|
|
| Re: London's five-year plan (8381) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
|
| (14100) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Oct 29 19:49:37 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Fytton on Fri Oct 29 05:19:34 2004. Most of the stuff we already knew about. Apparently the 45% increase in capacity for the Jubilee Line, promised to the International Olympic Committee, is to be achived by running longer trains - if they are going to be 45% longer, then some very very expensive station lengthening is going to be required (and I don't believe it will happen).They could probably get a 45% increase just by running more trains on a line like the Jubilee. Given that it runs 18-20tph, a 45% increase would be 26-29tph. Not impossible. With a lengthening from 6 to 7 cars (which would mean no platform lengthenings - just a few "the last set of doors won't open" messages), this would be reduced to 22-25tph, which is probably more to LU managers tastes (and would please the PFIdiots with an expensive new order for a 4 car version of 96 Stock). I don't believe it will happen. Firstly, London won't get the games; and secondly, even if it did, what would the point be in running extra trains on a line which doesn't go where people want to go? What is a bit depressing is a subtle shift away from rail - the East London and Greenwich "rapid transit" schemes are that well-known abomination, "bus rapid transit", which just means plain old buses, unless they are really going to have extensive bus-only roads. It's what you get for prioritising JLE, ELLX and Crossrail over twenty cheaper projects. You get a big white elephant and the ordinary people are no better off. The really disingenuous thing is how much these BRT "schemes" cost compared to the council's Highways Dept doing the job and the bus company operating the buses along the new priority measures. The Greenwich scheme is really only an upgrading of the existing bus network from Thamesmead to try to get some more usage at that magnificent white elephant, North Greenwich tube station. Which isn't going to work. Most people will still work their way to Abbey Wood or Woolwich Arsenal. The only way North Greenwich is going to work is to demolish the Dome and build a large council estate on the site. Otherwise it will remain out on a limb on one side and cut off on the other three. And there is nothing there about any extensions of the Croydon Tramlink, or the West London Tram, about which public consultations have recently taken place. From which we assume nothing will happen regarding any new tram schemes until after 2010 at the earliest. :-( but those were two of the few sensible schemes! |
|
|
| (14117) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Fri Oct 29 21:04:28 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Oct 12 15:47:25 2004. There's always the Post Office Railway...:o)wayne |
|
|
| (14119) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Fri Oct 29 21:30:36 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Max Roberts on Fri Oct 22 07:29:51 2004. We know all about Bank, it's an accident waiting to happen. Why the heck don't they install gap fillers, as we have at South Ferry and Union Square?wayne |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (14136) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Oct 29 22:34:49 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Fri Oct 29 21:30:36 2004. If you think Bank's bad, get on a train that's going from Watford Junction to Gatwick or Brighton and get off at Clapham Junction. You will soon see what "mind the gap" REALLY means. |
|
|
| (14138) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Fri Oct 29 22:36:48 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Fri Oct 29 21:04:28 2004. There's always the Post Office Railway...:o)The system was taken out of use in the early hours of May 31, 2003. But it's only "mothballed" so could be reopened! |
|
|
| (14142) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Oct 29 22:41:04 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by David Fairthorne on Fri Oct 29 22:36:48 2004. But it's only "mothballed" so could be reopened!Alternatively MI5 could be using it. |
|
|
