|
|
| Re: London news (61084) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
|
| (64474) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Thu Mar 17 08:50:42 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Mar 15 13:21:49 2005. Also remember that Waterloo is the *only* terminal on some local services (Kingston, Hounslow). To maintain half-decent punctuality, these need to be scheduled to remain at Waterloo for some time. |
|
|
| (64475) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Thu Mar 17 08:55:27 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Mar 15 13:21:49 2005. "When Eurostar moves to St. Pancras there will be five more available platforms, which should be more than enough."Rail Blue has pointed out before that to optimise use of all Waterloo's platforms after the Eurostars leave in 2007, expensive track relaying will be needed to enable the two routes (the main lines and the Windsor lines) to access appropriate numbers of platforms each. It isn't clear that funding for this will be forthcoming. |
|
|
| (64478) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Thu Mar 17 08:58:43 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Mar 15 13:02:52 2005. "The South Western differs from the South Eastern in that (a) there are fewer overhead obstructions,"I doubt if there is any significant difference in the laoding gauge between the South West and South East divisions. Even if the South West had room for a few more inches of height on its trains, it would be rather inflexible to have trains that could not operate over certain routes, even in emergency. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (64479) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Thu Mar 17 08:58:55 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Thu Mar 17 08:50:42 2005. I don't see how that follows at all. |
|
|
| (64485) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Thu Mar 17 09:09:19 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Max Roberts on Thu Mar 17 08:58:55 2005. I think James meant that as the Kingston and Hounslow lines are loops, they run "Waterloo to Waterloo", without any other terminal at which they can stand for any length of time. For good timekeeping you need to have a little slack in the schedule, or else you end up like EasyJet flights, getting later and later all day. Trains to (say) Shepperton or Chessington can stand a few minutes at their outer termini, but the loop lines have no outer terminus and thus must be scheduled to stand a little while at Waterloo. This reduces the number of tph you can operate out of each platform there.Generally, too, you need to allow a longer sslack time for longer-distance trains, since they are more likely to lose more time en route. This probably helps Fenchursh Street's figures, since none of its services goes very far. |
|
|
| (64492) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Thu Mar 17 09:27:47 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Fytton on Thu Mar 17 09:09:19 2005. That makes more sense. Apart from a couple of stations at the half way point, does anyone benefit from loop services? Schedulers seem to love them, but they are a pain when trying to plan a journey. Should one take the indirect train now, or the direct train due on five/ten or whatever minutes? |
|
|
| (64493) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Thu Mar 17 09:28:41 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Mar 15 15:23:07 2005. I certainly agree with your end points (Raynes Park and Lewisham), and I like your choice of outer branches, but I'm not so sure about your tunnel alignment because I think it follows the District line too closely and doesn't serve the West End very well.Of course a more northerly route could be followed through the West End. I only picked a more Southerly one because: - it's less congested under Fleet Street - it would give SE commuters direct access to Cannon St and Charing X still, whilst SW commuters would end up just across the Hungerford Bridge from where they used to. Also I would prefer fewer stations, to reduce construction costs (and travel times). The only new underground stations would be: 1) Parson's Green (new platforms, leaving existing ones for terminating Districts) 2) Chelsea West (interchange with the WLL) 3) Chelsea (an important location) 4) Sloane Sq (interchange with the District/Circle - this needs to be an easier interchange than Victoria - maybe cross-platform) 5) Victoria (interchange principally with the Victoria Line) 6) Charing X (although the Jubilee Line platforms could be used with new tunnels outside the station) 