On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 21:02:32 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, Paul Corfield wrote:
On 16 Sep 2005 15:31:45 -0700, wrote:
Exactly, having multiple southern end destinations all with varying
journey times is a nightmare for timetable compilation and reliability
and will prevent 'tube' levels of frequency on the individual branches.
I thought the frequencies on the ELLX branches were going to be every 10
minutes peaks and daytimes? This is the same frequency as offered on a
number of Tube services such as the Met to Watford, Uxbridge, Rayners
Lane branch of the Picc, Mill Hill East branch.
Yes, all of which are pitiful services. Even so, they are perhaps
appropriate to the places those line serve: Watford and Uxbridge are
essentially outside London, the Rayner's branch of the Picc also has the
Met, and Mill Hill East isn't exactly a dense hub of population.
The service via South Harrow, Sudbury etc (which is what I meant when I
referred to the Rayners Lane branch) is only served by the Picc Line. I
think we will simply have to disagree about a 10 minute service being
pitiful. 20 minute headways - fairly typical for NR - is what I would
call pitiful.
The ELLX, on the other hand, is going to be serving some extremely densely
populated parts of south and east London, areas which really deserve and
currently lack high-frequency tube-style services.
Having looked again there will be 8 trains an hour north of Sydenham and
then a train every 5 minutes north of Surrey Quays to Dalston. I think
that is pretty good really.
It was bad enough when the individual ELL termini had a 20 min evening
service, if you just missed a train at the 'Cross' at night, you could
walk to the 'Gate' only to just miss that departure too 10 mins' later!
Far better a combined service running to one or other only but then no
good for the BR interchange.
This simply reduces the utility of the rail network and certainly does
nothing to improve the lot of people needing to travel into Docklands
and East London from South London.
What? Would you care to explain the reasoning behind that?
The person I was responding to suggested that either NX or NXG branch be
closed. I was disagreeing and saying that to shut one of them reduces
the potential for people to make sensible connections with NR services.
Not every train via NX stops at Lewisham for the DLR so therefore there
will be people wishing to use the ELL to get to Canada Water or Shadwell
for connections into Docklands. Forcing people to wander round the
streets of New Cross or go via London Bridge and Zone 1 to change onto a
tube service doesn't strike me as very sensible.
The DLR has shown that a properly run cross river link will be immensely
popular.
Absolutely - which is why it needs high frequencies.
Anyway, imagine you are in control, which branch would you opt not to
serve and why?
New Cross. If you're near New Cross and need the ELL, walk to New Cross
Gate; if you're on a NR train coming into New Cross and need the ELL,
change at the Surrey Canal Road/Deptford Park station various people have
proposed.
This proposed station is part of Phase 2 and does not seem to have any
connection whatsoever with any National Rail services. Having looked at
a map it is also a very long walk from New Cross. I don't think this is
a sensible option at all.
--
Paul C
Admits to working for London Underground!