|
|
| London Overground (307276) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 4 |
|
|
| (307276) | |
London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Wed Sep 6 00:40:45 2006  TfL press release BBC article 2010 Underground/Overground map |
|
|
| (307278) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Sep 6 00:41:55 2006, in response to London Overground, posted by David of Broadway on Wed Sep 6 00:40:45 2006. um |
|
|
| (307282) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Wed Sep 6 00:49:17 2006, in response to London Overground, posted by David of Broadway on Wed Sep 6 00:40:45 2006. Some more related items here.As well as a downright phenomenal shot outside Westminster station. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (307285) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Sep 6 01:16:12 2006, in response to London Overground, posted by David of Broadway on Wed Sep 6 00:40:45 2006. If the London Underground is abbreviated LUL then can we abbreviate the London Overground as LOL? |
|
|
| (307289) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Wed Sep 6 01:50:37 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David of Broadway on Wed Sep 6 00:49:17 2006. 'As well as a downright phenomenal shot outside Westminster station'good show ol' chap but where's the phenomenal? |
|
|
| (307298) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by xtimx on Wed Sep 6 02:49:36 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by WillD on Wed Sep 6 01:16:12 2006. no, it will be renamed the Rapid Overground For London or ROFL for short. |
|
|
| (307307) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 6 05:21:17 2006, in response to London Overground, posted by David of Broadway on Wed Sep 6 00:40:45 2006. You beat me to it, David - curse these time-zone changes! And then Subchat went down to delay my response still more.The most striking part of the press release to me was this bit: "The Mayor signalled his commitment to deliver a rail link at Dalston Junction to connect the North and East London Railways by 2010, ahead of the London 2012 Olympics. This will allow 'London Overground' passengers to travel between Richmond and West Croydon via Dalston Junction and is the first step towards an orbital rail link for London. The Mayor continued: 'By joining together the North and East London Railways ahead of the London 2012 Olympics, we will create a new rail artery around the city, serving 20 London boroughs." Clearly, then, this really does indicate that Mayor Ken's dream is really the Outer Circle. But not quite the Clapham Junction to Claphham Junction Outer Circle that seemed likely at first. We had wondered where the ELL trains would terminate at their northern end. Now we know: Richmond! Which does raise the question - if ELL trains are using a fair chunk of the capacity of the NLL, where are the trains from Stratford going to go? Our observation the other week on the NLL was that a lot of passengers got on at the Hackney stations and alighted at Highbury & Islington, presumably for Victoria Line trains to the West End. As the main tubeless area of inner London, Hackney really needs better frequency on the Overground than the current four tph on the NLL. I'm thinking a Stratford-Watford Junction service via Highbury & I., Camden Road, Primrose Hill (reopened and resited close to Chalk Farm tube station), Queens Park, Willesden Jct LL, Harrow & Wealdstone and the DC lines to Watford Jct. |
|
|
| (307314) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 6 07:09:51 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 6 05:21:17 2006. This will allow 'London Overground' passengers to travel between Richmond and West Croydon via Dalston Junction and is the first step towards an orbital rail link for London....is probably just an example of a functionary not being able to read the map. |
|
|
| (307315) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 6 07:13:04 2006, in response to London Overground, posted by David of Broadway on Wed Sep 6 00:40:45 2006. I didn't realise the Thames Tunnel was overground.But seriously, this is very very silly. It'd be much better to rename the Euston-Watford Line to the Bakerloo Line (Euston branch), then leave the other lines alone (and scrap the really stupid idea of running trains from the ELL on the Brighton Main Line). |
|
|
| (307317) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Wed Sep 6 07:22:06 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 6 07:09:51 2006. I highlighted that passage when I read it. Isn’t that an incredibly long way round, like going from Victoria to South Kensington via Baker St? |
|
|
| (307318) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 6 07:23:28 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 6 07:13:04 2006. "I didn't realise the Thames Tunnel was overground"Yep - the oldest tunnel on the Underground is now officially Overground. The Overground crosses the Thames in a tunnel, while the Underground (Wimbledon and Richmond branches of the District Line) crosses the Thames on bridges. What a wonderful world we live in! |
|
|
