quandary.
It was opened in 2004 with two counter balanced cars ( on the
alignment of one that had closed around a century before.)
In 2015 road works encroached on the area of the lower station, how
they affected it I don't really know but the funicular got altered to
a single cabin with a counter weight, at the time of my visit in early
2016 it was still like that as seen in this you tube video.


In a video taken this year it is two cars again.


Does that mean at the time of my visit it was no longer a funicular
but a very long inclined lift but now it is a funicular again?

G.Harman
Recliner
2017-04-02 20:16:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@yahoo.co.uk
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 15:52:26 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
They both have counterweights which do that, between the tracks.
Yes, just like any lift. But I've always thought a funicular needed to have
two balanced cars, not just one car and a counterweight.
The inclined lift at Greenford doesn't purport to be anything other than a
normal lift, which just happens to run on an angled track.
Post by Basil Jet
The previous Blackfriars lift in the same alignment seems to have had no
visible counterweight.
The two terms do seem to have become interchangeable to an extent over
the years, even this website on funiculars which some may have seen
before and has been on the www for 20 years seems to allow them under
its definitions, not that one web site is proof of anything.
http://www.funimag.com/Funimag-Definitions.htm
The Funicular dos Guindais in Porto next to lower deck of the Ponte
D. Luís bridge raises an interesting quandary.
It was opened in 2004 with two counter balanced cars ( on the
alignment of one that had closed around a century before.)
In 2015 road works encroached on the area of the lower station, how
they affected it I don't really know but the funicular got altered to
a single cabin with a counter weight, at the time of my visit in early
2016 it was still like that as seen in this you tube video.
http://youtu.be/VTC3u_Fm_YE
In a video taken this year it is two cars again.
http://youtu.be/7HBpPTYXCpI
Does that mean at the time of my visit it was no longer a funicular
but a very long inclined lift but now it is a funicular again?
I suppose so, though it's obviously engineered as a funicular, complete
with passing loop.
Basil Jet
2017-04-02 22:59:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@yahoo.co.uk
The two terms do seem to have become interchangeable to an extent over
the years, even this website on funiculars which some may have seen
before and has been on the www for 20 years seems to allow them under
its definitions, not that one web site is proof of anything.
http://www.funimag.com/Funimag-Definitions.htm
The Funicular dos Guindais in Porto next to lower deck of the Ponte
D. Luís bridge raises an interesting quandary.
It was opened in 2004 with two counter balanced cars ( on the
alignment of one that had closed around a century before.)
In 2015 road works encroached on the area of the lower station, how
they affected it I don't really know but the funicular got altered to
a single cabin with a counter weight, at the time of my visit in early
2016 it was still like that as seen in this you tube video.
http://youtu.be/VTC3u_Fm_YE
In a video taken this year it is two cars again.
http://youtu.be/7HBpPTYXCpI
Does that mean at the time of my visit it was no longer a funicular
but a very long inclined lift but now it is a funicular again?
Surely it's more likely that encroachment on the central passing loop
would force a change rather than encroachment on one of the termini.
Recliner
2017-04-02 23:13:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by d***@yahoo.co.uk
The two terms do seem to have become interchangeable to an extent over
the years, even this website on funiculars which some may have seen
before and has been on the www for 20 years seems to allow them under
its definitions, not that one web site is proof of anything.
http://www.funimag.com/Funimag-Definitions.htm
The Funicular dos Guindais in Porto next to lower deck of the Ponte
D. Luís bridge raises an interesting quandary.
It was opened in 2004 with two counter balanced cars ( on the
alignment of one that had closed around a century before.)
In 2015 road works encroached on the area of the lower station, how
they affected it I don't really know but the funicular got altered to
a single cabin with a counter weight, at the time of my visit in early
2016 it was still like that as seen in this you tube video.
http://youtu.be/VTC3u_Fm_YE
In a video taken this year it is two cars again.
http://youtu.be/7HBpPTYXCpI
Does that mean at the time of my visit it was no longer a funicular
but a very long inclined lift but now it is a funicular again?
Surely it's more likely that encroachment on the central passing loop
would force a change rather than encroachment on one of the termini.
The passing loop was still functional during the inclined lift phase, as
can be seen in the video. It didn't seem to have any encroachment. The
other car had been replaced by, effectively, a low freight wagon acting as
the counterweight. There didn't seem to be any problems with the stations,
and even if there were, I can't see how it would affect one, but not the
other, car.

I wonder if the problem was actually with the missing car, which might have
been damaged and been sent for repairs?
d***@yahoo.co.uk
2017-04-03 08:37:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by d***@yahoo.co.uk
The Funicular dos Guindais in Porto next to lower deck of the Ponte
In 2015 road works encroached on the area of the lower station, how
they affected it I don't really know but the funicular got altered to
a single cabin with a counter weight,
Surely it's more likely that encroachment on the central passing loop
would force a change rather than encroachment on one of the termini.
I must admit I could not see how anything done at the terminus could
affect one cabin and not the other seeing how they share the same
single track below the loop especially as the counterweight just
appears to be the chassis of a cabin with the passenger compartment
removed.
The site I got the information from that it was roadworks affecting it
was this one.
http://www.altrinchamfc.co.uk/opofunic.htm

My own personal theory and without further evidence that is all it is,
was that the roadworks around the lower terminus made access awkward
and by reducing services by 50% it discouraged some passengers or the
numbers dropped anyway. Either way it gave the operators a chance to
remove a cabin and do some work on it.
Because the incline is not at a constant slope the cars have a self
leveling mechanism so perhaps they did some maintenance on it.

G.Harman
Recliner
2017-04-03 09:05:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Basil Jet
Post by d***@yahoo.co.uk
The Funicular dos Guindais in Porto next to lower deck of the Ponte
In 2015 road works encroached on the area of the lower station, how
they affected it I don't really know but the funicular got altered to
a single cabin with a counter weight,
Surely it's more likely that encroachment on the central passing loop
would force a change rather than encroachment on one of the termini.
I must admit I could not see how anything done at the terminus could
affect one cabin and not the other seeing how they share the same
single track below the loop especially as the counterweight just
appears to be the chassis of a cabin with the passenger compartment
removed.
The site I got the information from that it was roadworks affecting it
was this one.
http://www.altrinchamfc.co.uk/opofunic.htm
My own personal theory and without further evidence that is all it is,
was that the roadworks around the lower terminus made access awkward
and by reducing services by 50% it discouraged some passengers or the
numbers dropped anyway. Either way it gave the operators a chance to
remove a cabin and do some work on it.
Yes, that makes sense.
Post by d***@yahoo.co.uk
Because the incline is not at a constant slope the cars have a self
leveling mechanism so perhaps they did some maintenance on it.
Yup, the tilting cars must need more maintenance than most funiculars.
Someone Somewhere
2017-04-03 06:48:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@yahoo.co.uk
Does that mean at the time of my visit it was no longer a funicular
but a very long inclined lift but now it is a funicular again?
Given those cars seem to be articulated as well, when does a funicular
become a funicular and stop being a cable hauled railway?
Recliner
2017-04-03 08:07:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by d***@yahoo.co.uk
Does that mean at the time of my visit it was no longer a funicular
but a very long inclined lift but now it is a funicular again?
Given those cars seem to be articulated as well, when does a funicular
become a funicular and stop being a cable hauled railway?
The cars aren't articulated in a conventional sense. They seem to have a
variable tilt mechanism (covered by the bellows) to keep the floor
horizontal, as the angle of the funicular varies markedly. Perhaps that had
failed in the missing car, and it was off being repaired. Rather than shut
the funicular altogether, they ingeniously kept it running with just one
car, using perhaps the undercarriage of the missing car with added weights
for balance?
Someone Somewhere
2017-04-03 08:51:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by d***@yahoo.co.uk
Does that mean at the time of my visit it was no longer a funicular
but a very long inclined lift but now it is a funicular again?
Given those cars seem to be articulated as well, when does a funicular
become a funicular and stop being a cable hauled railway?
The cars aren't articulated in a conventional sense.
Do they have "two or more sections connected by a flexible joint"?

