|
|
| Re: London Overground (307276) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 4 |
||
|
| (309635) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 13 05:53:35 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Sep 12 21:57:23 2006. "On the other hand, the frequent service on the Victoria line extension could be expected to attract passengers from other routes."As noted, many of Orpington's and Petts Wood's users go into Charing Cross on the Southeastern main line, not into Victoria on Chatham line. It wouldn't be a good idea to divert them on to the Victoria Line! Bromley South's users would mostly continue to use non-stop trains to Victoria, not all-stations tube trains to the same place. In general we ought to be looking at the highly loaded **inner** London stations for possible new tube passengers. Herne Hill is really the only one with heavy passenger numbers. And the western part of Herne Hill's catchment area is really only a short walk from Brixton tube station! All in all there isn't much case for extending the Victoria Line in this direction. In London, many of the long extensions of the tube out into outer London haven't been a roaring success. The Bakerloo has been cut back from Watford Jcn to Harrow & Wealdstone; the West Ruislip branch of the Central is lightly used; so is the Hainault branch of the Central once it gets past Newbury Park; the Epping branch is better used, but only because there is no alternative - passengers grumble about the length of time it takes to reach the West End; the Met from Uxbridge works well, but only because it is express from Wembley Park to Baker Street; Upminster passengers use c2c and Upminster Bridge station sees little use. Ant tube extension into south London should concentrate on serving the poorly served parts of the inner area. |
|
|
| (309636) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Wed Sep 13 05:58:05 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 6 07:23:28 2006. And don't forget that this is all shown on the "Tube Map" |
|
|
| (309637) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Wed Sep 13 06:19:34 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 13 05:53:35 2006. The long extensions of the Underground are very variable. The reasons for these are not hard to see, you just need to look at an Ordnance Survey map. Poorly performing extensions are so not because passengers are staying away in droves, but simply because they don't live there.So, any Victoria Line extension should capture a Southern Line branch that has a big catchment area, and if an out of town centre can be reached, encouraging reverse commuting, then so much the better. Another statistic to look for is the branch that contributes the most transfers to the Victoria Line at Victoria station. Capturing this branch would relieve the most pressure at Victoria station, and add the least pressure to the Victoria Line north of Victoria. In terms of catchment, the Thornton Heath branch has always looked the best bet to me. As it is four-tracked, the entire service can be captured without disrupting main line trains. People wanting the City of London can change to the Northern Line at Stockwell. Don't forget that tunnelling under existing railway lines in the suburbs is much cheaper than creating new routes in Central London. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (309638) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Wed Sep 13 06:27:14 2006, in response to London Overground, posted by David of Broadway on Wed Sep 6 00:40:45 2006. Go away for a month and this is what I come back to!This new "Overground" looks as though it is going to add endless confusion for years to come, and by the way, under poor lighting conditions that orange roundel looks exactly like a red one. Also, it seems that, for the first time ever, diesel services are going to be added to the Underground map. A step backwards perhaps? They got the steam off it in 1961. Notice how there are two distinct styles of "fantasy map" now in circulation. There is a good reason for this, the people in charge of the map are not entirely sure what they are doing! |
|
|
| (309639) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 13 06:30:52 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Sep 12 14:44:50 2006. "Barking - Blackhorse Road: Kentish TownSouth Tottenham - Crouch Hill: Barbican Upper Holloway - Barbican: Moorgate No-one in their right minds would ride through from Barking to Moorgate" Let's look at the Goblin line stations one by one and see if a Moorgate service would attract any passengers. North Londoners (unlike south Londoners) are habituated to use the tube to reach central London. Gospel Oak is, as noted, situated nowhere in particular, but it is sort of walkable to Kentish Town tube station, with direct Northern Line services to Moorgate. Alternatively, you can get the more frequent NLL service to Camden Road, and then make the short walk to Camden Town tube for the Northern Line. Upper Holloway is very close to Archway tube, and