| (307326) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 6 07:51:08 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 6 05:21:17 2006. "But not quite the Clapham Junction to Claphham Junction Outer Circle that seemed likely at first."Looking again at the London Overground map as of now, and the predicted 2010 version, together with the small print of the press release, it becomes clear that Clapham Junction to Clapham Junction is still an aspiration. However, funding for ELL Extension Phase 2 has not been secured, so the Surrey Quays-Clapham Junction part (taking over the existing South London Line) won't be there till after 2010 (if ever). In fact, the *only* extra bit of infrastructure not currently financed that Ken is promising today is putting back the junction at Dalston Junction. No Bakerloo Line back to Watford Junction (which would entail relaying fourth rails from Harrow & Wealdstone to Watford Junction); no electrification Gospel Oak-Woodgrange Park; no re-opening of the Primrose Hill link (which would entail a new Primrose Hill/Chalk Farm station). West Croydon to Richmond via Dalston Junction is a daft route - no-one would go all the way. The real subtext here is that if the ELL has three southern termini (West Croydon, Crystal Palace and New Cross), and in the future perhaps a fourth (Clapham Junction), they need adequate northern terminal capacity, and it isn't clear where that can be found. Aha - they said - Richmond has lots of terminal capacity.... |
|
|
| (307339) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 6 08:24:46 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 6 07:51:08 2006. However, funding for ELL Extension Phase 2 has not been secured, so the Surrey Quays-Clapham Junction part (taking over the existing South London Line) won't be there till after 2010 (if ever).Which is weird seeing as it's the only half-sensible route in south London. In fact, the *only* extra bit of infrastructure not currently financed that Ken is promising today is putting back the junction at Dalston Junction. <pedant>Dalston Western Junction.</pedant> no re-opening of the Primrose Hill link (which would entail a new Primrose Hill/Chalk Farm station). The link is still there (and electrified) - it's just the station's decidedly falling down. Perhaps you're thinking of the Empty Carriage Line (the one which diverged from the Primrose Hill Line as soon as it had diverged from the Main Slow, then descended into a tunnel that curved under the approaches to Euston, then rose to join what is now called Line E just before the (Lower) Park St Tunnel), which has sadly been removed. West Croydon to Richmond via Dalston Junction is a daft route - no-one would go all the way. The real subtext here is that if the ELL has three southern termini (West Croydon, Crystal Palace and New Cross), and in the future perhaps a fourth (Clapham Junction), they need adequate northern terminal capacity, and it isn't clear where that can be found. Aha - they said - Richmond has lots of terminal capacity.... But there's plenty of terminal capacity before Richmond, notably at Willesden Junction. And it would be relatively easy to create terminal capacity at Caledonian Road & Barnsbury (slew over the reversible AC Line, divert the Eastbound DC Line onto the opposite platform face, and install a junction east of the station to use the existing Eastbound DC Line as a pocket) - remember the alignment's four track between Camden Road East Junction and Dalston Western Junction. The place which really has no sensible way of creating terminal capacity (at least, not without totally compromising through trains) is Crystal Palace. |
|
|
| (307344) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 6 08:32:31 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 6 08:24:46 2006. "no re-opening of the Primrose Hill link (which would entail a new Primrose Hill/Chalk Farm station)"" The link is still there (and electrified) - it's just the station's decidedly falling down." Presumably it's useful for non-revenue moves. It would need a new station, though, nearer to Chalk Farm, and stations cost a fair bit. I was thinking about capital expenditures no yet authorised - the only one Ken is apparently going to make out of TfL funds is the reconnection od Dalston Western Junction. |
|
|
| (307346) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Sep 6 08:33:43 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Sep 6 00:41:55 2006. cat got your tounge? |
|
|
| (307363) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Alargule on Wed Sep 6 09:57:18 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by WillD on Wed Sep 6 01:16:12 2006. LUL means 'dick' or 'cock' in Dutch... |
|
|
