|
ELL Stock in Place
On Jan 20, 12:31 pm, plcd1 wrote: On Jan 20, 9:25 am, "Paul Scott" wrote: "John Salmon" wrote: "Paul Scott" wrote Main reason for posting though is that I noticed a London Reconnections report today, giving a start date of 4th April for an 'ELL only' service, ie 4 tph each to NX and NXG. Easter Sunday. Interesting choice of date. Hadn't noticed that - will probably be closed for engneering works... I wouldn't have thought so. I suspect it is quite a sensible choice as it is a holiday weekend with people being less time pressured and forgiving if there are any first day "glitches". You also have the Easter Monday and then schools being off so the build up of demand in the following week or so should be gentler than in a "normal" week. They may, of course, get a baptism of fire from kids riding up and down the whole time when they're on hols but at least they'll get used to the sort of antics that will probably follow on a regular basis. It is going to be very interesting to see how things pan out and how quickly demand picks up once there is a service in place. I think the service will be a colossal success quite quickly, and that demand will start to pick up very rapidly from day one. (Well, maybe day three, or day eight - but you know what I mean!). Off the top of my head there are a few groups of what one might call savvy travellers who I think could make up some of the 'early adopters' here... (note that in many ways this is a south London perspective on things - also I've resisted my urge to put each mention of 'hip' or 'trendy' in inverted commas like so!) ~ ~ ~ (1) Students and staff heading to and from Goldsmith's College in New Cross (famous for its art courses), plus associated arty / trendy types. This includes Goldsmith's students (and staff) who live nearby (in New Cross, Deptford and Brockley) heading up from NX towards hip 'n' trendy places like Shoreditch (a bit night-life location nowadays, very popular though hardly cutting edge any more) and Dalston (seen as up and coming), and indeed on to Hackney (been a focus for artistic types for some time) - both Hackney proper (not far down the road from Dalston Junction) and the wider Borough. Also, there's a growing, if somewhat underground, art and music 'scene' in and around New Cross and Deptford (always has been, courtesy of the student connection, but it's gaining a bit more prominence - (e.g. see the New York Times' perhaps mildly surprising recommendation of the area as a destination for hip tourists, which of course got the Daily Mail treatment here!). Anyway, point being that in addition to NX being a destination for study and work, there's a small degree to which it'll be a destination for other activities for such folk who might live 'up east' (Dalston/ Hackney etc) coming down to visit, in addition to the predominant flow of traffic for such activities heading the other way. So, expect a sizable ultra-skinny jean and silly hairdo contingent, and I'd also expect some changes to the NX and Deptford areas as a result of the new line too, which should help pull them up a bit. (Of course there's a whole host of interesting discussions to be had on these lines - critics sometimes say things changes are gentrification by stealth by pioneering middle class young outsiders with an artistic bent who then pave the way for others, and indeed such criticisms are perhaps a bit more evident in Dalston - but that's a whole other debate that I'm just skirting around here, as I'm trying - and failing - to keep this post concise and to the point!) ~ ~ ~ (2) My second group of savvy travellers are the Canary Wharf commuters, what with the ultra easy interchange onto the Jubilee at Canada Water. Obviously the big change will come when there's through running from the ELL onto the LB&SCR main line down to Croydon and Crystal Palace, but for the meantime the situation will broadly return to what it was pre-ELL closure in December '07 (albeit with the extra northern destinations up to Dalston). Likewise for these commuters, things will go back to how they were at New Cross. So the contingent of folk who used to use the ELL (and in doing so avoid zone 1 fares) will return. ~ ~ ~ (3) The third group have some linkages with the first, and they're the bods who work in and around Shoreditch where there's a lot of 'creative' industry type stuff going on (people who I dare say are perhaps more likely to be attuned to developments, at least according to my stereotype!). For them, Shoreditch High Street will be very useful, as it will be those working on the northern fringe of the City (e.g. around Bishopsgate). The price advantage of Shoreditch High Street (SHS) being in zone 2 is no longer to be of course - it's zone 1 now - but nonetheless if SHS is more convenient than a trek in from London Bridge (or Cannon Street) by whatever means (possibly by foot for some) then it'll still be attractive. From the get-go I'd say there'd be a number of people living in New Cross and also the Rotherhithe area (i.e. inc. Canada Water catchment) for whom this would provide a no-interchange needed option. That said, if a rail-only season ticket to London Terminals (London Bridge, Cannon Street) is cheaper than a season to SHS, then that might actually pull things the other way (I'll take a punt at guessing that SHS will not count as a London Terminal from either points north or south, and perhaps there won't be a rail-only season ticket for ELL- only sections either, but instead it'll be like the Tube where the Travelcard is the season ticket, full stop - we shall of course see.) ~ ~ ~ (4) All those who used to use the ELL as a way of getting from SE London to east and north east London, e.g. via Canada Water and the Jubilee line, or via Whitechapel for the District line to head east. Anyway there's a few ideas of people who might be using it early on, even before through running to points south begins. It will indeed be interesting to see how demand picks up in the month or so before this happens. I dare say that off-peak travel might pick up more quickly than peak-time commuter travel. When it fully gets going I'm sure it'll be very well patronised, even more so when it runs beyond Dalston Junction through to Highbury & Islington (with a stop at Canonbury). I hate to say this, but I do just wonder whether placing SHS in zone 1 might be beneficial in preventing the service from becoming horribly overcrowded at peak times. A significant benefit of attracting people towards orbital journeys is taking the strain off the central London infrastructure - in this case for example the 'delightfully snug' Northern line - but if the ELL became similarly rammed (i.e. with folk using SHS as a cheap way to get to and from the City), then the attraction of 'doing it orbitally' might dim somewhat. Of course, depending on how the fares work, it might well be that instead of being cheaper, SHS will now be a more expensive choice when compared to going to the conventional London terminal (e.g. London Bridge, Cannon Street, Moorgate), losing it custom. I expect that the re-zoning of SHS into expensive z1 territory will also dissuade folk from transferring off the buses and onto the ELL for orbital north-south trips (e.g. New Cross to Dalston), and indeed those who under previous projections would have been expected to make new or extra journeys may well no longer do so now, thus losing some of the wider economic regeneration benefits that the line was to offer. (In crude terms that I'll inevitably get hauled up on, it becomes a bit less of a 'people's line', and more a line for 'them'.) Anyway, a rather longer post than I had initially intended - really gotta try and keep it shorter! I'm going to x-post this to utl - I've been intending on making a re-appearance othere for a bit, but it seems that having been away from usenet for a while (and indeed from following metropolitan transportational developments in general), I proceeded to get a little waylaid in uk.railway on my return! (I did actually have something else in mind for my first utl post in ages, something short and pithy, but never mind, having written all this blah it'd be a shame not to inflict it on utl-ers too!) |
ELL Stock in Place
In article
, Mizter T wrote: ~ ~ ~ (2) My second group of savvy travellers are the Canary Wharf commuters, what with the ultra easy interchange onto the Jubilee at Canada Water. That'll include my wife - we live near Dalston Junction and she commutes to Canary Wharf on the 277, or 277/D6 if I drop her in Mare Street. The drawback is presumably the cost - what will the fare be? E. |
ELL Stock in Place
eastender wrote:
In article , Mizter T wrote: ~ ~ ~ (2) My second group of savvy travellers are the Canary Wharf commuters, what with the ultra easy interchange onto the Jubilee at Canada Water. That'll include my wife - we live near Dalston Junction and she commutes to Canary Wharf on the 277, or 277/D6 if I drop her in Mare Street. The drawback is presumably the cost - what will the fare be? On the face of it, a zone 1 and 2 journey at the tube/LO rate, ie £2.30/£1.80. However there was talk of special 'zone 2 only' fares for some ELL journeys as long as you didn't actually use Shoreditch High St, which is the only station in zone 1. This was mentioned a year or so back, but the trail has gone a bit cold recently. Perhaps this will prompt someone with insider access to find out... Paul S |
ELL Stock in Place
On Jan 21, 6:20*pm, eastender wrote: In article , *Mizter T wrote: ~ ~ ~ (2) My second group of savvy travellers are the Canary Wharf commuters, what with the ultra easy interchange onto the Jubilee at Canada Water. That'll include my wife - we live near Dalston Junction and she commutes to Canary Wharf on the 277, or 277/D6 if I drop her in Mare Street. The drawback is presumably the cost - what will the fare be? Dalston Junction will be zone 2, so that will be a zone 1&2 journey - though if the rezoning of SHS into z1 hadn't happened, it would have been an zone 2 journey in its entirety. Details about fares have not been announced, but I expect the ELL will likely follow the Tube fare scale, if so using Oyster PAYG a single journey would be £2.30 peak/ £1.80 off-peak. A season zones 1&2 Travelcard is a bit more expensive, but would of course cover any extra non-commuting travel. And thanks for an alternative take on it from the Dalston perspective! The Jubilee can be pretty heaving in the morning, so an alternative route would be to change at Shadwell onto the DLR, though its certainly not quite such a smooth interchange - as it's out-of-station via the street! - and the DLR journey to Canary Wharf would take longer. Despite the awkward interchange, the extended ELL at Shadwell will offer a number of new journey opportunities. |
ELL Stock in Place
On Jan 21, 6:36*pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: eastender wrote: Mizter T wrote: ~ ~ ~ (2) My second group of savvy travellers are the Canary Wharf commuters, what with the ultra easy interchange onto the Jubilee at Canada Water. That'll include my wife - we live near Dalston Junction and she commutes to Canary Wharf on the 277, or 277/D6 if I drop her in Mare Street. The drawback is presumably the cost - what will the fare be? On the face of it, a zone 1 and 2 journey at the tube/LO rate, ie £2.30/£1.80. However there was talk of special 'zone 2 only' fares for some ELL journeys as long as you didn't actually use Shoreditch High St, which is the only station in zone 1. *This was mentioned a year or so back, but the trail has gone a bit cold recently. *Perhaps this will prompt someone with insider access to find out... Most interesting - I obviously missed that at the time. I suppose that would go some way to pacifying the TOCs worried about revenue abstraction (i.e. pax deserting London Bridge/Cannon Street and Moorgate for SHS) whilst still promoting it as an orbital route. Two thoughts... (1) This is being kept-back as a 'surprise' for when the ELL opens, or (2) it has been quietly forgotten about because the extra revenue that will accrue has been deemed as being needed. Or (3) it was only ever in the air as the result of some kite flying. |
ELL Stock in Place
Mizter T wrote:
On Jan 21, 6:36 pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: However there was talk of special 'zone 2 only' fares for some ELL journeys as long as you didn't actually use Shoreditch High St, which is the only station in zone 1. This was mentioned a year or so back, but the trail has gone a bit cold recently. Perhaps this will prompt someone with insider access to find out... Most interesting - I obviously missed that at the time. I suppose that would go some way to pacifying the TOCs worried about revenue abstraction (i.e. pax deserting London Bridge/Cannon Street and Moorgate for SHS) whilst still promoting it as an orbital route. I think it might be in one of those TfL board papers. The sort of thing Paul Corfield seems to be able to find in an instant... :-) Paul S |