(sorry - yes, that is pedantic, but I couldn't think of a better word
at the time, and you clearly understood my meaning)
Recliner
2017-04-03 09:05:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by Recliner
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by d***@yahoo.co.uk
Does that mean at the time of my visit it was no longer a funicular
but a very long inclined lift but now it is a funicular again?
Given those cars seem to be articulated as well, when does a funicular
become a funicular and stop being a cable hauled railway?
The cars aren't articulated in a conventional sense.
Do they have "two or more sections connected by a flexible joint"?
(sorry - yes, that is pedantic, but I couldn't think of a better word
at the time, and you clearly understood my meaning)
No. They are short, single, almost certainly four-wheeled, cars, so
definitely not articulated. They have tilting floors to compensate for the
highly variable incline on the line.
Clank
2017-04-03 09:57:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by d***@yahoo.co.uk
Does that mean at the time of my visit it was no longer a funicular
but a very long inclined lift but now it is a funicular again?
Given those cars seem to be articulated as well, when does a funicular
become a funicular and stop being a cable hauled railway?
The cars aren't articulated in a conventional sense. They seem to have a
variable tilt mechanism (covered by the bellows) to keep the floor
horizontal, as the angle of the funicular varies markedly. Perhaps that had
failed in the missing car, and it was off being repaired. Rather than shut
the funicular altogether, they ingeniously kept it running with just one
car, using perhaps the undercarriage of the missing car with added weights
for balance?
Do they even need added weights for balance? (Genuine question.) I presume
there is already allowance for imbalance given both cars are never going to
be exactly equally weighted - maybe the motors just had to work a little
harder for a while.
h***@yahoo.co.uk
2017-04-02 23:27:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Post by David Walters
Post by Clive Page
My own suggestion for a transport oddity would be London's only
funicular railway on the eastern side of the northern bank of the wobbly
(Millennium) bridge. One could call it a sloping lift, but it really is
a cable-hauled funicular, just a very short one. Best of all, it's free.
There is one at Greenford Station too.
That's not a funicular, just an inclined lift.
Having used them both, I can see no difference, except the Greenford one
is indoors, and the Blackfriars one is a shoddy embarrassment.
Shouldn't a funicular railway have two cars that (approximately) balance
each other, one going up while the other descends?
They both have counterweights which do that, between the tracks.
It's the yellow thing in Greenford.
http://youtu.be/sxScXvX1Dv4
Light-coloured thing in Blackfriars
http://youtu.be/b72PyyrFeYI
Yes, just like any lift. But I've always thought a funicular needed to have
two balanced cars, not just one car and a counterweight.
The inclined lift at Greenford doesn't purport to be anything other than a
normal lift, which just happens to run on an angled track.
They have them in New York as well as in Helsinki.
s***@googlemail.com
2017-04-04 18:43:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
- show quoted text -
Shouldn't a funicular railway have two cars that >(approximately) balance
each other, one going up while the other >descends?
Not always, the one at Southend has a single car with a counterbalance weight under the tracks.

There used to be an imdoor one at the NRM, but it seldom seemed to be working, and has now been removed.
h***@yahoo.co.uk
2017-04-02 23:27:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Post by David Walters
Post by Clive Page
My own suggestion for a transport oddity would be London's only
funicular railway on the eastern side of the northern bank of the wobbly
(Millennium) bridge. One could call it a sloping lift, but it really is
a cable-hauled funicular, just a very short one. Best of all, it's free.
There is one at Greenford Station too.
That's not a funicular, just an inclined lift.
Having used them both, I can see no difference, except the Greenford one
is indoors, and the Blackfriars one is a shoddy embarrassment.
Are you referring to the one at Millennium Bridge?
Basil Jet
2017-04-03 00:24:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Post by David Walters
Post by Clive Page
My own suggestion for a transport oddity would be London's only
funicular railway on the eastern side of the northern bank of the wobbly
(Millennium) bridge. One could call it a sloping lift, but it really is
a cable-hauled funicular, just a very short one. Best of all, it's free.
There is one at Greenford Station too.
That's not a funicular, just an inclined lift.
Having used them both, I can see no difference, except the Greenford one
is indoors, and the Blackfriars one is a shoddy embarrassment.
Are you referring to the one at Millennium Bridge?
Yes, as was mentioned in the the quoted material. It's only 200m from
Blackfriars station.
h***@yahoo.co.uk
2017-04-02 23:27:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Walters
Post by Clive Page
My own suggestion for a transport oddity would be London's only
funicular railway on the eastern side of the northern bank of the wobbly
(Millennium) bridge. One could call it a sloping lift, but it really is
a cable-hauled funicular, just a very short one. Best of all, it's free.
There is one at Greenford Station too.
More likely to work.
Someone Somewhere
2017-03-31 10:53:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
In your opinion, what are the top three transport related things to do
in London?
London Transport Museum excepted, since I've done that.
Surely it depends what you're interested in, and how much time you have
to spend?

The best, quick, introduction to it all may well be:
1. Start from Trafalgar Square, catch the number 15 heritage service to
Tower Hill
2. Catch the DLR, changing as necessary, to Royal Victoria
3. Get the Emirates Air Line across the river
4. Take the Jubilee line to Canada Water
5. Do the Overground north to Wapping
6. Catch the 100 bus to Tower
7. Take the Thames Clipper to Embankment
8. Catch the district line to Victoria
9. Take the number 38 to Picadilly Circus / Shaftesbury Ave
10. Walk back down to Trafalgar Square via Leicester Square/Charing
Cross road.

That covers old and new (single and double decker) buses, underground
(tube and sub-surface), DLR, cable car, overground, boat, and shanks
pony - all in less than about 3 hours....
Jarle Hammen Knudsen
2017-03-31 11:49:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:53:45 +0100, Someone Somewhere
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
In your opinion, what are the top three transport related things to do
in London?
London Transport Museum excepted, since I've done that.
Surely it depends what you're interested in, and how much time you have
to spend?
I once did all stations on the Met in a day :) At the moment I have
five free days in London.
Post by Someone Somewhere
1. Start from Trafalgar Square, catch the number 15 heritage service to
Tower Hill
Been there, done that :)
Post by Someone Somewhere
2. Catch the DLR, changing as necessary, to Royal Victoria
3. Get the Emirates Air Line across the river
Also done.
Post by Someone Somewhere
4. Take the Jubilee line to Canada Water
Can't remember I've been to Canada Water, but is it just to get to the
Overground?
Post by Someone Somewhere
5. Do the Overground north to Wapping
6. Catch the 100 bus to Tower
7. Take the Thames Clipper to Embankment
Haven't done any river services, must do that! Excellent! Also
thinking about the Woolwich ferry.
Post by Someone Somewhere
8. Catch the district line to Victoria
Yep.
Post by Someone Somewhere
9. Take the number 38 to Picadilly Circus / Shaftesbury Ave
I've done the 55 and others from the Bakers Arms area, does that
count?
Post by Someone Somewhere
10. Walk back down to Trafalgar Square via Leicester Square/Charing
Cross road.
Yes, many times.
Post by Someone Somewhere
That covers old and new (single and double decker) buses, underground
(tube and sub-surface), DLR, cable car, overground, boat, and shanks
pony - all in less than about 3 hours....
I have also done bendies.

