|
|
| Re: London Overground (307276) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||
|
| (308415) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sat Sep 9 19:47:36 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Sep 8 16:14:19 2006. 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) Dual-electrified Euston p9&10 - Camden Junction. Fourth Rails present Queen's Park - Harrow & Wealdstone. South Hampstead - Primrose Hill - Camden Rd: 750v DC (was 630v DC) Dual-electrified Primrose Hill Junction - Camden Road East Junction. Watford Jcn - St. Albans Abbey: 25kv AC (was non-electrified) Yep. 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) There's dual electrification through Camden Road station, and East of Canonbury is better known as Dalston Western Junction. Willesden High - North Pole Jcn: 25kv AC (was non-electrified) Watford AC lines - Willesden Bypass - North Pole Jcn: 25kv AC (was non-electrified) Yep. Kensal Rise - Willesden Lower: 25kv AC? (was 630v, then 750v DC) The changeover point is halfway along this section. North Pole Jcn - Kensington(Olympia): 750v DC (was non-electrified) Kensington(Olympia) - Clapham Jcn: 750v DC (was non-electrified) Yes - this is the silly section. Gospel Oak (was Kentish Town) - Barking: non-electrified (ouch!) Woodgrange Park Junction to Barking is electrified at 25kV AC OHLE. |
|
|
| (308429) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sat Sep 9 21:05:53 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David Fairthorne on Fri Sep 8 23:42:18 2006. Within all of this discussion, I haven't heard anyone proposing extensions to either Bakerloo or Victoria. Might either figure into all of this (just curious)?wayne |
|
|
| (308609) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Sep 10 13:32:06 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Sat Sep 9 19:47:36 2006. Many thanks.What uses the dual-electrified section between Primrose Hill Junction - Camden Road East Junction? Goods? Or was the addition of OH AC power Eurostar related? East of Canonbury is better known as Dalston Western Junction. Thank you. I wasn't sure about the name. Woodgrange Park Junction to Barking is electrified at 25kV AC OHLE. I didn't know about that one. My Network Southeast book shows a picture of a single non-electrified track next to the District line tracks at Barking. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (308659) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Sep 10 15:27:26 2006, in response to London Overground, posted by David of Broadway on Wed Sep 6 00:40:45 2006. Don't think it'd sound right for these fellers to be singing "I'm going Overground" . . . |
|
|
| (308836) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Sep 11 00:53:33 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sat Sep 9 21:05:53 2006. I haven't heard anyone proposing extensions to either Bakerloo or Victoria. Might either figure into all of this?That has debated on Subchat before, and some of us like the idea. Another underground line that could be extended to the south is the Charing Cross branch of the Northern line. But of course extending the tube would be far more expensive than what we are discussing now, which is merely trying to provide better services on the existing Southern suburban lines. The Southern suburban services are poor relations of the Southern main line which goes to Brighton and other seaside resorts, which attracts more passengers (including commuters), runs longer and faster trains, and brings in more revenue. One problem with the Southern is that there are two main terminals (Victoria and London Bridge), which means more routes and hence less frequent services. To complicate matters more, there is the north-south route known as Thameslink. One of the official plans, formerly called "Thameslink 2000", would upgrade the existing Thameslink tunnel and the through (non-terminal) part of London Bridge station, which is one of the worst bottlenecks on the British rail network. There was a second Thameslink 2000 inquiry in 2005 but I haven't seen the conclusions yet. That would also be very expensive. |
|
|
| (308839) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Sep 11 01:19:36 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sat Sep 9 21:05:53 2006. Within all of this discussion, I haven't heard anyone proposing extensions to either Bakerloo or Victoria.If the money could be found, which seems very unlikely, an underground extension to the south would be much more satisfactory for south London than tinkering with the Southern and Thameslink. Direct tube routes that already pass through the busiest areas of central London would attract a great many passengers and would easily justify frequent services. An extension of the Victoria line to the south from Brixton in the direction of Croydon might even be opposed on the grounds that it could make the Victoria line TOO crowded! I don't accept that argument, as the most crowded part of the Victoria line is north of Victoria station. If such an extension were to be built, the Southern suburban lines would lose ridership, so you had better forget about any improvement over the present half-hourly schedules. |
|
|
