|
|
| Re: LONDON photography incidents (Was: Cockfosters) (360302) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 6 |
||
|
| (365698) | |
Re: LONDON photography incidents (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jan 8 07:18:01 2007, in response to Re: LONDON photography incidents (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jan 8 06:55:47 2007. If I had known about those I would have printed them out before I left on my trip. Would have come in mighty handy. Oh well. I've bookmarked them for next time... |
|
|
| (365700) | |
Re: LONDON photography incidents (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Mon Jan 8 07:23:48 2007, in response to Re: LONDON photography incidents (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jan 8 07:15:35 2007. i read thier rulesyou can use it but very specific ................ |
|
|
| (365702) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jan 8 07:31:48 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Max Roberts on Mon Jan 8 06:51:22 2007. I seem to remember somewhere that SNCF had applied for open access rights somehwere in Britain in order to get some experience at running trains in the UK. Would they count as foreign loonies?I suppose so, but frankly I'd rather give them the entire rail network... Oh, and welcome back and Happy New Year et cetera... |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (365719) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Mon Jan 8 08:33:27 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jan 8 07:31:48 2007. Thanks,Have you done your fantasy Underground map yet? Mine is undergroing a complete mental revamp at the moment. It wil probably never be finished. |
|
|
| (365720) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Mon Jan 8 08:35:36 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jan 8 06:31:34 2007. I wonder what route he used to get out of Kew Gardens. Was it the E or the F? |
|
|
| (365721) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon Jan 8 08:38:34 2007, in response to 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Jan 3 15:16:44 2007. Top notch photography.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (365724) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jan 8 08:44:08 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Max Roberts on Mon Jan 8 08:33:27 2007. Have you done your fantasy Underground map yet?I've got segments of it going. I'm having interesting problems with angles - when I last had a moment for it, I was struggling not to make South London massive - I'm probably going to have to revamp most of the City and half of the West End, but I'm a bit reluctant to do that, as it will probably mess up KXSP. Mine is undergroing a complete mental revamp at the moment. Any sneak previews of your thoughts? It wil probably never be finished. :-( |
|
|
| (365725) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jan 8 08:45:13 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by David of Broadway on Mon Jan 8 08:35:36 2007. I wonder what route he used to get out of Kew Gardens. Was it the E or the F?Well, he was lost. Maybe he figured the Green Line was the E. |
|
|
| (365726) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Mon Jan 8 09:05:14 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jan 8 08:44:08 2007. I'm toying with the idea of freeing up the Circle Line by sending the City Branch of the Northern Line from Euston to Finchley Road to Watford/Uxbridge. With long distance Met services (Rickmansworth and beyond) going to Crossrail, a combination of this, and remaining Met services terminating at Baker Street, I don't think that existing passengers would be upset by this. This then leaves the remaining Northern Line West End Branch needing a two-branch extension to South London in order to balance the two-branch services in North London. Streatham-Thornton Heath-Croydon would be one branch, I need to decide on another BR capture south of Streatham (mustn't divide the service before Streatham or it could cause overloading) that would have equal traffic generation to the East Croydon route. |
|
|
| (365747) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jan 8 10:11:38 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Fred G on Mon Jan 8 08:38:34 2007. Thanks Fred! My 30mm f1.4 came through for me every time. Awesome lens. So glad I had it for this trip. |
|
|
| (365752) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jan 8 10:24:30 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Max Roberts on Mon Jan 8 09:05:14 2007. I'm toying with the idea of freeing up the Circle Line by sending the City Branch of the Northern Line from Euston to Finchley Road to Watford/Uxbridge. With long distance Met services (Rickmansworth and beyond) going to Crossrail, a combination of this, and remaining Met services terminating at Baker StreetI may be having a dense moment, but what remaining Met services? This then leaves the remaining Northern Line West End Branch needing a two-branch extension to South London in order to balance the two-branch services in North London. How would you provide enough service on the busy tube stretches to Highgate and Hampstead? Streatham-Thornton Heath-Croydon would be one branch, I need to decide on another BR capture south of Streatham (mustn't divide the service before Streatham or it could cause overloading) that would have equal traffic generation to the East Croydon route. Well, obviously it can't be the Tooting branch ;-) Realistically, you've got just one choice: Streatham Common, portal, Mitcham Eastfields, Mitcham Junction (realigned!), Hackbridge (rubbish station, but uncloseable!), Carshalton, Sutton, Cheam, Ewell East, Epsom. The only problem is that most of the traffic on that route is at just two stations: Sutton and Epsom. A slightly lesser problem is what on earth you do with the 1tph between Dorking North and Horsham - it could go to Waterloo, but the Epsom branch is the prime Chelney target! Oh and why stop at East Croydon? I've walked the area around South Croydon, and it looks like it could do with more service (but obviously the track layout prevents it). Going into a tube again from north of East Croydon station might be a good idea. It might even let you replace the uselessly-sited Purley Oaks station (Sanderstead Rd and Purley Downs Rd are both better locations). Actually, I have a revolutionary idea for a terminal: Coulsdon North. |
|
|