7) Aldwych (although there's a convenient headhouse) 8) Ludgate Circus (interchange with City TL) 9) Cannon St - Monument (for Bank) 10) Fenchurch St - Aldgate (for the LTS and the Met - also within walking distance of Liverpool St) 11) Isle of Dogs (obvious) 12) Deptford / Greenwich (interchnage with the SE Greenwich Line) 13) Lewisham (new platforms (unless there's a clever way of getting up onto platforms 3 and 4 which I haven't thought of)) Using the Wimbledon branch of the District line could reduce the tunnel length, but I am not sure what would become of the remainder of that branch; and I don't think the new line should share tracks with the District line. It would be cut back to Parson's Green. The service would mainly be to Edgware Rd, allowing Districts from Tower Hill to Rayner's Lane / Uxbridge, thus sending all Piccs to Heathrow. Between Raynes Park and Lewisham I suggest stopping only at Wimbledon, Clapham Junction, Victoria, Piccadilly Circus, Tottenham Court Road, Farringdon, Liverpool Street/Moorgate and Canary Wharf. That gives you the needed capacity to some of the busiest places, and everywhere else can be reached by other means. I can see the advantage in a limited stop alignment, but that wouldn't serve the King's Road. Also, a King's Road alignment is more direct to Victoria etc. Nothing demonstrates this better than comparing journey times on a King's Road alignment with those of an existing Victoria to Epsom stopper: 00 Victoria 02 Sloane Sq 04 Chelsea 06 Chelsea West 08 Parson's Green 10 Putney Bridge 12 East Putney 15 Southfields 17 Wimbledon Park 20 Wimbledon 23 Raynes Park 26 Motspur Park 28 Worcester Park 30 Stoneleigh 33 Ewell West 36 Epsom 00 Victoria 03 Battersea Park 06 Clapham Junction 09 Wandsworth Common 11 Balham 19 Mitcham Junction 23 Hackbridge 25 Carshalton 29 Sutton 32 Cheam 35 Ewell East 38 Epsom Okay, it wouldn't go to Clapham Junction, but it would be cross-platform at Raynes Park and Epsom onto trains which do go there. |
|
|
| (64497) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Thu Mar 17 09:43:14 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Max Roberts on Thu Mar 17 09:27:47 2005. "...does anyone benefit from loop services? Schedulers seem to love them..."Apart from the two we were just discussing - Kingston and Hounslow - how many roundabouts are there in the UK? Well, there's the Circle Line, of course, though TfL wants to replace that with the Teacup Line precisely because of the timekeeping difficulties. There's the service from Edinburgh over to Fife. There's the terminal loop in Liverpool for the trains from the Wirral - but that's the opposit of the Waterloo example, the loop is in the city centre and the termini are in the suburbs. How many more can you think of? Mostly, timetablers just have to make the best use they can of the tracks that exist. Opportunities for building new ones are pretty rare. |
|
|
| (64504) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Thu Mar 17 09:51:13 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Fytton on Thu Mar 17 09:43:14 2005. Thameslink, London Bridge/Victoria to London Bridge/Victoria by various routes, eg. London Bridge, Crystal Palace, London Bridge. There are many permutations of out and back routes in south London, most of which have been tried at some point or another. Plus, did some SE trains ever loop back rather than go to Dartford? |
|
|
| (64507) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Thu Mar 17 10:00:02 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Max Roberts on Tue Mar 15 12:38:37 2005. Well, taking this to its logical conclusion, lets make all services all stations.Non sequitur, and you know it! This is the 10:00 Flying Scotsman service to Edinburgh, calling at Finsbury Park, Hornsey, Harringay, Alexandra Palace... 1000 King's Cross 1005 Finsbury Park 1007 Harringay 1009 Hornsey 1011 Alexandra Palace 1014 New Southgate 1017 Oakleigh Park 1019 New Barnet 1022 Hadley Wood 1026 Potter's Bar 1029 Brookman's Park 1031 Welham Green 1034 Hatfield 1038 Welwyn GC 1041 Welwyn N 1045 Knebworth 1048 Stevenage 1053 Hitchin 1059 Arlesey 1104 Biggleswade 1108 Sandy 1114 St Neot's 1122 Huntingdon 1138 Peterborough 1157 Grantham 1209 Newark NG 1224 Retford 1240 Doncaster 1304 York 1322 Thirsk 1329 Northallerton 1342 Darlington 1400 Durham 1407 Chester-le-Street 1421 Newcastle 1423 Manors 1433 Cramlington 1440 Morpeth 1450 Pegswood 1456 Widdrington 1510 Acklington 1518 Alnmouth 1532 Chathill 1547 Berwick-upon-Tweed 1610 Dunbar 1625 Drem 1632 Longniddry 1638 Prestonpans 1641 Wallyford 1646 Musselburgh 1653 Edinburgh Waverley And due to arrive at Edinburgh at 14:00 ... tomorrow As you can see, nowhere near that bad. |