Regarding the Overground, you should experience the peculiar DMU on
the GOBLIN before it dissapears.

Thanks for putting this list together. It's a good plan for someone
new to London.
--
jhk
Basil Jet
2017-03-31 14:04:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Regarding the Overground, you should experience the peculiar DMU on
the GOBLIN before it dissapears.
There's nothing peculiar about the Goblin trains. There are quite a few
other diesel trains in London: in particular, the Uckfield trains to and
from London Bridge, which are not going to be got rid of any time soon,
are very similar to the Goblin trains, although I think they (Class 171)
probably have toilets and the Goblin ones (Class 170) probably don't.
s***@potato.field
2017-03-31 14:09:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 15:04:22 +0100
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Regarding the Overground, you should experience the peculiar DMU on
the GOBLIN before it dissapears.
There's nothing peculiar about the Goblin trains. There are quite a few
other diesel trains in London: in particular, the Uckfield trains to and
from London Bridge, which are not going to be got rid of any time soon,
Why on earth don't they just electrify that branch and be done with it. What
on earth is the logic for still running diesel to a london commuter town?
--
Spud
Basil Jet
2017-03-31 14:30:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 15:04:22 +0100
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Regarding the Overground, you should experience the peculiar DMU on
the GOBLIN before it dissapears.
There's nothing peculiar about the Goblin trains. There are quite a few
other diesel trains in London: in particular, the Uckfield trains to and
from London Bridge, which are not going to be got rid of any time soon,
Why on earth don't they just electrify that branch and be done with it. What
on earth is the logic for still running diesel to a london commuter town?
New electrification for passenger trains is close to dead. Fuel cells or
batteries are the future.
s***@potato.field
2017-03-31 14:55:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 15:30:04 +0100
Post by Basil Jet
Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 15:04:22 +0100
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Regarding the Overground, you should experience the peculiar DMU on
the GOBLIN before it dissapears.
There's nothing peculiar about the Goblin trains. There are quite a few
other diesel trains in London: in particular, the Uckfield trains to and
from London Bridge, which are not going to be got rid of any time soon,
Why on earth don't they just electrify that branch and be done with it. What
on earth is the logic for still running diesel to a london commuter town?
New electrification for passenger trains is close to dead. Fuel cells or
batteries are the future.
You mean apart from the Goblin and great western schemes happening right now?
--
Spud
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-03-31 15:23:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 15:30:04 +0100
Post by Basil Jet
Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 15:04:22 +0100
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Regarding the Overground, you should experience the peculiar DMU on
the GOBLIN before it dissapears.
There's nothing peculiar about the Goblin trains. There are quite a
few other diesel trains in London: in particular, the Uckfield trains
to and from London Bridge, which are not going to be got rid of any
time soon,
Why on earth don't they just electrify that branch and be done with it.
What on earth is the logic for still running diesel to a london
commuter town?
New electrification for passenger trains is close to dead. Fuel cells or
batteries are the future.
You mean apart from the Goblin and great western schemes happening right now?
I think he's interpreting the recent outcomes with the GWEP scheme and the
knock-on effects on what are supposed to be following schemes. We're back to
the days when the DfT thought the answer was bionic duckweed but they'll
eventually realise the laws of physics apply so it will have to be
electrification or else lower power and speeds. Fuels cells and batteries
can in no way deliver that quantity of KW.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
BirchangerKen
2017-03-31 17:19:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 15:04:22 +0100
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Regarding the Overground, you should experience the peculiar DMU on
the GOBLIN before it dissapears.
There's nothing peculiar about the Goblin trains. There are quite a few
other diesel trains in London: in particular, the Uckfield trains to and
from London Bridge, which are not going to be got rid of any time soon,
Why on earth don't they just electrify that branch and be done with it. What
on earth is the logic for still running diesel to a london commuter town?
It does seem odd. I was at London Bridge quite early one morning
wanting to get to East Croydon and was surprised when a 2-car 171 was
on offer. Seems a bit provincial somehow.
s***@potato.field
2017-04-03 08:17:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 18:19:32 +0100
Post by BirchangerKen
Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 15:04:22 +0100
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Regarding the Overground, you should experience the peculiar DMU on
the GOBLIN before it dissapears.
There's nothing peculiar about the Goblin trains. There are quite a few
other diesel trains in London: in particular, the Uckfield trains to and
from London Bridge, which are not going to be got rid of any time soon,
Why on earth don't they just electrify that branch and be done with it. What
on earth is the logic for still running diesel to a london commuter town?
It does seem odd. I was at London Bridge quite early one morning
wanting to get to East Croydon and was surprised when a 2-car 171 was
on offer. Seems a bit provincial somehow.
Indeed. The cost of electrifying that small branch line is probably miniscule
compared to the other projects going on right now and Crowbridge and Uckfield
arn't exactly small villages so I wouldn't imagine a longer faster train
service would be welcomed.
--
Spud
news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley)
2017-04-03 14:46:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 18:19:32 +0100
Post by BirchangerKen
Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 15:04:22 +0100
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Regarding the Overground, you should experience the peculiar DMU on
the GOBLIN before it dissapears.
There's nothing peculiar about the Goblin trains. There are quite a few
other diesel trains in London: in particular, the Uckfield trains to and
from London Bridge, which are not going to be got rid of any time soon,
Why on earth don't they just electrify that branch and be done with it. What
on earth is the logic for still running diesel to a london commuter town?
It does seem odd. I was at London Bridge quite early one morning
wanting to get to East Croydon and was surprised when a 2-car 171 was
on offer. Seems a bit provincial somehow.
Indeed. The cost of electrifying that small branch line is probably miniscule
compared to the other projects going on right now and Crowbridge and Uckfield
arn't exactly small villages so I wouldn't imagine a longer faster train
service would be welcomed.
See London Reconnections for a different view
<http://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/study-sussex-part-11-diverted-oxted-lines/>
--
Mark
s***@potato.field
2017-04-03 15:18:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:46:43 +0100
Post by news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley)
Post by s***@potato.field
Indeed. The cost of electrifying that small branch line is probably miniscule
compared to the other projects going on right now and Crowbridge and Uckfield
arn't exactly small villages so I wouldn't imagine a longer faster train
service would be welcomed.
See London Reconnections for a different view
<http://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/study-sussex-part-11-diverted-oxted-li
es/>
He seems to be saying it wouldn't be worth it because of the low usage of the
line, completely missing the point that the low usage is almost certainly in
part because of the slow infrequent diesel trains. This is something TfL
finally woke up to when they gave the go ahead for the Goblin electrification
and I suspect the same would happen at Uckfield which would turn from a
backwater town in a london commuter town.
--
Spud
Jarle Hammen Knudsen
2017-04-03 16:52:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:46:43 +0100
Post by news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley)
Post by s***@potato.field
Indeed. The cost of electrifying that small branch line is probably miniscule
compared to the other projects going on right now and Crowbridge and Uckfield
arn't exactly small villages so I wouldn't imagine a longer faster train
service would be welcomed.
See London Reconnections for a different view
<http://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/study-sussex-part-11-diverted-oxted-li
es/>
He seems to be saying it wouldn't be worth it because of the low usage of the
line, completely missing the point that the low usage is almost certainly in
part because of the slow infrequent diesel trains. This is something TfL
finally woke up to when they gave the go ahead for the Goblin electrification
and I suspect the same would happen at Uckfield which would turn from a
backwater town in a london commuter town.
Will there be more passenger trains on the GOBLin after
electrification? Isn't the current frequency due to paths taken up by
freight?
--
jhk
Recliner
2017-04-03 19:25:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 18:52:02 +0200, Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:46:43 +0100
Post by news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley)
Post by s***@potato.field
Indeed. The cost of electrifying that small branch line is probably miniscule
compared to the other projects going on right now and Crowbridge and Uckfield
arn't exactly small villages so I wouldn't imagine a longer faster train
service would be welcomed.
See London Reconnections for a different view
<http://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/study-sussex-part-11-diverted-oxted-li
es/>
He seems to be saying it wouldn't be worth it because of the low usage of the
line, completely missing the point that the low usage is almost certainly in
part because of the slow infrequent diesel trains. This is something TfL
finally woke up to when they gave the go ahead for the Goblin electrification
and I suspect the same would happen at Uckfield which would turn from a
backwater town in a london commuter town.
Will there be more passenger trains on the GOBLin after
electrification? Isn't the current frequency due to paths taken up by
freight?
No there won't be a higher frequency on the electrified GOBLIN, just
longer trains. There will be the same number of EMUs (eight) as the
172s, but they'll have four, rather than two, carriages.