thus won't get any central London passengers whatever you do. Crouch Hill isn't near any other station, but it is on the frequent Muswell Hill to Finsbury Park bus route - the self-same bus route that in the 1940s killed off Muswell Hill station. At Finsbury Park you can get a more frequent and direct train service to Moorgate via Essex Road. Harringay Green Lanes is close to Harringay station, on the same WAGN line to Moorgate via Essex Road. South Tottenham is close to Seven Sisters, with a direct service to Liverpool Street (not too far from Moorgate), or the Victoria Line to Highbury and Islington for a cross-platform connection for Moorgate via Essex Road. Blackhorse Road is on Victoria Line, for that same connection to Moorgate at Highbury & Islington. Walthamstow Queens Road is very close to Walthamstow Central - Victoria Line again, or direct trains to Liverpool Street. Leyton Midland Road is not very close to Leyton Central Line station, but still I suspect Leytonians still wouldn't use it to reach the City. You can get direct buses to Stratford - the main transport hub of east london - from outside Leyton Midland Road station. Leytonstone High Road is quite close to Leytonstone Central Line, from which you can get directly to Liverpool Street or Bank. Wanstead Park is very close to Forest Gate for direct frequent trains to Liverpool Street. Woodgrange Park is similarly close to Manor Park (both stations named after cemeteries, incidentally) for Liverpool Street trains. Barking has fast c2c trains to Fenchurch Street - not, admittedly, desperately close to Moorgate, but still in the City - and Hammersmith & City line trains direct to Moorgate and Barbican. I rest my case. No customers would be attracted. The Goblin line is a cross-town line and would be best integrated into the North London Lines system, as planned by Mayor Ken. He has to find the money to electrify it, though. |
|
|
| (309640) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 13 06:39:32 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Max Roberts on Wed Sep 13 06:19:34 2006. "In terms of catchment, the Thornton Heath branch has always looked the best bet to me"I agree. I think, though, that the Bakerloo is the better bet for extension than the Victoria. David Fairthorne's idea of bringing it to the surface south of Elephant, capturing two of the four tracks thence to Loughborough Junction, then going via Herne Hill and Tulse Hill to Streatham, then swinging round to Streatham Common and running through Thornton Heath to one of the Croydons looks best to me. Restore Walworth Road and Camberwell Green stations, double-deck Herne Hill and Tulse Hill stations as necessary, then perhaps go underground from Streatham Common to Croydon, beneath the Brighton main line, with tube stations replacing Norbury, Thornton Heath and Selhurst. |
|
|
| (309642) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Wed Sep 13 06:55:48 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 13 06:39:32 2006. Perhaps even going all the way to Purley, this route also has lots of housing, and the intermediate stations are only served by stoppers anyway.Walthamstow Central is a good example of how to build an Underground Station under an already-existing station. Not the best solution, but it works. I don't see any reason why the slow Thornton Heath lines shouldn't be taken over completely, existing station buildings can be used. Stations to Sutton can be served by other means. |
|
|
| (309643) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 13 07:13:09 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Max Roberts on Wed Sep 13 06:55:48 2006. "I don't see any reason why the slow Thornton Heath lines shouldn't be taken over completely, existing station buildings can be used."If the slow tracks of the Brighton main line can be spared from Streatham Common to Selhurst, that reduces the cost considerably. |
|
|
| (309679) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 13 08:26:35 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 13 05:53:35 2006. In general we ought to be looking at the highly loaded **inner** London stations for possible new tube passengers. Herne Hill is really the only one with heavy passenger numbers.And Beckenham Junction. Notice the nice little interchange there too - it's got potential. In London, many of the long extensions of the tube out into outer London haven't been a roaring success. The Bakerloo has been cut back from Watford Jcn to Harrow & Wealdstone; the West Ruislip branch of the Central is lightly used; so is the Hainault branch of the Central once it gets past Newbury Park; the Epping branch is better used, but only because there is no alternative - passengers grumble about the length of time it takes to reach the West End; the Met from Uxbridge works well, but only because it is express from Wembley Park to Baker Street; Upminster passengers use c2c and Upminster Bridge station sees little use. You're being selective - Edgware and High Barnet work, as do Stanmore and Cockfosters to an extent, as do most examples you didn't mention. Upminster Bridge may be little-used by tube standards, but it's still used, and if the District didn't extend all the way to Upminster, journeys to points beyond Upminster would involve doubling back via Barking. The West Ruislip and Watford Joint Lines are notorious for being in bad locations - you could hardly describe the Chatham Main Line in such terms; it just gets rubbish local service. Ant tube extension into south London should concentrate on serving the poorly served parts of the inner area. Much of that could be covered by two extra Thameslink stations: Walworth and Camberwell. |