| (14162) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Sat Oct 30 01:03:25 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Oct 29 18:51:21 2004. Pedantic correction: 9-13 are long enough; 8 and 14-16 can only fit eight cars.I meant that all stations on the fast Brighton line (Quarry line) have 12 car platforms. Some 12-car peak hour Southern services do run from London Bridge to Bognor, Eastbourne, Littlehampton and Brighton. I would like a few more 12-car London Bridge to Brighton Southern trains in peak hours, rather than crowded 8-car Thameslink trains. One problem is that, south of the Thames, Thameslink trains take different routes in peak and off-peak hours, due in part to the London Bridge bottleneck. That bottleneck will not go away unless Thameslink 2000 or something like it is built. Another problem is that the Brighton service is less frequent in peak hours than off-peak, and it's overcrowded. Here is a slightly modified plan that eliminates the need for a Thameslink service to terminate in the busy East Croydon area. On the Brighton line, I suggest 2 tph serving London Bridge and 2 tph via Herne Hill. To avoid the London Bridge bottleneck, the 2 tph serving London Bridge would terminate there, be operated by Southern, and be extended to 12 cars in peak hours. For a relatively long distance service 2 tph is quite sufficient. There already are two off-peak stopping patterns. Stops between Haywards Heath and Brighton only have 2 tph (one of which goes to Watford). The local loop could stay on one route all day (Thameslink - Wimbledon - Sutton - Thameslink or London Bridge terminus). Other local routes could be added to Thameslink, such as the Catford loop. Moorgate would remain open, at least in peak hours, because it is useful, and because you need more tph north of the Thames. |
|
|
| (14283) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Oct 30 15:39:46 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Max Roberts on Fri Oct 22 10:59:18 2004. Still, a terminus at Moorgate is only going to see five-days a week usage, so in the dim and distant future at Moorgate extend SW to StPaul's, Ludgate Circus, Aldwych, Charing Cross, Green Park, Hyde Park Corner, Knightsbridge, Albert Hall, High Street Kensington, Kensington Olympia, and points west. Now you have a 7-days-a-week line serving work and leisure destinations in the City and West End. That line definitely needs another connection from the GER too. |
|
|
| (14287) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Oct 30 15:50:33 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by David Fairthorne on Fri Oct 22 15:32:13 2004. That would explain why the route to the north (lines C1 and C3) starts out going south west, then turns north east!That part of the line was built to serve the 1900 World's fair from St-Lazare. The history of line C is about connecting existing lines with the least work. But it's such a troublesome line that my Parisian friend says it "n'existe pas". Lots of breakdowns and closures. |
|
|
| (14288) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Oct 30 15:51:54 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by David Fairthorne on Sat Oct 16 01:33:57 2004. I'm sure they could learn something from JR East's and Toei's operations in Tokyo. |
|
|
| (14383) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sat Oct 30 22:16:18 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by David Fairthorne on Sat Oct 30 01:03:25 2004. I meant that all stations on the fast Brighton line (Quarry line) have 12 car platforms.Apart from (strangely) Balcombe southbound. I like the idea of splitting London Bridge services from Thameslink though. |
|
|
| (14410) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sat Oct 30 22:57:33 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Oct 30 15:51:54 2004. Quite what are you hinting at? |
|
|
| (14414) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Sat Oct 30 23:17:13 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Oct 30 15:51:54 2004. I'm sure they could learn something from JR East's and Toei's operations in Tokyo.The extent of Tokyo subways running over commuter rails is most impressive. This Polish map (to scale) shows which subway lines are have reciprocal operation along JR East and private railways. "It has been a generally followed principle that, to simplify operation, metro should be totally separated from other types of railways. In Tokyo however, by the end of the 1950s it was decided to connect metro lines with regional railways of many types: Private and National (main line). In this way Subway acquired access to outgoing lines, while regional railways received cross-city links. This was attempted not long after similar reciprocal working in London or some American cities had been eliminated." In fact nine subway lines (out of twelve) are extended to run over commuter rail at one or both ends. Some of these extensions go as far as the 60 km radius, but none splits into more than two branches at the same end except line A which splits