It would be the same on the Uckfield branch. Electric trains would be
a bit quicker, but there aren't enough paths through East Croydon to
allow a higher frequency (and if there were, they'd be better used for
the Brighton main line). Much more of the mainly singled branch would
also need to be redoubled to support a higher frequency.

The article also points out that there are much better candidates for
infill electrification, such as the North Downs Line to Reading.
s***@potato.field
2017-04-04 08:39:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 20:25:45 +0100
Post by Recliner
On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 18:52:02 +0200, Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Will there be more passenger trains on the GOBLin after
electrification? Isn't the current frequency due to paths taken up by
freight?
No there won't be a higher frequency on the electrified GOBLIN, just
longer trains. There will be the same number of EMUs (eight) as the
172s, but they'll have four, rather than two, carriages.
It would be the same on the Uckfield branch. Electric trains would be
a bit quicker, but there aren't enough paths through East Croydon to
allow a higher frequency (and if there were, they'd be better used for
the Brighton main line). Much more of the mainly singled branch would
also need to be redoubled to support a higher frequency.
Of course the irony there is that the line could have been used as a
secondary route to/from Brighton if that visionary Beeching hadn't caused it
to be ripped up back to Uckfield.
Post by Recliner
The article also points out that there are much better candidates for
infill electrification, such as the North Downs Line to Reading.
Hmm. I suspect there are a lot more people who would potentially commute
from Uckfield with a better service than there are who would be bouncing along
under the north downs. There are many similar sized towns to uckfield and
crowborough that are currently commuter towns, there is nothing special about
these 2 other than the abysmal train service.
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-04-05 12:25:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 20:25:45 +0100
Post by Recliner
On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 18:52:02 +0200, Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Will there be more passenger trains on the GOBLin after
electrification? Isn't the current frequency due to paths taken up by
freight?
No there won't be a higher frequency on the electrified GOBLIN, just
longer trains. There will be the same number of EMUs (eight) as the
172s, but they'll have four, rather than two, carriages.
It would be the same on the Uckfield branch. Electric trains would be
a bit quicker, but there aren't enough paths through East Croydon to
allow a higher frequency (and if there were, they'd be better used for
the Brighton main line). Much more of the mainly singled branch would
also need to be redoubled to support a higher frequency.
Of course the irony there is that the line could have been used as a
secondary route to/from Brighton if that visionary Beeching hadn't caused it
to be ripped up back to Uckfield.
It would be a much slower route, without the capacity to take much
traffic from the Brighton Main Line route that serves much more
important destinations.
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
The article also points out that there are much better candidates for
infill electrification, such as the North Downs Line to Reading.
Hmm. I suspect there are a lot more people who would potentially commute
from Uckfield with a better service than there are who would be bouncing along
under the north downs.
The North Downs route wouldn't be electrified for the benefit of
commuters.
Post by s***@potato.field
There are many similar sized towns to uckfield and
crowborough that are currently commuter towns, there is nothing special about
these 2 other than the abysmal train service.
s***@potato.field
2017-04-05 13:12:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:25:41 +0100
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Of course the irony there is that the line could have been used as a
secondary route to/from Brighton if that visionary Beeching hadn't caused it
to be ripped up back to Uckfield.
It would be a much slower route, without the capacity to take much
traffic from the Brighton Main Line route that serves much more
important destinations.
Given the brighton line did go belly up a few times last year any diversion
route would be better than nothing.
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Hmm. I suspect there are a lot more people who would potentially commute
from Uckfield with a better service than there are who would be bouncing along
under the north downs.
The North Downs route wouldn't be electrified for the benefit of
commuters.
Then what, freight? Come off it. There was a discussion recently about how
the 92s arn't much liked so why suddenly would they be used in preference to
a 66 or 70 on the 3rd rail network?
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-04-05 21:37:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:25:41 +0100
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Of course the irony there is that the line could have been used as a
secondary route to/from Brighton if that visionary Beeching hadn't caused it
to be ripped up back to Uckfield.
It would be a much slower route, without the capacity to take much
traffic from the Brighton Main Line route that serves much more
important destinations.
Given the brighton line did go belly up a few times last year any diversion
route would be better than nothing.
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Hmm. I suspect there are a lot more people who would potentially commute
from Uckfield with a better service than there are who would be bouncing along
under the north downs.
The North Downs route wouldn't be electrified for the benefit of
commuters.
Then what, freight? Come off it. There was a discussion recently about how
the 92s arn't much liked so why suddenly would they be used in preference to
a 66 or 70 on the 3rd rail network?
Who mentioned freight?
s***@potato.field
2017-04-06 08:26:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 21:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:25:41 +0100
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Of course the irony there is that the line could have been used as a
secondary route to/from Brighton if that visionary Beeching hadn't caused
it
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
to be ripped up back to Uckfield.
It would be a much slower route, without the capacity to take much
traffic from the Brighton Main Line route that serves much more
important destinations.
Given the brighton line did go belly up a few times last year any diversion
route would be better than nothing.
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Hmm. I suspect there are a lot more people who would potentially commute
from Uckfield with a better service than there are who would be bouncing
along
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
under the north downs.
The North Downs route wouldn't be electrified for the benefit of
commuters.
Then what, freight? Come off it. There was a discussion recently about how
the 92s arn't much liked so why suddenly would they be used in preference to
a 66 or 70 on the 3rd rail network?
Who mentioned freight?
So if it wouldn't be electrified for passengers or freight, then what other
reason would there be? Electrocuting wildlife?
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-04-06 08:38:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 21:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:25:41 +0100
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Of course the irony there is that the line could have been used as a
secondary route to/from Brighton if that visionary Beeching hadn't caused
it
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
to be ripped up back to Uckfield.
It would be a much slower route, without the capacity to take much
traffic from the Brighton Main Line route that serves much more
important destinations.
Given the brighton line did go belly up a few times last year any diversion
route would be better than nothing.
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Hmm. I suspect there are a lot more people who would potentially commute
from Uckfield with a better service than there are who would be bouncing
along
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
under the north downs.
The North Downs route wouldn't be electrified for the benefit of
commuters.
Then what, freight? Come off it. There was a discussion recently about how
the 92s arn't much liked so why suddenly would they be used in preference to
a 66 or 70 on the 3rd rail network?
Who mentioned freight?
So if it wouldn't be electrified for passengers or freight, then what other
reason would there be? Electrocuting wildlife?
Who said it wouldn't be electrified for passengers?
s***@potato.field
2017-04-06 09:53:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 08:38:48 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Then what, freight? Come off it. There was a discussion recently about how
the 92s arn't much liked so why suddenly would they be used in preference
to
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
a 66 or 70 on the 3rd rail network?
Who mentioned freight?
So if it wouldn't be electrified for passengers or freight, then what other
reason would there be? Electrocuting wildlife?
Who said it wouldn't be electrified for passengers?
You did:

"The North Downs route wouldn't be electrified for the benefit of commuters"

Or are you playing one of your silly nitpick games where you're going to say
that commuters are a specific type of passenger and you're actually referring
to passengers who arn't commuters? Whoever they may be. Trainspotters perhaps
or people going for a holiday in Reading.
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-04-06 10:11:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 08:38:48 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Then what, freight? Come off it. There was a discussion recently about how
the 92s arn't much liked so why suddenly would they be used in preference
to
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
a 66 or 70 on the 3rd rail network?
Who mentioned freight?
So if it wouldn't be electrified for passengers or freight, then what other
reason would there be? Electrocuting wildlife?
Who said it wouldn't be electrified for passengers?
"The North Downs route wouldn't be electrified for the benefit of commuters"
Or are you playing one of your silly nitpick games where you're going to say
that commuters are a specific type of passenger and you're actually referring
to passengers who arn't commuters? Whoever they may be. Trainspotters perhaps
or people going for a holiday in Reading.
Yes, you fell into the tabloid trap of thinking *all* passengers are
commuters. You also don't seem to realise the services that run on that
line.

<https://news.surreycc.gov.uk/2016/05/04/electrifying-north-downs-line-will-boost-economy-by-almost-2-billion/>
s***@potato.field
2017-04-06 11:07:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 10:11:18 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Or are you playing one of your silly nitpick games where you're going to say
that commuters are a specific type of passenger and you're actually referring
to passengers who arn't commuters? Whoever they may be. Trainspotters perhaps
or people going for a holiday in Reading.
Yes, you fell into the tabloid trap of thinking *all* passengers are
commuters. You also don't seem to realise the services that run on that
line.
Probably 95% of passengers on the railways are commuters. If commuting doesn't
justify electrification then its highly unlikely any other reason for travel
will.
Post by Recliner
<https://news.surreycc.gov.uk/2016/05/04/electrifying-north-downs-line-will-boo
t-economy-by-almost-2-billion/>
"suggested that the electrification would create around 8,000 jobs and stimulate
£1.9 billion of economic growth."

In other words the figures were plucked out of someones arse just like those
for the heathrow 3rd runway.

"opening up exciting journey opportunities to support jobs and economic growth."

Ie: commuters. Though I'm not sure exciting is a word I'd use in this context
but politicians always over egg the pud and make themselves sound stupid.
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-04-06 12:01:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 10:11:18 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Or are you playing one of your silly nitpick games where you're going to say
that commuters are a specific type of passenger and you're actually referring
to passengers who arn't commuters? Whoever they may be. Trainspotters perhaps
or people going for a holiday in Reading.
Yes, you fell into the tabloid trap of thinking *all* passengers are
commuters. You also don't seem to realise the services that run on that
line.
Probably 95% of passengers on the railways are commuters. If commuting doesn't
justify electrification then its highly unlikely any other reason for travel
will.
Post by Recliner
<https://news.surreycc.gov.uk/2016/05/04/electrifying-north-downs-line-will-boo
t-economy-by-almost-2-billion/>
"suggested that the electrification would create around 8,000 jobs and stimulate
£1.9 billion of economic growth."
In other words the figures were plucked out of someones arse just like those
for the heathrow 3rd runway.
"opening up exciting journey opportunities to support jobs and economic growth."
Ie: commuters. Though I'm not sure exciting is a word I'd use in this context
but politicians always over egg the pud and make themselves sound stupid.
So you think there's a weak case for electrifying the North Downs
line. And you may well be right.

But it has a *much* stronger case than electrifying a largely
single-track, quiet commuter line, which only has enough traffic for 1
tph for most of the day. And yet you're a fan of that. So make your
mind up.
s***@potato.field
2017-04-06 13:16:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 13:01:41 +0100
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Ie: commuters. Though I'm not sure exciting is a word I'd use in this context
but politicians always over egg the pud and make themselves sound stupid.
So you think there's a weak case for electrifying the North Downs
line. And you may well be right.
But it has a *much* stronger case than electrifying a largely
single-track, quiet commuter line, which only has enough traffic for 1
tph for most of the day. And yet you're a fan of that. So make your
mind up.
I don't agree. The uckfield line if electrified and doubled or at least more
passing loops put in has the potential to turn uckfield and crowborough into
london commuter towns with a vast increase in traffic. The north downs line
has no such potential - it doesn't go to london and the towns it links already
have commuter links to the capital so where's the growth to come from? Perhaps
some extra gatwick traffic but thats about it IMO.
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-04-06 14:05:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 13:01:41 +0100
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Ie: commuters. Though I'm not sure exciting is a word I'd use in this context
but politicians always over egg the pud and make themselves sound stupid.
So you think there's a weak case for electrifying the North Downs
line. And you may well be right.
But it has a *much* stronger case than electrifying a largely
single-track, quiet commuter line, which only has enough traffic for 1
tph for most of the day. And yet you're a fan of that. So make your
mind up.
I don't agree. The uckfield line if electrified and doubled or at least more
passing loops put in has the potential to turn uckfield and crowborough into
london commuter towns with a vast increase in traffic. The north downs line
has no such potential - it doesn't go to london and the towns it links already
have commuter links to the capital so where's the growth to come from? Perhaps
some extra gatwick traffic but thats about it IMO.
It's an orbital route, not a commuter route. That's the whole point. And if
you want an example of a successful, growing orbital route, look no further
than LO.
s***@potato.field
2017-04-06 14:20:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 14:05:31 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
has no such potential - it doesn't go to london and the towns it links
already
Post by s***@potato.field
have commuter links to the capital so where's the growth to come from?
Perhaps
Post by s***@potato.field
some extra gatwick traffic but thats about it IMO.
It's an orbital route, not a commuter route. That's the whole point. And if
you want an example of a successful, growing orbital route, look no further
than LO.
Its < 1/4 of an orbital route and you can hardly compare an inner city metro
type railway to one thats pretty much entirely in countryside and has very
few stops. Also orbital railways don't have the same raison d'etre as roads
like the M25 and M60. In a car there's a severe time penalty driving into
a city centre and out again (and in londons case a financial one too) compared
to driving around it. This isn't the case in a train.