|
|
| (309695) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by New Brunswick Station on Wed Sep 13 09:30:39 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Thu Sep 7 04:31:03 2006. Wow! Speechless! |
|
|
| (309700) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by New Brunswick Station on Wed Sep 13 09:42:44 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David Fairthorne on Fri Sep 8 14:18:00 2006. Any Santa Claus or Christmas shops at North Pole Junction? |
|
|
| (309709) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 13 09:50:12 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Max Roberts on Wed Sep 13 06:55:48 2006. Stations to Sutton can be served by other means.Interchange would be a pain, and, if existing tracks were used, access to the City would be lost. |
|
|
| (309713) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 13 09:52:11 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Max Roberts on Wed Sep 13 06:27:14 2006. Go away for a month and this is what I come back to!Did you have a nice time? Notice how there are two distinct styles of "fantasy map" now in circulation. Overground and the one with the wonky Central Line ;-) There is a good reason for this, the people in charge of the map are not entirely sure what they are doing! Some things never change. |
|
|
| (309720) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 13 09:55:22 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 13 06:30:52 2006. No customers would be attracted.Yes, they would. The interchanges at Kentish Town, St Pancras Thameslink, and Farringdon are more use than that at Gospel Oak, and some people work near Barbican station. |
|
|
| (309727) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 13 10:00:22 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by New Brunswick Station on Wed Sep 13 09:42:44 2006. Any Santa Claus or Christmas shops at North Pole Junction?No. It's surrounded by two parks, various assorted light industry, railway sidings, and a prison and a hospital across the larger of the two parks. Oh and there's a cemetery in the immediate vicinity... |
|
|
| (309729) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by New Brunswick Station on Wed Sep 13 10:01:41 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 13 10:00:22 2006. why do they call it North Pole Junction? |
|
|
| (309743) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 13 10:12:04 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by New Brunswick Station on Wed Sep 13 10:01:41 2006. why do they call it North Pole Junction?Because there was a pub next to the railway called the North Pole, after which North Pole Road and North Pole Junction were named (it could equally well have ended up as Rifle Pavilion Junction). Anyway, the pub was so called as a bit of a joke - in the mid 19th Century, Scrubs Lane did not exist, and North Kensington was not built up yet. Latimer Road and Wood Lane came to a crashing halt in the middle of nowhere, from which you could only head south. A small street linking the two appeared and naturally the pub that sprung up was named the North Pole. |
|
|
| (309748) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Wed Sep 13 10:18:08 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 13 09:50:12 2006. Interchange to get to where? Victoria-Crystal Palace-West Croydon-Sutton should still be possible, likewise LB-WC-Sutton |
|
|
| (309752) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Wed Sep 13 10:24:21 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 13 09:52:11 2006. Yes, great time, thanks for asking. Will post this separately when I get the chance. Only downpoints were:Tourist tram in Stockholm was not working, their tourist season ended the last week of August. And, St Petersberg is to get rid of all its trams and trolleybuses. A shame, as it is a vast system, although currently in a state of near collapse. Woudn't surprise me if they had received some sort of backhander from Scania to persuade them to go to the dark side. I think that the locals associate public transport with poverty and communism. All trams and trolleybuses still have conductors, but they didn't seem to have very much to do in the two days I was there. Also found a nice tourist guide in Wigtown which had not one but TWO illegal London Underground map rip-offs in it. |
|
|