into four. Line A (Asakusa) extends from Misakiguchi and Haneda airport (Keikyu) to Imba-Nihon-Idai and Narita airport (Keisei). Line H (Hibiya) extends from Kikuna (Tokyu) to Tobu-dobutsu-koen (Tobu). Line T (Tozai) extends from Mitaka (JR East) to Toyo-katsutadai (Toyo) and Tsudanuma (JR East). Line I (Mita) extends to Musashi-Kosugi (Tokyu). Line N (Namboku) extends to Urawa-misono (Saitama). Line Y (Yuracucho) extends to Hanno (Seibu) and Shinrin-koen (Tobu). Line C (Chiyoda) extends to Karakida and Hon-atsugi (Odakyu). Line S (Shinjuku) extends to Hashimoto and Takao-sanguchi (Keio). Line Z (Hanzomon) extends from Chuo-rinkan (Tokyu) to Minami-kurihashi (Tobu). London's planned Crossrail, which will have 24 tph and two branches at each end, is similar in principle to a Tokyo metro line extended at both ends over commuter rail. Thameslink 2000 is a cheaper but bigger project, with two northern branches and twelve southern branches including some 100 km long. I don't think that's realistic. I am sure that London could learn plenty from Tokyo. Better timekeeping for instance! |
|
|
| (14442) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Oct 31 01:41:42 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by David Fairthorne on Sat Oct 30 23:17:13 2004. By saying Toei, I meant the multi-destination, hyper complicated operation on the Asakusa line.Recent moves and future plans by JR East on the west side of the Yamanote line (aka Saikyo line or Shonan-Shinjuku line) is unthinkable, if you look back at the JNR days. As of now, trains from these lines share the former freight/goods trackage: Saikyo, Kawagoe, Utsunomiya, Takasaki, Tokaido, Yokosuka, Tokyo Rinkai, Narita Express and maybe more. Future plans include Sagami Railway(Sotestu) and Tobu Nikko lines to be integrated as well. On the east side of the Yamanote, a connection(Ueno-Tokyo) between the Utsunomiya, Takasaki, Joban lines and Tokaido, Yokosuka Lines is under construction for through service. The connection existed until it gave up the right of way to the Tohoku Shinkansen but never really had regular service. Now they rebuilding the connection, one flight higher than the original one. This also means the introduction of "Green car"(read "First class") seating on northern mid-distance commuter trains, which will happen even sooner than the through service. It would take me another long post, if you're going to ask me why the southern and eastern Tokyo suburban service had them for a long time, while the northern and western never had them. |
|
|
| (14443) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Oct 31 01:55:01 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Rail Blue on Sat Oct 30 22:57:33 2004. The multi-branched services currently operating and to be provisionned in Tokyo. Read my reply to David Fairthorne. They're becoming even more complicated than the Southern. The Yamanote line is the Circle line of Tokyo, albeit with no at grade conflicts anymore and much of the line has its Widened lines aka "former freight trackage" now used for passenger service by too many lines.It's a very Halloween weekend and I may have had a few too many tonight though....:) |
|
|
| (14584) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Sun Oct 31 15:51:00 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Oct 31 01:41:42 2004. By saying Toei, I meant the multi-destination, hyper complicated operation on the Asakusa line.The map at http://www.tokyometro.jp/network/pdf/rosen_eng.pdf shows the Tokyo subways. The Asakusa Toei line (line A) has through running to four western destinations, including Haneda airport, on the Keikyu railway, and two eastern destinations, one to Narita airport and the other to be extended to Narita airport, on the Keisei railway. Altogether it makes a long and complex subway line. Recent moves and future plans by JR East on the west side of the Yamanote line (aka Saikyo line or Shonan-Shinjuku line) is unthinkable, if you look back at the JNR days. As of now, trains from these lines share the former freight/goods trackage: Saikyo, Kawagoe, Utsunomiya, Takasaki, Tokaido, Yokosuka, Tokyo Rinkai, Narita Express and maybe more. Future plans include Sagami Railway(Sotestu) and Tobu Nikko lines to be integrated as well. On the east side of the Yamanote, a connection (Ueno-Tokyo) between the Utsunomiya, Takasaki, Joban lines and Tokaido, Yokosuka Lines is under construction for through service. The connection existed until it gave up the right of way to the Tohoku Shinkansen but never really had regular service. Now they rebuilding the connection, one flight higher than the original one. The map at http://www.jreast.co.jp/e-info/map_a4ol.pdf shows the JR East lines. The Shonan Shinjuku line already has the destinations that you have mentioned, over 100 km from Shinjuku, and including also the shorter distance Saikyo line (Kawagoe to Rinkai line through service) it looks a complex enough operation already. On the east side there is an obvious gap between Ueno (where the Joban line and a branch of the Shonan Shinjuku terminates) and Tokyo (where another branch of the Shonan Shinjuku line terminates). Through running should reduce the need for terminal capacity and provide a one-seat ride from the north to Tokyo and from the south to Ueno. I hope they can make it all work! |