| (365777) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Mon Jan 8 11:00:16 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jan 8 10:24:30 2007. Remaining Met services:I would keep a service running into Baker Street and terminating in order to cater for well-established (and heavy) traffic flows, for example a viaable combination might be (1) Uxbridge-Baker Street (2) Watford-Harrow & Wealdstone-Preston Road-Morden (3) Watford-Harrow-on-the-Hill-Preston Road-Morden Busy Northern Line in North London: Its not impossibly busy, but capacity would also be provided by Moorgate-Finsbury Park-Highgate-Alexandar Palace/Edgware services. By getting rid of Bank services, it should be possible to run the branches more reliably, which in itself adds capacity. And in the south: Its the only realistic route BUT its still not a very good one, and would probably attract less traffic than the Croydon branch, with all the problems for reliability that this results in. Problem is that even with a blank cheque it is hard to identify a useful route south of Streatham. Its interesting to speculate on whether the railway lines took the best routes in terms of eventual housing density and traffic potential. If I was starting railways in this area from scratch, I would have one follow the 159 route to Thornton Heath and then on to Croydon, and the other follow the 68 route through Upper Norwood. Forget about Chelney, its only slightly less stupid than Crossrail. In my fantasy, it runs from Morden South to Fulham Broadway, and in the North East to Hainault and Collier Row-Harold Hill (or should that be the other way round). You are right about South of Croydon, plenty of dense housing. I think that you could justify a tube service to Purley, and yes, with turning facilities at Coulsdon North if necessary. |
|
|
| (365810) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jan 8 11:35:46 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Max Roberts on Mon Jan 8 11:00:16 2007. Remaining Met services:I would keep a service running into Baker Street and terminating in order to cater for well-established (and heavy) traffic flows, for example a viaable combination might be (1) Uxbridge-Baker Street (2) Watford-Harrow & Wealdstone-Preston Road-Morden (3) Watford-Harrow-on-the-Hill-Preston Road-Morden But is the traffic flow to Baker St itself? I suspect largely not. Most of the passengers would be better served by that neat cross-platform interchange at Euston. Busy Northern Line in North London: Its not impossibly busy, but capacity would also be provided by Moorgate-Finsbury Park-Highgate-Alexandar Palace/Edgware services. By getting rid of Bank services, it should be possible to run the branches more reliably, which in itself adds capacity. I'm really not convinced by those arguments. The Northern Line is IME a lot better now the silly junction at Kennington has been all but eliminated (effectively Camden Town can be made better advantage of). And the Finsbury branch comes in too far north for the really busy sections. And in the south: Its the only realistic route BUT its still not a very good one, and would probably attract less traffic than the Croydon branch, with all the problems for reliability that this results in. Problem is that even with a blank cheque it is hard to identify a useful route south of Streatham. Agreed. Its interesting to speculate on whether the railway lines took the best routes in terms of eventual housing density and traffic potential. If I was starting railways in this area from scratch, I would have one follow the 159 route to Thornton Heath and then on to Croydon, and the other follow the 68 route through Upper Norwood. So maybe having the fork at Streatham Hill and sending alternate trains via Crystal Palace and via Norbury would be a better idea. Forget about Chelney, its only slightly less stupid than Crossrail. In my fantasy, it runs from Morden South to Fulham Broadway, and in the North East to Hainault and Collier Row-Harold Hill (or should that be the other way round). Well, we only really need one of Chelney and Crossrail. And the tube gauge alignment of Chelney to the South West is just about right, whilst Shenfield is far more important than tinkering with the low-ridership outer reaches of the Central Line. I'm still thinking Shenfield and Grays to Epsom/Dorking and Sutton (with the occasional Chessington to avoid dealing with that imperfection). You are right about South of Croydon, plenty of dense housing. I think that you could justify a tube service to Purley, and yes, with turning facilities at Coulsdon North if necessary. :-) Next rebuild Clapham Junction so we can have WCML trains to Brighton back! |
|
|
| (365843) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Mon Jan 8 12:20:40 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jan 8 11:35:46 2007. Baker Street is quite a busy part of London, with lots of offices and people working there (my father for instance) and certainly the station barriers are kept busy. Also, West London destinations are served better from Baker Street than would be possible from the proposed Northern Line.My figures put the amount of traffic going into the Northern Line from Golders Green/Archway to Camden Town inclusive at roughly the same quantity as Leytonstone to Bethnal Green inclusive on the Central Line. The Central Line also has the problem with having to cope with Liverpool Street commuters trying to squeeze on. Euston does not present the same problem so, yes, in theory it can cope. Don't forget that my fantasy map also includes the Kingsway Line, which could interchange directly at Camden Town. The current Northern Line solution is OK, although Camden Town is an awful interchange, and a loop is not necessarily the best method of turning trains. Note that they are not risking turning all trains this during the rush hour yet. Serving both Crystal Palace and Norbury branches would be possible, but with the risk of an imbalance in loading. The Crystal Palace route is far less built up. If both branches were served, then a cross platform interchange at North Croydon, and West and East Croydon as termini would be a useful addition. In fact, why not extend to Coulsdon North/Sutton. Even so, take a look at a map when you get a chance, and note how the railways generally avoid the population centres, which instead seem to be along the two bus routes. Depends on what you mean exactly. We only need one out-of-control 30 billion railway scheme, but could a case be made for two or three rather more sensible 10 billion schemes? Harold Hill and Collier Row are two large isolated housing areas, miles away from rail facilities, which between them would provide many passengers. I have a fascinating BR publication from the early 1980s in which they made a financial case for building a cross-London tunnel from Euston to Victoria, and suggested that this could PAY FOR ITSELF in terms of increased revenue and savings. How on earth could they do this? By providing no intermediate stations. They rightly surmised that in general tunnelling is cheap, and building stations is expensive, but that they could build Underground stations relatively cheaply under their own termini. from an operators point of view, the advantage of a crossrail is saving terminal time, and this (along with extra fares from long distance passengers who were previously discouraged by the cross London tube journey) would pay for a basic tunnel. Its a shame that this proposal came at a time of government rail phobia. |