| (309753) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 13 10:28:31 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Max Roberts on Wed Sep 13 10:18:08 2006. "Stations to Sutton can be served by other means.""Interchange would be a pain, and, if existing tracks were used, access to the City would be lost." "Interchange to get to where? Victoria-Crystal Palace-West Croydon-Sutton should still be possible, likewise LB-WC-Sutton" I think two things have got mixed up here. From stations between Sutton and West Croydon, presumably Victoria access would now require changing at West Croydon - if the Bakerloo tube went there - or would be lost if the tube went to East Croydon. But access from these stations to the City (well, London Bridge, anyway) wouldn't. From Selhurst, Thornton Heath, Norbury and Steatham Common, access to the City would be lost, except by changing at Elephant to the Northern Line (Bank branch), at Waterloo to the Drain, or at Embankment to the District, none of which are easy cross-platform interchanges. |
|
|
| (309759) | |
St petersburg (was Re: London Overground) |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 13 10:39:17 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Max Roberts on Wed Sep 13 10:24:21 2006. "And, St Petersburg is to get rid of all its trams and trolleybuses. A shame, as it is a vast system, although currently in a state of near collapse. Woudn't surprise me if they had received some sort of backhander from Scania to persuade them to go to the dark side."That is really bad news. They were in decrepit condition though. Seems as if the Russians think they are are being "progressive" 1960s style, and haven't noticed that LRT is coming back all over Europe, especially in France. "All trams and trolleybuses still have conductors, but they didn't seem to have very much to do in the two days I was there." When I was there in 2003 the trams were well-used despite their terrible condition and unreliable service. Conductors on trams aren't such a bad idea. Sheffield finds them more effective for getting all the fares in than platform ticket machines that get vandalised, and Nottingham had them from the start on its new LRT system. "I think that the locals associate public transport with poverty and communism." Possibly. But they also seem to favour filthy smelly private-enterprise minibus jitneys, which in my observation are more typical of third-world countries than rich ones. Come to think of it, St Petersburg is rather like a cold version of Cairo overall, actually. On the bright side, since 2003 they have at least mended the no. 1 Metro line so that it doesn't have a gap in it. Are they actively building the no. 5 line? |
|
|
| (309763) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 13 10:44:24 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 13 10:12:04 2006. "why do they call it North Pole Junction?""Because there was a pub next to the railway called the North Pole" We do tend to name things after pubs in the UK - Elephant & Castle, Swiss Cottage and Angel tube stations, to name but three. A long-dead railway station named after a pub that might amuse our American friends is Three Cocks Junction (in mid-Wales, since you ask). Slightly more decently, Trouble House Halt in Gloucestershire was also named after a pub (one that tended to get a bit rowdy, perhaps?). |
|
|
| (309775) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Deaks on Wed Sep 13 11:02:30 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 13 04:00:29 2006. The 28 and 31s used to cover the route to Chelsea, but were well-known to be plagued by unreliability. When they were either converted to low-floor single deckers, or when later upgraded to low-floor double-deckers from the previous smaller vehicles (I don't remember which), they were cut back and the 328 route introduced. |
|
|
| (309777) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 13 11:03:29 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Max Roberts on Wed Sep 13 10:24:21 2006. And, St Petersberg is to get rid of all its trams and trolleybuses.NNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! Also found a nice tourist guide in Wigtown which had not one but TWO illegal London Underground map rip-offs in it. Any chance of doublely-illegal scans? |
|
|
| (309779) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 13 11:04:47 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Max Roberts on Wed Sep 13 10:18:08 2006. Interchange to get to where? Victoria-Crystal Palace-West Croydon-Sutton should still be possible, likewise LB-WC-SuttonTry something simple - Tulse Hill to Sutton. |
|
|
| (309784) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 13 11:08:08 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 13 10:44:24 2006. Slightly more decently, Trouble House Halt in Gloucestershire was also named after a pub (one that tended to get a bit rowdy, perhaps?).Somewhat tangentially, it's incredible how many stations mentioned in the lyrics of the Slow Train are still open. |
|
|