| (307458) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Wed Sep 6 15:17:21 2006, in response to London Overground, posted by David of Broadway on Wed Sep 6 00:40:45 2006. Thanks for those interesting links. There is also an article at This is Local London.The London Overground is to be a collection of existing lines (some routes currently operated by Silverlink, plus the East London line, currently being extended) under a new name; altogether it will serve 71 stations. The mayor says that trains will run every eight minutes; but from where to where? That level of service (with 4-car trains) is needed for the existing East London line, and it may be justified for the busiest parts of the North London line and the Euston to Watford line, but it would be too much for the other Overground routes. Some Overground routes share tracks with non-Overground routes, and it is important that the non-Overground routes should not have to suffer from reduced services in order to boost the Overground. |
|
|
| (307510) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 6 19:56:55 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David Fairthorne on Wed Sep 6 15:17:21 2006. Some Overground routes share tracks with non-Overground routes, and it is important that the non-Overground routes should not have to suffer from reduced services in order to boost the Overground.And I'm beginning to realise the full horror of this. If they're serious about using Crystal Palace as a terminal from the NE, then that will kill any London Bridge - beyond Crystal Palace service. If the West Croydon to London Bridge trains go too, then the only remaining London Bridge local service will be the Tats and Cats, maybe with a few trains to Sutton, Epsom, and Epsom Downs. This would be a disaster for South London. |
|
|
| (307545) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Sep 6 21:51:47 2006, in response to London Overground, posted by David of Broadway on Wed Sep 6 00:40:45 2006. OMG! How many different routings will THAT make for?wayne |
|
|
| (307560) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 6 22:10:54 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Sep 6 21:51:47 2006. OMG! How many different routings will THAT make for?Six or seven, most likely: 1) Euston - Watford Junction (the real no brainer) 2) Richmond - Stratford 3) Clapham Junction - Willesden Junction 4) Gospel Oak - Barking OR: 3) Clapham Junction - Barking 5-7 OR 4-6) somewhere - Crystal Palace, West Croydon, and New Cross |
|
|
| (307564) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Wed Sep 6 22:51:13 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 6 22:10:54 2006. 3&4: Does that turn the Goblin line into the Clapping line? |
|
|
| (307573) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Wed Sep 6 23:23:26 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 6 19:56:55 2006. And I'm beginning to realise the full horror of this. ... This would be a disaster for South London.Yes, the London Bridge local services via New Cross Gate are quite popular, and they ought not to be reduced to make way for the East London Line extension. For historical reasons there's already too much choice of rail routes in south London generally, resulting in infrequent services; that London Bridge local line is an exception, having a reasonably good service. |
|
|
| (307590) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Thu Sep 7 01:54:37 2006, in response to London Overground, posted by David of Broadway on Wed Sep 6 00:40:45 2006. The name "Overground Network" is already supposed to apply to all London area services with at least four TPH (off-peak). See this site, which has a link to a pdf map of the Overground Network, showing the TPH at each station served.Many people are likely to be confused between the "London Overground" and the "Overground Network", especially given that some stations will be served by both systems! To add to the confusion, I suggest using the letter "O" for orbital routes. |
|
|
| (307605) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Thu Sep 7 04:31:03 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Sep 6 08:33:43 2006. I thought so |
|
|
| (307630) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Thu Sep 7 08:22:10 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David Fairthorne on Wed Sep 6 23:23:26 2006. For historical reasons there's already too much choice of rail routes in south London generally, resulting in infrequent services; that London Bridge local line is an exception, having a reasonably good service.Much of which is easily solveable if you apply some simple rules. 1) Look at each station's sensible routes to London Bridge and Victoria. Remember the Northern Line exists. 2) At the Croydon tangle, compare the journey times of the various routes to London Bridge and Victoria. Victoria has two sensible routes (via Norbury and via Crystal Palace*), whilst London Bridge has one sensible (via Forest Hill) and one necessary silly route (via Norbury). There is an obvious service pattern here: both Croydons get a service from London Bridge via Forest Hill, one Croydon gets Victoria via Norbury, whilst the other gets Victoria via Crystal Palace and acts as the terminus for London Bridge via Norbury. * this necessitates that the two routes from London Bridge to Crystal Palace should loop. What this gets you to is: VICTORIA (Main Line) 4tph via Hackbridge 4tph via Norbury [and West Croydon] 4tph via Crystal Palace [and East Croydon] VICTORIA (Chatham/Atlantic Lines [incomplete]) 