You could argue that changing at reading then changing again at redhill onto
a gatwick train is quicker that staying on the HST to paddington, hopping
around to victoria and getting a southern service but I doubt there's much in
it.
--
Spud
Roland Perry
2017-04-06 14:14:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<1999116613.513180320.631042.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-sept
ember.org>, at 14:05:31 on Thu, 6 Apr 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Ie: commuters. Though I'm not sure exciting is a word I'd use in this context
but politicians always over egg the pud and make themselves sound stupid.
So you think there's a weak case for electrifying the North Downs
line. And you may well be right.
But it has a *much* stronger case than electrifying a largely
single-track, quiet commuter line, which only has enough traffic for 1
tph for most of the day. And yet you're a fan of that. So make your
mind up.
I don't agree. The uckfield line if electrified and doubled or at least more
passing loops put in has the potential to turn uckfield and crowborough into
london commuter towns with a vast increase in traffic. The north downs line
has no such potential - it doesn't go to london and the towns it links already
have commuter links to the capital so where's the growth to come from? Perhaps
some extra gatwick traffic but thats about it IMO.
It's an orbital route, not a commuter route. That's the whole point. And if
you want an example of a successful, growing orbital route, look no further
than LO.
As an orbital route it is *significantly* further (from the centre of
London) than LO.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
2017-04-06 11:58:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Yes, you fell into the tabloid trap of thinking *all* passengers are
commuters. You also don't seem to realise the services that run on that
line.
Probably 95% of passengers on the railways are commuters. If commuting doesn't
justify electrification then its highly unlikely any other reason for travel
will.
Not on that line. I have a friend who lives in Shalford and he cycles to
Guildford. People in Dorking will get the direct train, and people in
Reigate will use Redhill.

And the tph on the line, given you also need to change, is unsuitable
for commuters.
--
Roland Perry
Mike Bristow
2017-04-06 14:13:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Yes, you fell into the tabloid trap of thinking *all* passengers are
commuters. You also don't seem to realise the services that run on that
line.
Probably 95% of passengers on the railways are commuters. If commuting doesn't
justify electrification then its highly unlikely any other reason for travel
will.
Not on that line. I have a friend who lives in Shalford and he cycles to
Guildford. People in Dorking will get the direct train, and people in
Reigate will use Redhill.
And the tph on the line, given you also need to change, is unsuitable
for commuters.
When I lived in Shalford, I commuted using that line. I think most
of the people on the train in the morning were commuters.

It was a poor commuting route to London (so I moved), but I'm certain
not all the commuters were commuting to London.
--
Mike Bristow ***@urgle.com
Recliner
2017-04-06 14:30:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike Bristow
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Yes, you fell into the tabloid trap of thinking *all* passengers are
commuters. You also don't seem to realise the services that run on that
line.
Probably 95% of passengers on the railways are commuters. If commuting doesn't
justify electrification then its highly unlikely any other reason for travel
will.
Not on that line. I have a friend who lives in Shalford and he cycles to
Guildford. People in Dorking will get the direct train, and people in
Reigate will use Redhill.
And the tph on the line, given you also need to change, is unsuitable
for commuters.
When I lived in Shalford, I commuted using that line. I think most
of the people on the train in the morning were commuters.
It was a poor commuting route to London (so I moved), but I'm certain
not all the commuters were commuting to London.
Yes, it's an orbital route, not a London commuter route. As such, it should
have a decent amount of all-day traffic, unlike many commuter routes. This
would be particularly because of the Gatwick link. And if the trains were
electric, there would be the possibility of some running into the future
Heathrow western connection.
Roland Perry
2017-04-06 15:27:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike Bristow
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Yes, you fell into the tabloid trap of thinking *all* passengers are
commuters. You also don't seem to realise the services that run on that
line.
Probably 95% of passengers on the railways are commuters. If commuting doesn't
justify electrification then its highly unlikely any other reason for travel
will.
Not on that line. I have a friend who lives in Shalford and he cycles to
Guildford. People in Dorking will get the direct train, and people in
Reigate will use Redhill.
And the tph on the line, given you also need to change, is unsuitable
for commuters.
When I lived in Shalford, I commuted using that line. I think most
of the people on the train in the morning were commuters.
So a whole couple of carriages full, once an hour?
Post by Mike Bristow
It was a poor commuting route to London (so I moved), but I'm certain
not all the commuters were commuting to London.
--
Roland Perry
Basil Jet
2017-04-06 14:57:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Yes, you fell into the tabloid trap of thinking *all* passengers are
commuters. You also don't seem to realise the services that run on that
line.
Probably 95% of passengers on the railways are commuters. If commuting doesn't
justify electrification then its highly unlikely any other reason for travel
will.
Not on that line. I have a friend who lives in Shalford and he cycles to
Guildford. People in Dorking will get the direct train, and people in
Reigate will use Redhill.
And the tph on the line, given you also need to change, is unsuitable
for commuters.
When I lived in Sutton and worked in Horsham, I often changed at Gatwick
and Dorking(s) if the last direct train home was cancelled.
Recliner
2017-03-31 14:14:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Regarding the Overground, you should experience the peculiar DMU on
the GOBLIN before it dissapears.
There's nothing peculiar about the Goblin trains. There are quite a few
other diesel trains in London: in particular, the Uckfield trains to and
from London Bridge, which are not going to be got rid of any time soon,
are very similar to the Goblin trains, although I think they (Class 171)
probably have toilets and the Goblin ones (Class 170) probably don't.
The GOBLIN DMUs are actually class 172s. But I think you're right that
they lack toilets, like other LO stock.
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-03-31 15:13:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Regarding the Overground, you should experience the peculiar DMU on
the GOBLIN before it dissapears.
There's nothing peculiar about the Goblin trains. There are quite a
few other diesel trains in London: in particular, the Uckfield trains
to and from London Bridge, which are not going to be got rid of any
time soon, are very similar to the Goblin trains, although I think
they (Class 171) probably have toilets and the Goblin ones (Class
170) probably don't.
Goblin trains are class 172 not 170. There are other class 172s in service,
with Chiltern and London Midland but those on London Overground have a
unique layout.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Neil Williams
2017-04-01 16:27:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Goblin trains are class 172 not 170. There are other class 172s in service,
with Chiltern and London Midland but those on London Overground have a
unique layout.
They're the same as the LM ones apart from the bogs, aren't they? They
are certainly 2+2 seated. Side-facing seating is not used, because it
would limit the possibility of re-lease after they are finished with.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-04-01 18:00:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Neil Williams
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Goblin trains are class 172 not 170. There are other class 172s in
service, with Chiltern and London Midland but those on London Overground
have a unique layout.
They're the same as the LM ones apart from the bogs, aren't they?
They are certainly 2+2 seated. Side-facing seating is not used,
because it would limit the possibility of re-lease after they are
finished with.
I think all the LM ones have corridor front ends, I think the only 17x DMUs
to have them. Apart from agreeing about the loos, I can't comment on the
interior layouts, not having been on one.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Basil Jet
2017-04-01 18:29:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Neil Williams
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Goblin trains are class 172 not 170. There are other class 172s in
service, with Chiltern and London Midland but those on London Overground
have a unique layout.
They're the same as the LM ones apart from the bogs, aren't they?
They are certainly 2+2 seated. Side-facing seating is not used,
because it would limit the possibility of re-lease after they are
finished with.
I think all the LM ones have corridor front ends, I think the only 17x DMUs
to have them. Apart from agreeing about the loos, I can't comment on the
interior layouts, not having been on one.
There's no way a seating arrangement could turn the Goblin into a "top
three transport things to do", unless the seats were hammocks.
Recliner
2017-04-01 20:01:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Neil Williams
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Goblin trains are class 172 not 170. There are other class 172s in
service, with Chiltern and London Midland but those on London Overground
have a unique layout.
They're the same as the LM ones apart from the bogs, aren't they?
They are certainly 2+2 seated. Side-facing seating is not used,
because it would limit the possibility of re-lease after they are
finished with.
I think all the LM ones have corridor front ends, I think the only 17x DMUs
to have them. Apart from agreeing about the loos, I can't comment on the
interior layouts, not having been on one.
Here's a couple of Goblin 172 interior pics:
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/26610338044/in/album-72157668732378626/>