| (309795) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Wed Sep 13 11:16:16 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 13 11:04:47 2006. Thameslink? |
|
|
| (309797) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Wed Sep 13 11:17:24 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 13 11:03:29 2006. I will add it to my in-tray, which has been stacking up nicely for the last month or so. |
|
|
| (309799) | |
Re: St petersburg (was Re: London Overground) |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Wed Sep 13 11:22:20 2006, in response to St petersburg (was Re: London Overground), posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 13 10:39:17 2006. I didn't get much chance to get out and about as we didn't have visas and were confined to excursions only. However, one of these combined a trip on the tourist tram, a trip to the Spilt Blood cathedral, and plenty of time at a market, thus catering for my partner also. There are still bargains to be had in Russia, but for amber head to Estonia.I think the jitneys must have gone, replaced by dodgy looking Lada taxis perhaps. This is definitely a city of contrasts, a river trip proved to be means of seeing it at its best. |
|
|
| (309801) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 13 11:24:41 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Max Roberts on Wed Sep 13 11:16:16 2006. But if the Bakerloo nicks their tracks... |
|
|
| (309804) | |
Re: St petersburg (was Re: London Overground) |
|
|
Posted by Deaks on Wed Sep 13 11:30:15 2006, in response to Re: St petersburg (was Re: London Overground), posted by Max Roberts on Wed Sep 13 11:22:20 2006. I didn't get much chance to get out and about as we didn't have visas and were confined to excursions only.I thought that you couldn't even get into Russia with no visa - have the rules been relaxed recently? |
|
|
| (309813) | |
Re: St petersburg (was Re: London Overground) |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Wed Sep 13 11:42:54 2006, in response to Re: St petersburg (was Re: London Overground), posted by Deaks on Wed Sep 13 11:30:15 2006. We went on a cruise ship, and I think they must be able to get special dispensations. |
|
|
| (309815) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Wed Sep 13 11:49:03 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 13 11:24:41 2006. Perhaps you wouldn't want the Bakerloo to do this, as the Thameslink viaduct is a bit over to the west compared with the traffic objectives.Anyway, the Mitcham Junction etc. would still need some sort of service, and London Bridge to Sutton could be reinstated for the three people who want to travel from Tulse Hill to Sutton. |
|
|
| (309832) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Wed Sep 13 13:10:30 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Max Roberts on Wed Sep 13 06:19:34 2006. tunnelling under existing railway lines in the suburbs is much cheaper than creating new routes in Central London.Interesting point. Please tell us more if you can. That could be an important and even a deciding factor. There would be no right-of-way or NIMBY issues, but you would still have to use a tunnel boring machine. Fytton likes the idea a Bakerloo tube extension under the Southern, and your point would help to make the case. |
|
|
| (309835) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Wed Sep 13 13:30:16 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David Fairthorne on Wed Sep 13 13:10:30 2006. Its just an educated guess really: building an Underground line incurrs costs from many sources:The following always occur: Tunnelling (cost is a function of ground quality, its not very good in parts of South London) Lining tunnel and laying track Removing spoil The following will be cheaper in the suburbs than the centre: Finding and diverting services (this is very very expensive, especially in Central London) Underpinning buildings (suburban buildings are shorter than centre buildings, and if you stay under a railway line at sufficient depth, there will be no underpinning at all) Aquiring property for demolition/station construction (suburban buildings are cheaper, and if a suitable overground station can have an Underground station added to it, then the property acquisition costs for station buildings will be zero) We just need a civil engineer to give us an idea of how these sources of expense compare in reality |
|
|