|
|
| (14586) | |
Tokyo (Re: London's five-year plan) |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Sun Oct 31 15:54:18 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Oct 31 01:55:01 2004. The multi-branched services currently operating and to be provisioned in Tokyo.The Yamanote line is the Circle line of Tokyo, albeit with no at grade conflicts anymore and much of the line has its Widened lines aka "former freight trackage" now used for passenger service by too many lines. Well at least it's good that the Yamanote line has its own separate grade-separated tracks! |
|
|
| (14742) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Mon Nov 1 04:31:53 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Oct 29 19:16:46 2004. I think that there are too many bus routes in Central London. Even today many suburbs have a city-bound and a West-end bound route, even though long-distance bus commuters must now be a thing of the past. People don't like changing buses because they can run very unreliably, and changes are often required in inhospitable places, but with a smaller number of trunk routes, both problems could be addressed. |
|
|
| (14766) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Mon Nov 1 07:32:28 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by David Fairthorne on Sat Oct 30 01:03:25 2004. "Stops between Haywards Heath and Brighton only have 2 tph (one of which goes to Watford)."Not true. Of the 4 tph off-peak Thameslink service to Brighton, two are all-stations Haywards Heath-Brighton. The 1 tph Watford train provided by Southern is additional. The only station on the Brighton line with a limited service is Balcombe (which serves a tiny village). It has only 1 tph, provided by Thameslink. |
|
|
| (14990) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Nov 1 18:24:56 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Fytton on Mon Nov 1 07:32:28 2004. Of the 4 tph off-peak Thameslink service to Brighton, two are all-stations Haywards Heath-Brighton.Thanks for the correction, Fytton. That helps my argument, which is as follows: Some people from the Brighton line want London Bridge and some want Thameslink. So split the 4 tph service between Thameslink (2 tph) and London Bridge terminus (2 tph). Run the same services all day on both routes. On the London Bridge service use 12 car trains when necessary. Disadvantages: 1. each service would be less frequent, 2. some trains would take the slower route, and 3. people really wanting to get from London Bridge to Thameslink would have to use the underground. The big advantages would be the avoidance of conflicting movements over flat junctions in the London Bridge (high level) bottleneck area and the avoidance of the single-track connection from London Bridge to Blackfriars. |
|
|
| (15097) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Tue Nov 2 04:50:12 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Nov 1 18:24:56 2004. Of course, passengers from Brighton, Preston Park, Hassocks, Burgess Hill and Wivelsfield can reach any of Victoria, London Bridge, Thameslink stations or Kensington Olympia/Watford by changing at either Haywards Heath or East Croydon.The Thameslink service to London Bridge doesn't only help the people on the southern end of Thameslink, though, it helps those on the northern side too. It provides a two-seat ride, avoiding humping one's luggage down on the tube and up again, from Bedford, Luton & St Albans to everywhere in south and southeast London and Kent that has trains from London Bridge. As a Bedford resident I find that useful. I agree, though, that sending the 2 tph fast Brighton Thameslinks via London Bridge and the other 2 tph slow Brighton Thameslinks via Tulse Hill to Blackfriars would be a reasonable compromise to minimise the conflicts at Borough Market and Metropolitan Junctions until Thameslink 2000 gets built. |
|
|