| (308866) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Mon Sep 11 05:14:27 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David Fairthorne on Fri Sep 8 23:42:18 2006. "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"I have two objections to this (speaking as a resident of Bedford). (1) From the point of view of St Albans, Luton and Bedford passengers, the major merit of the Thameslink service is the one-seat ride to Gatwick Airport. It also provides a connection between Gatwick and Luton Airports, and a two-seat ride from points north of Bedford to Gatwick Airport without having to negotiate the Underground to get across London. The connections at Bedford or Luton Airport stations are at modern stations with lifts to all platforms, those at Luton station are slightly less convenient. (2) A second merit for north of the Thames passengers is the direct link to London Bridge, for direct connections to numerous south and southeast London and Kent destinations. This is the reason why the congested route through Metropolitan and Borough Market Junctions is used instead of the Elephant & Castle - Tulse Hill route (which is used by a few Bedford-Brighton trains in the peak hours). The most important element of the Thameslink 2000 scheme (which is still alive, but not funded) is sorting out the Metro Jc/Borough Mkt Jc area. If your proposed Bedford-East Croydon service goes via Tulse Hill, which I presume is what you are suggesting, the connections at London Bridge are lost. |
|
|
| (308870) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Mon Sep 11 05:23:05 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Sep 10 13:32:06 2006. "Gospel Oak (was Kentish Town) - Barking: non-electrified (ouch!)Woodgrange Park Junction to Barking is electrified at 25kV AC OHLE." It's to enable London Tilbury and Southend trains to run into Liverpool Street intead of Fenchurch Street in the very late evenings. In addition, the short section of the Gospel Oak-Barking line through South Tottenham station - between the junction where the curve round from Seven Sisters comes in and the junction where the curve round to the Lea Valley Line south towards Stratford leaves - is also OHLE electrified to facilitate a few peak-hour Enfield Town-Stratford services. |
|
|
| (308903) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Sep 11 09:02:08 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Sep 10 13:32:06 2006. What uses the dual-electrified section between Primrose Hill Junction - Camden Road East Junction? Goods?Yes. At CREJ the AC (north pair) and DC (south pair) Lines split. Only the DC Lines have platforms (and should of course continue to Broad St instead of merging into the AC Lines at Dalston Western Junction). The goods trains mainly continue to Stratford HL and the GE Main Line. My Network Southeast book shows a picture of a single non-electrified track next to the District line tracks at Barking. I think P1 (the terminal platform from the branch at Barking) may be non-electrified. The link to the Tilbury Line platforms most certainly is electrified. |
|
|
| (308905) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Mon Sep 11 09:06:32 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Sep 11 01:19:36 2006. "Direct tube routes that already pass through the busiest areas of central London would attract a great many passengers and would easily justify frequent services."They already have frequent services on their central London portions (every 2-3 minutes) and are mostly essentially maxed out. "An extension of the Victoria line to the south from Brixton in the direction of Croydon might even be opposed on the grounds that it could make the Victoria line TOO crowded!" See above. "I don't accept that argument, as the most crowded part of the Victoria line is north of Victoria station." But a fair proportion of the people who get on south of Brixton might well stay on the train north of Victoria. Of the three choices (Victoria, Bakerloo, and Northern Line trains turning at Kennington) the Bakerloo is the best bet for extension. Northbound, it only fills up at Waterloo, and passengers from a hypothetical extension south of Elephant & Castle would start to alight at Embankment, only one stop from Waterloo. At worst any gross overcrowding would be for only one stop. And the Bakerloo has capacity for a few more tph that at present. Another alternative (which won't happen) would be to create a second branch of the Jubilee Line, branching off at Waterloo and heading south-southeast. The line towards Docklands doesn't need the full capacity of the Jubilee Line, but to reduce its frequency would imply admitting that too much capacity was provided there, which no-one is going to admit. |
|
|
| (308909) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Mon Sep 11 09:13:20 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Sep 11 09:02:08 2006. "(and should of course continue to Broad St instead of merging into the AC Lines at Dalston Western Junction)"You never give up about Broad Street, do you, James? It was a nice station, but it closed because it was superfluous. Its heyday was before the construction of the deep tube lines, and before the imnternal combustion engine. In those days, it was difficult to travel from the City to the West End, so it was justfiable to run separate services from various residential areas to the City and the West End. The North London Raiway provided circuitous routes from many plales to Broad Street. In my lifetime it was always underused because those roundabout routes no longer made sense. Now, running the NLL through tubeless Hackney makes much better sense, and the Highbury & Islingtonn-Stratford stretch is the best-patronised part of the NLL. |