|
|
| (64510) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Thu Mar 17 10:05:29 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Thu Mar 17 10:00:02 2005. Not a non-sequitur, just a bit of reductio ad absurdum to brighten up the day. I hope you have not been just joining timetables together, as lon-distance stock has less acceleration and longer dwell times than suburban stock, and of course suburban stock has a lower top speed. 313 from London to Edinburgh anyone?Looks to me as though the WCML would be penalised more than the ECML, especially if I made it travel on the Watford DC line, and via Birmingham. |
|
|
| (64512) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Thu Mar 17 10:06:24 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Fytton on Thu Mar 17 08:58:43 2005. I can think of at least two pinch points:1) the lines going under the Wimbledon Flyover 2) the road bridge at the south end of Ewell West station. |
|
|
| (64514) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Thu Mar 17 10:08:50 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Fytton on Tue Mar 15 08:23:34 2005. I don't object to designating areas as country parks. I object to the mediaevalistic defensive ring strategy. |
|
|
| (64601) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Thu Mar 17 13:08:17 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Max Roberts on Thu Mar 17 09:51:13 2005. Thameslink, London Bridge/Victoria to London Bridge/Victoria by various routes, eg. London Bridge, Crystal Palace, London Bridge. There are many permutations of out and back routes in south London, most of which have been tried at some point or another.For most stations there's an obvious sensible route to both London Bridge and Victoria. The main exception to this is the choice of routes between three stations and London Bridge: via Forest Hill 21 Crystal Palace 24 Gipsy Hill 27 West Norwood via Tulse Hill 20 West Norwood 23 Gipsy Hill 26 Crystal Palace Plus, did some SE trains ever loop back rather than go to Dartford? Yes. AFAIK, they still do. |
|
|
| (64642) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Thu Mar 17 14:35:38 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Thu Mar 17 09:28:41 2005. Of course a more northerly route could be followed through the West End. I only picked a more Southerly one because:- it's less congested under Fleet Street - it would give SE commuters direct access to Cannon St and Charing X still, whilst SW commuters would end up just across the Hungerford Bridge from where they used to. It's less congested under Fleet Street, but the officially planned Crossrail route must be feasible. A more northerly route would give passengers from the southeast a bigger choice of central destinations. I expect that many people would change trains at Lewisham. Passengers from the the southwest would benefit likewise (by changing at Raynes Park or Wimbledon or Clapham Junction). that wouldn't serve the King's Road. Kings Road Chelsea is close enough to Sloane Square and South Kensington, and I don't think it's worth a minor detour. comparing journey times A direct route (practically a straight line) with only one stop should cut your journey time from Victoria to Wimbledon from 20 minutes to perhaps 10 minutes. The distance is just under 6 miles, and you should be able to get up a good speed on that route. The saving would be even greater going to stations beyond Victoria. |
|
|
| (64673) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by davesgcr on Thu Mar 17 16:01:10 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Fytton on Thu Mar 17 09:43:14 2005. Good debate - and getting to the meat of the problem on terminal capacity and service patterns!.I think that a comprehensive look at 1-4 at Wateloo could give longer platforms at the expense of the south sidings - but destinations would be limited unless the whole SWT network was rejigged to deal with longer trains.Ditto double deckers - one of the key Southern attributes is almost universality of flexibility in cross working unts of say the Epsom route to the Hampton Court branch.Consider also ecomonies of reducing train lengths off peak to save costs (units are no longer "free" -and mileage quotas if exceeded cost payouts to ROSCOs.Loop services are quite efficient on train and crew schedules - a Luton to Luton via Sutton is tedious for the traincrew but efficient in eliminating "wasted" resource time at terminal stands - its common for a Thameslink suburban crew to do 2 round trips easily in an 8 hr turn - the present "cut" service to St Pancras or Kings X Tlink takes quite a lot of extra drivers and units - hence the influx of 317s at the north end at the moment. "looping" is not just suburban - there are Victoria to Victoria rounders out via Ashford and Thanet - as well as complicated shuffles around Se London. In the West Midlands - interworking with fast and slow Walsall trains leads to both clockwise and anti clockwise workings (out via Aston and back via Soho - !) |