|
|
| (365847) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Deaks on Mon Jan 8 12:26:24 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Max Roberts on Mon Jan 8 06:51:22 2007. SNCF have, if I recall correctly, applied for (and I *think*, have been granted) rights to run intermodal out of Daventry. I suspect they are just stirring the pot, their freight operations in France having been exposed as somewhat shoddy by EWS's venture there. |
|
|
| (365848) | |
Re: LONDON photography incidents (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Deaks on Mon Jan 8 12:29:46 2007, in response to Re: LONDON photography incidents (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jan 8 06:55:47 2007. NR are mightily hot on photography at Lime Street, so-so about it at Birmingham NS and really don't give a shit at Piccadilly. |
|
|
| (365850) | |
Re: LONDON photography incidents (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Brighton Private on Mon Jan 8 12:40:59 2007, in response to Re: LONDON photography incidents (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jan 8 06:55:47 2007. Do you think St Pancras will become "major" once the reconstruction is complete and Eurostar is routed there from Nov. 14 forward? |
|
|
| (365855) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Deaks on Mon Jan 8 12:51:16 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Deaks on Mon Jan 8 12:26:24 2007. The routes they've applied for (from another forum)....Eastleigh - Carlisle Dollands Moor - Castle Bromwich/Daventry Scunthorpe - Tyne Dock. |
|
|
| (365867) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jan 8 13:27:07 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Deaks on Mon Jan 8 12:51:16 2007. Dollands Moor - Castle BromwichSurprised they didn't go the whole hog and ask for Landor Street. |
|
|
| (365875) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jan 8 13:43:55 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Max Roberts on Mon Jan 8 12:20:40 2007. Serving both Crystal Palace and Norbury branches would be possible, but with the risk of an imbalance in loading. The Crystal Palace route is far less built up. If both branches were served, then a cross platform interchange at North Croydon, and West and East Croydon as termini would be a useful addition. In fact, why not extend to Coulsdon North/Sutton. Even so, take a look at a map when you get a chance, and note how the railways generally avoid the population centres, which instead seem to be along the two bus routes.Oh yes. And it misses major traffic generators like Mayday Hospital. Depends on what you mean exactly. We only need one out-of-control 30 billion railway scheme, but could a case be made for two or three rather more sensible 10 billion schemes? Harold Hill and Collier Row are two large isolated housing areas, miles away from rail facilities, which between them would provide many passengers. And then is there any sensible way of serving the St Helier estate? I have a fascinating BR publication from the early 1980s in which they made a financial case for building a cross-London tunnel from Euston to Victoria, and suggested that this could PAY FOR ITSELF in terms of increased revenue and savings. How on earth could they do this? By providing no intermediate stations. They rightly surmised that in general tunnelling is cheap, and building stations is expensive, but that they could build Underground stations relatively cheaply under their own termini. from an operators point of view, the advantage of a crossrail is saving terminal time, and this (along with extra fares from long distance passengers who were previously discouraged by the cross London tube journey) would pay for a basic tunnel. I'm surprised they went for that over quadrupling the West London Line. Shepherd's Bush would be as good a "West End" station as Euston or Victoria. |
|
|
| (365876) | |
Re: LONDON photography incidents (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jan 8 13:45:38 2007, in response to Re: LONDON photography incidents (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Brighton Private on Mon Jan 8 12:40:59 2007. Do you think St Pancras will become "major" once the reconstruction is complete and Eurostar is routed there from Nov. 14 forward?Probably not. The MML bit is really pathetic. |
|
|
| (365903) | |
Re: January 6th & 7th in LONDON - PHOTOS (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by jimmymc25 on Mon Jan 8 14:55:03 2007, in response to January 6th & 7th in LONDON - PHOTOS (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jan 7 19:36:50 2007. Bian you are a genius with a camera!!!!Thanks for the many many wonderfull photo's of your trip!! Jimmymc25 |
|
|
| (365905) | |
Re: January 6th & 7th in LONDON - PHOTOS (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by jimmymc25 on Mon Jan 8 14:58:16 2007, in response to Re: January 6th & 7th in LONDON - PHOTOS (Was: Cockfosters), posted by jimmymc25 on Mon Jan 8 14:55:03 2007. oopps...yes I know it's Brian not Bian as I typed it.As you can see I need to hone my typing skills before I go anywhere near a camera!!!! Jimmymc25 |
|
|
| (365906) | |
Re: January 6th & 7th in LONDON - PHOTOS (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jan 8 15:00:48 2007, in response to Re: January 6th & 7th in LONDON - PHOTOS (Was: Cockfosters), posted by jimmymc25 on Mon Jan 8 14:55:03 2007. Thank you! |
|
|
| (365920) | |
Re: Cockfosters |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Mon Jan 8 15:31:10 2007, in response to Cockfosters, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 29 06:33:02 2006. I guess you took advantage of cheap winter rates. I always figured it would be unreasonably cold this time of year, how is it(even though east europe has "warmer weather" this year)?Your photos make me want to play BVE, maybe DLR. I have as much training by now as the real motormen do. :) I'll continue to listen to BBC while looking at the photos. Mind the gap. |
|
|
| (365932) | |
Re: Cockfosters |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jan 8 16:00:58 2007, in response to Re: Cockfosters, posted by orange blossom special on Mon Jan 8 15:31:10 2007. Nothing was cheap, I'll tell you that. And with the exchange rate - worse time ever to go. But I had a great time!Except for parts of two days, it was cold and gray the whole time. It rained off and on, but only heavy once or twice. When it got windy, especially in the evening, it was pretty cold. I'm glad you enjoyed the photos. |
