Dave Arquati wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
TheOneKEA wrote:

On Oct 9, 11:54 am, "Kev" wrote:
TheOneKEA wrote:
For that matter, how will the tracks themselves be positioned? One
smart thing to do would be to run them down the centre of the
formation, so that in case patronage begins to pick up significantly, a
set of outside loops can be built at the stations and new platforms
added, to permit non-stopping of trains.
Funniest thing that I have read in ages, the prospect of the Eat London
Line being so busy it will need to be quadrupled. You would still have
the double track bottleneck to the south.
True. I was thinking more in terms of offering branched services to the
north.

It certainly won't need quadrupling - as Kev says it would be a
nightmare anyway as there'd be a bottleneck.

If however the suggestion is the ELL is going to be a quiet line then
I'd offer the contrary prediction - I think it'll be a very successful
and well patronised line. I know this is contrary to what appears to be
the received wisdom in this group but I'm convinced it'll be a great
success.

Is it contrary to the received wisdom? The North London Line and
associated lines show that there is strong and increasing demand for
inner city orbital services. The ELL will pass through some
heavily-populated areas, with a reasonably large number of residents
within 15 minutes of stops along the line. Strong job growth is expected
in the inner city and suburbs in general, and suburban road congestion
means that the combined North London Railway orbital services will
provide competitive journey times between many pairs of
origins/destinations. I think all of that will inevitably (and fairly
logically) lead to strong demand for ELL services.


My earlier assessment of an anti-extended ELL bias in this group is
perhaps wide of the mark - note that my comments on the received wisdom
concerning it related to utl as opposed to the world at large.

Perhaps utl isn't as guilty as uk.railway - I can't remember where I've
read the many past ng posts that are (sometimes deeply) sceptical about
the project, but I certainly have. Whilst I'm a relative newcomer here
I have read several of the discussions from the archives (of both
newsgroups).

I recall reading several comments along the lines of "who wants to go
from Sydenham to Hoxton anyway", "the Croydon traveller wants to go to
central London not Whitechapel" and "do the people of Dalston really
want to go to Surrey Quays".

One 'alternative scheme' discussed poured scorn on the ELL project as
being a waste and stated all that was necessary was the the ELL be
funnelled into Liverpool Street, with the Broad St. - Dalston track
used for a tram.

I don't of course object to such fantasy schemes - after all every PT
project starts with an idea - the one I read did however very easily
dismiss the present scheme as poor, something that I very much disagree
with.

Hence my recieved wisdom statement! Of course Dave, even before
endorsement above, it's pretty clear that your wisdom was in the right
corner!

Like you I'm sure the extended ELL will be very successful. In the mid
80's it seemed people thought the NLL was dying, but it is - as you say
- a very well patronised (if horribly scruffy) route now.
Plus look at the example the West London Line and the "Two Junctions" /
"Junction to Junction" service (why does no-one ever call it either of
those!) from Willesden Junction to Clapham Junction which never existed
at all whatsoever before '94 (I think) - it's now a pretty popular
route on a day-to-day basis (as well as it's revived popularity for
Olympia exhibitions).