4tph London Bridge 4tph [via Streatham] LONDON BRIDGE (South London) 4tph Victoria 4tph Crystal Palace Loop 4tph via Norbury [and East Croydon] 4tph via Hackbridge LONDON BRIDGE (Main Line) 4tph Crystal Palace Loop 4tph [via West Croydon] 4tph [via East Croydon] All that's then left is to distribute outer termini. There is a slight problem here in that there is insufficient terminal capacity at Sutton, as potentially the following services have got out that far: 4tph Victoria via Hackbridge and Balham 4tph Victoria via Hackbridge and Herne Hill 4tph London Bridge via Hackbridge 4tph Victoria via Norbury 4tph London Bridge via Forest Hill The way this can be sorted without any new construction is definitely a fudge: 4tph Victoria - Balham - Hackbridge - Sutton - Epsom 4tph Victoria - Herne Hill - Tooting - Wimbledon 4tph London Bridge - Hackbridge - Sutton - Wimbledon 4tph Victoria - Norbury - West Croydon 4tph London Bridge - Forest Hill - West Croydon - Sutton (- Epsom Downs 1-2tph) With some reconfiguration allowed, namely a bay platform for the Loop at Sutton, conversion of the Tooting Line (which unsurprisingly has virtually no passengers) to Tramlink, provision of the missing centre platform at Cheam, and a reconfiguration of Belmont station to provide double track with a small yard beyond, you get this massive improvement to services: 4tph Victoria - Balham - Hackbridge - Sutton - Cheam - Epsom 4tph Victoria - Herne Hill - Hackbridge - Sutton - Cheam 4tph London Bridge - Hackbridge - Sutton - Cheam (maybe - Epsom) 4tph Victoria - Norbury - West Croydon - Sutton - Belmont 4tph London Bridge - Forest Hill - West Croydon - Sutton - Belmont (- Epsom Downs 1-2tph) [4tph Wimbledon - Sutton shuttle, ready to be attached to the Chelney Line] The only other outer termini to allot are the East Croydon services. This is simple: 2tph London Bridge - Tattenham Corner via Forest Hill 2tph London Bridge - Caterham via Forest Hill 4tph Victoria - Purley via Crystal Palace 4tph London Bridge - East Croydon via Norbury If you've been observant, you'll notice I have nothing serving Crystal Palace - Beckenham Junction. This is entirely intentional - it's getting Tramlinked anyway, and in the mean time it could be a 2tph shuttle Streatham Hill - Beckenham Junction (which would annoyingly only just require two trains - better make them 456s). What I've achieved here is to maintain the sensible choices, to remove some silly ones, and to create an increase in service frequency. Although for best results some reconfiguration is needed in the Sutton area, something better can be achieved with existing infrastructure. Whilst on infrastructure, there are four new stations I'd like to see built: 1) Crofton Park - on the Brighton Main Line (replacing the station on the Catford Loop). 2) Bellingham - on the Mid Kent Line (replacing the station on the Catford Loop). 3) Giant Arches - a two level station between North Dulwich and Tulse Hill, or between Herne Hill and West Dulwich, depending on how you look at it. I suppose it could also be called Giant Lifts. 4) Eastfields - north of Mitcham Junction. These would help with Part II: the Chatham Lines... |
|
|
| (307746) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Thu Sep 7 15:27:44 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Thu Sep 7 08:22:10 2006. Much of which is easily solveable if you apply some simple rules.I agree with your ideas in principle, but not entirely in detail. You don't say if your service plan would run all day (during the peaks and between the peaks), but I guess it would. I suggest that one of the more useful routes runs from Victoria to London Bridge via Crystal Palace. If you kept that route, and boosted its service, you could get rid of most of the other routes via Crystal Palace. To keep open the other connections to Crystal Palace, I would want Thameslink to run via that route. I suppose you would discontinue the Thameslink service to Sutton, as 8 tph round that loop would be too much. You have added a new service from Victoria via Streatham, but I don't think that would be justified, as that area is already well served from Victoria; besides, you would probably create a bottleneck at the flat junction at Herne Hill. East Croydon is probably not a good place to terminate trains, especially in the peak hours, because it's too busy. Before commenting on your ideas in more detail, I want to look at the latest Station Working Books, which are online as pdf files at the PRAR site http://www.prar.fsnet.co.uk/diagrams.html. They show the departure times, platform numbers, and rolling stock (with number of cars) of all trains leaving every terminus, along with where they came from and when they arrived. I am pretty sure that your plan represents a serious increase in overall service, which could cause congestion. I like Eastfields and Bellingham stations, but I see no reason to close the existing Bellingham station. Crofton Park and Giant Arches are more debatable; there are several other places where you could build interchange stations. Looking forward to Part II: the Chatham Lines! |
|
|