|
|
| (365937) | |
Re: Cockfosters |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Mon Jan 8 16:22:40 2007, in response to Re: Cockfosters, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jan 8 16:00:58 2007. *And with the exchange rate - worse time ever to go.*You don't have to tell me twice! But it did drop to 1.92 per dollar, so it's 5 cents cheaper now than two weeks ago. I hope it goes down another quarter before I ever go, along with every other currency we weakened against. My "professional opinion" is the dollar will strengthen a tenth of a cent tomorrow. :) Thanks for the report. Did you happen to see that new hotel they build in the two airports? Yotel? I might be the only one on the board interested, but it looks pretty interesting. |
|
|
| (365939) | |
Re: Cockfosters |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jan 8 16:28:34 2007, in response to Re: Cockfosters, posted by orange blossom special on Mon Jan 8 16:22:40 2007. Yes, I started clapping when I walked past the currency exchange place on the way from my hotel to the Tube and the rate had changed from 1.96 to 1.91.Yotel - interesting. No, I didn't go through Heathrow terminal 4, only 3. |
|
|
| (366042) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Mon Jan 8 20:01:14 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by David of Broadway on Mon Jan 8 08:35:36 2007. Q10 Limited? |
|
|
| (366100) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Mon Jan 8 20:54:17 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by The Port of Authority on Mon Jan 8 20:01:14 2007. Actually, it appears as if he was consulting the LIRR side of the map. |
|
|
| (366366) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Jan 9 04:16:21 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by David of Broadway on Mon Jan 8 20:54:17 2007. Actually, it appears as if he was consulting the LIRR side of the map.Perhaps he was confused by the similarity of Q Stock to MP-41s. |
|
|
| (366386) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Tue Jan 9 06:15:46 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jan 8 13:43:55 2007. Not convinced, it would be too disruptive of established traffic flows. Imagine telling all those Brighton Line commuters that they are going to have to find a way of getting from Olympia to their work places.One thing you may not realise is just how many people walk from rail termini to where they work without taking the Underground. I've temped in a lot of places in London and its always the same, most people in the office try to find somewhere to live that takes them to a terminal within walking distance of the office. Hence, when I worked in Covent Garden, most people lived in SE London/Kent (Charing cross), when I worked at Moorgate, most people lived east (Liverpool Street, I don't think GNE was taken seriously as a commuter route). UCL people tend to live either on the Northern Line, or in Hertfordshire (Euston). People who work for TfL tend to go for S London, SE London, Surrey or Sussex (Victoria) etc. etc. So, diverting major services westwards would cause uproar. The BR tunnel solution (1) catered for existing users, (2) saved money on terminal time, and (3) created the possibility of new users. the WLL solution would have satisfied (2) and (3) but had adverse consequences on (1), not only that, but for us people from the Eastern Counties, picking up a long distance train would have been much harder, and how easy would 4-tracking the WLL be in any case? |
|
|
| (366397) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Tue Jan 9 07:30:27 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Rail Blue on Tue Jan 9 04:16:21 2007. Maybe he was waiting for R38 Stock. |
|
|
| (366398) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Jan 9 07:38:20 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Max Roberts on Tue Jan 9 06:15:46 2007. and how easy would 4-tracking the WLL be in any case?Pretty easy. You'd start the four tracking at Mitre Bridge Junction, with the slow lines (on the west side of the WLL) heading into Willesden Junction High Level, whilst the fast lines connect to the WCML. The next bit would be a massive bridge parallel to the existing structure over the Grand Union Canal and the GWML. There is then plenty of obvious space (former goods yards) alongside the line (even past the M41 splay) as far as at least Earl's Court, and probably the Fulham Road. There would be some demolition needed until the King's Road, then the space resumes until we hit the real expensive bit - a parallel span across the Thames. Then there's tons of space again until we can shed the Slow Lines at Latchmere (IIRC No.3) Junction. The challenge then is to rebuild Clapham Junction in some vaguely sensible way. The obvious solutions are: 1) the expensive way - dynamite the existing WLL diveunder, sharpen the curve, slew over the Slow Lines and the Down Fast, and bring the WLL up between the Fast Lines, then realign platforms 13-17 at Clapham Junction. 2) the cheap way - some flyover between Clapham Junction and Wandsworth Common (probably taking the Slow Lines from the east side of the alignment (where they need to be at Balham) over to the West, and having it all flipped all the way into Victoria). The disadvantages here are that platform 15 is not long enough for 12-car trains, and that platforms 16 and 17 would still be horribly curved. So, diverting major services westwards would cause uproar. It worked with Thameslink, which ultimately goes to real nowhere destinations in Central London (excepting of course London Bridge). Not convinced, it would be too disruptive of established traffic flows. Imagine telling all those Brighton Line commuters that they are going to have to find a way of getting from Olympia to their work places. But the idea would be to capture the InterCity market whilst discouraging commuter use. I'd envisage the WLL running 4tph to the Brighton Main Line: 1tph Brighton, Hayward's Heath, Gatwick Airport, East Croydon, Clapham Junction, Shepherd's Bush, Milton Keynes Central, Rugby, Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham Curzon Street, Birmingham New Street, Oldbury, Wolverhampton, Telford Central, Wellington, Shrewsbury, Welshpool, Newtown, Caersws, Machynlleth, Dovey Junction, Borth, Aberystwyth. 1tph Brighton, Hayward's Heath, Gatwick Airport, East Croydon, Clapham Junction, Shepherd's Bush, Milton Keynes Central, Rugby, Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham Curzon Street. 1tph Brighton, Hayward's Heath, Gatwick Airport, East Croydon, Clapham Junction, Shepherd's Bush, Milton Keynes Central, Rugby, Nuneaton, Stafford, Crewe, Runcorn, Liverpool South Parkway, Liverpool Lime Street. 