|
|
| Re: London Overground (309679) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 13 08:26:35 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 13 05:53:35 2006. In general we ought to be looking at the highly loaded **inner** London stations for possible new tube passengers. Herne Hill is really the only one with heavy passenger numbers.And Beckenham Junction. Notice the nice little interchange there too - it's got potential. In London, many of the long extensions of the tube out into outer London haven't been a roaring success. The Bakerloo has been cut back from Watford Jcn to Harrow & Wealdstone; the West Ruislip branch of the Central is lightly used; so is the Hainault branch of the Central once it gets past Newbury Park; the Epping branch is better used, but only because there is no alternative - passengers grumble about the length of time it takes to reach the West End; the Met from Uxbridge works well, but only because it is express from Wembley Park to Baker Street; Upminster passengers use c2c and Upminster Bridge station sees little use. You're being selective - Edgware and High Barnet work, as do Stanmore and Cockfosters to an extent, as do most examples you didn't mention. Upminster Bridge may be little-used by tube standards, but it's still used, and if the District didn't extend all the way to Upminster, journeys to points beyond Upminster would involve doubling back via Barking. The West Ruislip and Watford Joint Lines are notorious for being in bad locations - you could hardly describe the Chatham Main Line in such terms; it just gets rubbish local service. Ant tube extension into south London should concentrate on serving the poorly served parts of the inner area. Much of that could be covered by two extra Thameslink stations: Walworth and Camberwell. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|