|
|
| (64674) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by davesgcr on Thu Mar 17 16:01:24 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Fytton on Thu Mar 17 09:43:14 2005. Good debate - and getting to the meat of the problem on terminal capacity and service patterns!.I think that a comprehensive look at 1-4 at Wateloo could give longer platforms at the expense of the south sidings - but destinations would be limited unless the whole SWT network was rejigged to deal with longer trains.Ditto double deckers - one of the key Southern attributes is almost universality of flexibility in cross working unts of say the Epsom route to the Hampton Court branch.Consider also ecomonies of reducing train lengths off peak to save costs (units are no longer "free" -and mileage quotas if exceeded cost payouts to ROSCOs.Loop services are quite efficient on train and crew schedules - a Luton to Luton via Sutton is tedious for the traincrew but efficient in eliminating "wasted" resource time at terminal stands - its common for a Thameslink suburban crew to do 2 round trips easily in an 8 hr turn - the present "cut" service to St Pancras or Kings X Tlink takes quite a lot of extra drivers and units - hence the influx of 317s at the north end at the moment. "looping" is not just suburban - there are Victoria to Victoria rounders out via Ashford and Thanet - as well as complicated shuffles around Se London. In the West Midlands - interworking with fast and slow Walsall trains leads to both clockwise and anti clockwise workings (out via Aston and back via Soho - !) |
|
|
| (64895) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Mar 18 05:41:07 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Thu Mar 17 13:08:17 2005. "Plus, did some SE trains ever loop back rather than go to Dartford?""Yes. AFAIK, they still do." Current timetable has half-hourly Cannon Street to Cannon Street out via Sidcup and back via Woolwich Arsenal and vice versa; these trains go straight from Crayford to Slade Green or vice versa. [Altogether, the offpeak frequencies are 8 tph on the main line through Woolwich and 4 tph each on the Bexleyheath and Sidcup lines.] I'm not sure if this is done because there isn't enough business at Dartford to justify running 16 tph there, or because there isn't enough terminal capacity at Dartford station for it to be physically possible to turn 12 tph there (4 tph continue beyond Dartford). I hate to admit it, but I've never ridden the Dartford lines.... |
|
|
| (64896) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Mar 18 05:47:34 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by David Fairthorne on Thu Mar 17 14:35:38 2005. "that wouldn't serve the King's Road.""Kings Road Chelsea is close enough to Sloane Square and South Kensington, and I don't think it's worth a minor detour." Not really; Chelsea is a district poorly served by the tube. Those are long walks, or a bus journey through congested streets. That is one of the justifications for the Chelsea-Hackney tube line proposal; its two ends are probably the worst rail-served areas in inner London. Ironically, one very upmarket and one very downmarket, as it happens. Not that this is an argument for bending Crossrail that way - it's an argument for a regular tube line, not an express line. Crossrail should have just a few stops in inner London, in my opinion, to keep its speed high. |
|
|
| (64897) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Mar 18 05:53:15 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Fytton on Fri Mar 18 05:41:07 2005. I hate to admit it, but I've never ridden the Dartford lines....I've only ridden the Greenwich Line as far as... errrmmm... Greenwich. This is definitely one for the next fan-trip. |
|
|