<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/26843734044/in/album-72157668732378626/>
Jarle Hammen Knudsen
2017-04-02 16:16:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Regarding the Overground, you should experience the peculiar DMU on
the GOBLIN before it dissapears.
There's nothing peculiar about the Goblin trains. There are quite a few
other diesel trains in London: in particular, the Uckfield trains to and
from London Bridge, which are not going to be got rid of any time soon,
are very similar to the Goblin trains, although I think they (Class 171)
probably have toilets and the Goblin ones (Class 170) probably don't.
As Recliner said, the GOBLIN trains are class 172.

Two mates commented, on different occations, that the GOBLIN train
felt different than others they had been on. I have investigated and
172 has different bogies than other Turbostars and mechanical
transmission rather than hydraulic - gear changes can be distinctly
heard as the trains accelerate and decelerate (Wikipedia). One mate
said it felt like a bus.
--
jhk
Basil Jet
2017-04-02 17:06:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Two mates commented, on different occations, that the GOBLIN train
felt different than others they had been on. I have investigated and
172 has different bogies than other Turbostars and mechanical
transmission rather than hydraulic - gear changes can be distinctly
heard as the trains accelerate and decelerate (Wikipedia). One mate
said it felt like a bus.
I wonder why they built them like that?

Speaking of peculiar, London has four places where trains switch between
overhead and third rail, namely Acton Central, Mitre Bridge, Drayton
Park and Farringdon/City Thameslink. I have no idea how common
pan-up-pan-down in service is globally. The 313 trains at Drayton Park
very noticeably go though a "turn-it-off-and-turn-it-back-on-again" moment.
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-04-02 17:28:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Two mates commented, on different occations, that the GOBLIN train
felt different than others they had been on. I have investigated and
172 has different bogies than other Turbostars and mechanical
transmission rather than hydraulic - gear changes can be distinctly
heard as the trains accelerate and decelerate (Wikipedia). One mate
said it felt like a bus.
I wonder why they built them like that?
Speaking of peculiar, London has four places where trains switch
between overhead and third rail, namely Acton Central, Mitre Bridge,
Drayton Park and Farringdon/City Thameslink. I have no idea how
common pan-up-pan-down in service is globally. The 313 trains at
Drayton Park very noticeably go though a
"turn-it-off-and-turn-it-back-on-again" moment.
The 313s use much older dual voltage technology than Electrostars and other
modern trains with AC motors.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
John Levine
2017-04-02 21:26:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Speaking of peculiar, London has four places where trains switch between
overhead and third rail, namely Acton Central, Mitre Bridge, Drayton
Park and Farringdon/City Thameslink. I have no idea how common
pan-up-pan-down in service is globally. The 313 trains at Drayton Park
very noticeably go though a "turn-it-off-and-turn-it-back-on-again" moment.
I don't think it's that rare. In the US, the New York MTA New Haven
line commuter rail switches at Mt Vernon and the Boston MBTA transit
blue line switches near Logan Airport.

For added confusion, Penn Station in New York has both third rail and
OHLE, on different services but sometimes on the same tracks.

R's,
John
h***@yahoo.co.uk
2017-04-02 23:57:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Levine
Post by Basil Jet
Speaking of peculiar, London has four places where trains switch between
overhead and third rail, namely Acton Central, Mitre Bridge, Drayton
Park and Farringdon/City Thameslink. I have no idea how common
pan-up-pan-down in service is globally. The 313 trains at Drayton Park
very noticeably go though a "turn-it-off-and-turn-it-back-on-again" moment.
I don't think it's that rare. In the US, the New York MTA New Haven
line commuter rail switches at Mt Vernon
They raise the pantographs when travelling east.

Changeover was just after the junction at Woodlawn (CP 112), where the
New Haven Line diverged from the Harlem Line, but they moved further
east to the Mt. Vernon-Pelham border in 1993.

This resulted in a small part of the New Haven Line becoming 3rd rail
territory.

There was consensus that they should have left the changeover just north
of Woodlawn as part of that line goes through a cut, thus making track
maintenance and power maintenance more difficult.
Post by John Levine
and the Boston MBTA transit
blue line switches near Logan Airport.
I think that changeover on the T happens when the train is berthed at
the station, whereas trains on the New Haven do it on the fly.
Post by John Levine
For added confusion, Penn Station in New York has both third rail and
OHLE, on different services but sometimes on the same tracks.
Yes, but 3rd rail at Penn is all overriding, whereas Metro-North has
only underriding.

There is a direct connection from the New Haven line into Penn via the
Harlem River Branch, which diverges just west of New Rochelle station.
Amtrak trains are now the only trains to run over that line, though the
MTA would eventually like to see New Haven trains running along it.
One of the potential difficulties for this prospect is that M-2 and M-8
EMU trains have only underriding shoes.

Having said that, the MTA have been discussing the prospect of New Haven
Line trains running down the Harlem River Branch for at least 25 years
-- if not longer.

I sometimes think that it is just talk and that this is not likely to
happen.
John Levine
2017-04-03 01:06:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by John Levine
and the Boston MBTA transit
blue line switches near Logan Airport.
I think that changeover on the T happens when the train is berthed at
the station, whereas trains on the New Haven do it on the fly.
It's been a while since I've taken the train from the airport but I'm
pretty sure it's on the fly.
Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by John Levine
For added confusion, Penn Station in New York has both third rail and
OHLE, on different services but sometimes on the same tracks.
Yes, but 3rd rail at Penn is all overriding, whereas Metro-North has
only underriding.
There is a direct connection from the New Haven line into Penn via the
Harlem River Branch, which diverges just west of New Rochelle station.
Amtrak trains are now the only trains to run over that line, though the
MTA would eventually like to see New Haven trains running along it.
One of the potential difficulties for this prospect is that M-2 and M-8
EMU trains have only underriding shoes.
I don't see why that's a problem, since the OHLE runs into Penn
Station and beyond. There's an occasional MTA football special from
New Haven that runs through Penn Station to Secacus for the
Meadowlands stadium. Or are you saying the shoes would do bad things
with the LIRR's third rail?