ELL Stock in Place
In article
, Mizter T wrote: And thanks for an alternative take on it from the Dalston perspective! The Jubilee can be pretty heaving in the morning, so an alternative route would be to change at Shadwell onto the DLR, though its certainly not quite such a smooth interchange - as it's out-of-station via the street! - and the DLR journey to Canary Wharf would take longer. Despite the awkward interchange, the extended ELL at Shadwell will offer a number of new journey opportunities. I use City Airport quite a bit - eg going to Rotterdam next week - so the change at Shadwell makes sense for me, although I sometimes drive there (the car park though is now a staggering £72 for 29-48 hours - far higher than business parking at Heathrow) I sometime park down there at the weekends to take my kids for a ride on the DLR. The bus though does have advantages - the 277 stops right outside my wife's office. But if the traffic's snarled round the tunnel in the evening rush hour, it can be a nightmare journey back home. E. |
ELL Stock in Place
On Jan 21, 7:32*pm, eastender wrote: Mizter T wrote: And thanks for an alternative take on it from the Dalston perspective! The Jubilee can be pretty heaving in the morning, so an alternative route would be to change at Shadwell onto the DLR, though its certainly not quite such a smooth interchange - as it's out-of-station via the street! - and the DLR journey to Canary Wharf would take longer. Despite the awkward interchange, the extended ELL at Shadwell will offer a number of new journey opportunities. I use City Airport quite a bit - eg going to Rotterdam next week - so the change at Shadwell makes sense for me, although I sometimes drive there (the car park though is now a staggering £72 for 29-48 hours - far higher than business parking at Heathrow) I sometime park down there at the weekends to take my kids for a ride on the DLR. Though given the ultra-easy interchange at Canning Town from Jubbly to DLR, one could well argue that ELL - Jubilee - DLR might still be easiest for those with cumbersome luggage. They'd all have to be working, of course - particularly problematic for the Jubilee at weekends as we all know. But going via the Shadwell might mean one less change if the DLR service was going all the way. (Plus the DLR being overground gives one more of an opportunity for any last minute pre-flight mobile communications.) The bus though does have advantages - the 277 stops right outside my wife's office. But if the traffic's snarled round the tunnel in the evening rush hour, it can be a nightmare journey back home. It's generally ok on the way in then? Bus in, then rail home would of course work as a cheaper way of taking advantage of both modes. |
ELL Stock in Place
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:25:41 -0800, Mizter T wrote:
On Jan 21, 7:32Â*pm, eastender wrote: Mizter T wrote: And thanks for an alternative take on it from the Dalston perspective! The Jubilee can be pretty heaving in the morning, so an alternative route would be to change at Shadwell onto the DLR, though its certainly not quite such a smooth interchange - as it's out-of-station via the street! - and the DLR journey to Canary Wharf would take longer. Despite the awkward interchange, the extended ELL at Shadwell will offer a number of new journey opportunities. I use City Airport quite a bit - eg going to Rotterdam next week - so the change at Shadwell makes sense for me, although I sometimes drive there (the car park though is now a staggering £72 for 29-48 hours - far higher than business parking at Heathrow) I sometime park down there at the weekends to take my kids for a ride on the DLR. Though given the ultra-easy interchange at Canning Town from Jubbly to DLR, one could well argue that ELL - Jubilee - DLR might still be easiest for those with cumbersome luggage. They'd all have to be working, of course - particularly problematic for the Jubilee at weekends as we all know. But going via the Shadwell might mean one less change if the DLR service was going all the way. (Plus the DLR being overground gives one more of an opportunity for any last minute pre-flight mobile communications.) The bus though does have advantages - the 277 stops right outside my wife's office. But if the traffic's snarled round the tunnel in the evening rush hour, it can be a nightmare journey back home. It's generally ok on the way in then? Bus in, then rail home would of course work as a cheaper way of taking advantage of both modes. As a veteran of the Hackney to Canary Wharf journey, I actually found the NLL from Hackney Central (or Dalston) to Stratford followed by Jub-Jub to Canary Wharf to be arguably the best/quickest option. You can usually get a seat at Hackney Central, or at worst, when all the staff for the hospital get off at Homerton, and then you're pretty certain of a seat at Stratford on the Jubilee. If was hanging around late at work, the 277 was usually my preference for getting home as the roads might be quieter at 7-7:30pm.... |
ELL Stock in Place
On 21 Jan, 21:28, Martin Petrov
wrote: On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:25:41 -0800, Mizter T wrote: On Jan 21, 7:32*pm, eastender wrote: Mizter T wrote: And thanks for an alternative take on it from the Dalston perspective! The Jubilee can be pretty heaving in the morning, so an alternative route would be to change at Shadwell onto the DLR, though its certainly not quite such a smooth interchange - as it's out-of-station via the street! - and the DLR journey to Canary Wharf would take longer. Despite the awkward interchange, the extended ELL at Shadwell will offer a number of new journey opportunities. I use City Airport quite a bit - eg going to Rotterdam next week - so the change at Shadwell makes sense for me, although I sometimes drive there (the car park though is now a staggering £72 for 29-48 hours - far higher than business parking at Heathrow) I sometime park down there at the weekends to take my kids for a ride on the DLR. Though given the ultra-easy interchange at Canning Town from Jubbly to DLR, one could well argue that ELL - Jubilee - DLR might still be easiest for those with cumbersome luggage. They'd all have to be working, of course - particularly problematic for the Jubilee at weekends as we all know. But going via the Shadwell might mean one less change if the DLR service was going all the way. (Plus the DLR being overground gives one more of an opportunity for any last minute pre-flight mobile communications.) The bus though does have advantages - the 277 stops right outside my wife's office. But if the traffic's snarled round the tunnel in the evening rush hour, it can be a nightmare journey back home. It's generally ok on the way in then? Bus in, then rail home would of course work as a cheaper way of taking advantage of both modes. As a veteran of the Hackney to Canary Wharf journey, I actually found the NLL from Hackney Central (or Dalston) to Stratford followed by Jub-Jub to Canary Wharf to be arguably the best/quickest option. You can usually get a seat at Hackney Central, or at worst, when all the staff for the hospital get off at Homerton, and then you're pretty certain of a seat at Stratford on the Jubilee. If was hanging around late at work, the 277 was usually my preference for getting home as the roads might be quieter at 7-7:30pm....- With all of this, the journey opportunities that seem least useful and by far the most disruptive are offered by the extension south beyond NXG, filling hugely overcrowded paths with short trains going the wrong way. I can see the benefit to students from the north, heading for Goldsmiths etc, but a lot of that was provided by the ELL as it was, with some useful new links now offered. People in south London could reach NX/NXG anyway. Nearly all of the benefits listed in Mizter T's post were offered either by the existing ELL or by the extension to the north. The planned reduction in service to London Bridge isn't going down well locally, and is being conflated with the loss of Charing Cross services on the line as a general battering of local transport. |
ELL Stock in Place
On Jan 21, 9:49*pm, MIG wrote:
On 21 Jan, 21:28, Martin Petrov wrote: On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:25:41 -0800, Mizter T wrote: On Jan 21, 7:32*pm, eastender wrote: Mizter T wrote: And thanks for an alternative take on it from the Dalston perspective! The Jubilee can be pretty heaving in the morning, so an alternative route would be to change at Shadwell onto the DLR, though its certainly not quite such a smooth interchange - as it's out-of-station via the street! - and the DLR journey to Canary Wharf would take longer. Despite the awkward interchange, the extended ELL at Shadwell will offer a number of new journey opportunities. I use City Airport quite a bit - eg going to Rotterdam next week - so the change at Shadwell makes sense for me, although I sometimes drive there (the car park though is now a staggering £72 for 29-48 hours - far higher than business parking at Heathrow) I sometime park down there at the weekends to take my kids for a ride on the DLR. Though given the ultra-easy interchange at Canning Town from Jubbly to DLR, one could well argue that ELL - Jubilee - DLR might still be easiest for those with cumbersome luggage. They'd all have to be working, of course - particularly problematic for the Jubilee at weekends as we all know. But going via the Shadwell might mean one less change if the DLR service was going all the way. (Plus the DLR being overground gives one more of an opportunity for any last minute pre-flight mobile communications.) The bus though does have advantages - the 277 stops right outside my wife's office. But if the traffic's snarled round the tunnel in the evening rush hour, it can be a nightmare journey back home. It's generally ok on the way in then? Bus in, then rail home would of course work as a cheaper way of taking advantage of both modes. As a veteran of the Hackney to Canary Wharf journey, I actually found the NLL from Hackney Central (or Dalston) to Stratford followed by Jub-Jub to Canary Wharf to be arguably the best/quickest option. You can usually get a seat at Hackney Central, or at worst, when all the staff for the hospital get off at Homerton, and then you're pretty certain of a seat at Stratford on the Jubilee. If was hanging around late at work, the 277 was usually my preference for getting home as the roads might be quieter at 7-7:30pm....- With all of this, the journey opportunities that seem least useful and by far the most disruptive are offered by the extension south beyond NXG, filling hugely overcrowded paths with short trains going the wrong way. *I can see the benefit to students from the north, heading for Goldsmiths etc, but a lot of that was provided by the ELL as it was, with some useful new links now offered. *People in south London could reach NX/NXG anyway. But putting these passengers on through ELL trains will relieve any crowding on the London Bridge services. Nearly all of the benefits listed in Mizter T's post were offered either by the existing ELL or by the extension to the north. The planned reduction in service to London Bridge isn't going down well locally, and is being conflated with the loss of Charing Cross services on the line as a general battering of local transport. Is there really a reduction in capacity to London Bridge? I thought the withdrawal of the handful of Southern services was going to go hand in hand with the lengthening any short formed (4 or 6 car) peak services to 8 cars. So frequencies may have been slightly reduced, but capacity has increased. |
ELL Stock in Place
