|
|
| Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) (366402) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Tue Jan 9 07:52:29 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Rail Blue on Tue Jan 9 07:38:20 2007. Come on now, Thameslink caused no complaints because it added possibilities. The only people it inconvenienced were users of Holborn Viaduct and Moorgate stations, not very many!Your proposed WLL scheme is not saving any money to contribute to its costs, and its not really helping enough people. If anything, its going to be more costly because now services will end up being duplicated. For example, Brighton will need a Central London, a City, AND a West London service. Your 4tph service would have to be provided AS WELL AS a Brighton to London and Birmingham to London service. Linking Euston and Victoria by a tunnel would mean that those additional trains would not be necessary. In other words, enhancing WLL = 16tph necessary, Euston-Victoria Tunnel = 4tph necessary. You don't need to discourage inter-city through traffic because it travels at different times to commuter flows. If I need to trvel from Brighton to Birmingham for a morning meeting, I am going to be having to head towards London before the commuters do. Segregating inter-city and commuter trains to different routes in this way will make the commuter routes even less cost effective because you will be reducing offpeak travel through Victoria by diverting it to Olympia. WLL has its uses, but not as an intensive passenger corridor. |
|
|
|