On Jan 22, 12:57*am, MIG wrote:

On 21 Jan, 23:31, Mizter T wrote:

On Jan 21, 10:42*pm, Andy wrote:
[snip]
To add to this (and my post), the following comes from
http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/3

[snip table from alwaystouchout]

Yeah - many eons ago it was looking at that table that made me
question where MIG was getting his info from! However whilst still a
great primer for many things the website is no longer updated - the
author was a great denizen of utl back in the day though! However
whilst I dare say the basic thinking survives, I dunno what subsequent
changes there may have been to that.

("eons" being a purposeful misspelling to test you all - seems like
you've all failed!)

(And I'm sorry if this is coming across as an attack on MIG - that's
not intended, I've a great respect for him as a contributor here - but
I do think there needs to be a clear basis of what the changes are
going to be before people set about taking them apart.)

I have actually argued that claims made by local campaigners seem
rather wild (and to be confused over the Charing Cross issue) and
ought to be checked before supporting them, and I don't know where
they get their information *from. *However, since my only counter
arguments come from what I read in the MR timetable review, which is a
notoriously disingenuous feature, I don't feel on very safe ground
either when local people seem to have information about drastic cuts.

I understood that, because ELL services will need the outer tracks,
some London Bridge services will move to the inner tracks and not be
able to call at several stations, but I don't know if there's a total
reduction in departures from LB.

The table mentioned above seems to be even more generous than the spin-
ridden MR feature, so I am not sure what to make of it. *Maybe there
has been some recognition of operation reality since those frequencies
were claimed?

Long before this blew up locally, I was always perturbed at the idea of
using any paths to send short trains away from London Bridge. *If the
paths are there, why aren't they being used now? *The trains on that
corridor are among the most ludicrously overcrowded in the country,
and London Bridge terminus is underused compared with, say, Charing
Cross.

See my extensive reply to your points elsewhere in this thread, but...

You make several good points (here and elsewhere), including the case
for being mistrustful and sceptical.

Re the comment about paths not being used now - I dunno what the
various potential issues are/ were about running more and longer
trains up and down this corridor to and from London Bridge, but I'd be
interested to know them. Lack of rolling stock perhaps? I acknowledge
the peak overcrowding on this route is severe. (Are all the peak
services 8 car, or some 6 car, or even 4 car?)

One quick thing to say about overcrowding is that some of the crowds
will inevitably opt for the ELL instead, which should hopefully make
things a bit less rammed for everyone else w.r.t. the London Bridge
trains. How crowded the ELL might get is another question. I agree
that there is the potential for a bit of a 'clash of cultures' (for
want of a better phrase) when the 4 car LO model transported down from
the NLL gets to this busy corridor on 'the southern', but I don't
think it'll necessarily be as apocalyptic as you state. Nonetheless
I'll try and endeavour to go and experience the peak crush for myself
in the next few months before the ELL through service starts (because
I'm a sadist like that!).

One other thing - about the Charing X issue - I'm rather out of the
loop about this and everything else, so has it gone down that badly?
Being able to get on a train back in the evening direct from CX in the
West End was I fully acknowledge a neat thing to be able to do.