|
|
| Re: London Overground (310199) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Thu Sep 14 13:52:13 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Thu Sep 14 08:32:56 2006. And it was fundamentally flawed in its suburban service plan.I think they were trying to provide the minimum number of two-tph routes needed to serve all stations and connecting links. You can question the goal, but I can only applaud the concept of bringing the peak service up to the off-peak standard! the 1tph silly route (via Norbury) to Victoria disappears altogether, You mean the xx:55 Victoria to Epsom via Norbury; it's paired with the xx:25 Victoria to Epsom Downs via Norbury. Those two, taken together with the xx:05 and xx:35 provide 4 tph from Victoria to Sutton; and taken together with the xx:15 and xx:45 Victoria to Caterham you get a regular 10 minutely service from Victoria to Selhurst. Not bad if you ask me. and a 2tph extremely silly slow route (via Norbury) to London Bridge appears. That would just have extended the existing silly slow xx:19 and xx:49 from London Bridge to West Croydon via Norbury. ... Thameslink. Making it eat up capacity at Tulse Hill which could be used by sensible trains to London Bridge contributes to silly ideas like sending London Bridge trains from Sutton to Tulse Hill via Norbury. It depends whether you prefer Thameslink or London Bridge. The present off-peak service sends 4 tph to Thameslink and 6 tph to London Bridge. But in the peak hours they have to make way at the Herne Hill and Tulse Hill bottlenecks for the Thameslink service to Brighton, because there isn't room for it to go via the London Bridge (high level) bottleneck! |
|
|
|