|
|
| (308930) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Sep 11 09:32:43 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Mon Sep 11 09:13:20 2006. You never give up about Broad Street, do you, James? It was a nice station, but it closed because it was superfluous.Deliberately run-down more like. It'd've been much better if the expresses from the Midlands and the North had been diverted out of Euston and stopped at Camden Road (for the West End) and London Broad St instead. Actually, what I really object to is them demolishing the building (which was one of the most attractive stations in London), rather than reusing it like they did to Liverpool Exchange. Now, running the NLL through tubeless Hackney makes much better sense, and the Highbury & Islingtonn-Stratford stretch is the best-patronised part of the NLL. Well, the local trains make a certain sort of sense as an orbital route. |
|
|
| (308933) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Sep 11 09:35:33 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Sep 11 01:19:36 2006. An extension of the Victoria line to the south from Brixton in the direction of Croydon might even be opposed on the grounds that it could make the Victoria line TOO crowded!Well the obvious thing to do would be to replace the trains people are currently changing from at Brixton with the Victoria Line. With the new junction layout at Shortlands, only minor works would be needed at Chislehurst to run the Victoria Line (alternate trains) to Orpington and Swanley. |
|
|
| (309207) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Sep 11 23:44:15 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Mon Sep 11 09:06:32 2006. the Bakerloo is the best bet for extension. And the Bakerloo has capacity for a few more tph that at present.A Bakerloo line extension would have more flexibility (not having such a tight schedule) than a Victoria line extension, and the Bakerloo has at least as good a route through the West End. I think it could be ramped up to the little used four-track Blackfriars line south of the Elephant & Castle. From there it could provide useful services along Southern lines. One possible route could run via Herne Hill, Tulse Hill and Streatham; a Bakerloo service in that area would perhaps be preferable to another service to Victoria. Another possible route could run via Peckham Rye to Lewisham. |
|
|
| (309212) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Sep 12 00:25:08 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Sep 11 09:35:33 2006. replace the trains people are currently changing from at Brixton with the Victoria Line.You may think that idea is obvious, but I hadn't thought of it before. The Victoria line, being crowded, needs the most frequent service, which can be attained by a single route (with no branches) and all trains stopping at all stations. There can be no question of a Victoria line extension sharing tracks with any part of the Southern or South Eastern. The Victoria line extension should completely capture the Chatham main line as far as Shortlands, leaving only the Catford loop to the South Eastern services to Victoria and Blackfriars. I think that's what you have in mind. Besides your minor works at Chislehurst, you would need some relatively major works at Herne Hill, and the whole line would have to be converted to fourth rail. Such an extension would serve the busy suburbs of Bromley and Orpington, and would relieve crowding on the South Eastern services from the Mid-Kent and Orpington lines. According to the stats file, Brixton main line station has very low ridership; I suppose if you have are already boarded a Victoria train you may as well stay on board. The busiest stations on the route are Bromley South and Orpington in that order. |
|
|
| (309237) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Tue Sep 12 04:28:32 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Sep 12 00:25:08 2006. "replace the trains people are currently changing from at Brixton with the Victoria Line.""According to the stats file, Brixton main line station has very low ridership;" Exactly. The loading of the Victoria Line at Brixton is *not* from people transferring from national rail services at Brixton. It's more likely people transferring from buses, plus those just walkibng to Brixton tube station. Extending the Victoria Line *would* put more people on to it; the question is whether most of those people would be transfers from the national rail lines going into Victoria, who therefore would not be overcrowding Victoria tube station so much. The big transfer load on to the Victoria Line (southern end) comes on at Stockwell, with its cross-platform interchange with the Northern Line - people from the Morden direction wanting destinations in the heart of the West End, further west than Charing Cross and Leicester Square. |
|
|