| (307915) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 8 06:42:10 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David Fairthorne on Thu Sep 7 01:54:37 2006. "The name "Overground Network" is already supposed to apply to all London area services with at least four TPH (off-peak)."I suspect that the Overground Network will now be quietly forgotten. |
|
|
| (307927) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 8 07:36:21 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by JohnL on Wed Sep 6 22:51:13 2006. "3&4: Does that turn the Goblin line into the Clapping line?"Possibly! On a more serious note, running the Barking-Gospel Oak trains through beyond Gospel Oak to anywhere would entail either electrifying the line between Woodgrange Park and Gospel Oak, or running diesel trains over the electrified NLL. |
|
|
| (307929) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 8 07:46:44 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David Fairthorne on Thu Sep 7 15:27:44 2006. "but I see no reason to close the existing Bellingham station. Crofton Park [is] more debatable"I think (though I might be wrong) Rail Blue's idea is to remove the local service on the Catford Loop. It is little used: it has only 2 tph offpeak, often with only 2-car trains, it runs into the unhelpful terminus of Blackfriars, and its main population centre (Catford) has a better and more useful service at Catford Bridge station, which is right next door to Catford station. The line can more usefully be devoted to trains running non-stop from Bromley South to Victoria. By giving Bellingham (particularly) and Crofton Park stations on more useful lines, the pain of removing the Catford Loop locals is more or less eliminated. |
|
|
| (307931) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 8 07:48:24 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David Fairthorne on Thu Sep 7 15:27:44 2006. "East Croydon is probably not a good place to terminate trains, especially in the peak hours, because it's too busy."I think there is space at the west side of the layout at East Croydon to put in at least one and perhaps two bay platforms. |
|
|
| (307934) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 8 07:58:13 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 8 07:36:21 2006. Possibly! On a more serious note, running the Barking-Gospel Oak trains through beyond Gospel Oak to anywhere would entail either electrifying the line between Woodgrange Park and Gospel Oak, or running diesel trains over the electrified NLL.Running diesel trains over the WLL is not such a bad idea, given that the changeover point between Overhead and Third Rail is in such a stupid place. |
|
|
| (307940) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 8 08:06:19 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David Fairthorne on Wed Sep 6 23:23:26 2006. "Yes, the London Bridge local services via New Cross Gate are quite popular, and they ought not to be reduced to make way for the East London Line extension."The 2010 map has national rail ('barbed wire') logos against all the stations New Cross Gate to Norwood Junction inclusive, which seems to imply that they will get *both* London Bridge and East London Line trains. Together with the fact that the ELL will eventually have four southern termini (West Croydon, Crystal Palace, New Cross and Clapham Junction), this suggests that the frequency to each of these branches will be modest, otherwise Surrey Quays to Dalston Junction will be grossly over-served. If we assume 3 tph to each of the four, that give 6 tph ELL trains to Brockley, Honor Oak Park, Forest Hill and Sydenham, and 12 tph Surrey Quays-Dalston Junction. Even at that level, I doubt if all of them could continue from Dalston Junction on to the NLL without completely screwing the rest of the NLL service (especially for the unfortunate folk of Hackney, whose main route to the tube at Highbury & Islington this is). Some trains would have to turn and go back south at Dalston Junction, and others go through on to the NLL. New Cross (South Eastern) would get a cut in its ELL service to 3 tph, and the South London Line would get an increase to 3 tph. If 6 tph ELL trains reached Sydenham, you could have a 3 tph service from one or other of the Croydons to London Bridge as well, giving an unevenly spaced 6 tph service at Norwood Junction, Anerley and Penge West and an unevenly spaced 9 tph at stations Sydenham to New Cross Gate inclusive. I assume that Tattenham Corner and Caterham trains would revert to being fast East Croydon-London Bridge, sharing the fast tracks with the Thameslink (sorry, FCC) Brighton trains. If they called at New Cross Gate they could pick up there all the disgruntled stopping-train passengers who really didn't want to be taken to Whitechapel and Dalston (8-) ! |
|
|
| (307946) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 8 08:18:36 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 8 07:46:44 2006. I think (though I might be wrong) Rail Blue's idea is to remove the local service on the Catford Loop.Yes, although I'm in two minds about Beckenham Hill and Ravensbourne, although really no-one lives sufficiently near either of them. |
|
|
| (307948) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 8 08:23:13 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 8 07:48:24 2006. "East Croydon is probably not a good place to terminate trains, especially in the peak hours, because it's too busy."I think there is space at the west side of the layout at East Croydon to put in at least one and perhaps two bay platforms. That's possible, but really not necessary. Platform 5 can already be used to turn slow trains, whilst down slow trains use P6 and up slow trains P4. |
|
|
| (307953) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 8 08:31:25 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 8 08:06:19 2006. The 2010 map has national rail ('barbed wire') logos against all the stations New Cross Gate to Norwood Junction inclusive, which seems to imply that they will get *both* London Bridge and East London Line trains.The point is that there won't be that many of the former with the ELL completely blocking Crystal Palace by terminating there and taking up the bay at West Croydon. What this leaves into London Bridge is: 2tph Sutton (or Epsom Downs) 2tph Tat/Cat random peak extras to Epsom and Guildford |
|
|
| (307962) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 8 08:52:05 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David Fairthorne on Thu Sep 7 15:27:44 2006. "I suppose you would discontinue the Thameslink service to Sutton, as 8 tph round that loop would be too much"Rail Blue has already said he would 'Tramlink' the Tooting route, which effectively cuts the loop anyway. Eight tph is *certainly* too much service to that loop, if operated as it stands. If Wimbledon-Sutton were 'Tramlinked' too, of course that would be a different matter! The formerly even more moribund Wimbledon-Croydon line is now successfully 8 tph offpeak route as a Tramlink line. Realistically, though, the only proposal for Tramlink extension/conversion currently being worked on is Crystal Palace-Birkbeck. Sutton-Wimbledon-Tooting is in abeyance since 2004. |
|
|
| (307965) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 8 08:59:19 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David Fairthorne on Thu Sep 7 15:27:44 2006. You don't say if your service plan would run all day (during the peaks and between the peaks), but I guess it would.Yes, it would. I suggest that one of the more useful routes runs from Victoria to London Bridge via Crystal Palace. All that achieves is a rather lengthy one seat ride to London Bridge from Streatham Hill. Balham has the Northern Line, and people from Sydenham inward are more likely to head for Charing Cross than Victoria. On the flip side, the route from Victoria via Crystal Palace is a sensible route to Croydon, whilst London Bridge via Crystal Palace isn't. I suppose you would discontinue the Thameslink service to Sutton, as 8 tph round that loop would be too much. Yes. I've effectively replaced the Blackfriars service with a London Bridge one at Sutton. You have added a new service from Victoria via Streatham, but I don't think that would be justified, as that area is already well served from Victoria; besides, you would probably create a bottleneck at the flat junction at Herne Hill. It gives Tulse Hill and Streatham a train to Brixton, Clapham High St, and Victoria, which is a more useful supplement to the main London Bridge service than a train to Blackfriars. It reflects the main A23 and A204 corridors quite nicely. Oh, and because of trying to get fast trains into Victoria, there are big gaps by Herne Hill. East Croydon is probably not a good place to terminate trains, especially in the peak hours, because it's too busy. Platform 5. Which, seeing as any move from the Down Fast to Platform 4 fouls the Up Slow, is really one of the few things there's spare room for at East Croydon. Before commenting on your ideas in more detail, I want to look at the latest Station Working Books, which are online as pdf files at the PRAR site http://www.prar.fsnet.co.uk/diagrams.html. They show the departure times, platform numbers, and rolling stock (with number of cars) of all trains leaving every terminus, along with where they came from and when they arrived. Okay, I may prepare a detailed scheme from them. I like Eastfields and Bellingham stations, but I see no reason to close the existing Bellingham station. Crofton Park and Giant Arches are more debatable; there are several other places where you could build interchange stations. Crofton Park wouldn't be an interchange - I'm just trying to replace the Catford Loop with more useful stations so it can be used as a fast line to Victoria. Giant Arches would allow interchange with a (St Albans -) Blackfriars - Orpington/Swanley route (for which Blackfriars *is* the best city terminus), as would high level platforms at Loughborough Junction come to think of it. But there is a key weakness in the network at that point - ever tried getting from, say, Epsom to Bromley? |
|
|
| (307967) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 8 09:08:50 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 8 08:52:05 2006. Rail Blue has already said he would 'Tramlink' the Tooting route, which effectively cuts the loop anyway.Yes. At present, its only use is to deal with Sutton being a difficult place to terminate trains. If the terminal issue at Sutton were sorted, a short extension of the existing Tramlink line, Wimbledon - Haydon's Road - Blackshaw Road - Tooting Broadway - Amen Corner, would change the Tooting line into one that actually took people somewhere useful. Sutton-Wimbledon-Tooting is in abeyance since 2004. Sutton-Wimbledon makes less sense than Wimbledon-Tooting. |
|
|
| (307979) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 8 09:36:10 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 8 09:08:50 2006. "Sutton-Wimbledon-Tooting is in abeyance since 2004.""Sutton-Wimbledon makes less sense than Wimbledon-Tooting" I don't agree. The Wimbledon-Sutton line is a failure, for all sorts of historical reasons which have been gone into before. If is were converted into an LRT service, one could use the maximum amount of the existing private RoW (which is its real asset) with a minimum of on-street running (a) in Morden to connect with the Northern Line and (b) in the St Helier area so that it served that area more comprehensively, it might get a decent level of patronage given the better frequency that LRT operation implies. |
|
|
| (307983) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Fri Sep 8 10:24:37 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 8 06:42:10 2006. What will happen to the ON signs that have been posted at some/most/all ON stations? |
|
|
| (307984) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 8 10:32:17 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David of Broadway on Fri Sep 8 10:24:37 2006. "What will happen to the ON signs that have been posted at some/most/all ON stations?"They will remain in place like all those other out-of-date signs (such as 'WAGN trains' and 'British Rail') that abound throughout London, some of which you photographed over the past few weeks! |
|
|
| (307986) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Fri Sep 8 10:46:30 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 8 10:32:17 2006. But some of the WAGN/wagn and Thameslink signs at Moorgate have been replaced with "Trains to Stevenage" and "Trains to Bedford" signs (since First Capital Connect and First Capital Connect wouldn't be very useful). |
|
|
| (308003) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 8 11:13:52 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David of Broadway on Fri Sep 8 10:46:30 2006. 'at Moorgate have been replaced with "Trains to Stevenage" and "Trains to Bedford"'Which of course aren't accurate either, since most of the ex-WAGN trains finish at Hertford North or Welwyn Garden City and don't make it ot Stevenage, and some of the ex-Thameslink trains finish at St Albans or Luton and don't make it to Bedford! You can't please all the people all the time. As 'Great Northern Electrics' are still mentioned on at least one of the anachronistic signs at Moorgate, maybe they should resuscitate that name for the trains via the deep tube to Finsbury Park, along with 'Midland City Line' for the services via the subsurface tunnel to Kentish Town! |
|
|
| (308007) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Sep 8 11:21:13 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 8 07:58:13 2006. Where is it at now? Camden Rd? |
|
|
| (308044) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Fri Sep 8 14:18:00 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Sep 8 11:21:13 2006. I think he means the changeover on the West London line, near North Pole junction between Willesden Junction and Olympia. |
|
|
| (308069) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Fri Sep 8 15:47:11 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 8 08:59:19 2006. After looking at your plan more carefully, I see that you would be providing much more service on most local lines.I think the Caterham and Tattenham Corner services should remain at their present levels; you have reduced them! Concerning Tulse Hill and Streatham, I agree that Victoria would be a more popular destination than Blackfriars, but the area is already well served from Victoria by Herne Hill, Streatham Hill and Streatham Common. Besides, those Blackfriars trains have to go somewhere, especially if you Tramlink the Sutton & Wimbledon loop and cease local service on the Catford loop. I'm not happy about the latter; Catford station alone has almost as many passengers as Catford Bridge; Crofton Park and Bellingham are also quite busy, considering that the service is only 2 tph and goes to Blackfriars. Also closing those stations would mean more passengers on the crowded Mid-Kent line which goes via the London Bridge bottleneck. About your "Giant Arches" station (North Dulwich viaduct), I don't see how would help one to get from Epsom to Bromley, at least with the present services; probably the best way would be via Victoria. If there was a service from Epsom (or even Sutton) to London Bridge via Tulse Hill, the interchange station might help somewhat. Otherwise, apart from the cost and possible congestion on the tracks, I think your plan is pretty good! |