1tph Brighton, Hayward's Heath, Gatwick Airport, East Croydon, Clapham Junction, Shepherd's Bush, Milton Keynes Central, Rugby, Nuneaton, Stoke-on-Trent, Macclesfield, Stockport, Manchester Piccadilly. This would enable stops at Milton Keynes Central on Virgin Trains into Euston to be eliminated without making it difficult/impossible to travel north to/from Milton Keynes. Commuters can catch semi-fast Silverlink commuter trains. And with it being 4tph, WLL service can take the paths currently used by the Gatwick Express, maintaining the normal commuter service into Victoria, whilst giving a real choice of termini to passengers from Gatwick Airport (I suspect Shepherd's Bush with its cheap hotels and interchange to the Central Line would be quite a popular alternative to ending up in the middle of nowhere at Victoria). Other than separation of flows, a quadded WLL would have one other big advantage over a tunnel: it would provide an extremely useful freight link (Channel Tunnel - Chatham Lines - WLL - WCML Slow - Tame Valley Line - Castle Bromwich / Landor Street et cetera). |
|
|
| (366402) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Tue Jan 9 07:52:29 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Rail Blue on Tue Jan 9 07:38:20 2007. Come on now, Thameslink caused no complaints because it added possibilities. The only people it inconvenienced were users of Holborn Viaduct and Moorgate stations, not very many!Your proposed WLL scheme is not saving any money to contribute to its costs, and its not really helping enough people. If anything, its going to be more costly because now services will end up being duplicated. For example, Brighton will need a Central London, a City, AND a West London service. Your 4tph service would have to be provided AS WELL AS a Brighton to London and Birmingham to London service. Linking Euston and Victoria by a tunnel would mean that those additional trains would not be necessary. In other words, enhancing WLL = 16tph necessary, Euston-Victoria Tunnel = 4tph necessary. You don't need to discourage inter-city through traffic because it travels at different times to commuter flows. If I need to trvel from Brighton to Birmingham for a morning meeting, I am going to be having to head towards London before the commuters do. Segregating inter-city and commuter trains to different routes in this way will make the commuter routes even less cost effective because you will be reducing offpeak travel through Victoria by diverting it to Olympia. WLL has its uses, but not as an intensive passenger corridor. |
|
|
| (366410) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Jan 9 08:40:24 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Max Roberts on Tue Jan 9 07:52:29 2007. Come on now, Thameslink caused no complaints because it added possibilities. The only people it inconvenienced were users of Holborn Viaduct and Moorgate stations, not very many!But the bandwaggon effect that followed (culminating in the extremely silly Thameslink 2000 plan with thirteen southern branches and overwhelming support from the councils who you would have thought would be outraged by losing service to better termini) is the interesting bit. Your proposed WLL scheme is not saving any money to contribute to its costs, and its not really helping enough people. If anything, its going to be more costly because now services will end up being duplicated. For example, Brighton will need a Central London, a City, AND a West London service. But it would actually give Brighton sensible InterCity CrossCountry services rather than infrequent slow trains via Reading. The Brighton service is of course already split three-way, it's just that I would change the proportions and stopping patterns. Your 4tph service would have to be provided AS WELL AS a Brighton to London and Birmingham to London service. Linking Euston and Victoria by a tunnel would mean that those additional trains would not be necessary. In other words, enhancing WLL = 16tph necessary, Euston-Victoria Tunnel = 4tph necessary. If all the trains ran via Euston, you would need a much higher frequency (probably 3tph Birmingham (with 1tph continuing at least to Wolverhampton, preferably to Aberystwyth), 3tph Manchester, 2tph Liverpool). And then you'd end up with InterCity trains trying to provide a commuter service on the Brighton Line (as there's no way you could run 8tph of InterCity service on the Brighton Line even if it were needed). You don't need to discourage inter-city through traffic because it travels at different times to commuter flows. If I need to trvel from Brighton to Birmingham for a morning meeting, I am going to be having to head towards London before the commuters do. And if you need to be in Birmingham for lunch? Or how about going back to Brighton after your lunch in Birmingham? It's actually quite neat how level demand is on a proper InterCity route. Segregating inter-city and commuter trains to different routes in this way will make the commuter routes even less cost effective because you will be reducing offpeak travel through Victoria by diverting it to Olympia. The long-distance commuter routes are a disaster and they should stop being lumped in with InterCity trains (or alternatively South London locals) so they can be seen for what they are. Can serving, say, Balcombe station ever be financially viable? |
|
|
| (366418) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Tue Jan 9 09:19:28 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Rail Blue on Tue Jan 9 08:40:24 2007. I know quite a few people who do commute from Birmingham to London on inter-city trains. They find the cost of a first class season ticket quite reasonable, especially as it includes food. But this isn't screwing up the WCML service, its more the war between Branson and Silverlink for revenue apportionment that is doing this. Although there obviously is a market for fast trains from Birmingham southwards, most of these people want to go to London, don't want to go to places easily reached from Olympia, and don't want to go to Brighton. Those people who do want to head south are better catered for by a through route from Euston to Victoria. This is why the Olympia services didn't work when BR first provided them. Originally, there was quite a frequent service, but it has withered away.These days, I sense a blurring between inter-city and semi-fast trains, especially in terms of rolling stock provision. The tendency is towards air conditioning, airline style seats, etc. The only real difference these days is door placement. When the Norwich coaches finally give up the ghost, they will be replaced with something that is more like a Class 360 than a loco hauled train. Overall, in the future, if your train terminates within two hours of London, then you can expect a commuter-style MU train. My suggestion is that the WLL option provides no savings, results in unnecessary duplication of services, and will deter optional passengers from using it because of the inconvenience of West London Central (or whatever you want to call it) and the additional complexity of services. You have not really addressed this, for example by giving examples of the likely service patterns for the two different options. |
|
|
| (366435) | |
Re: Cockfosters |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Jan 9 10:54:03 2007, in response to Re: Cockfosters, posted by orange blossom special on Mon Jan 8 15:31:10 2007. Your photos make me want to play BVE, maybe DLR.Are you aware that it's an ATO line without drivers like the JFK Airtrain? |
|
|
| (366475) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Deaks on Tue Jan 9 12:14:12 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jan 8 13:27:07 2007. I think Freightliner own Landor Street, and if so they're unlikely to let a competitor in. |
|
|
| (366490) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Jan 9 12:40:32 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Max Roberts on Tue Jan 9 09:19:28 2007. Although there obviously is a market for fast trains from Birmingham southwards, most of these people want to go to London, don't want to go to places easily reached from Olympia, and don't want to go to Brighton.There is a separate market for trains to Brighton. The Sussex Coast conurbation has a population of around 480,000 (that's larger than the conurbations of Edinburgh, Portsmouth, Leicester, Bournemouth, and Reading, and only 70,000 smaller than Bristol) - this is a significant growing urban area and clearly merits InterCity CrossCountry service. The main hub of the InterCity network *has* to be Birmingham: London is far too schizoid to be of much use to journeys which aren't London-centric. And of course these journeys more than any others need to be via a reasonable, fast route. The most reasonable, fastest route in the case of Birmingham to Brighton (and for that matter, less important routes like Liverpool to Brighton and Manchester to Brighton) is via the WCML and WLL. Those people who do want to head south are better catered for by a through route from Euston to Victoria. Not if it involves commuter loadings out of Victoria - those are much better handled by 377s, with their denser seats, smaller tables, and lack of a buffet. And by running via Euston, the only sensible service pattern is to have a separate Birmingham to Milton Keynes service, whilst through trains non-stop Rugby to Watford Junction. This is why the Olympia services didn't work when BR first provided them. Originally, there was quite a frequent service, but it has withered away. BR couldn't have introduced a reasonable service on that route with the capacity limitations of the WLL and the need to split the route further north between Birmingham and Trent Valley services, and then split the Trent Valley service again between Manchester and Liverpool. The service at any of the three Midland/Northern cities resembled patchy random trains at the best of times. All that was needed was a regular interval service. It's a classic case of a route that has never been utilised to its full potential. The tragedy is that Livingstone is inserting some station in Chelsea and not closing Olympia when Shepherd's Bush opens. The line will then be wasted on local trains. My suggestion is that the WLL option provides no savings, results in unnecessary duplication of services, and will deter optional passengers from using it because of the inconvenience of West London Central (or whatever you want to call it) and the additional complexity of services. It really depends which optional passengers you want to attract. You have not really addressed this, for example by giving examples of the likely service patterns for the two different options. Well, here's my best guess: WEST LONDON LINE OPTION: 1tph Aberystwyth - Brighton * 1tph Birmingham - Brighton * 1tph Liverpool - Brighton * 1tph Manchester - Brighton * 2tph Northampton - Euston (semi-fast, 8-car)* 1tph Wolverhampton - Euston 1tph Birmingham - Euston 2tph Liverpool - Euston 2tph Manchester - Euston (via Stoke) 2tph random far north - Crewe - Euston 2tph Victoria - Brighton 2tph Victoria - Hayward's Heath // SPLIT E/W Coastway 2tph Victoria - Arun Valley Line 2tph Victoria - Horsham/Dorking (via Epsom) 4tph Willesden Junction - Clapham Junction (0tph without quadrupling) * calls at MKC CENTRAL LONDON TUNNEL OPTION: 2tph Birmingham - MKC* (preferably with a connection at Rugby for the North) 1tph Aberystwyth - Birmingham 4tph Northampton - Euston (semi-fast, 12-car)* 1tph Wolverhampton - Euston - Victoria - Brighton 1tph Birmingham - Euston - Victoria - Arun Valley Line 1tph Birmingham - Euston - Victoria - Horsham (via Epsom) 2tph Liverpool - Euston - Victoria - Hayward's Heath // SPLIT E/W Coastway 1tph Manchester - Euston (via Wilmslow) - Dorking (via Epsom) 1tph Manchester - Euston (via Stoke) - Victoria - Brighton 1tph Manchester - Euston (via Stoke, calls Congleton) - Victoria - Arun Valley Line 2tph random far north - Crewe - Euston - Victoria (terminates!) 4tph Victoria - Gatwick (GEx) 1tph Watford Junction - East Croydon / Brighton 2tph Willesden Junction - Clapham Junction (4tph if the Newt kills the above service) * calls at MKC |
|
|
| (366600) | |
Re: Cockfosters |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Tue Jan 9 15:49:35 2007, in response to Re: Cockfosters, posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Jan 9 10:54:03 2007. Yea, but the DLR route is still a run drive to take into manual. |
|
|
| (366601) | |
Re: Cockfosters |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Tue Jan 9 15:49:53 2007, in response to Re: Cockfosters, posted by orange blossom special on Tue Jan 9 15:49:35 2007. fun not run it should say. |
|
|
| (367142) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Wed Jan 10 05:14:32 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Rail Blue on Tue Jan 9 12:40:32 2007. Hmm, well first I note that Birmingham gets a much better service with the tunnel option. Second, you've sneaked some extra Gatwick trains in for the tunnel option, which has inflated the tph somewhat (why not extend the random far north trains at Gatwick?)So, the tunnel option gives everyone a better service with fewer trains in service. The net result is that everyone gets the same number of trains, or more trains, with the bonus of a convenient through service. Everyone wins. Going back to my booklet, the intention by BR was not to run all station stoppers south of the river, and then express to the north. Although the tunnel was Euston to Victoria, it was intended to link WCML, MR, ECML to Portsmouth, Southampton, and Brighton (a bit like Thameslink 4000 now, but with long distance services only). Presumably, local services would have continued to terminate at London. The cost of the scheme at 1980 prices was £330m. |