| (309238) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Tue Sep 12 04:36:06 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Sep 11 23:44:15 2006. "I think it could be ramped up to the little used four-track Blackfriars line south of the Elephant & Castle. From there it could provide useful services along Southern lines."That is a good idea. Two tracks is enough for the national rail service, and you could restore the two intermediate stations between Elephant and Loughborough Jcn, to be served by the Bakerloo, in a part of south London devoid of rail services of any sort at present. "One possible route could run via Herne Hill, Tulse Hill and Streatham" Herne Hill and Tulse Hill, certainly. Personally I'd rather see it go to Croydon, rather than Streatham, if some way of getting there at reasonable cost, without losing well-used national rail lines, can be found. Croydon is an important employment centre in its own right, so you'd develop two-way traffic on the Bakerloo then. |
|
|
| (309248) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Tue Sep 12 06:29:12 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Sep 11 23:44:15 2006. 2One possible route could run via Herne Hill, Tulse Hill and Streatham; a Bakerloo service in that area would perhaps be preferable to another service to Victoria. Another possible route could run via Peckham Rye to Lewisham."Getting to Loughborough Junction isn't a problem, as there are four tracks and the national rail service could make do with two. As I said before, the Bakerloo could serve reopened Walworth Road and Camberwell Green stations. Practical problems arise thereafter tjough owing to lack of spare tracks. Go round from Loughborough Jcn to Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye and you are conflicting not only with Mayor Ken's longer-term Overground proposal for an ELL branch to Clapham Junction, but also with national rail trains heading out of Victoria - and there are four tracks, but not six. Carry on down to Herne Hill instead, what heppens when you get to Herne Hill station? Double-deck it, to segregate the Bakerloo? Then on to Tulse Hill is o.k., but again you have to segregate the actual station. And where do you go after that? For non-conflicting routes it is terminate at Streatham (as you suggested, David), carry on to Wimbledon via Tooting, or swing round to Streatham Common and head for Croydon. Wimbledon via Tooting serves an area that already has the Northern and District Lines - no point in Underground investment there, though an end-on connection between the Bakerloo Streatham terminus and a Streatham-Wimbledon Tramlink might work. Round to Streatham Common and on Croydon via Norbury would be good, but that's the Victoria-Brighton main line and you haven't got any spaare tracks. Double-decking it with the Bakerloo elevated over the main line might work, but the NIMBYs would have a field day with that, not to mention the expense. |
|
|
| (309249) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Tue Sep 12 06:30:51 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Sep 11 23:44:15 2006. 2One possible route could run via Herne Hill, Tulse Hill and Streatham; a Bakerloo service in that area would perhaps be preferable to another service to Victoria. Another possible route could run via Peckham Rye to Lewisham."Getting to Loughborough Junction isn't a problem, as there are four tracks and the national rail service could make do with two. As I said before, the Bakerloo could serve reopened Walworth Road and Camberwell Green stations. Practical problems arise after Loughborough Jcn though owing to lack of spare tracks. Go round from Loughborough Jcn to Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye and you are conflicting not only with Mayor Ken's longer-term Overground proposal for an ELL branch to Clapham Junction, but also with national rail trains heading out of Victoria - and there are four tracks, but not six. Carry on down to Herne Hill instead, what happens when you get to Herne Hill station? Double-deck it, to segregate the Bakerloo? Then on to Tulse Hill is o.k., but again you have to segregate the actual station. And where do you go after Tulse Hill? For non-conflicting routes it has to terminate at Streatham (as you suggested, David), carry on to Wimbledon via Tooting, or swing round to Streatham Common and head for Croydon. Wimbledon via Tooting serves an area that already has the Northern and District Lines - no point in Underground investment there, though an end-on connection between the Bakerloo Streatham terminus and a Streatham-Wimbledon Tramlink might work. Round to Streatham Common and on Croydon via Norbury would be good, but that's the Victoria-Brighton main line and you haven't got any spare tracks. Double-decking it with the Bakerloo elevated over the main line might work, but the NIMBYs would have a field day with that, not to mention the expense. |
|
|
| (309250) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Tue Sep 12 06:31:32 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Tue Sep 12 06:30:51 2006. Apologies for double-posting. |
|
|
| (309259) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Tue Sep 12 06:57:30 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Sep 12 00:25:08 2006. But not all trains stop at all stations. At the other end, there are dropouts at Seven Sisters. |
|
|
