|
|
| Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) (366410) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 Rail Blue on Tue Jan 9 08:40:24 2007, in response to 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. 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!But the bandwaggon effect that followed (culminating in the extremely silly Thameslink 2000 plan with thirteen southern branches and overwhelming support from the councils who you would have thought would be outraged by losing service to better termini) is the interesting bit. 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. But it would actually give Brighton sensible InterCity CrossCountry services rather than infrequent slow trains via Reading. The Brighton service is of course already split three-way, it's just that I would change the proportions and stopping patterns. 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. If all the trains ran via Euston, you would need a much higher frequency (probably 3tph Birmingham (with 1tph continuing at least to Wolverhampton, preferably to Aberystwyth), 3tph Manchester, 2tph Liverpool). And then you'd end up with InterCity trains trying to provide a commuter service on the Brighton Line (as there's no way you could run 8tph of InterCity service on the Brighton Line even if it were needed). 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. And if you need to be in Birmingham for lunch? Or how about going back to Brighton after your lunch in Birmingham? It's actually quite neat how level demand is on a proper InterCity route. 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. The long-distance commuter routes are a disaster and they should stop being lumped in with InterCity trains (or alternatively South London locals) so they can be seen for what they are. Can serving, say, Balcombe station ever be financially viable? |
|
|
|