| (64900) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Mar 18 06:13:12 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Thu Mar 17 13:08:17 2005. The two routes out of London Bridge cited by Rail Blue (to Sydenham via Forest Hill and to Tulse Hill via Peckham Rye) each have a 6 tph offpeak service, so they are two of the most "metro-like" of Southern's services. Both are scheduled to be attached to the East London Line extension, thus gaining actual Underground trains. It is a bit unclear whether these will supplant the London Bridge services or supplement them. I'd guess that, if they survive, the Southern services will be reduced in frequency, since those lines surely don't justify more a 5-minute frequency of service. Maybe 4 tph from each to London Bridge and 8 tph from each to the ELL? Add another 8 tph from New Cross (not Gate!) to the ELL would provide 24 tph on the extended ELL.The ELL trains won't be roundabouts, though. The plan is for the South London Line ones to go to Clapham Junction and the Forest Hill line ones to go to Crystal Palace or West Croydon. |
|
|
| (64901) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Mar 18 06:15:02 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Mar 18 05:53:15 2005. "I hate to admit it, but I've never ridden the Dartford lines....2"I've only ridden the Greenwich Line as far as... errrmmm... Greenwich. This is definitely one for the next fan-trip." Good point. Dartford is outside Greater London, though, so we'd have to ride those roundabout trains if we wanted to do the whole thing on a Travelcard! |
|
|
| (64902) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Mar 18 06:24:01 2005, in response to London news, posted by Fytton on Wed Mar 9 05:28:45 2005. Another new London development I only recently discovered: the current version of the London Connections map show two new stations due to open soon on the West London Line, to be served presumably by the Clapham Jcn-Willesden Jcn service. Ons is called Imperial Wharf and is in Chelsea; the other is at Shepherds Bush and looks as if it might be close enough to Shepherd Bush (Central Line) station to make interchange feasible there.Not sure how much use these new stations will get, given that they are served only by a cross-suburban line with (at present) only a 2 tph service. |
|
|
| (64935) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Fri Mar 18 09:08:15 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Fytton on Fri Mar 18 05:47:34 2005. Would it be possible to build a four-bore tube, with two high level tubes for a stiopping service, and two low level tubes with fewer stations?The Chelsea-Hackney corridor, or at least parts of it seems to have strategic importance both for long and short distance traffic, and doubing-up for at least part of the route is one less set of foundations to worry about. |
|
|
| (65067) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by davesgcr on Fri Mar 18 15:10:16 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Fytton on Fri Mar 18 06:24:01 2005. Planned for 3 Tph - 2 Willesden - Clapham and the Southern Rly service from Watford Junction.Imperial Wharf is a "developers station" - I susepct that White City will boom - there needs to be 4TPH really - plans are in hand - removing Eurostar ecs will help from North Pole by 2008.Basically the line is peak heavy - fairly light off peak - though exceedingly busy on Sats with football traffic ! |
|
|
| (65073) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Mar 18 15:40:30 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by davesgcr on Thu Mar 17 16:01:10 2005. Good debate - and getting to the meat of the problem on terminal capacity and service patterns!.I think that a comprehensive look at 1-4 at Wateloo could give longer platforms at the expense of the south sidings - but destinations would be limited unless the whole SWT network was rejigged to deal with longer trains.Some of which would be very difficult to extend. Off the top of my head: Epsom - approx 9 cars long with junctions at both ends Ewell West - 8 long, with the southern end of the platforms extremely narrow under bridge - no room to extend Stoneleigh - 8 long island platform - lines converge close to each end. In the West Midlands - interworking with fast and slow Walsall trains leads to both clockwise and anti clockwise workings (out via Aston and back via Soho - !) Often with the fast route via Soho having the short turns at Walsall. Madness really. That line is also way too infrequent to be much use off-peak. It makes the 951/A/2/3 look vaguely useful. |
|
|
| (65075) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Mar 18 15:42:35 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Fytton on Fri Mar 18 06:15:02 2005. Good point. Dartford is outside Greater London, though, so we'd have to ride those roundabout trains if we wanted to do the whole thing on a Travelcard!Or buy BZ6 to Dartford CDRs - they wouldn't be checked, but we'd be on the right side of the law. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