| (309265) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Sep 12 07:16:56 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Sep 12 00:25:08 2006. The Victoria line, being crowded, needs the most frequent service, which can be attained by a single route (with no branches) and all trains stopping at all stations.Just like they attained 30tph on the Piccadilly Line with two western branches, one of which has to interleave with the District Line. We're not talking the sorts of hyper-frequencies that require no branches. The Victoria line extension should completely capture the Chatham main line as far as Shortlands Shortlands is a bit of a nowhere location, but it does have a spare pair of tracks beyond it (as far as Swanley). you would need some relatively major works at Herne Hill Well, an extra tube station is relatively major I suppose. According to the stats file, Brixton main line station has very low ridership That is based on tickets sold to/from Brixton. Transferring passengers would have bought tickets to London U1 or Travelcards. The stats for Brixton therefore represent: 1) people working in the immediate vicinity of Brixton station 2) people buying tickets at Brixton station (including anyone coming from a bus who doesn't have a Travelcard yet) The busiest stations on the route are Bromley South and Orpington in that order. No surprises there then. I bet that Beckenham Junction features quite highly too. |
|
|
| (309293) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Sep 12 09:49:56 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Mon Sep 11 05:23:05 2006. Makes sense. As usual, poor North London lines raped everywhere to make room for other services. |
|
|
| (309294) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Sep 12 09:55:11 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Sep 11 09:02:08 2006. and should of course continue to Broad St instead of merging into the AC Lines at Dalston Western JunctionPrimrose Hill has a better chance to be revived... They should also put platforms there for the Euston DC lines (and create a new station at Parkway too). |
|
|
| (309295) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Sep 12 09:59:04 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Mon Sep 11 09:13:20 2006. You never give up about Broad Street, do you, James?Didn't you call him «Aldwych James» at some point? LOL! |
|
|
| (309296) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Tue Sep 12 10:12:13 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Sep 12 09:49:56 2006. 'As usual, poor North London lines raped everywhere to make room for other services.'I don't follow your reasoning here, Wado. No services have been taken away. The Gospel Oak-Barking line as a whole has never been electrified. It has a 30-minute frequency, which isn't wonderful, but is probably all that can be justified by its patronage. Two short sections of its route are electrified because other electric-worked services run over the same tracks. What's been raped? |
|
|
| (309298) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Tue Sep 12 10:15:17 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Sep 12 09:55:11 2006. "Primrose Hill has a better chance to be revived..."I agree. Preferably slightly resited, so as to be as close as possible to Chalk Farm tube station, for interchange and also to serve the north end of trendy Camden Town. "They should also put platforms there for the Euston DC lines" Not so sure about that. It's a very short distance from the Euston terminus. Would anyone use those platforms? |
|
|
| (309299) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Tue Sep 12 10:17:04 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Sep 12 09:59:04 2006. "You never give up about Broad Street, do you, James?""Didn't you call him «Aldwych James» at some point? LOL!" We all have our obsessions. (Mine is converting the Wimbledon-Sutton line to Tramlink.) James's ideas are generally sound and well-researched. |
|
|
| (309307) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Sep 12 11:09:35 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Tue Sep 12 10:12:13 2006. I admit my choice of words wasn't great on that one.What I meant to say was that the Broad St. - Richmond line, the Kentish Town(St. Pancras before that) - Barking line and that section between South Hampstead and Camden Rd. have been through changes(re-/electrification, change of terminus, closure) for mostly the benefit of other services that use sections of those lines and not for the local passengers who still have to deal with 2 to 4tph. And while I thought the loss of one-seat ride to Broad St. was bad, they now want to send you down to places like New Cross when the Docklands is finally becoming a useful destination. |
|
|
| (309310) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Sep 12 11:26:12 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Tue Sep 12 10:15:17 2006. "They should also put platforms there for the Euston DC lines"Not so sure about that. It's a very short distance from the Euston terminus. Would anyone use those platforms? There's also the layout of the tracks there - the DC Lines have already merged into the Slow Lines, and they're in the middle of the formation (which is bloody stupid, but they didn't finish altering the approaches to Euston in the 1960s - hence it's still designed for separate Fast arrivals and departures sides). |
|
|
| (309311) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Sep 12 11:27:55 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Tue Sep 12 10:15:17 2006. I just don't want the station to be peak only again. South Hampstead to Euston is kind of long. It won't be for people headed to Euston but for people headed to Primrose Hill from western parts of the line. You just said in the last post that it would serve the «north end of trendy Camden Town». I guess Primrose Hill is my obsession. :) |