On Jan 21, 9:49*pm, MIG wrote: [snip] With all of this, the journey opportunities that seem least useful and by far the most disruptive are offered by the extension south beyond NXG, filling hugely overcrowded paths with short trains going the wrong way. *I can see the benefit to students from the north, heading for Goldsmiths etc, but a lot of that was provided by the ELL as it was, with some useful new links now offered. *People in south London could reach NX/NXG anyway. Nearly all of the benefits listed in Mizter T's post were offered either by the existing ELL or by the extension to the north. My post/ramble was about those people who might use the line in those first few weeks *before* through-running south of NXG begins - sorry if I didn't flag this up sufficiently (it was prompted by Paul C's ponderings on how quickly demand will pick up). What I decidedly did not do was to extend my waxing lyrical to the potential new clientele that the line will attract once through running south of NXG does begin - but I can assure you that there will be a lot of people attracted to it, and a good number will be switching over from other routes e.g. via London Bridge. In other words there will be a lot of people who'll want to go the "wrong way" as you so put it (though evidently you won't be one of them) to take advantage of these "most disruptive" "journey opportunities" (what is a disruptive journey opportunity anyway? Or do you just expect all the pax to be rowdy?!). The planned reduction in service to London Bridge isn't going down well locally, and is being conflated with the loss of Charing Cross services on the line as a general battering of local transport. OK, enough sarkiness on my part. Genuine question because I'm really not as up to date on this - how much of a reduction will there be, peak and off-peak? I was under the impression that wasn't going to be huge, and also that the services that remain would be more likely to be longer (e.g. 8 carriages vice 4). The reason why it'd be good to have some specifics is that I'm afraid I remember you making similar statements a long while back, but my recollection is that you'd presumed that the ELL services would simply replace existing services, when that was not the plan. (Damn long memories!) FWIW I do know how important a route this is, and how busy these train can be at peak times, so I understand the concern. And I understand worries about new upstart services displacing old established ones, as seems to be the plan on the South London Line. But in this case it seems possible that people might be able to have the advantage of the new whilst continuing to retain the benefits of the old too. |
ELL Stock in Place
On Jan 21, 10:23*pm, Paul Corfield wrote: On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:19:36 -0000, "Paul Scott" wrote: Mizter T wrote: On Jan 21, 6:36 pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: However there was talk of special 'zone 2 only' fares for some ELL journeys as long as you didn't actually use Shoreditch High St, which is the only station in zone 1. This was mentioned a year or so back, but the trail has gone a bit cold recently. Perhaps this will prompt someone with insider access to find out... Most interesting - I obviously missed that at the time. I suppose that would go some way to pacifying the TOCs worried about revenue abstraction (i.e. pax deserting London Bridge/Cannon Street and Moorgate for SHS) whilst still promoting it as an orbital route. I think it might be in one of those TfL board papers. The sort of thing Paul Corfield seems to be able to find in an instant... :-) Err not this time. *The zoning decision was linked to the approval for ELLX Phase 2 as you know. The only further fares development that anyone has spotted is the fare zones on the new NR London Connections map that showed SHS in Zone 1 but Hoxton as boundary Z1/2. I hadn't spotted that! Given the impenetrability of finding said map on the redesigned (aka broken) NR website, I put "London Connections" into Google, and it took me to the old Sept '09 map on the PDA version of their site (i.e. "http://pda.nationalrail etc etc), so I've only just really taken the new one on board (seen it at a station but didn't pore over it). Putting Hoxton in z1/2 is good in the sense that it will at least make it clearer that one is going to travel through zone 1, though it's essentially presentational of course (ok, it does mean single journeys between Hoxton and SHS will be charged differently as z1-only journeys, but who's going to be doing that?!). I recall the fix on the NLL that put Hampstead Heath (and only HH) in zone 3, surrounded by zone 2 - this feels like something of a fix too, but at least it's executed in a way that's a bit easier to see. (Not that I think many people with zone 2 Travelcards ever actually ended up paying for a ticket extension to go through HH, not least because buying a ticket wasn't always exactly easy, let alone a difficult ticket like this which required an open ticket office, and not that anyone ever had their tickets checked on the NLL. Not that that many people had tickets in the first place either of course!) Shame there doesn't appear to be a 'go orbital' easement to encourage people to head this way. The SHS rezoning has to turn a lot of the predicted traffic analysis on its head. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ive/11192.aspx Interestingly the DfT press release is no longer on the usual NDS site. Given the SLL controversy I suspect it has been pulled. That's something that is good about the TfL and GLA websites - old press releases stay up on them and don't get airbrushed from history. The GLA website has press releases dating back to 2000 when it was set up, and TfL back to 2004. Might not always be the case of course. What I haven't tried is whether the Fares Finder has Hoxton or Shoreditch High St listed. I'd be amazed if they were there but it can't be long before an update will be needed. The real fun will be when the services on to NR metals start and the fares implications from that - pink validators at Canada Water anybody? Hopefully not for people to jump out and touch on before leaping heroically back in! (I recall someone saying they'd successfully done as much when travelling in on Chiltern on a paper ticket and switching to PAYG at Amersham, or maybe Chalfont & Latimer... cue MIG saying facilities should be provided for doing this everywhere!) I tried the Fare Finder for ELL stations a couple of days ago but there were none. Also, "fare finder" is in the singular, though it doesn't sound or scan at all right does it! See: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tickets/faresandtickets/2930.aspx |
ELL Stock in Place
Mizter T wrote:
On Jan 21, 9:49 pm, MIG wrote: The planned reduction in service to London Bridge isn't going down well locally, and is being conflated with the loss of Charing Cross services on the line as a general battering of local transport. OK, enough sarkiness on my part. Genuine question because I'm really not as up to date on this - how much of a reduction will there be, peak and off-peak? I was under the impression that wasn't going to be huge, and also that the services that remain would be more likely to be longer (e.g. 8 carriages vice 4). The reason why it'd be good to have some specifics is that I'm afraid I remember you making similar statements a long while back, but my recollection is that you'd presumed that the ELL services would simply replace existing services, when that was not the plan. (Damn long memories!) What the Southern franchise briefing said: "In order to accommodate these additional trains, SLC2 will see considerable changes to existing services to London Bridge. It will no longer be feasible for South Central to operate limited-stop services on the slow lines in between all-stations ELL services, so all slow-line South Central trains will also call at all stations. The South Central slow line service will consist of 6 tph in the high peak hour (4 off-peak), and will be purely local in nature. "Whilst this means a reduction in the number of London Bridge trains from Sydenham and Forest Hill to London Bridge in the peak hour, the overall service frequency north of Sydenham, including ELL trains, will increase to 14 trains per hour in the peak. When Network Rail has completed enhancement work, the South Central peak services on this route are expected to be of 10 car length." I'd have thought the eventual capacity increase from 8 to 10 car is the key. 6 x 10 car trains in the peak hour must be almost as much capacity into LB as now? The South London RUS also covers the subject in detail, needless to say. AFAICS the idea that the ELL will cause a major reduction in services into LB seems something of an exaggeration. Paul S |
ELL Stock in Place
"Paul Scott" wrote The South London RUS also covers the subject in detail, needless to say. AFAICS the idea that the ELL will cause a major reduction in services into LB seems something of an exaggeration. Some passengers who currently use London Bridge will find it advantageous to use the ELL - particularly those who walk to work from London Bridge, but who may have a shorter walk from Shoreditch High Street, and those who change to the Jubilee Line at London Bridge who may choose to change at Canada Water instead. Peter |
ELL Stock in Place
On 21 Jan, 23:17, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Mizter T wrote: On Jan 21, 9:49 pm, MIG wrote: The planned reduction in service to London Bridge isn't going down well locally, and is being conflated with the loss of Charing Cross services on the line as a general battering of local transport. OK, enough sarkiness on my part. Genuine question because I'm really not as up to date on this - how much of a reduction will there be, peak and off-peak? I was under the impression that wasn't going to be huge, and also that the services that remain would be more likely to be longer (e.g. 8 carriages vice 4). The reason why it'd be good to have some specifics is that I'm afraid I remember you making similar statements a long while back, but my recollection is that you'd presumed that the ELL services would simply replace existing services, when that was not the plan. (Damn long memories!) What the Southern franchise briefing said: "In order to accommodate these additional trains, SLC2 will see considerable changes to existing services to London Bridge. It will no longer be feasible for South Central to operate limited-stop services on the slow lines in between all-stations ELL services, so all slow-line South Central trains will also call at all stations. The South Central slow line service will consist of 6 tph in the high peak hour (4 off-peak), and will be purely local in nature. That's a different way of describing it from what I'd understood. It seems to imply extra stopping services, rather than withdrawal (or redirection) of limited-stop, but is the latter what it means? I thought that the current off-peak stopping service from London Bridge was 6 tph? That is a reduction if it's going to go down to 4 tph. The current peak is a bit irregularly-spaced, so I am not sure of the average tph. So that's a reduced service to London, and journeys to places like Sutton and Caterham will probably always need a change (with who knows what kind of connection) from the "purely local" service. I am wondering now if the local campaigners have seen further through the spin than I have and worked it all out. "Whilst this means a reduction in the number of London Bridge trains from Sydenham and Forest Hill to London Bridge in the peak hour, the overall service frequency north of Sydenham, including ELL trains, will increase to 14 trains per hour in the peak. When Network Rail has completed enhancement work, the South Central peak services on this route are expected to be of 10 car length." That will need platform extensions nearly everywhere. I wonder if it will really happen? I'd have thought the eventual capacity increase from 8 to 10 car is the key. 6 x 10 car trains in the peak hour must be almost as much capacity into LB as now? It would certainly help if it's possible, but they only have to run out of money and leave some short platforms somewhere (remember "Kent Link"?) and there may be no choice but to run shorter trains. The South London RUS also covers the subject in detail, needless to say. AFAICS the idea that the ELL will cause a major reduction in services into LB seems something of an exaggeration. It's meant to seem that way. With all the partial and oddly-worded information I think I have to wait and see. |
ELL Stock in Place