|
|
| (367782) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Thu Jan 11 08:37:25 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Max Roberts on Wed Jan 10 05:14:32 2007. Going back to my booklet, the intention by BR was not to run all station stoppers south of the river, and then express to the north. Although the tunnel was Euston to Victoria, it was intended to link WCML, MR, ECML to Portsmouth, Southampton, and Brighton (a bit like Thameslink 4000 now, but with long distance services only). Presumably, local services would have continued to terminate at London. The cost of the scheme at 1980 prices was £330m.I don't really see much advantage in some of those routes (in fact, it's a negative improvement on all lines except the Brighton). Let's focus on whether going via London is a sensible route from Birmingham. 1) BRIGHTON - sensible via London1h29 Birmingham New Street to London Euston (BHX, Cov, WfJ)0h06 Euston to Victoria (Victoria Line takes 8 mins, so I've subtracted 2 mins for the 3 stops removed) 0h51 London Victoria to Brighton (CJ, ECr) ==== 2h26 TOTAL via London ==== 0h26 Birmingham New Street to Leamington Spa (non-stop via Solihull) 1h00 Leamington Spa to Reading 1h25 Reading to Gatwick Airport (Olympia, ECr) or 1h15 Reading to Gatwick Airport (Guildford, Redhill) 0h23 Gatwick Airport to Brighton ==== 3h04-3h14 TOTAL via Reading ==== 2) PORTSMOUTH - pretty evenly balanced, marginally better via Reading1h29 Birmingham New Street to London Euston (BHX, Cov, WfJ)0h06 Euston to Victoria (Victoria Line takes 8 mins, so I've subtracted 2 mins for the 3 stops removed) 0h06 London Victoria to Clapham Junction 1h27 Clapham Junction to Portsmouth Harbour ==== 3h08 TOTAL via London ==== 0h26 Birmingham New Street to Leamington Spa (non-stop via Solihull) 1h00 Leamington Spa to Reading 0h40 Reading to Guildford 0h58 Guildford to Portsmouth Harbour ==== 3h04 TOTAL via Reading ==== SOUTHAMPTON CENTRAL - better via Reading1h29 Birmingham New Street to London Euston (BHX, Cov, WfJ)0h06 Euston to Victoria (Victoria Line takes 8 mins, so I've subtracted 2 mins for the 3 stops removed) 0h06 London Victoria to Clapham Junction 1h10 Clapham Junction to Southampton Central ==== 2h51 TOTAL via London ==== 0h26 Birmingham New Street to Leamington Spa (non-stop via Solihull) 2h02 Leamington Spa to Southampton Central === 2h28 TOTAL via Reading ==== And besides, who wants complex crossing movements at Clapham Junction? It's an interesting idea though! |
|
|
| (367806) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Thu Jan 11 09:33:37 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Rail Blue on Thu Jan 11 08:37:25 2007. Southampton to Birmingham might not benefit, but Southampton to Nottingham or Peterborough would, and the focus of all services along one route would encourage finding ways of speeding up services on the Southampton line, reducing the time disadvantage even of Southampton to Birmingham.There are other precedents for keeping long distance inter-city services along certain trunk routes even when there is a time disadvantage because the major traffic flows are best catered for. Hence, West Sussex trains travel via East Croydon (or even worse, Hove and East Corydon) when via Sutton is more direct, and in theory should be much faster. Of course, Southampton to Reading would still be useful, for example for getting to Wales, so the services would not be cut. I can check where the portals were located, but it would not surprise me if they were before Clapham Junction was reached in the south. |
|
|
| (367922) | |
West London Line & West Coast Main Line (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Thu Jan 11 13:00:10 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Rail Blue on Tue Jan 9 12:40:32 2007. The most reasonable, fastest route in the case of Birmingham to Brighton (and for that matter, less important routes like Liverpool to Brighton and Manchester to Brighton) is via the WCML and WLL.I agree, but I don't think there would be a "business case" for any of these through routes. Most people will always use the well-known and established routes, even though they require crossing London by tube or by taxi. The number of people wanting to make these journeys is probably quite low, and most would not even be aware of the (necessarily infrequent) through services. Even on the existing West London Line service, few passengers stay on board at Clapham Junction. The Route Utilisation Strategy recommended discontinuing the through service, to allow more paths for Victoria services with higher ridership. |
|
|
| (367931) | |
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Thu Jan 11 13:16:47 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Max Roberts on Thu Jan 11 09:33:37 2007. Southampton to Birmingham might not benefit, but Southampton to Nottingham or Peterborough would, and the focus of all services along one route would encourage finding ways of speeding up services on the Southampton line, reducing the time disadvantage even of Southampton to Birmingham.It certainly sounds like a totally weird scheme. I doubt very much could be done to improve service between Basingstoke and Clapham Junction - it's already relatively straight, level, fast, and sensibly laid-out. There are other precedents for keeping long distance inter-city services along certain trunk routes even when there is a time disadvantage because the major traffic flows are best catered for. Hence, West Sussex trains travel via East Croydon (or even worse, Hove and East Corydon) when via Sutton is more direct, and in theory should be much faster. Well there are the other issues there of: 1) there being a bazillion local trains between Dorking and Balham 2) certain parts of that line are very slow indeed (notably the Mitcham Junction area) The existing service to Horsham via Sutton takes 1h12. Ultimately removing the seven stops at Cheam, Ewell East, Ashtead, Box Hill & Westhumble, Holmwood, Ockley, and Warnham is unlikely to bring it down to the 53 mins of the route via East Croydon. I can check where the portals were located, but it would not surprise me if they were before Clapham Junction was reached in the south. That would be interesting. |
|
|
| (367964) | |