|
|
| (309314) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Sep 12 11:31:34 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Sep 12 11:26:12 2006. the DC Lines have already merged into the Slow LinesI thought that it was closer to Euston but I'm talking from memories dating back to 1981 so I'm most likely wrong. Do you have a track map of the section? |
|
|
| (309317) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Tue Sep 12 11:38:45 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Sep 12 11:09:35 2006. "What I meant to say was that the Broad St. - Richmond line, the Kentish Town(St. Pancras before that) - Barking line and that section between South Hampstead and Camden Rd. have been through changes(re-/electrification, change of terminus, closure) for mostly the benefit of other services that use sections of those lines and not for the local passengers who still have to deal with 2 to 4tph."O.K., I see your point. However, for historical reasons the NLL reached The City by a roundabout route and most of the outer London areas that it served weere better connected to the City by tube services - for example, Richmond by the District Line, Acton by the Piccadilly Line and Central Line, changing at Holborn, Willesden Jcn by the Bakerloo and Central, changing at Oxford Circus, and Hampstead, Kentish Town and Camden Town by the Northern Line via Bank route. Sending the NLL trains to Stratford via Hackney is in my opinion an improvement, providing a genuine additional service to Hackney, and it does provide access to Docklands via the main Docklands hub, Stratford. Gospel Oak-Barking *did* get screwed but I'd guess it was always a minority traffic flow. The main current problem is lack of a useful western terminus - Gospel Oak station is situated at nowhere. As you say, it used to go to Kentish Town, which would be much better, but the capacity at that station was needed for the Thameslink route. South Hampstead - Primrose Hill - Camden Road - Broad Street never saw much patronage even when it had a regular service. Its passengers preferred the more frequent Bakerloo or Northern Line services - Kilburn High Road station is near Kilburn Park (Bakerloo), South Hampstead is near Swiss Cottage (then Bakerloo), Primrose Hill near Chalk Farm (Northern), Camden Road near Camden Town (Northern). "And while I thought the loss of one-seat ride to Broad St. was bad, they now want to send you down to places like New Cross when the Docklands is finally becoming a useful destination." I think all us UK subchatters agree with you about the daft ELL extension. There is no proposal to take away the NLL service to Stratford, though. The argument would be, I suppose, that the ELL extension will provide connections to the DLR at Shadwell, and rather better ones to the Jubilee Line Extension at Canada Water. Come to that, Shoreditch High Street station on the ELL extension will be quite near the site of Braod Street! |
|
|
| (309319) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Sep 12 11:40:41 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Sep 12 11:31:34 2006. I thought that it was closer to Euston but I'm talking from memories dating back to 1981 so I'm most likely wrong. Do you have a track map of the section?At home in Birmingham - ask me that again on Thursday! |
|
|
| (309321) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Sep 12 11:45:39 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Tue Sep 12 11:38:45 2006. Sending the NLL trains to Stratford via Hackney is in my opinion an improvement, providing a genuine additional service to Hackney, and it does provide access to Docklands via the main Docklands hub, Stratford.But arguably, Stratford-Broad St would've been better than Stratford-H&I. Gospel Oak-Barking *did* get screwed but I'd guess it was always a minority traffic flow. The main current problem is lack of a useful western terminus - Gospel Oak station is situated at nowhere. As you say, it used to go to Kentish Town, which would be much better, but the capacity at that station was needed for the Thameslink route. It's not exactly like they're short of tracks at Kentish Town - aren't there three (?four) Slow Lines, two of which are reversible? And even if Kentish Town had been a pain, Moorgate would've worked. I think all us UK subchatters agree with you about the daft ELL extension. There is no proposal to take away the NLL service to Stratford, though. Although that might solve the terminal capacity problem. Run 4tph West Croydon to Richmond, and 4tph New Cross to Stratford, close Dalston Kingsland, and forget about the silly Crystal Palace service. |
|
|
| (309323) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Tue Sep 12 11:51:30 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Sep 12 11:45:39 2006. "But arguably, Stratford-Broad St would've been better than Stratford-H&I"Why? Broad Street was right next door to Liverpool Street. Stratford already has direct services to Liverpool Street on both national rail local services (6 tph) and the Central Line (20+ tph). Hackney has 8 tph into Liverpool Street from Hackney Downs station. Stratford-Broad Street would be a duplicate service; Stratford to Highbury and Islington isn't. |