|
|
| (308072) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Sep 8 16:14:19 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David Fairthorne on Fri Sep 8 14:18:00 2006. Ah, that one...I'm pretty much confused by the power changes from the past twenty years. Somebody tell me what I have wrong. Watford Jcn- Euston DC lines: 750v DC (was 630v DC) South Hampstead - Primrose Hill - Camden Rd: 750v DC (was 630v DC) Watford Jcn - St. Albans Abbey: 25kv AC (was non-electrified) Richmond - Acton Central: 750v DC (was 630v DC) Acton Central - Willesden High Lvl. - Hampstead Heath - Camden Rd West Jcn: 25kv AC (was 630v, then 750v DC) Camden Rd West Jcn- Highbury - East of Canonbury(was Broad St.):750v DC (was 630v DC) East of Canonbury - Stratford - North Woolwich: 750v DC (was non-electrified) Willesden High - North Pole Jcn: 25kv AC (was non-electrified) Watford AC lines - Willesden Bypass - North Pole Jcn: 25kv AC (was non-electrified) Kensal Rise - Willesden Lower: 25kv AC? (was 630v, then 750v DC) North Pole Jcn - Kensington(Olympia): 750v DC (was non-electrified) Kensington(Olympia) - Clapham Jcn: 750v DC (was non-electrified) Gospel Oak (was Kentish Town) - Barking: non-electrified (ouch!) |
|
|
| (308215) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Fri Sep 8 23:42:18 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Thu Sep 7 08:22:10 2006. What I've achieved here is to maintain the sensible choices, to remove some silly ones, and to create an increase in service frequency. Although for best results some reconfiguration is needed in the Sutton area, something better can be achieved with existing infrastructure.But what you have also done is to add two routes; one from Victoria (east) via Brixton to Sutton and one from London Bridge to Sutton; the latter replaces a Thameslink service. And you have imposed a requirement for 4 tph on every route. So you have 12 tph stopping at Mitcham Junction, Hackbridge and Carshalton (currently 4 tph); you have 12 tph stopping at New Cross Gate, Brockley, Honor Oak Park, Forest Hill and Sydenham (currently 6 tph); and you have 12 tph from London Bridge stopping at East Dulwich, North Dulwich, and Tulse Hill (currently 6 tph). All of the above seem excessive to me, especially compared with your plan for ceasing local service on the Catford loop. On the other hand, the route via Streatham Common, Norbury, Thornton Heath and Selhurst remains at 8 tph, equally divided between Victoria and London Bridge; currently 6 tph go to Victoria and 2 tph go to London Bridge. You have followed your principles logically, but it's hard to tell if that's what the people really want. Travel patterns are established over time, and there's always a political outcry whenever anyone proposes a change, but that's not a good guide. Regarding the Thameslink route, it's only a minority preference, and it wouldn't win first prize anywhere in south London. That's why I suggest running it via Tulse Hill and Crystal Palace to East Croydon, which has excellent services to Victoria and London Bridge. That would make the Thameslink route available to the many people whose trains stop at East Croydon. So my suggestion is to divide the Bedford to Brighton service into two parts; Bedford to East Croydon, and London Bridge to Brighton. That would also avoid the London Bridge bottleneck, and allow 12-car trains on the Brighton section. |
|
|
| (308217) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Fri Sep 8 23:54:47 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 8 06:42:10 2006. I suspect that the Overground Network will now be quietly forgotten.Or they could rename the London Overground the London Overground Orbital Network (LOON) or the Livingstone Overground Orbital Plan (LOOP). |
|
|
| (308413) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sat Sep 9 19:23:05 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 8 09:36:10 2006. I don't agree. The Wimbledon-Sutton line is a failure, for all sorts of historical reasons which have been gone into before. If is were converted into an LRT service, one could use the maximum amount of the existing private RoW (which is its real asset) with a minimum of on-street running (a) in Morden to connect with the Northern Line and (b) in the St Helier area so that it served that area more comprehensively, it might get a decent level of patronage given the better frequency that LRT operation implies.The problem with the Wimbledon-Sutton Line is it is in a poor location for local journeys (particularly through Morden and the St Helier estate). Parallel bus routes will always be better in that respect. What it would work well as is a line to central London - it just needs plugging into a main line (SW or District) at the Wimbledon end. The Tooting Line is the reverse situation - it cannot ever be a sensible radial line, but it could provide a sensible local link if it had decent service and enough stations. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 4 |
|