Re: West London Line & West Coast Main Line (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Thu Jan 11 14:29:29 2007, in response to West London Line & West Coast Main Line (Was: Cockfosters), posted by David Fairthorne on Thu Jan 11 13:00:10 2007. Even on the existing West London Line service, few passengers stay on board at Clapham Junction. The Route Utilisation Strategy recommended discontinuing the through service, to allow more paths for Victoria services with higher ridership.But the existing service: 1) runs a stupid stopping pattern on the Brighton Line 2) doesn't continue north of Watford Junction 3) fails to connect into anything useful at Watford Junction 4) is so infrequent that it's not worth risking getting stranded at Watford Junction for 5) runs horrible Class 377 trains I suspect that it would do much better if: 1) all stops on the Brighton Line other then Clapham Junction, East Croydon, Gatwick Airport, Hayward's Heath, and Brighton were served exclusively by Victoria or London Bridge trains 2) at the very least the existing 1tph should continue to Birmingham 3) equally, at the very least consistent and well-timed connections into West Coast services should be maintained and advertised 4) the frequency to Birmingham should become 2tph ASAP, then direct Trent Valley trains should be added as demand grows 5) Class 221 Super-Voyagers are an absolute must I agree, but I don't think there would be a "business case" for any of these through routes. Most people will always use the well-known and established routes, even though they require crossing London by tube or by taxi. The number of people wanting to make these journeys is probably quite low, and most would not even be aware of the (necessarily infrequent) through services. I suspect there would actually be a very good business case. The WLL as a through route suffers because the service is rubbish and poorly advertised. Equally, I suspect the number of people wanting cross-country journeys from Brighton to be very high - look at other conurbations of similar size; most of them have a decent Cross-Country or Citylink rail service: The haves # West Midlands Urban Area - 2,284,093 # Greater Manchester Urban Area - 2,240,230 # Greater Glasgow - 1,749,154 # West Yorkshire Urban Area - 1,499,465 # Tyneside - 879,996 # Liverpool Urban Area - 816,216 * # Nottingham Urban Area - 666,358 # Sheffield Urban Area - 640,720 # Bristol Urban Area - 551,066 # Edinburgh - 452,194 # Leicester Urban Area - 441,213 # Bournemouth Urban Area - 383,713 # Reading/Wokingham Urban Area - 369,804 # The Potteries - 362,403 # Coventry/Bedworth Urban Area - 336,452 # Cardiff Urban Area - 327,706 # Southampton Urban Area - 304,400 # Preston Urban Area - 264,601 # Plymouth - 243,795 # Derby Urban Area - 236,738 The have-nots # Greater London Urban Area - 8,278,251 # Greater Belfast - 579,276 # Brighton/Worthing/Littlehampton - 461,181 # Portsmouth Urban Area - 442,252 # Teesside - 365,323 # Birkenhead Urban Area - 319,675 * # Kingston upon Hull - 301,416 # Swansea Urban Area - 270,506 # Blackpool Urban Area - 261,088 # Southend Urban Area - 269,415 # Aldershot Urban Area - 243,344 # Luton/Dunstable Urban Area - 236,318 # Medway Towns Urban Area - 231,659 # Dearne Valley Urban Area - 207,726 # Northampton Urban Area - 197,199 # Norwich Urban Area - 194,839 # Milton Keynes Urban Area - 184,506 Roman entries' source: ONS. Italic entries' source: Wikipedia. * I personally find this division silly - the total is 1,135,891, which would put Merseyside above Tyneside. God's Wonderful Railway would doubtless disagree with me, so RIP Birkenhead Woodside. |
|
|
| (368040) | |
Re: West London Line & West Coast Main Line (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Thu Jan 11 17:00:49 2007, in response to Re: West London Line & West Coast Main Line (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Rail Blue on Thu Jan 11 14:29:29 2007. In order to estimate the demand for through trains on the West London Line, you need to know what proportion of passengers arriving at Euston from the midlands and north want to reach stations on the Brighton line, or want to reach places that can themselves be reached more easily from those stations than from Euston. I estimate one in five.Then you need to know what proportion of those people come from the same area; say Birmingham rather than Manchester, Liverpool or Glasgow. If one person in five comes from Birmingham, and one in five of them wants to continue on the Brighton line, that makes one person in 25, which would not justify a through service. Even if that estimate is low, any additonal services on the Brighton line would mean adding to the existing choice of routes (Victoria, London Bridge and Thameslink), resulting in reduced services on those routes and additional operational complexity. |
|
|
| (368508) | |
Re: West London Line & West Coast Main Line (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Jan 12 07:24:42 2007, in response to Re: West London Line & West Coast Main Line (Was: Cockfosters), posted by David Fairthorne on Thu Jan 11 17:00:49 2007. In order to estimate the demand for through trains on the West London Line, you need to know what proportion of passengers arriving at Euston from the midlands and north want to reach stations on the Brighton lineAnd also what proportion of Brighton's residents give up at their rubbish train service and clog up the M23 and the horrendously inadequate western half of the M25 whenever they want to go to Birmingham, Liverpool, or Manchester. And also what proportion of people look at cross-London connections and think, "I just can't be bothered". Then you need to know what proportion of those people come from the same area; say Birmingham rather than Manchester, Liverpool or Glasgow. If one person in five comes from Birmingham, and one in five of them wants to continue on the Brighton line, that makes one person in 25, which would not justify a through service. With sufficient thought, very good connections to Liverpool and Manchester can be provided at Rugby. I'd still expect increasing the frequency to allow through Trent Valley service to be highly beneficial though, because Nuneaton provides a good transfer point for Leicester, and Tamworth for Derby, Nottingham, and Sheffield. Even if that estimate is low, any additonal services on the Brighton line would mean adding to the existing choice of routes (Victoria, London Bridge and Thameslink), resulting in reduced services on those routes and additional operational complexity. I suspect that the complexity is more to do with the politics of the privatised railway rather than operational concerns. For instance, scrapping the Gatwick Express or having a daytime goods embargo across East Croydon (most goods trains can use the Chatham Lines anyway) would clear the right number of paths, and Southern could recast their timetable around the Cross Country train times (for instance aligning the necessary move of a Cross Country train across the Slow Lines south of Clapham Junction with the slots for the South London Line at Battersea Park). In fact, I think I'll write a sample hour to show how it could be done. |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 6 |
||