|
|
| (309324) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Tue Sep 12 11:58:44 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Sep 12 11:45:39 2006. "It's not exactly like they're short of tracks at Kentish Town - aren't there three (?four) Slow Lines, two of which are reversible? And even if Kentish Town had been a pain, Moorgate would've worked."The two easternmost tracks are the ones into the Thameslink tunnel; the Gospel Oak line would trail into these. The next two tracks are slow lines into St Pancras, not usually used now that no slow trains go there. They are used when the Thameslink through route is blocked and Thameslink trains from the north terminate there. Using them to terminate a regular 2 tph (or better) service from Gospel Oak would lead to conflicting movements across the Thameslink trains. The westernmost pair are the main tracks into St Pancras, used by MML trains; they have no platforms at Kentish Town, and never have had, since they were originally the freight tracks into St Pancras Goods Station (now the British Library!). Moorgate *would* work. But would anyone use those trains? There are quicker routes to the City from most of the places served by the Goblin line. |
|
|
| (309332) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Sep 12 14:18:32 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Tue Sep 12 06:30:51 2006. you are conflicting ... with national rail trainsI agree with you, Fytton, but only if it's essential to segregate the Bakerloo extension from Network Rail. I was assuming that the Bakerloo extension could share tracks with National Rail south of Loughborough Junction, where the Bakerloo would split into two branches each having about 12 tph max. But I admit that it would be quite a squeeze. The flat junction at Herne Hill would have to be grade-separated. There might not be enough capacity via Denmark Hill, in which case you could send more trains via Herne Hill. Beyond Herne Hill and Tulse Hill there is a choice of shared routes. Then of course the power and signalling systems are different. But I don't think those problems are insuperable. It seems to me that whatever they plan for the East London Line extension could, in principle, be done for the Bakerloo extension. Extending the Bakerloo in tunnel would conflict with nothing; but I was looking for a cheaper solution. |
|
|
| (309339) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Sep 12 14:38:38 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Tue Sep 12 11:51:30 2006. To give Hackney Wick and Homerton a line to "somewhere". |
|
|
| (309341) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Sep 12 14:44:50 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Tue Sep 12 11:58:44 2006. Moorgate *would* work. But would anyone use those trains? There are quicker routes to the City from most of the places served by the Goblin line.I suspect, yes. I'd propose the following limits of sensibility: Barking - Blackhorse Road: Kentish Town South Tottenham - Crouch Hill: Barbican Upper Holloway - Barbican: Moorgate No-one in their right minds would ride through from Barking to Moorgate, but there are most certainly overlapping useful sections there. |
|
|
| (309349) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Sep 12 15:18:28 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Sep 12 07:16:56 2006. We're not talking the sorts of hyper-frequencies that require no branches.Agreed. If some trains can terminate at Seven Sisters, then some trains can terminate at Brixton. I bet that Beckenham Junction features quite highly too. Passengers per year in thousands (entries, exits) Brixton 150, 170 Herne Hill 970, 943 West Dulwich 346, 340 Sydenham Hill 173, 167 Penge East 427, 386 Kent House 275, 269 Beckenham Junction 884, 877 Shortlands 502, 506 Bromley South 2345, 2364 Bickley 311, 308 Petts Wood 874, 862 Orpington 1750, 1734 Denmark Hill 797, 772 Peckham Rye 1185, 1179 Nunhead 212, 206 Crofton Park 203, 189 Catford 425, 457 Bellingham 230, 222 Beckenham Hill 59, 57 Ravensbourne 63, 59 I think this seems a pretty good plan. One question is whether the Catford loop alone has the capacity for all remaining traffic to Victoria and Blackfriars. I will try to estimate what passenger services would have to remain. |
|
|
| (309355) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Sep 12 15:45:22 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Sep 12 15:18:28 2006. Passengers per year in thousands (entries, exits)Brixton 150, 170 [13] Herne Hill 970, 943 [3] West Dulwich 346, 340 [10] Sydenham Hill 173, 167 Penge East 427, 386 [9] Kent House 275, 269 [12] Beckenham Junction 884, 877 [4] Shortlands 502, 506 [7] Bromley South 2345, 2364 [1] Bickley 311, 308 [11] Petts Wood 874, 862 [5] Orpington 1750, 1734 [2] For completeness' sake: St Mary Cray 490, 486 [8] Swanley 617, 621 [6] I've also added a rank in square brackets []. I'm actually quite surprised by Pett's Wood being so high-ridership - I'd've expected something similar to Bickley. |
|
|