| (309854) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Sep 13 14:44:18 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Sep 13 04:00:29 2006. According to the E-plate site:Route 31 is an old established route that ran daily from Camden Town to Chelsea (Stanley Arms) via Chalk Farm, Swiss Cottage, Kilburn, Westbourne Park, Westbourne Grove, Notting Hill Gate, Kensington and Earl's Court. Route 53 ran from Camden Town to Plumstead Common via Great Portland Street, Oxford Circus, Piccadilly Circus, Trafalgar Square, Westminster, Elephant & Castle, New Cross, Deptford, Blackheath, Charlton, Woolich and Plumstead. I forgot about the 3 running the same route in the area. I had RMs back then so I could often get off in front of my school. Route 3 is a very long-established route and ran daily between Camden Town and Crystal Palace via Great Portland Street, Oxford Circus, Piccadilly Circus, Trafalgar Square, Westminster, Millbank, Lambeth Bridge, Kennington, Brixton, Herne Hill and West Dulwich. There was also the 74B. Route 74 ran daily between Camden Town and Putney Heath (Green Man) via Prince Albert Road, the Zoo, Baker Street, Marble Arch, Hyde Park Corner, Knightsbridge, South Kensington, Cromwell Road, Earl's Court, West Brompton, Fulham Palace Road, Putney Bridge and Putney Hill. Route 74B was introduced in August 1963, running on Mondays to Fridays between Camden Town and Hammersmith Broadway via the Zoo, Baker Street, Marble Arch, Hyde Park Corner, Knightsbridge, South Kensington, Earl's Court and Lillie Road. I'm glad I found this site. |
|
|
| (309857) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Wed Sep 13 14:53:07 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Fytton on Wed Sep 13 07:13:09 2006. If the slow tracks of the Brighton main line can be spared from Streatham Common to Selhurst ...That seems doubtful, because at least some stopping services to Victoria and London Bridge (currently 5 or 6 tph peak and 8 tph off-peak) would still be wanted, and they would have to use the fast tracks, which are already near capacity. Between 08:00 and 08:59, eighteen fast trains arrive at Victoria on the fast tracks, and to add slow trains to the fast tracks would require leaving gaps between fast trains. |
|
|
| (309861) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Wed Sep 13 15:02:38 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Max Roberts on Wed Sep 13 13:30:16 2006. Thanks for the analysis, Max. I think these are all important and valid explanations.Those are probably some of the reasons why the are building parts of the CTRL under existing lines in the London area. |
|
|
| (309874) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Sep 13 15:33:12 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Sep 13 14:44:18 2006. Looks like you have to type the whole address.http://www.angelfire.com/ult/eplate/index.html |
|
|
| (309877) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Wed Sep 13 15:41:06 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Thu Sep 7 08:22:10 2006. "For historical reasons there's already too much choice of rail routes in south London generally"Much of which is easily solveable if you apply some simple rules. The SRA Route Utilisation Strategy, which was mainly concerned with the fast services, and has apparently been dropped, proposed the following suburban routes, each of which would have had just two tph, running all day. Victoria to London Bridge (South London Line) Victoria to London Bridge (via Crystal Palace) Victoria to Caterham (via Crystal Palace) Victoria to Caterham (via Norbury) Victoria to Epsom Downs (via Norbury) Victoria to Dorking (via Hackbridge) (one tph continuing to Horsham) London Bridge to Epsom (via Norbury) London Bridge to Beckenham Junction (via Crystal Palace) London Bridge to West Croydon (via Sydenham) London Bridge to Tattenham Corner (via Sydenham) The idea was to bring the peak hour services up to the same frequency as the off-peak services. Currently some peak services are worse than off-peak. |
|
|
| (310096) | |
E-Plates Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Thu Sep 14 08:12:18 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Sep 13 15:33:12 2006. Interesting site. It's missing a few routes (e.g. 93, 406E (the reason that the 406F is the only F-suffixed route!), 419), but has lots of good material on the evolution of the route network. |
|
|
| (310097) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Thu Sep 14 08:30:59 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David Fairthorne on Wed Sep 13 15:02:38 2006. "Thanks for the analysis, Max. I think these are all important and valid explanations.Those are probably some of the reasons why the are building parts of the CTRL under existing lines in the London area." I am sure it is one of the reasons. It should also be noted that between Kings Cross and Finsbury Park the Piccadilly line was constructed 100 years ago by deep tube construction underneath the East Coast Main Line. |
|
|
| (310098) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Thu Sep 14 08:32:56 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David Fairthorne on Wed Sep 13 15:41:06 2006. The SRA Route Utilisation Strategy, which was mainly concerned with the fast services, and has apparently been dropped, proposed the following suburban routes, each of which would have had just two tph, running all day.And it was fundamentally flawed in its suburban service plan. Just look at what ends up serving Sutton to Epsom: the sensible route to Victoria gets cut from 4tph (2 fast, 2 slow) to 2tph (all slow), the 1tph silly route (via Norbury) to Victoria disappears altogether, and a 2tph extremely silly slow route (via Norbury) to London Bridge appears. And this is just the worst of the horrible loopy suburban routes. The SRA seemed to have forgotten that people might actually want to get somewhere, rather than touring South London on circuitous trains. Part of the problem, however, is Thameslink. Making it eat up capacity at Tulse Hill which could be used by sensible trains to London Bridge contributes to silly ideas like sending London Bridge trains from Sutton to Tulse Hill via Norbury. |
|
|
| (310182) | |
Re: E-Plates Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Sep 14 13:08:32 2006, in response to E-Plates Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Thu Sep 14 08:12:18 2006. It's missing the dreaded 140 (was Mill Hill Broadway to Heathrow Airport) as well but that may be because it never ran through central London. |
|
|
| (310199) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Thu Sep 14 13:52:13 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Thu Sep 14 08:32:56 2006. And it was fundamentally flawed in its suburban service plan.I think they were trying to provide the minimum number of two-tph routes needed to serve all stations and connecting links. You can question the goal, but I can only applaud the concept of bringing the peak service up to the off-peak standard! the 1tph silly route (via Norbury) to Victoria disappears altogether, You mean the xx:55 Victoria to Epsom via Norbury; it's paired with the xx:25 Victoria to Epsom Downs via Norbury. Those two, taken together with the xx:05 and xx:35 provide 4 tph from Victoria to Sutton; and taken together with the xx:15 and xx:45 Victoria to Caterham you get a regular 10 minutely service from Victoria to Selhurst. Not bad if you ask me. and a 2tph extremely silly slow route (via Norbury) to London Bridge appears. That would just have extended the existing silly slow xx:19 and xx:49 from London Bridge to West Croydon via Norbury. ... Thameslink. Making it eat up capacity at Tulse Hill which could be used by sensible trains to London Bridge contributes to silly ideas like sending London Bridge trains from Sutton to Tulse Hill via Norbury. It depends whether you prefer Thameslink or London Bridge. The present off-peak service sends 4 tph to Thameslink and 6 tph to London Bridge. But in the peak hours they have to make way at the Herne Hill and Tulse Hill bottlenecks for the Thameslink service to Brighton, because there isn't room for it to go via the London Bridge (high level) bottleneck! |
|
|
| (310229) | |
Re: E-Plates Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Thu Sep 14 16:09:22 2006, in response to Re: E-Plates Re: London Overground, posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Sep 14 13:08:32 2006. It's missing the dreaded 140 (was Mill Hill Broadway to Heathrow Airport)That can't have been reliable when Heathrow Airport was opened. |
|
|
| (310231) | |
Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Thu Sep 14 16:16:09 2006, in response to Re: London Overground, posted by David Fairthorne on Thu Sep 14 13:52:13 2006. You mean the xx:55 Victoria to Epsom via Norbury; it's paired with the xx:25 Victoria to Epsom Downs via Norbury.Yes. It'd be more needed on the Downs Line (at least to Belmont), as from Epsom, Ewell East, and Cheam, for West Croydon you just catch the first train to Sutton and then play guess the platform. What really needs changing is the spacing of slow and fast trains, and flipping the Sunday service so that SWT go to Dorking and Southern get cut back to Epsom (improves timings at Clapham Junction). That would just have extended the existing silly slow xx:19 and xx:49 from London Bridge to West Croydon via Norbury. Which is very silly when they could extend the 2tph London Bridge to West Croydon via Forest Hill service instead, or even create two new fast trains to London Bridge in place of the two fast Victorias. |
|
|
| (310247) | |
Re: E-Plates Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Sep 14 17:57:30 2006, in response to Re: E-Plates Re: London Overground, posted by Rail Blue on Thu Sep 14 16:09:22 2006. It wasn't but it was one of the few routes still using RTs back then. And oh yeah... I forgot it went to Mill Hill East on weekdays.
|
|
|
| (310419) | |
Re: E-Plates Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Fri Sep 15 03:24:50 2006, in response to Re: E-Plates Re: London Overground, posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Sep 14 17:57:30 2006. Real buses. Sigh. |
|
|
| (310466) | |
Re: E-Plates Re: London Overground |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 15 08:24:01 2006, in response to Re: E-Plates Re: London Overground, posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Sep 14 17:57:30 2006. "That can't have been reliable when Heathrow Airport was opened.""It wasn't but it was one of the few routes still using RTs back then" What do you mean, still? When Heathrow Airport opened (in the late 1940s), RTs were still being built and were the newest buses around! |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 4 |
||