On Jan 21, 11:40*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Paul Scott" wrote The South London RUS also covers the subject in detail, needless to say.. AFAICS the idea that the ELL will cause a major reduction in services into LB seems something of an exaggeration. Some passengers who currently use London Bridge will find it advantageous to use the ELL - particularly those who walk to work from London Bridge, but who may have a shorter walk from Shoreditch High Street, and those who change to the Jubilee Line at London Bridge who may choose to change at Canada Water instead. Indeed - re the second point, those heading east to Canary Wharf and beyond will of course find Canada Water more convenient for changing to the Jubilee - yes when the old ELL was open this was an option then, but the benefit of one less change inevitably makes this more attractive - but it'll also be very interesting to see how many people do it for journeys to points west (e.g. the West End), thus avoiding the somewhat laborious and busy interchange at London Bridge. w.r.t. the first point about Shoreditch High Street, as I suggested elsewhere on this thread if SHS had been in zone 2 as was originally planned then price wise it may well have been advantageous for people to choose it over London Bridge (i.e. Travelcard would not need z2 validity), however now that it's going to be in zone 1 then it may well remain advantageous for them to stick with a rail-only season to London Terminals (i.e. London Bridge). An example - Crystal Palace to somewhere in the City - all prices are monthlies... z2&3 Travelcard - £73.00 z1-3 Travelcard - £116 Crystal Palace to London Terminals - £74.90 If SHS had been in z2, then if it was a more convenient location then the clear choice for the commuter would have been the z2&3 Travelcard (which would also have afforded them bus travel anywhere in London too). Now that SHS is in zone 1, they'd need to decide whether it was worthwhile or not to splash out on a z1 Travelcard - or indeed a z1 PAYG fare - read on... ***BIG qualifier to the above!*** Importantly to all these calculations we don't yet know two things... (1) What Oyster PAYG fare will be charged for said journey - though it's likely that for a straightforward commute, PAYG will still be cheaper than a season Travelcard (though poss. not an annual), but one has to factor in any leisure travel too. (2) Whether there might be some kind of rail-only season available for travel to SHS. My suspicion is no there won't be. |
ELL Stock in Place
On Jan 21, 11:17*pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: Mizter T wrote: On Jan 21, 9:49 pm, MIG wrote: The planned reduction in service to London Bridge isn't going down well locally, and is being conflated with the loss of Charing Cross services on the line as a general battering of local transport. OK, enough sarkiness on my part. Genuine question because I'm really not as up to date on this - how much of a reduction will there be, peak and off-peak? I was under the impression that wasn't going to be huge, and also that the services that remain would be more likely to be longer (e.g. 8 carriages vice 4). The reason why it'd be good to have some specifics is that I'm afraid I remember you making similar statements a long while back, but my recollection is that you'd presumed that the ELL services would simply replace existing services, when that was not the plan. (Damn long memories!) What the Southern franchise briefing said: "In order to accommodate these additional trains, SLC2 will see considerable changes to existing services to London Bridge. It will no longer be feasible for South Central to operate limited-stop services on the slow lines in between all-stations ELL services, so all slow-line South Central trains will also call at all stations. The South Central slow line service will consist of 6 tph in the high peak hour (4 off-peak), and will be purely local in nature. "Whilst this means a reduction in the number of London Bridge trains from Sydenham and Forest Hill to London Bridge in the peak hour, the overall service frequency north of Sydenham, including ELL trains, will increase to 14 trains per hour in the peak. When Network Rail has completed enhancement work, the South Central peak services on this route are expected to be of 10 car length." I'd have thought the eventual capacity increase from 8 to 10 car is the key. 6 x 10 car trains in the peak hour must be almost as much capacity into LB as now? Thanks for that - can't provide answer the capacity question I'm afraid though, but it doesn't seem like a reduction in capacity. Whether the "enhancement work" for 10-cars has been done yet is a valid question, but I'm not sure how extensive the required work was though. If I've got this right there'll be an improvement at Anerley and Penge West of 2-Southern-tph to 4-Southern-tph in addition to the ELL services - and those extra 2-Southern-tph (to coin a phrase) will not only provide a more frequent service to London Bridge but also provide a direct service to East Croydon which isn't currently available. Though if the timetable gets more of a shakeup then maybe, er, other stuff will happen. Regardless, it seems it'll be an improvement for local journeys pretty much any way you look at it. Southern's current local timetable leaflet for this line - 11a - can be seen he http://www.southernrailway.com/your-journey/timetables/ Or the PDF can be obtained directly via: http://tinyurl.com/yjoufhk The South London RUS also covers the subject in detail, needless to say. AFAICS the idea that the ELL will cause a major reduction in services into LB seems something of an exaggeration. Yes, I recall trawling through the RUS! Of course that's where the proposed SLL replacement service is detailed, the self-same service that TfL and the DfT have conspired to do away with. But that's another issue - it seems that on the Croydon to London Bridge local service front, things aren't about to take a similar turn for the worse. (Famous last words... we await the May 2010 timetable to see for certain what will be...) |
ELL Stock in Place
On Jan 22, 1:21*am, MIG wrote: On 21 Jan, 23:17, "Paul Scott" wrote: Mizter T wrote: On Jan 21, 9:49 pm, MIG wrote: The planned reduction in service to London Bridge isn't going down well locally, and is being conflated with the loss of Charing Cross services on the line as a general battering of local transport. OK, enough sarkiness on my part. Genuine question because I'm really not as up to date on this - how much of a reduction will there be, peak and off-peak? I was under the impression that wasn't going to be huge, and also that the services that remain would be more likely to be longer (e.g. 8 carriages vice 4). The reason why it'd be good to have some specifics is that I'm afraid I remember you making similar statements a long while back, but my recollection is that you'd presumed that the ELL services would simply replace existing services, when that was not the plan. (Damn long memories!) What the Southern franchise briefing said: "In order to accommodate these additional trains, SLC2 will see considerable changes to existing services to London Bridge. It will no longer be feasible for South Central to operate limited-stop services on the slow lines in between all-stations ELL services, so all slow-line South Central trains will also call at all stations. The South Central slow line service will consist of 6 tph in the high peak hour (4 off-peak), and will be purely local in nature. That's a different way of describing it from what I'd understood. *It seems to imply extra stopping services, rather than withdrawal (or redirection) of limited-stop, but is the latter what it means? I thought that the current off-peak stopping service from London Bridge was 6 tph? *That is a reduction if it's going to go down to 4 tph. *The current peak is a bit irregularly-spaced, so I am not sure of the average tph. Current off-peak service is indeed 6tph from Sydenham up to LB. Agreed that the text does seem ambiguous as to the fate of the limited stoppers. *If* those 2tph are getting cut, then yes the off-peak service to LB would be down to 4tph, which would be a significant reduction in frequency. I suppose the only thing that could be said then is whether 6tph could be fully justified on off-peak traffic terms, but that's not the sort of question I like to ask - turn-up-and- go (...sooner-rather-than-later) frequencies are a big part of the appeal. So that's a reduced service to London, and journeys to places like Sutton and Caterham will probably always need a change (with who knows what kind of connection) from the "purely local" service. If what you fear is indeed what's actually going to happen, then that might be the result. *If* so then I suppose one could always make the argument that the demand for ELL will likely outweigh the demand for Sutton and Caterham, so it's justified to require people heading for the latter to change. With regards to any prospective connection - the ELL is 4tph, so it's hardly going to be the end of the world. (And West Croydon will be - actually, already is - a London Overground managed station, so there's perhaps a bit more likelihood that they'd ensure it's a pleasant enough place to wait for, say, eight minutes.) I do notice your line of attack re the local service is a bit of a shift away from arguments about the service to London Bridge. Also, whilst we're on the local tip, then the improved local service for Anerley and Penge West is to be welcomed, no? I am wondering now if the local campaigners have seen further through the spin than I have and worked it all out. Perhaps they're simply cynical about the whole thing - however perhaps that's the best approach to take, as it offers the best defensive stance. Looking at the unfolding SLL debacle, I think some of the campaigners/ defenders of the SLL may well have been comforted by the plans for the replacement SLL service (the Vic Bellingham one) proposed in the RUS - which was then the subject of a mucky deal twixt the DfT and Boris which resulted in it being dropped. However, for all the good that being a cynic might do, when such service changes happen it's quite likely that there'll be some losers, as well as winners - in other words there will always be something to complain about! I think it's helpful to question the extent of their potential loss. "Whilst this means a reduction in the number of London Bridge trains from Sydenham and Forest Hill to London Bridge in the peak hour, the overall service frequency north of Sydenham, including ELL trains, will increase to 14 trains per hour in the peak. When Network Rail has completed enhancement work, the South Central peak services on this route are expected to be of 10 car length." That will need platform extensions nearly everywhere. *I wonder if it will really happen? I was just under the perhaps pretty dumb assumption that they might be long enough already... which is, as I said, a dumb assumption. My mental image of all the platforms is of them being long - but maybe not 10-car long. I'd have thought the eventual capacity increase from 8 to 10 car is the key. 6 x 10 car trains in the peak hour must be almost as much capacity into LB as now? It would certainly help if it's possible, but they only have to run out of money and leave some short platforms somewhere (remember "Kent Link"?) and there may be no choice but to run shorter trains. Fair enough comment. For whatever reason I thought the 10-car trains were coming sooner rather than later - now I notice Paul's "eventual" qualifier. Maybe it all depends on actual usage, i.e. how busy the 8- car trains will be. The South London RUS also covers the subject in detail, needless to say.. AFAICS the idea that the ELL will cause a major reduction in services into LB seems something of an exaggeration. It's meant to seem that way. *With all the partial and oddly-worded information I think I have to wait and see. You've made a decent case for the defence me thinks. (...or are you the prosecution...) |
ELL Stock in Place
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. |
ELL Stock in Place
"Mizter T" wrote in message ... On Jan 21, 11:40 pm, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Paul Scott" wrote The South London RUS also covers the subject in detail, needless to say. AFAICS the idea that the ELL will cause a major reduction in services into LB seems something of an exaggeration. Some passengers who currently use London Bridge will find it advantageous to use the ELL - particularly those who walk to work from London Bridge, but who may have a shorter walk from Shoreditch High Street, and those who change to the Jubilee Line at London Bridge who may choose to change at Canada Water instead. Indeed - re the second point, those heading east to Canary Wharf and beyond will of course find Canada Water more convenient for changing to the Jubilee - yes when the old ELL was open this was an option then, but the benefit of one less change inevitably makes this more attractive - but it'll also be very interesting to see how many people do it for journeys to points west (e.g. the West End), thus avoiding the somewhat laborious and busy interchange at London Bridge. w.r.t. the first point about Shoreditch High Street, as I suggested elsewhere on this thread if SHS had been in zone 2 as was originally planned then price wise it may well have been advantageous for people to choose it over London Bridge (i.e. Travelcard would not need z2 validity), however now that it's going to be in zone 1 then it may well remain advantageous for them to stick with a rail-only season to London Terminals (i.e. London Bridge). An example - Crystal Palace to somewhere in the City - all prices are monthlies... z2&3 Travelcard - £73.00 z1-3 Travelcard - £116 Crystal Palace to London Terminals - £74.90 If SHS had been in z2, then if it was a more convenient location then the clear choice for the commuter would have been the z2&3 Travelcard (which would also have afforded them bus travel anywhere in London too). Now that SHS is in zone 1, they'd need to decide whether it was worthwhile or not to splash out on a z1 Travelcard - or indeed a z1 PAYG fare - read on... ***BIG qualifier to the above!*** Importantly to all these calculations we don't yet know two things... (1) What Oyster PAYG fare will be charged for said journey - though it's likely that for a straightforward commute, PAYG will still be cheaper than a season Travelcard (though poss. not an annual), but one has to factor in any leisure travel too. (2) Whether there might be some kind of rail-only season available for travel to SHS. My suspicion is no there won't be. And may I ask, for those who walked from LB, what would be the pricing and access issues if they were to use Whitechapel instead? DW downunder |