| (309375) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Sep 12 17:21:24 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Tue Sep 12 11:38:45 2006. South Hampstead - Primrose Hill - Camden Road - Broad Street never saw much patronage even when it had a regular service.It could have been different if it had tube like service. I'm probably one of the few who once held a South Hampstead - Camden Rd. season ticket. I think James and I once discussed this subject on Subtalk. My commute to school was short, distance wise but painful, transit wise. The 31 bus was so unreliable that even teachers using it were late for school. The BR route through Primrose Hill had only two useful trains per direction and they ocasionally cancelled the train without notice so I didn't use it for long. The Met from Finchley Rd. to King's Cross to the Northern was a ridiculous route. In the end, I was taking the Met to Great Portland Street to the 53 bus in the morning and the 74 to Baker St. on the way home. I just checked TfL's site to see if I had the bus numbers right. Only the 31 remains and even that, doesn't go to Chelsea anymore. That section of the 53 is now the C2, and the 74, the 274. |
|
|
| (309407) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by stephenk on Tue Sep 12 18:26:30 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Sep 12 17:21:24 2006. The 31 is much more reliable now.Going back to the trains for the Overground, I think that 3 sets of doors per car side would be much better for short dwell times than just 2 sets of doors per car side. I guess TfL are just trying to save money by going for an existing design, with less moving parts |
|
|
| (309537) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Sep 12 21:48:48 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by stephenk on Tue Sep 12 18:26:30 2006. 3 sets of doors per car side would be much better for short dwell times than just 2 sets of doors per car side.I suppose that explains how the underground can achieve more tph than Network Rail. For instance typical peak hour dwell times at London Bridge (low level) are 60 seconds or so, but I don't think that would be tolerated on the underground. |
|
|
| (309540) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Sep 12 21:57:23 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Sep 12 15:45:22 2006. I've also added a rank in square brackets [].Of course, those ridership figures would not apply to your Victoria line extension. Many people from Bromley South would continue to ride the express trains, and many from Petts Wood and Orpington would continue to use the South Eastern. On the other hand, the frequent service on the Victoria line extension could be expected to attract passengers from other routes. The trains are too small for the stations. If necessary you could lower the platforms or raise the tracks through stations. |
|
|
| (309544) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Sep 12 22:02:10 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Tue Sep 12 06:30:51 2006. Besides the different power supplies and signalling systems, Bakerloo tube trains are much smaller than national rail, and that's another reason why they might not be able to share tracks. That argument probably doesn't apply to the ELL extension. |
|
|
| (309583) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Sep 12 23:29:11 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Sep 12 15:45:22 2006. Services from Victoria, Blackfriars and St. Pancras, as proposed by the late SRA for the "Integrated Kent Franchise".Note: "tppp" means trains per peak period, not necessarily in the busiest single hour. Remainder are 1 tph each, all day. From Victoria VE01 VE02 Ramsgate & Dover (split @ Faversham) VE03 VE04 Gillingham VE05 Ashford via Maidstone East (2 tppp) VE06 Maidstone East (2 tppp) VE07 Ashford via Maidstone East VE08 Canterbury West VE09 VE10 Orpington via Herne Hill (slow) VE11 VE12 Sidcup (slow) VE13 VE14 Beckenham Junction via Herne Hill (slow) VE15 VE16 Bexleyheath (slow) From Blackfriars BL01 BL02 Bellingham (slow) (2 tppp each) BL03 BL04 Sevenoaks (slow) BL05 Ashford via Maidstone East (1 tppp) BL06 Gillingham (1 tppp) From St. Pancras SP01 SP02 Ebbsfleet SP03F Margate via Ashford SP03R Folkestone Central (2 tppp) SP04F Folkestone Central SP04R Ramsgate via Ashford (2 tppp) So in the peak hour there would be about 16 from Victoria, about 6 from Blackfriars and about 6 from St. Pancras. Four from Victoria would not be needed. That would leave about 18 tph (peak) on the Catford loop. Quite a squeeze, given the mixture of stopping patterns. I think the present Victoria and Blackfriars services are about the same in total as above. |
|
|
| (309628) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 13 03:50:38 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Sep 12 21:48:48 2006. I suppose that explains how the underground can achieve more tph than Network Rail. For instance typical elpeak hour dwell times at London Bridge (low level) are 60 seconds or so, but I don't think that would be tolerated on the underground.High Level. I'm sure they'd love to get dwell times down that low at Low Level. |
|
|
| (309629) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 13 04:00:29 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Sep 12 17:21:24 2006. I just checked TfL's site to see if I had the bus numbers right. Only the 31 remains and even that, doesn't go to Chelsea anymore.Presumably it ran the same route as today's 328? That section of the 53 is now the C2, Was the 53 originally Plumstead-Hackney? and the 74, the 274. And the 74 was presumably Islington-Putney. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||