| (15128) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Tue Nov 2 07:44:13 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Nov 1 18:24:56 2004. For completeness, the current off peak service on the (UK!) Brighton Line is:Victoria to Brighton calling Clapham Junction and East Croydon, 2 tph Victoria to Eastbourne/Worthing (dividing at Haywards Heath) calling Clapham Junction, East Croydon, Gatwick Airport and Haywards Heath, 2 tph Thameslink to Brighton calling London Bridge, East Croydon, Gatwick Airport and Haywards Heath, 2 tph Thameslink to Brighton calling London Bridge, East Croydon, Gatwick Airport, Three Bridges*, Haywards Heath and all stations, 2 tph (*of which 1 tph also calls at Balcombe) Watford to Brighton calling Kensington Olympia, West Brompton, Clapham Junction, East Croydon, Gatwick Airport, Three Bridges, Haywards Heath ansd all stations, 1 tph Total 7 tph into Brighton, 7 tph calling at Haywards Heath, 4 tph from Victoria, 4 tph from London Bridge, 9 tph altogether. When I lived in Brighton in my childhood, we had 1 tph non-stop Victoria-Brighton, one semifast Victoria-Brighton (calling Clapham Junction, East Croydon, Three Bridges?? and Haywards Heath - Gatwick Airport wasn't important then), and two slow (one from Victoria, one from London Bridge) all stations from Three Bridges on. Total of 4 tph into Brighton. I'm not sure how frequent the Eastbourne/Worthing service was the - maybe 1 tph on each route but not dividing, giving a total of 6 tph down the Brighton main line as against 9 tph now. |
|
|
| (15138) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Peter Rosa on Tue Nov 2 09:02:02 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Fytton on Tue Nov 2 07:44:13 2004. When I lived in Brighton in my childhood, we had 1 tph non-stop Victoria-Brighton, one semifast Victoria-Brighton (calling Clapham Junction, East Croydon, Three Bridges?? and Haywards Heath - Gatwick Airport wasn't important then), and two slow (one from Victoria, one from London Bridge) all stations from Three Bridges on. Total of 4 tph into Brighton. I'm not sure how frequent the Eastbourne/Worthing service was the - maybe 1 tph on each route but not dividing, giving a total of 6 tph down the Brighton main line as against 9 tph now.I've gotten the idea that Brighton today has become somewhat of a commuter suburb to London, so the increased train service makes sense. |
|
|
| (15143) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Tue Nov 2 09:18:43 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Peter Rosa on Tue Nov 2 09:02:02 2004. "I've gotten the idea that Brighton today has become somewhat of a commuter suburb to London..."It has been for a long time - the third-rail electrification to Brighton in 1933 was the Southern Railway's first long-distance (more than 20 miles or so) electrification. Brighton is "London-by-the-Sea"! The peak hour service has always been generous; the recent(ish) change has been the increase in off-peak frequeny. |
|
|
| (15354) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Nov 2 17:39:27 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Fytton on Tue Nov 2 07:44:13 2004. The major additions I would make to the Brighton line would be:1tph Brighton, Hayward's Heath, Gatwick Airport, East Croydon, Clapham Junction, West Brompton, Milton Keynes Central (or Bletchley if the Oxbridge Line ever returns), Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street, Oldbury Bromford La, Wolverhampton HL, Telford Central, Wellington, Shrewsbury, maybe stations to Aberystwyth 1tph Brighton, Hayward's Heath, Gatwick Airport, East Croydon, Clapham Junction, West Brompton, Milton Keynes Central (or Bletchley if the Oxbridge Line ever returns), Nuneaton, Tamworth, Stafford, Crewe, Runcorn, Liverpool Lime St 1tph Brighton, Hayward's Heath, Gatwick Airport, East Croydon, Clapham Junction, West Brompton, Milton Keynes Central (or Bletchley if the Oxbridge Line ever returns), Nuneaton, Tamworth, Stoke-on-Trent, Macclesfield, Stockport, Manchester Piccadilly These would be far more use than the Watford-Brighton Local. The 4th service I would add over the WLL (though not over the Brighton) would be: 1tph Margate, Ramsgate, canterbury West, Ashford International, Maidstone East, Bromley South, West Brompton, Milton Keynes Central (or Bletchley if the Oxbridge Line ever returns), Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street, Oldbury Bromford La, Wolverhampton HL, Telford Central, Wellington, Shrewsbury |
|
|
| (15705) | |