ELL Stock in Place
On 22 Jan, 02:58, Mizter T wrote:
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.- It may be more "... and another thing ...". Connections to Charing Cross at London Bridge are not lacking, and they never ran in the peaks anyway. |
ELL Stock in Place
On 22 Jan, 02:30, Mizter T wrote:
On Jan 22, 1:21*am, MIG wrote: On 21 Jan, 23:17, "Paul Scott" wrote: Mizter T wrote: On Jan 21, 9:49 pm, MIG wrote: The planned reduction in service to London Bridge isn't going down well locally, and is being conflated with the loss of Charing Cross services on the line as a general battering of local transport. OK, enough sarkiness on my part. Genuine question because I'm really not as up to date on this - how much of a reduction will there be, peak and off-peak? I was under the impression that wasn't going to be huge, and also that the services that remain would be more likely to be longer (e.g. 8 carriages vice 4). The reason why it'd be good to have some specifics is that I'm afraid I remember you making similar statements a long while back, but my recollection is that you'd presumed that the ELL services would simply replace existing services, when that was not the plan. (Damn long memories!) What the Southern franchise briefing said: "In order to accommodate these additional trains, SLC2 will see considerable changes to existing services to London Bridge. It will no longer be feasible for South Central to operate limited-stop services on the slow lines in between all-stations ELL services, so all slow-line South Central trains will also call at all stations. The South Central slow line service will consist of 6 tph in the high peak hour (4 off-peak), and will be purely local in nature. That's a different way of describing it from what I'd understood. *It seems to imply extra stopping services, rather than withdrawal (or redirection) of limited-stop, but is the latter what it means? I thought that the current off-peak stopping service from London Bridge was 6 tph? *That is a reduction if it's going to go down to 4 tph. *The current peak is a bit irregularly-spaced, so I am not sure of the average tph. Current off-peak service is indeed 6tph from Sydenham up to LB. Agreed that the text does seem ambiguous as to the fate of the limited stoppers. *If* those 2tph are getting cut, then yes the off-peak service to LB would be down to 4tph, which would be a significant reduction in frequency. I suppose the only thing that could be said then is whether 6tph could be fully justified on off-peak traffic terms, but that's not the sort of question I like to ask - turn-up-and- go (...sooner-rather-than-later) frequencies are a big part of the appeal. So that's a reduced service to London, and journeys to places like Sutton and Caterham will probably always need a change (with who knows what kind of connection) from the "purely local" service. If what you fear is indeed what's actually going to happen, then that might be the result. *If* so then I suppose one could always make the argument that the demand for ELL will likely outweigh the demand for Sutton and Caterham, so it's justified to require people heading for the latter to change. With regards to any prospective connection - the ELL is 4tph, so it's hardly going to be the end of the world. (And West Croydon will be - actually, already is - a London Overground managed station, so there's perhaps a bit more likelihood that they'd ensure it's a pleasant enough place to wait for, say, eight minutes.) I do notice your line of attack re the local service is a bit of a shift away from arguments about the service to London Bridge. Also, whilst we're on the local tip, then the improved local service for Anerley and Penge West is to be welcomed, no? My current best summary of what's likely to happen, including winners and losers, is 1) W increased frequency between local stations from Norwood Junction to NXG. 2) W no need to change for Canada Water, Whitechapel, Shoreditch etc 3) L reduced frequency to London Bridge 4) L No direct service beyond Croydon (eg Sutton, Purley ... and what happens to Crystal Palace etc?) I am wondering now if the local campaigners have seen further through the spin than I have and worked it all out. Perhaps they're simply cynical about the whole thing - however perhaps that's the best approach to take, as it offers the best defensive stance. Looking at the unfolding SLL debacle, I think some of the campaigners/ defenders of the SLL may well have been comforted by the plans for the replacement SLL service (the Vic Bellingham one) proposed in the RUS - which was then the subject of a mucky deal twixt the DfT and Boris which resulted in it being dropped. Yes, I was forgetting the psychological effect of that debacle. It is probably making everyone very cynical. Under Ken there was a tendency to offer something new which was nice to have (late running LU etc) and then say "by the way, we have to cut the basic (and more important) service in order to provide the new service." Orbital routes are Nice To Have, but the reason why most existing routes are radial is because they are much more important. However, for all the good that being a cynic might do, when such service changes happen it's quite likely that there'll be some losers, as well as winners - in other words there will always be something to complain about! I think it's helpful to question the extent of their potential loss. "Whilst this means a reduction in the number of London Bridge trains from Sydenham and Forest Hill to London Bridge in the peak hour, the overall service frequency north of Sydenham, including ELL trains, will increase to 14 trains per hour in the peak. When Network Rail has completed enhancement work, the South Central peak services on this route are expected to be of 10 car length." That will need platform extensions nearly everywhere. *I wonder if it will really happen? I was just under the perhaps pretty dumb assumption that they might be long enough already... which is, as I said, a dumb assumption. My mental image of all the platforms is of them being long - but maybe not 10-car long. Mostly 8, including other South Central routes like Victoria to EC via Norbury. Any 10 car diagrams would be very restricted unless the whole network was extended. Crystal Palace and a couple of others seem to be even more restricted. Limited numbers of long enough platforms at LB too, and the odd short one at Victoria. I'd have thought the eventual capacity increase from 8 to 10 car is the key. 6 x 10 car trains in the peak hour must be almost as much capacity into LB as now? It would certainly help if it's possible, but they only have to run out of money and leave some short platforms somewhere (remember "Kent Link"?) and there may be no choice but to run shorter trains. Fair enough comment. For whatever reason I thought the 10-car trains were coming sooner rather than later - now I notice Paul's "eventual" qualifier. Maybe it all depends on actual usage, i.e. how busy the 8- car trains will be. The South London RUS also covers the subject in detail, needless to say. AFAICS the idea that the ELL will cause a major reduction in services into LB seems something of an exaggeration. It's meant to seem that way. *With all the partial and oddly-worded information I think I have to wait and see. You've made a decent case for the defence me thinks. (...or are you the prosecution...) I'm just a partial observer ... |
ELL Stock in Place
"MIG" wrote in message ... On 21 Jan, 23:17, "Paul Scott" wrote: That will need platform extensions nearly everywhere. I wonder if it will really happen? Network Rail have just announced that they have started: "London Bridge to West Croydon via Norwood Junction Increasing to 10-car trains during the peak from December 2011" from http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co...Cate goryID=8 I'd have thought the eventual capacity increase from 8 to 10 car is the key. 6 x 10 car trains in the peak hour must be almost as much capacity into LB as now? It would certainly help if it's possible, but they only have to run out of money and leave some short platforms somewhere (remember "Kent Link"?) and there may be no choice but to run shorter trains. The South London RUS also covers the subject in detail, needless to say. AFAICS the idea that the ELL will cause a major reduction in services into LB seems something of an exaggeration. It's meant to seem that way. With all the partial and oddly-worded information I think I have to wait and see. This is how the RUS summary reads for the area in question, (section 6.3) though obviously it's a couple of years old now: "On the Sydenham line, Brockley, Honor Oak Park, Penge West and Anerley all see an INCREASE in the number of morning peak trains to London Bridge. Sydenham and Forest Hill will see a marginal reduction from 7tph at present to 6tph in the high peak hour, but NO CHANGE from the existing 18tph trains across the entire three-hour peak. However, the RUS considers that, even if this change were to be carried out in isolation (as opposed to at the time of ELL opening), the service pattern will provide sufficient capacity, since no trains serving this route will originate from further away than the Croydon area (as opposed to locations such as Epsom or Caterham today)." [My caps] "A 2tph service will operate from the Sydenham line to Victoria via Crystal Palace. This is a significant improvement in the morning peak, developed in response to stakeholder feedback, since this service currently only commences after the morning peak has finished." "A 4tph peak fast service is provided from Norwood Junction to London Bridge, at improved intervals. This will provide capacity for some of the passengers who would otherwise use the all-stations trains." I think these latter are the trains that have to shift to the fast lines, but they should presumably be preferred by pax form West Croydon or Norwood Jn once they are sussed out, as they'll run non stop. Looking at all the evidence so far, the 'battering' of the service only seems to be off peak. Assuming a reduction of 5 to 4 tph meets the definition... Paul S |
ELL Stock in Place