There's also the Empire Connection, the former freight-only line down
the west side of Manhattan that allows Amtrak trains from Albany to
come into Penn Station. It's mostly unelectrified but there's a
little bit of third rail at the end that lets the trains run into Penn
Station.
h***@yahoo.co.uk
2017-04-04 00:17:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Levine
Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by John Levine
and the Boston MBTA transit
blue line switches near Logan Airport.
I think that changeover on the T happens when the train is berthed at
the station, whereas trains on the New Haven do it on the fly.
It's been a while since I've taken the train from the airport but I'm
pretty sure it's on the fly.
Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by John Levine
For added confusion, Penn Station in New York has both third rail and
OHLE, on different services but sometimes on the same tracks.
Yes, but 3rd rail at Penn is all overriding, whereas Metro-North has
only underriding.
There is a direct connection from the New Haven line into Penn via the
Harlem River Branch, which diverges just west of New Rochelle station.
Amtrak trains are now the only trains to run over that line, though the
MTA would eventually like to see New Haven trains running along it.
One of the potential difficulties for this prospect is that M-2 and M-8
EMU trains have only underriding shoes.
I don't see why that's a problem, since the OHLE runs into Penn
Station and beyond.
It can potentially be a problem.
Post by John Levine
There's an occasional MTA football special from
New Haven that runs through Penn Station to Secacus for the
Meadowlands stadium.
It's an NJT train with an electric locomotive, which has no shoes, that
runs that particular route.
Post by John Levine
Or are you saying the shoes would do bad things
with the LIRR's third rail?
Very much so, and vice-versa. An underriding shoe could damage the
LIRR's 3rd rail, while the 3rd rail itself could knock off the shoe.

Or, even worse, once an underriding shoe makes contact with an
overriding 3rd rail, it could remain on the train and cause a great deal
of arcing as well as other problems.

The best option would be for Metro-North to lease a couple of electric
locomotives or to remove the shoes.
Post by John Levine
There's also the Empire Connection, the former freight-only line down
the west side of Manhattan.
Yeah, it's called the West Side Line.
Post by John Levine
that allows Amtrak trains from Albany to
come into Penn Station.
... before which Amtrack trains would run into Grand Central Terminal
until 1991.
Post by John Levine
It's mostly unelectrified but there's a
little bit of third rail at the end that lets the trains run into Penn
Station.
Locomotives will need to switch their power mode to electric and then
shut down the engine before entering Penn, as diesels are not allowed in
there.

I would imagine that the Amtrak P32s running in and out of Penn have
overriding shoes, which the engineer retracts upon leaving from or the
station, as those shoes could damage Metro-North's underriding 3rd rail.
h***@yahoo.co.uk
2017-04-02 23:26:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Two mates commented, on different occations, that the GOBLIN train
felt different than others they had been on. I have investigated and
172 has different bogies than other Turbostars and mechanical
transmission rather than hydraulic - gear changes can be distinctly
heard as the trains accelerate and decelerate (Wikipedia). One mate
said it felt like a bus.
I wonder why they built them like that?
Speaking of peculiar, London has four places where trains switch between
overhead and third rail, namely Acton Central, Mitre Bridge, Drayton
Park and Farringdon/City Thameslink. I have no idea how common
pan-up-pan-down in service is globally. The 313 trains at Drayton Park
very noticeably go though a "turn-it-off-and-turn-it-back-on-again" moment.
It also happens at City Thameslink northbound on 377s. I would not call
it "turn-it-off-and-turn-it-back-on-again," so much as changing modes.
It's actually not that easy to turn a train on or off.
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-04-03 07:41:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Two mates commented, on different occations, that the GOBLIN train
felt different than others they had been on. I have investigated and
172 has different bogies than other Turbostars and mechanical
transmission rather than hydraulic - gear changes can be distinctly
heard as the trains accelerate and decelerate (Wikipedia). One mate
said it felt like a bus.
I wonder why they built them like that?
Speaking of peculiar, London has four places where trains switch between
overhead and third rail, namely Acton Central, Mitre Bridge, Drayton
Park and Farringdon/City Thameslink. I have no idea how common
pan-up-pan-down in service is globally. The 313 trains at Drayton Park
very noticeably go though a "turn-it-off-and-turn-it-back-on-again" moment.
It also happens at City Thameslink northbound on 377s. I would not
call it "turn-it-off-and-turn-it-back-on-again," so much as changing
modes. It's actually not that easy to turn a train on or off.
But is it simpler than for the 319s? Their technology is closer to that of
the 313s than the 377s.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-04-02 17:15:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Regarding the Overground, you should experience the peculiar DMU on
the GOBLIN before it dissapears.
There's nothing peculiar about the Goblin trains. There are quite a few
other diesel trains in London: in particular, the Uckfield trains to and
from London Bridge, which are not going to be got rid of any time soon,
are very similar to the Goblin trains, although I think they (Class 171)
probably have toilets and the Goblin ones (Class 170) probably don't.
As Recliner said, the GOBLIN trains are class 172.
Two mates commented, on different occations, that the GOBLIN train
felt different than others they had been on. I have investigated and
172 has different bogies than other Turbostars and mechanical
transmission rather than hydraulic - gear changes can be distinctly
heard as the trains accelerate and decelerate (Wikipedia). One mate
said it felt like a bus.
A mate who didn't travel on many first generation DMUs then. They nearly all
had mechanical transmissions.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
s***@potato.field
2017-03-31 14:06:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 13:49:02 +0200
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:53:45 +0100, Someone Somewhere
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
In your opinion, what are the top three transport related things to do
in London?
London Transport Museum excepted, since I've done that.
Surely it depends what you're interested in, and how much time you have
to spend?
I once did all stations on the Met in a day :) At the moment I have
five free days in London.
Right the night bus through tottenham or hackney wearing a pink jacket and
feather boa single gloria gaynor tracks. You'll get to meet new interesting
people plus for a bonus you'll get to stay even longer in london. Albeit in
hospital - but the accomodation is free.
--
Spud
Offramp
2017-03-31 12:07:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Someone Somewhere
1. Start from Trafalgar Square, catch the number 15 heritage service to
Tower Hill
That is a great route. Any 15 will do, but a Heritage one is better. The old X15 was probably the best; the express bus.
BirchangerKen
2017-03-31 17:17:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 05:07:03 -0700 (PDT), Offramp
Post by Offramp
Post by Someone Somewhere
1. Start from Trafalgar Square, catch the number 15 heritage service to
Tower Hill
That is a great route. Any 15 will do, but a Heritage one is better. The old X15 was probably the best; the express bus.
Especially when it was RMC (or was it RCL?) operated.
Arthur Figgis
2017-03-31 21:21:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
In your opinion, what are the top three transport related things to do
in London?
London Transport Museum excepted, since I've done that.
* ride on a deep-level tube line (if not done before)
* "driving" the DLR
* riding on the top deck of a bus (if arriving from somewhere where they
are uncommon); and more generally, doing a journey on the surface rather
than on the Underground.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Recliner
2017-04-02 00:00:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
In your opinion, what are the top three transport related things to do
in London?
London Transport Museum excepted, since I've done that.
You've already had lots of good suggestions, but here are a couple of other
ideas, if you've not done them already:

- If you used Eurostar in the early days, you'll have used Waterloo
International station. You might be interested in seeing how it's finally
being reconverted back to domestic use. This is what it looked like four
months ago:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/sets/72157673819851723

- There's one Crossrail station you can already visit: Canary Wharf. The
Meridian line passes through it, which is reflected in the plant
arrangements in the roof garden. Yes, an underground station with a roof
garden!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/sets/72157660672783597

- Tunneling has started on the Northern Line Battersea extension, but I
don't know if you can see much from outside the building site at the old
power station.

- London Bridge station is worth a visit. The total rebuilding project is
half complete, but you can get an idea of what it will be like when
finished. If you ever used it before the rebuilding, you won't recognise
it. These pictures were taken soon after the latest phase opened:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/sets/72157660672783597

- Walking across the river on a Blackfriars station platform is fun. It's a
good way of getting to the Tate Modern and its new observation gallery.
Loading...