Brighton line (Re: London's five-year plan) |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Wed Nov 3 13:26:00 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Nov 2 17:39:27 2004. These would be far more use than the Watford-Brighton Local.I can see your proposed routes as potentially attractive to Gatwick Airport passengers, as going via the West London line would offer the convenience of not carrying baggage across London. But I doubt that there would be enough demand for the services, or whether they could compete with the fast new services on the West Coast Main Line. Cross-country routes in general come and go over the years, and infrequent passengers often don't know about them or don't think of using them. The SRA Brighton Main Line Route Utilisation Strategy plans to discontinue through service from the West London line via Clapham Junction because, it says, the time slots would be better filled by trains carrying more passengers: "The loadings of these trains across Clapham Junction should be compared with the loadings of many other suburban trains with Victoria as an origin or destination. On average, in the southbound direction, there are only approximately 25 people remaining on each train across Clapham Junction. This train uses paths on the slow lines. Suburban trains out of Victoria could more beneficially use those paths, a principal reason being that the cross-London trains are only 4 cars long, whereas the Victoria suburban trains can be 8 cars in length. Trains to/from Victoria are significantly overcrowded in the peak hours (sometimes with loadings as high as 800-900 people – see Figure 5 on page 10) and these high figures have led us to question whether the capacity used by the Watford – Brighton train (especially during the evening peak period) may not be better used by trains coming from Victoria. In addition, the junction constraints just south of Clapham Junction and at Balham, where the Watford – Brighton trains have to cross from one line to another, pose performance problems." "In order to deliver better performance south of Clapham, and to make what is considered to be better use of the paths south of Clapham, the Watford – Brighton service will be curtailed, on current plans, to become a Watford – Clapham Junction service. Very low numbers of through passengers have precipitated the consideration of this option, and the capacity on the fast and slow lines can be used for longer and busier trains from Victoria. Connections to a wide variety of destinations are available at Clapham Junction." |
|
|
| (15960) | |
Re: Brighton line (Re: London's five-year plan) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Nov 3 20:37:25 2004, in response to Brighton line (Re: London's five-year plan), posted by David Fairthorne on Wed Nov 3 13:26:00 2004. I can see your proposed routes as potentially attractive to Gatwick Airport passengers, as going via the West London line would offer the convenience of not carrying baggage across London.Not just Gatwick. It would mean that all points on the LBSC and LSW are only one change from the Midlands and North-West. I can see it being very popular. The other thing it solves is to give the Milton Keynes area onward InterCity connections without getting the InterCity trains to Euston packed with commuters. "In order to deliver better performance south of Clapham, and to make what is considered to be better use of the paths south of Clapham, the Watford � Brighton service will be curtailed, on current plans, to become a Watford � Clapham Junction service. Very low numbers of through passengers have precipitated the consideration of this option, and the capacity on the fast and slow lines can be used for longer and busier trains from Victoria. Connections to a wide variety of destinations are available at Clapham Junction." I'm afraid the SRA are engaging in some intellectual dishonesty. The low ridership South of Clapham Junction is largely due to the train operating Slow to Brighton and being overtaken. This will show on the NR journey planner as *requiring* a change, and even if you do notice that your train's going to Brighton, you don't want to sit on a train that stops at every village in Surrey and Sussex when there's a quicker alternative. This also flies in the face of the idea that Inter-City Cross Country services should be the fast trains ans the commuter trains to London should be the slow ones plus however many extra fasts are needed. Point two is that it's not much used from the Watford end because: 1) it's still two changes from Birmingham/Manchester/Liverpool to South London/Surrey/Sussex, just like the tube (although the changes are distinctly easier). 2) it's irregular and not very frequent. 