On 22 Jan, 09:42, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"MIG" wrote in message ... On 21 Jan, 23:17, "Paul Scott" wrote: That will need platform extensions nearly everywhere. *I wonder if it will really happen? Network Rail have just announced that they have started: "London Bridge to West Croydon via Norwood Junction Increasing to 10-car trains during the peak from December 2011" fromhttp://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID.... I'd have thought the eventual capacity increase from 8 to 10 car is the key. 6 x 10 car trains in the peak hour must be almost as much capacity into LB as now? It would certainly help if it's possible, but they only have to run out of money and leave some short platforms somewhere (remember "Kent Link"?) and there may be no choice but to run shorter trains. The South London RUS also covers the subject in detail, needless to say. AFAICS the idea that the ELL will cause a major reduction in services into LB seems something of an exaggeration. It's meant to seem that way. *With all the partial and oddly-worded information I think I have to wait and see. This is how the RUS summary reads for the area in question, (section 6.3) though obviously it's a couple of years old now: "On the Sydenham line, Brockley, Honor Oak Park, Penge West and Anerley all see an INCREASE in the number of morning peak trains to London Bridge. Sydenham and Forest Hill will see a marginal reduction from 7tph at present to 6tph in the high peak hour, but NO CHANGE from the existing 18tph trains across the entire three-hour peak. However, the RUS considers that, even if this change were to be carried out in isolation (as opposed to at the time of ELL opening), the service pattern will provide sufficient capacity, since no trains serving this route will originate from further away than the Croydon area (as opposed to locations such as Epsom or Caterham today)." [My caps] "A 2tph service will operate from the Sydenham line to Victoria via Crystal Palace. This is a significant improvement in the morning peak, developed in response to stakeholder feedback, since this service currently only commences after the morning peak has finished." "A 4tph peak fast service is provided from Norwood Junction to London Bridge, at improved intervals. This will provide capacity for some of the passengers who would otherwise use the all-stations trains." I think these latter are the trains that have to shift to the fast lines, but they should presumably be preferred by pax form West Croydon or Norwood Jn once they are sussed out, as they'll run non stop. Looking at all the evidence so far, the 'battering' of the service only seems to be off peak. Assuming a reduction of 5 to 4 tph meets the definition... Paul S- It does sound good (although not mentioning connections south) but I suspect that it is sufficiently out of date not to be worth paying too much attention to. A lot has happened in "a couple of years", not least the election of a new Mayor, a major recession and some dodgy deals*. I don't simply take the word of the local campaigners either, who mention the reduction in service to LB (and Charing Cross) and lack of connections south, but don't mention the ELL, but I recognise that they have some justification for cynicism. I guess we'll know soon enough when the timetable comes out. *To get the go-ahead for things that may yet not go ahead (and Virgin not involved ...). |
ELL Stock in Place
On Jan 22, 11:08*am, MIG wrote: On 22 Jan, 09:42, "Paul Scott" wrote: [big snip] This is how the RUS summary reads for the area in question, (section 6.3) though obviously it's a couple of years old now: [big snip of quoted chunks of RUS plus associated comments] Looking at all the evidence so far, the 'battering' of the service only seems to be off peak. Assuming a reduction of 5 to 4 tph meets the definition... It does sound good (although not mentioning connections south) but I suspect that it is sufficiently out of date not to be worth paying too much attention to. *A lot has happened in "a couple of years", not least the election of a new Mayor, a major recession and some dodgy deals*. *I don't simply take the word of the local campaigners either, who mention the reduction in service to LB (and Charing Cross) and lack of connections south, but don't mention the ELL, but I recognise that they have some justification for cynicism. I guess we'll know soon enough when the timetable comes out. *To get the go-ahead for things that may yet not go ahead (and Virgin not involved ...). I agree that things may well have changed - plus as we've seen the RUS is not a hallowed document, it's a recommendation, and it strongly recommended that there be a replacement for the SLL (the proposed Vic- Bellingham service) which seemingly isn't now going to happen. With regards to your "dodgy deals" comment, I assume this is in relation to the cutting of the SLL, right? Well, one justification was the extension of the other platforms at Battersea Park - whether that happens any time soon is a fair enough question. However at the other end of the line, the redevelopment at London Bridge is indeed going ahead, as it's all linked in with building the 'Shard' tower right next to the station, which is itself intermeshed with the Thameslink Programme works. Of course, one could make an argument about about it being a "dodgy deal" for this to happen in the first place, what with the associated reduction of terminating platforms at LB from 9 down to 6[*]. The ELL phase 2 to Clapham Jn seems fairly certain to happen (no doubt it's controversial because of the associated SLL stuff, but I can't see the plug being pulled on it now). So are your comments predominantly about Battersea Park and the disappearing SLL service? Or a wider comment, perhaps including reference to Crossrail and other stuff? -----[*] Could anyone briefly summarise to what extent the benefits for Thameslink of the London Bridge works are dependent on the Bermondsey flyunder arrangement being built too? |
ELL Stock in Place
"MIG" wrote in message ... On 22 Jan, 09:42, "Paul Scott" wrote: BIG SNIP Looking at all the evidence so far, the 'battering' of the service only seems to be off peak. Assuming a reduction of 5 to 4 tph meets the definition... Paul S- It does sound good (although not mentioning connections south) but I suspect that it is sufficiently out of date not to be worth paying too much attention to. A lot has happened in "a couple of years", not least the election of a new Mayor, a major recession and some dodgy deals*. I don't simply take the word of the local campaigners either, who mention the reduction in service to LB (and Charing Cross) and lack of connections south, but don't mention the ELL, but I recognise that they have some justification for cynicism. I guess we'll know soon enough when the timetable comes out. *To get the go-ahead for things that may yet not go ahead (and Virgin not involved ...). Given FCC's track record, I suspect it's more a case of: we'll know when we see the trains actually running ... and for your further flung participants: ... and the news filters through. SIGH DW downunder |
ELL Stock in Place
On Jan 22, 4:33*am, "DW downunder" noname wrote: "Mizter T" wrote in message [big snip] w.r.t. the first point about Shoreditch High Street, as I suggested elsewhere on this thread if SHS had been in zone 2 as was originally planned then price wise it may well have been advantageous for people to choose it over London Bridge (i.e. Travelcard would not need z2 validity), however now that it's going to be in zone 1 then it may well remain advantageous for them to stick with a rail-only season to London Terminals (i.e. London Bridge). An example - Crystal Palace to somewhere in the City - all prices are monthlies... z2&3 Travelcard - £73.00 z1-3 Travelcard - £116 Crystal Palace to London Terminals - £74.90 If SHS had been in z2, then if it was a more convenient location then the clear choice for the commuter would have been the z2&3 Travelcard (which would also have afforded them bus travel anywhere in London too). Now that SHS is in zone 1, they'd need to decide whether it was worthwhile or not to splash out on a z1 Travelcard - or indeed a z1 PAYG fare - read on... ***BIG qualifier to the above!*** Importantly to all these calculations we don't yet know two things... (1) What Oyster PAYG fare will be charged for said journey - though it's likely that for a straightforward commute, PAYG will still be cheaper than a season Travelcard (though poss. not an annual), but one has to factor in any leisure travel too. (2) Whether there might be some kind of rail-only season available for travel to SHS. My suspicion is no there won't be. -------------------- And may I ask, for those who walked from LB, what would be the pricing and access issues if they were to use Whitechapel instead? Whitechapel is and will remain in zone 2, but it's that bit further away from the City - it will certainly be an option for anyone who works on that edge of the City (say around Aldgate) and is willing to walk a bit, but the lay of the land makes it that bit less attractive to do so - SHS is closer to where it's going on (in City office terms - Whitechapel market seems to be where it's at for dodgy DVD street sales...). So, from points south Whitechapel + walk is a possible option for avoiding zone 1. The old Shoreditch ELL station (in zone 2) was also used by a cadre of City commuters - indeed it only had a peak hours service (though the service window was quite wide), but as we now know the quasi-replacement SHS station will be in zone 1. Coming from points north, then one could get off at Hoxton station (zone 1/2 border, thus only paying for a z2 fare) and walk down into the City, but again it's a bit of a distance, prob. more so for many City destinations than it is from Whitechapel, and given that the furthest away pax will have come from without a change is Highbury & Islington I'm not sure that many would be willing to do this. That said, for anyone working in the vicinity of the Old Street roundabout, then a walk over from Hoxton is rather more doable. So there's a possibility of the ELL taking a few pax away from FCC's Great Northern Electrics / Northern City line service into Moorgate via Old Street, dependent on where they're heading of course (and also where they're starting from - if it's Highbury & Islington that's one thing, but if people are coming from further out say on the Great Northern Electrics service then faffing about changing at H&I becomes less attractive, esp. if the walk is the same or longer at the other end!). |
ELL Stock in Place
On Jan 22, 7:29*am, MIG wrote: On 22 Jan, 02:58, Mizter T wrote: [snip] 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.- It may be more "... and another thing ...". *Connections to Charing Cross at London Bridge are not lacking, and they never ran in the peaks anyway. Yeah, my comment was more about later in the evening, when it was neat to just be able to hop on the train at CX rather than change at LB to get back (or indeed head up into town later in the evening and be delivered right into the West End). |
ELL Stock in Place
On 22 Jan, 12:29, Mizter T wrote:
On Jan 22, 11:08*am, MIG wrote: On 22 Jan, 09:42, "Paul Scott" wrote: [big snip] This is how the RUS summary reads for the area in question, (section 6.3) though obviously it's a couple of years old now: [big snip of quoted chunks of RUS plus associated comments] Looking at all the evidence so far, the 'battering' of the service only seems to be off peak. Assuming a reduction of 5 to 4 tph meets the definition... It does sound good (although not mentioning connections south) but I suspect that it is sufficiently out of date not to be worth paying too much attention to. *A lot has happened in "a couple of years", not least the election of a new Mayor, a major recession and some dodgy deals*. *I don't simply take the word of the local campaigners either, who mention the reduction in service to LB (and Charing Cross) and lack of connections south, but don't mention the ELL, but I recognise that they have some justification for cynicism. I guess we'll know soon enough when the timetable comes out. *To get the go-ahead for things that may yet not go ahead (and Virgin not involved ...). I agree that things may well have changed - plus as we've seen the RUS is not a hallowed document, it's a recommendation, and it strongly recommended that there be a replacement for the SLL (the proposed Vic- Bellingham service) which seemingly isn't now going to happen. With regards to your "dodgy deals" comment, I assume this is in relation to the cutting of the SLL, right? Well, one justification was the extension of the other platforms at Battersea Park - whether that happens any time soon is a fair enough question. However at the other end of the line, the redevelopment at London Bridge is indeed going ahead, as it's all linked in with building the 'Shard' tower right next to the station, which is itself intermeshed with the Thameslink Programme works. Of course, one could make an argument about about it being a "dodgy deal" for this to happen in the first place, what with the associated reduction of terminating platforms at LB from 9 down to 6[*]. The ELL phase 2 to Clapham Jn seems fairly certain to happen (no doubt it's controversial because of the associated SLL stuff, but I can't see the plug being pulled on it now). So are your comments predominantly about Battersea Park and the disappearing SLL service? Or a wider comment, perhaps including reference to Crossrail and other stuff? Well, mainly about the loss of SLL, and then the loss of the replacement service from Victoria. I was thinking that the loss of the service will definitely happen, but that the service that replaces it may yet not, although you are more confident that it will happen. (My Virgin comment was thinking back to how other services were cut to make way for PUG and Operation Princess, and remain cut, without the promised benefit.) I seem to remember there was a deal around the zoning of Shoreditch as well, but that's more of an aside that explains people's cynicism. ----- [*] Could anyone briefly summarise to what extent the benefits for Thameslink of the London Bridge works are dependent on the Bermondsey flyunder arrangement being built too?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
