On Aug 30, 1:18 am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, MIG wrote:
On Aug 28, 4:23 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007, MIG wrote:
On Aug 26, 8:15 am, Mr Thant
wrote:
On Aug 26, 12:58 am, MIG wrote:

Are the proposals really going to increase Northern Line frequency by
25%?

That's what they say:

"Following the PPP Northern line upgrade, the line will operate 30tph
on the southern Morden to Kennington section, but the branches
through central London will be operating at only 22-25tph and will
remain crowded. The limit on capacity is the need to inter-work
services to different destinations via different branches. It is
possible to achieve higher frequencies and capacity using the
existing infrastructure if junction capacity limitations can be
overcome.

"A segregation of services would deliver simpler service patterns on
the line. This will allow more trains to be run through both the West
End and City branches - enabling 30tph services on the central London
branches. This will provide roughly 25 per cent extra capacity and
crowding relief on these busy sections. With the core infrastructure
being capable of supporting these service patterns, the main
requirements are some additional trains (and stabling) and station
capacity improvements at Camden Town."

Well, it's all a bit smoke and mirrors and hypothetical. The
hypothetical increase in frequency will be down to the upgrade, not to
the service pattern changes, but they are suggesting that they won't
be able to take full advantage of the upgrade without the changes to
the service pattern.

Huh? It seems quite clear to me. The situation post-upgrade will be
22-25 tph on the branches; changing the service pattern will raise it
to 30 tph. I don't think you can say that 'increase in frequency will
be down to the upgrade' if the upgrade alone doesn't cause it!

I am inferring that the upgrade will be claimed to allow a theoretical
30 tph on any given section, but that 30 tph will not apply. This will
be excused on the grounds of the existing service pattern rather than a
failure of the upgrade, which will achieve what it claims without
actually having to achieve it.

I see. You're predicting that they're going to claim that the upgrade will
allow 30 tph, without reference to a service pattern change. Is that
right?

If they do do that, and then use the service pattern as an excuse when
they can't deliver 30 tph, then you're quite right, that's smoke and
mirrors. But they haven't done that, and, in fact, they've explicitly
said, in whatever U was quoting, that that won't be the case. I'd say it's
the smoke and mirrors which is hypothetical at this point!

tom



At the very least, there are different measures being applied to the
"before" and the "after". If so much could be achieved by changing
the service pattern, the perceived value of the upgrade would be
reduced. It's having it all ways, I suspect.