3) the connections at Watford Junction are timed VERY badly. They tend either to be 3 minutes to leg it from one platform to another, or waiting around for three-quarters of an hour. It's as if Virgin Trains didn't look at which trains would connect with onward services when determining which ones should stop at Watford. It's a case of them having made the service as hard to use as possible, and then commenting that no-one rides it. They've now cancelled a load of southbound stops at Watford in rush hour, so it's only going to get worse. A perfectly successful cross-country service was run via this route in the 80s, and furthermore cross-country ridership has surged since then, so it would be a distinctly good idea to reintroduce such a service. There are definitely paths on the WCML. Remember that the speed was cut from 140mph to 125mph whilst the number of trainsets stayed constant. This has left Birmingham with only 2 of its promised 4tph and a similar pattern is repeated up the line. |
|
|
| (993874) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Dand124 on Mon Oct 25 22:35:36 2010, in response to London's five-year plan, posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Oct 11 23:32:14 2004. How much of the plan did they implement? |
|
|
| (994044) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Oct 26 09:00:37 2010, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Dand124 on Mon Oct 25 22:35:36 2010. · Thames Gateway Bridge to link Greenwich and NewhamScrapped. · Air-cooled tube trains Only on S Stock, which technically aren't tube trains. · East London line extension to Dalston, Croydon and Crystal Palace This did happen, despite not being a very good idea. · Completion of 'showpiece' Wembley Park station "Showpiece" is ghastly marketing speak, but this did happen. · Extending Metropolitan line to Watford Junction Still waiting. · Completion of switch to low-floor buses with CCTV by 2006 I think they did this. I don't really pay much attention to CCTV. · Introduction of low-emission zone by 2007 It was February 2008, but we can give them that one. · New pedestrian crossings and street lighting This is a non-promise promise. Street furniture is replaced all the time. · New security measures for overground trains and stations Errmm... · Enhanced cycle network This is still laughable. · Initiatives to encourage more walking No doubt they held something so they could claim this was true. · Possible extension of congestion charge westwards Yes, and now they want to scrap the westward extension. · Energy-saving and noise reduction on London Underground This might be marketing guff about S Stock. Who knows... |
|
|
| (994106) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Tue Oct 26 12:02:12 2010, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Oct 26 09:00:37 2010. 'New security measures for overground trains and stations,''Errmm...' In 2004 they presumably meant overground not Overground, but it is true that after the takeover of the former Silverlink Metro lines by TfL under the name of London Overground, they *did* improve security at its stations, by a good old-fashioned method - staffing them! |
|
|
| (994114) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Oct 26 12:55:42 2010, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Oct 26 09:00:37 2010. What does "air-cooled" mean when it comes to these trains? The term to me is specific to internal combustion engines (i.e. versus "water-cooled", e.g. the VW Type 1's horizontally-opposed engine is air-cooled, while the inline 4 of the VW Golf is water-cooled). |
|
|
| (994152) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Oct 26 14:45:33 2010, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Fytton on Tue Oct 26 12:02:12 2010. Fair enough. I didn't really know what that point was getting at. |
|
|
| (994154) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Oct 26 14:46:39 2010, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Oct 26 12:55:42 2010. I think it was a literal for air-conditioned. |
|
|
| (994365) | |
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Oct 27 05:31:48 2010, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Oct 26 14:46:39 2010. 'I think ['air-cooled'] it was a literal for air-conditioned.'Actually, I think it was no so much a literal as weasel words - the new 'S' stock has some cooling of the air but I'm not sure it is fully-fledged air-conditioning. As for deep-tube stock, I thin they tried but failed to find a way to squeeze any form of air-con or air-cooling into the tiny profile of these trains without an unacceptable loss of passenger space, nor did they solve the problem that cooler trains mean hotter deep-level stations.... |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