ELL Stock in Place
On Jan 22, 1:51*pm, MIG wrote: On 22 Jan, 12:29, Mizter T wrote: On Jan 22, 11:08*am, MIG wrote: [snip] It does sound good (although not mentioning connections south) but I suspect that it is sufficiently out of date not to be worth paying too much attention to. *A lot has happened in "a couple of years", not least the election of a new Mayor, a major recession and some dodgy deals*. *I don't simply take the word of the local campaigners either, who mention the reduction in service to LB (and Charing Cross) and lack of connections south, but don't mention the ELL, but I recognise that they have some justification for cynicism. I guess we'll know soon enough when the timetable comes out. *To get the go-ahead for things that may yet not go ahead (and Virgin not involved ...). I agree that things may well have changed - plus as we've seen the RUS is not a hallowed document, it's a recommendation, and it strongly recommended that there be a replacement for the SLL (the proposed Vic- Bellingham service) which seemingly isn't now going to happen. With regards to your "dodgy deals" comment, I assume this is in relation to the cutting of the SLL, right? Well, one justification was the extension of the other platforms at Battersea Park - whether that happens any time soon is a fair enough question. However at the other end of the line, the redevelopment at London Bridge is indeed going ahead, as it's all linked in with building the 'Shard' tower right next to the station, which is itself intermeshed with the Thameslink Programme works. Of course, one could make an argument about about it being a "dodgy deal" for this to happen in the first place, what with the associated reduction of terminating platforms at LB from 9 down to 6[*]. The ELL phase 2 to Clapham Jn seems fairly certain to happen (no doubt it's controversial because of the associated SLL stuff, but I can't see the plug being pulled on it now). So are your comments predominantly about Battersea Park and the disappearing SLL service? Or a wider comment, perhaps including reference to Crossrail and other stuff? Well, mainly about the loss of SLL, and then the loss of the replacement service from Victoria. I was thinking that the loss of the service will definitely happen, but that the service that replaces it may yet not, although you are more confident that it will happen. No, that's not what I meant, but on re-reading them perhaps my comments weren't very clear. What I was trying to say was that I didn't see any chance of the plug being pulled on ELL phase 2. However, in the (I think very) unlikely event that was to happen, then there would *have* to be some sort of SLL replacement service (for example a Vic-Bellingham service) - apart from anything else, Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road would otherwise be left without any service I don't know what the latest is re the fate of the proposed then rejected Vic-Bellingham service - afraid I wasn't following things at all much recently, so I'm not up to date with the latest developments on this front. I do however know that there is very considerable local opposition to the loss of the SLL on parts of the route. I wouldn't say I'm confident that the proposed Vic-Bellingham service will be resurrected - in fact I wouldn't say anything because I just don't know what's going on now. (My Virgin comment was thinking back to how other services were cut to make way for PUG and Operation Princess, and remain cut, without the promised benefit.) OK. I seem to remember there was a deal around the zoning of Shoreditch as well, but that's more of an aside that explains people's cynicism. The re-zoning of Shoreditch seemed to be part of the overall deal that the Mayor did with the DfT - or should I say the deal they did with each other - this was the very same deal that involved the Mayor/TfL opting to redirect the funding for the proposed Vic-Bellinham service (a quasi-replacement for the doomed SLL service) into TfL's coffers so as to help pay for ELL phase 2. As I understand it, part of the deal was the DfT listening to TOCs concerns about the possibility for revenue abstraction with SHS being in zone 2 (i.e. pax transferring to the ELL to get to SHS instead of travelling to London Bridge and the TOCs losing the fares money), and then making the funding contingent on TfL agreeing to re-zone SHS into zone 1 to mitigate against any such possible revenue abstraction. So it's all bound together somehow - the Shard skyscraper, Thameslink 2K, the ELL, plans for platform lengthening on routes out of Victoria etc etc etc. |
ELL Stock in Place
On 22 Jan, 15:57, Mizter T wrote:
On Jan 22, 1:51*pm, MIG wrote: On 22 Jan, 12:29, Mizter T wrote: On Jan 22, 11:08*am, MIG wrote: [snip] It does sound good (although not mentioning connections south) but I suspect that it is sufficiently out of date not to be worth paying too much attention to. *A lot has happened in "a couple of years", not least the election of a new Mayor, a major recession and some dodgy deals*. *I don't simply take the word of the local campaigners either, who mention the reduction in service to LB (and Charing Cross) and lack of connections south, but don't mention the ELL, but I recognise that they have some justification for cynicism. I guess we'll know soon enough when the timetable comes out. *To get the go-ahead for things that may yet not go ahead (and Virgin not involved ...). I agree that things may well have changed - plus as we've seen the RUS is not a hallowed document, it's a recommendation, and it strongly recommended that there be a replacement for the SLL (the proposed Vic- Bellingham service) which seemingly isn't now going to happen. With regards to your "dodgy deals" comment, I assume this is in relation to the cutting of the SLL, right? Well, one justification was the extension of the other platforms at Battersea Park - whether that happens any time soon is a fair enough question. However at the other end of the line, the redevelopment at London Bridge is indeed going ahead, as it's all linked in with building the 'Shard' tower right next to the station, which is itself intermeshed with the Thameslink Programme works. Of course, one could make an argument about about it being a "dodgy deal" for this to happen in the first place, what with the associated reduction of terminating platforms at LB from 9 down to 6[*]. The ELL phase 2 to Clapham Jn seems fairly certain to happen (no doubt it's controversial because of the associated SLL stuff, but I can't see the plug being pulled on it now). So are your comments predominantly about Battersea Park and the disappearing SLL service? Or a wider comment, perhaps including reference to Crossrail and other stuff? Well, mainly about the loss of SLL, and then the loss of the replacement service from Victoria. I was thinking that the loss of the service will definitely happen, but that the service that replaces it may yet not, although you are more confident that it will happen. No, that's not what I meant, but on re-reading them perhaps my comments weren't very clear. What I was trying to say was that I didn't see any chance of the plug being pulled on ELL phase 2. However, in the (I think very) unlikely event that was to happen, then there would *have* to be some sort of SLL replacement service (for example a Vic-Bellingham service) - apart from anything else, Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road would otherwise be left without any service I don't know what the latest is re the fate of the proposed then rejected Vic-Bellingham service - afraid I wasn't following things at all much recently, so I'm not up to date with the latest developments on this front. I do however know that there is very considerable local opposition to the loss of the SLL on parts of the route. I wouldn't say I'm confident that the proposed Vic-Bellingham service will be resurrected - in fact I wouldn't say anything because I just don't know what's going on now. I haven't a clue, but I wonder if at some point the Catford line service will just run from Victoria, as it does on Sundays, during future Thameslink works, and everyone will get used to it. (My Virgin comment was thinking back to how other services were cut to make way for PUG and Operation Princess, and remain cut, without the promised benefit.) OK. I seem to remember there was a deal around the zoning of Shoreditch as well, but that's more of an aside that explains people's cynicism. The re-zoning of Shoreditch seemed to be part of the overall deal that the Mayor did with the DfT - or should I say the deal they did with each other - this was the very same deal that involved the Mayor/TfL opting to redirect the funding for the proposed Vic-Bellinham service (a quasi-replacement for the doomed SLL service) into TfL's coffers so as to help pay for ELL phase 2. There's something double-thoughtful about that. Can't quite get my head round it. A service that was only ever proposed as a result of planned changes was cancelled to pay for the changes that led to it being proposed ... Anyway, a lot is going to depend on what happens to the Victoria to Dartford services, which could do with running later (as they once did) and on Sundays (as they did as far as Charlton when the Dome was open), what tracks they use etc. As I understand it, part of the deal was the DfT listening to TOCs concerns about the possibility for revenue abstraction with SHS being in zone 2 (i.e. pax transferring to the ELL to get to SHS instead of travelling to London Bridge and the TOCs losing the fares money), and then making the funding contingent on TfL agreeing to re-zone SHS into zone 1 to mitigate against any such possible revenue abstraction. So it's all bound together somehow - the Shard skyscraper, Thameslink 2K, the ELL, plans for platform lengthening on routes out of Victoria etc etc etc.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
ELL Stock in Place
"DW downunder" noname wrote in message ... Given FCC's track record, I suspect it's more a case of: we'll know when we see the trains actually running ... and for your further flung participants: ... and the news filters through. SIGH Thankfully, it is nothing at all to do with FCC... Paul S |
ELL Stock in Place
That said, for anyone working in the vicinity of the Old Street
roundabout, then a walk over from Hoxton is rather more doable. So there's a possibility of the ELL taking a few pax away from FCC's Great Northern Electrics / Northern City line service into Moorgate via Old Street, dependent on where they're heading of course (and also where they're starting from - if it's Highbury & Islington that's one thing, but if people are coming from further out say on the Great Northern Electrics service then faffing about changing at H&I becomes less attractive, esp. if the walk is the same or longer at the other end!). If you live anywhere on the H&I-Dalston-Hoxton route, and you work in Old St, you're going to get the bus, without any question, surely? It's always going to be quicker/cheaper? (and in fact, if it's not raining, surely 90% of people would walk from any of those places, making a much larger saving!) |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
"Mizter T" wrote Having thought about it, I'm possibly even warming just a little (though only a little) to the notion that, given the seemingly inevitable downfall of the existing SLL service, an enhanced Vic- Dartford service plus the new ELL phase 2 service might not be such a bad result, and that the loss of the proposed 'SLL replacement' Vic- Bellingham service can be taken on the chin (a shame, and it would be nice to have it, but perhaps not a complete essential). Part of the problem is the way in which this has all been handled, i.e. in a rather furtive and underhand manner. Maybe stops at Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye could even be inserted on a few other trains that currently run fast along the Catford Loop to and from Victoria? One problem with using Victoria - Dartford trains to replace the Victoria - London Bridge SLL service, at least when the Battersea Park junction is severed, is that there is no route between the Chatham high level lines and the platforms at Wandsworth Road. It is possible to go via Stewarts Lane, though the layout at Battersea Pier Junction would complicate platforming at Victoria (the up low level route feeds into the Up Chatham Slow, so ideally routed into Victoria platforms 5-8, while the down low level feeds out of the Down Chatham Fast, so ideally out of platforms 1-4). If Battersea Park is retained, AIUI Networkers are barred from the route (though it may or may not take much to clear it for them). There is currently one up morning peak long distance train to Victoria which calls at Denmark Hill en route, and before the December timetable change there were three, so stops by fast trains here and/or at Peckham Rye are not out of the question. Indeed, during the period in the 1980s when the SLL service was peak hours only, and hourly off-peak Victoria - Maidstone East train called at Denmark Hill (and later, at Peckham Rye as well). Peter |
ELL Stock in Place
On Jan 22, 6:04*pm, Martin Petrov wrote: That said, for anyone working in the vicinity of the Old Street roundabout, then a walk over from Hoxton is rather more doable. So there's a possibility of the ELL taking a few pax away from FCC's Great Northern Electrics / Northern City line service into Moorgate via Old Street, dependent on where they're heading of course (and also where they're starting from - if it's Highbury & Islington that's one thing, but if people are coming from further out say on the Great Northern Electrics service then faffing about changing at H&I becomes less attractive, esp. if the walk is the same or longer at the other end!). If you live anywhere on the H&I-Dalston-Hoxton route, and you work in Old St, you're going to get the bus, without any question, surely? It's always going to be quicker/cheaper? (and in fact, if it's not raining, surely 90% of people would walk from any of those places, making a much larger saving!) Yes, quite possibly - to the bus bit at least. Don't think you'd find 90% of people walking though (unfortunately). walkit.com has Highbury Corner (i.e. H&I) to Old Street roundabout as being 1.7 miles, so a 25 mins fast pace/ 34 mins medium pace, whilst Dalston Junction (well, Dalston Kingsland station actually) to Old Street is 1.8 miles, so basically the same timings. (I think I'm at their fast pace, except on a v hot day or perhaps when, er, rather merry!) From Highbury Corner/ H&I there's the 271 bus to Old Street the direct way via Canonbury Road, or the more indirect (but poss almost as fast) 43 bus via the Angel then City Road. The Great Northern/ Northern City line service also doesn't have a Tube-like frequency, and isn't that fast - if it was like the Victoria line then it'd get more custom for short hops like this. There are four frequent bus routes down the Kingsland Road, though I think it can perhaps be a bit slow going at peak times as both the buses and the road are busy (though yes a lot of it does have a bus lane(s)). Perhaps if one was heading from Dalston more towards the Liverpool Street side of the City instead of around Old Street then jumping on a frequent train from Dalston Junction and being able to shoot down past it all high up on a viaduct to SHS station might well have its attractions - but of course it would also have it's zone 1 expense, which is where we came in! And then there's a bike as well, of course! |
ELL Stock in Place
On Jan 22, 7:23*pm, Paul Corfield wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 05:46:10 -0800 (PST), Mizter T wrote: On Jan 22, 4:33*am, "DW downunder" noname wrote: And may I ask, for those who walked from LB, what would be the pricing and access issues if they were to use Whitechapel instead? Whitechapel is and will remain in zone 2, but it's that bit further away from the City - it will certainly be an option for anyone who works on that edge of the City (say around Aldgate) and is willing to walk a bit, but the lay of the land makes it that bit less attractive to do so - SHS is closer to where it's going on (in City office terms - Whitechapel market seems to be where it's at for dodgy DVD street sales...). So, from points south Whitechapel + walk is a possible option for avoiding zone 1. The old Shoreditch ELL station (in zone 2) was also used by a cadre of City commuters - indeed it only had a peak hours service (though the service window was quite wide), but as we now know the quasi-replacement SHS station will be in zone 1. Or jump on a bus into the city - 25 and 205 from Whitechapel or the 100 from Shadwell. *A Z23 Travelcard is valid on all TfL buses across London as there are no zones. Clearly it depends on how time sensitive people are but it is possible to avoid the Zone 1 premium if you're prepared to change. Indeed - I omitted to mention the bus! (Though doesn't the Zone 1 premium help to fund your meal ticket? ;) ) |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
On Jan 22, 8:57*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Mizter T" wrote Having thought about it, I'm possibly even warming just a little (though only a little) to the notion that, given the seemingly inevitable downfall of the existing SLL service, an enhanced Vic- Dartford service plus the new ELL phase 2 service might not be such a bad result, and that the loss of the proposed 'SLL replacement' Vic- Bellingham service can be taken on the chin (a shame, and it would be nice to have it, but perhaps not a complete essential). Part of the problem is the way in which this has all been handled, i.e. in a rather furtive and underhand manner. Maybe stops at Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye could even be inserted on a few other trains that currently run fast along the Catford Loop to and from Victoria? One problem with using Victoria - Dartford trains to replace the Victoria - London Bridge SLL service, at least when the Battersea Park junction is severed, is that there is no route between the Chatham high level lines and the platforms at Wandsworth Road. It is possible to go via Stewarts Lane, though the layout at Battersea Pier Junction would complicate platforming at Victoria (the up low level route feeds into the Up Chatham Slow, so ideally routed into Victoria platforms 5-8, while the down low level feeds out of the Down Chatham Fast, so ideally out of platforms 1-4). If Battersea Park is retained, AIUI Networkers are barred from the route (though it may or may not take much to clear it for them). Yes, that's a very good point, I hadn't really thought about that issue. Hmm. Well, I suppose the brutal solution would be to simply give up on serving Wandsworth Road with Victoria trains altogether, and leave it for ELL phase 2 to serve, and tell pax that they can do one of four things... * get to Victoria by going to Clapham Jn on the ELL and changing (though the geographical daftness of that does offend me somewhat) * get the bus to Vauxhall and then tube (or another bus) to Victoria * walk to Clapham High Street and catch the train from there (AIUI the Vic-Dartford trains could serve Clapham HS, as there's a junction the name of which I forget that provides access to and from the Atlantic Line) * walk to Battersea Park and get a train (though the walk isn't all that direct as there's all this railway land in the middle! Plus they're not not the most appealing of streets to walk down.) Not ideal in any case though. If a portion of the Up low level line through Stewart's Lane could be made reversible where it joins the Chatham Slow, might that work? (I dare say that something like that is far far easier said than done!) There is currently one up morning peak long distance train to Victoria which calls at Denmark Hill en route, and before the December timetable change there were three, so stops by fast trains here and/or at Peckham Rye are not out of the question. Indeed, during the period in the 1980s when the SLL service was peak hours only, and hourly off-peak Victoria - Maidstone East train called at Denmark Hill (and later, at Peckham Rye as well). I think that it's around there (Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye) where a lot of the opposition and campaigning has been been brewing (though I'm a bit out of the loop on the latest) - so putting in some extra stops might address matters somewhat. Though at Denmark Hill I think the loss of a through service to London Bridge is quite a big part of it (the almost adjacent King's College Hospital is part of the same Trust as Guy's Hospital next to London Bridge, and I think this arrangement manages to generate a certain degree of inter-hospital traffic of staff, patients and students, and so this is where some of the noise is coming from). |
ELL Stock in Place
In article
, Mizter T wrote: Perhaps if one was heading from Dalston more towards the Liverpool Street side of the City instead of around Old Street then jumping on a frequent train from Dalston Junction and being able to shoot down past it all high up on a viaduct to SHS station might well have its attractions - but of course it would also have it's zone 1 expense, which is where we came in! We live on the 76 route, which goes through Dalston and gets you to Old Street and Moorgate (and a short cut through to Liverpool Street) and Bank. It's usually pretty fast and a short walk away are the 141 and 21, likewise, and since the 21 started coming up this way then the bus overcrowding has got better. The Kingsland Road buses are also a short walk away - Kingsland Road is surprisingly traffic free south of Dalston until you get to the Shoreditch system. E. |
South London Line issues [was: ELL Stock in Place]
"Mizter T" wrote Yes, that's a very good point, I hadn't really thought about that issue. Hmm. Well, I suppose the brutal solution would be to simply give up on serving Wandsworth Road with Victoria trains altogether, and leave it for ELL phase 2 to serve, and tell pax that they can do one of four things... * get to Victoria by going to Clapham Jn on the ELL and changing (though the geographical daftness of that does offend me somewhat) * get the bus to Vauxhall and then tube (or another bus) to Victoria * walk to Clapham High Street and catch the train from there (AIUI the Vic-Dartford trains could serve Clapham HS, as there's a junction the name of which I forget that provides access to and from the Atlantic Line) * walk to Battersea Park and get a train (though the walk isn't all that direct as there's all this railway land in the middle! Plus they're not not the most appealing of streets to walk down.) Not ideal in any case though. If a portion of the Up low level line through Stewart's Lane could be made reversible where it joins the Chatham Slow, might that work? (I dare say that something like that is far far easier said than done!) I think that it's around there (Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye) where a lot of the opposition and campaigning has been been brewing (though I'm a bit out of the loop on the latest) - so putting in some extra stops might address matters somewhat. Though at Denmark Hill I think the loss of a through service to London Bridge is quite a big part of it (the almost adjacent King's College Hospital is part of the same Trust as Guy's Hospital next to London Bridge, and I think this arrangement manages to generate a certain degree of inter-hospital traffic of staff, patients and students, and so this is where some of the noise is coming from). The junction between Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road is Voltaire Road Junction. IMHO making the up low level line reversible is a non-starter - from Clapham High Street the Chatham side has effectively produced a 4-track approach to Victoria, using the low level route as the up slow, and the reversible slow between Battersea Pier Junction and Voltaire Road as effectively the down slow. So without significant track and signalling work I don't think serving Wandsworth Road with Victoria trains is practicable. And I don't think it's worth keeping Clapham High Street to Victoria trains. Apart from claustrophobics who want a surface journey at the expense of frequency, anyone making this journey will do better by LUL from Clapham North via Stockwell. The reduction from 4tph to 2tph between Victoria, Denmark Hill, and Peckham Rye might seem a retrograde step, but in practice the SLL and Dartford trains mostly run very close to each other, followed by a near 30 minute gap to the next pair. Ideally this is a flow that should be provided with the (ex-) Mayor of London's aim for at least a 15 minute clockface service on NR lines in London, though rather than a new service to Bellingham I'd rather see the Dartford via Bexleyheath service augmented with a Victoria to Sidcup service (which can avoid some of the worst conflicts on the flat crossing at Lewisham, especially if Cannon Street to Sidcup trains are run via Parks Bridge direct, as they wouldn't need to serve Lewisham). While the loss of through trains between Denmark Hill and London Bridge is regrettable, passengers making this journey will be able to do it with a same-platform change (at Peckham Rye or Queens Road Peckham) and will have a new possibility of travelling to Blackfriars and using the new South Bank entrance. Peter |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk