On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 16:38:48 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 14:10:18 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
I'd imagine the power systems on the northern part of the ELL are all brand
new so I wouldn't have thought so. But who knows these days, cost cutting
seems
to be the #1 priority.

There wouldn't be an Overground service at all if that was the case.

You've never heard the phrase "on the cheap" I take it? Because with the ELL
thats certainly what I have coming to mind in 10 foot high flashing neon
lights.

Would you say Shoreditch High St was done "on the cheap"? But if you

Well lets see - its 300m from liverpool street but they put the single
entrance on the other side to add another 100m onto the walk. The line can't
take 5 car trains at some stops - and don't tell me they couldn't have
enlarged station tunnels - the trains were indequate from the start and the
service frequency is poor.

sparse service, which you'd never have used, and therefore never have
complained about.

If they'd simply built the section north from whitechapel and instead of the
idiotic decision to stop at H&I instead of finsbury which would have
provided an interchange with the ECML it would have been a much more useful
line and cheaper. There was no need to co-opt pre existing sound london lines
since they were already perfectly well served.

I seem to recall that you've also criticised the original DLR for bing
built on the cheap, which it certainly was. But if you think anyone could
have found the budget back then to build something resembling today's much
extended DLR, you obviously would like to pay a lot more in taxes.

You don't think we payed for it in taxes anyway?

--
Spud

On Monday, 12 January 2015 17:31:56 UTC, wrote:

Well lets see - its 300m from liverpool street but they put the single
entrance on the other side to add another 100m onto the walk. The line can't
take 5 car trains at some stops - and don't tell me they couldn't have
enlarged station tunnels - the trains were indequate from the start and the
service frequency is poor.

It's been said for well over a decade now that lengthening Rotherhithe and Wapping
would either be too difficult or impossible. Selective door opening is common on
bits of the tube network which are far newer.

sparse service, which you'd never have used, and therefore never have
complained about.

If they'd simply built the section north from whitechapel and instead of the
idiotic decision to stop at H&I instead of finsbury which would have
provided an interchange with the ECML it would have been a much more useful
line and cheaper. There was no need to co-opt pre existing sound london lines
since they were already perfectly well served.

You repeatedly say this, but repeating it doesn't mean it makes any more sense.
None of the southern branches are quiet, suggesting they weren't already perfectly
served. Admittedly, without those passengers it wouldn't be as crowded on the
northern section, but without them you wouldn't have the "poor" 16 train an
hour frequency.

Or an extended ELL at all. I can't imagine it having been funded just to extend
New Cross to Highbury & Islington. Would it even exist at all by now?

I was curious to find out how slow it is between H+I and Canada Water, and how
this compared to the Victoria + Jubilee line. It's timetabled 20 minutes direct by
Overground, and 9+11 minutes on the Underground. The same! Only wait, there's
the time involved in changing at Green Park, which TFL's journey planner seems to
put at around 4 minutes. I know such things can exaggerate changing time, but
there seems to be no way to do this journey quicker by tube.

The Underground route is about 2 miles longer and has one more stop so yes,
the average speed is higher. The average speed of the Underground trip including
stops is about 23mph, the Overground about 17mph. Neither are going to set the
world on fire. And on average, the Overground's stops *are* closer together, with
10 of them in less than 6 miles.

I was actually surprised the Underground wasn't faster by a bigger margin, especially
as both lines are ATO. I often wonder if people assume that deep level tubes are
travelling faster than they are due to their size, the small tunnels and the "zoom"
effect the cabling on the walls has.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 11:05:15 -0800 (PST)
Mark wrote:
On Monday, 12 January 2015 17:31:56 UTC, wrote:
entrance on the other side to add another 100m onto the walk. The line can't
take 5 car trains at some stops - and don't tell me they couldn't have
enlarged station tunnels - the trains were indequate from the start and the
service frequency is poor.

It's been said for well over a decade now that lengthening Rotherhithe and
Wapping
would either be too difficult or impossible. Selective door opening is common
on
bits of the tube network which are far newer.

It was said that enlarging the connaught tunnel for crossrail was "impossible"
but they managed it.

If they'd simply built the section north from whitechapel and instead of the
idiotic decision to stop at H&I instead of finsbury which would have
provided an interchange with the ECML it would have been a much more useful
line and cheaper. There was no need to co-opt pre existing sound london
lines
since they were already perfectly well served.

You repeatedly say this, but repeating it doesn't mean it makes any more sense.

Well it makes more sense than thousands of people spilling out at finsbury,
shuffling onto the victoria line - which is already seriously overcrowded there
in the rush hour - for one stop then getting off at highbury when there is an
underused freight line - albeit single track - onto the NLL that could have
been used for passenger trains.

served. Admittedly, without those passengers it wouldn't be as crowded on the
northern section, but without them you wouldn't have the "poor" 16 train an
hour frequency.

No, it would be much higher.

Or an extended ELL at all. I can't imagine it having been funded just to extend
New Cross to Highbury & Islington. Would it even exist at all by now?

Well it has provided a sort of tube service to parts of london that were
reliant on a bus previously. What has it added to south london? The ability to
get to canada water without changing at london bridge. Big deal.

I was curious to find out how slow it is between H+I and Canada Water, and how
this compared to the Victoria + Jubilee line. It's timetabled 20 minutes
direct by
Overground, and 9+11 minutes on the Underground. The same! Only wait, there's
the time involved in changing at Green Park, which TFL's journey planner seems
to
put at around 4 minutes. I know such things can exaggerate changing time, but
there seems to be no way to do this journey quicker by tube.

Well it is quicker by tube. Incidenatly last night I decided against my better
judgement to give the overground another go. I spent FIFTEEN minutes waiting
at Dalston for a highbury train because one train just sailed on through without
stopping.

I was actually surprised the Underground wasn't faster by a bigger margin,

It is faster by a big margin. I suggest you try it instead of relying on the
fiction that is TfLs timetables.

--
Spud

In message , at 10:48:26 on Tue, 13 Jan
2015, d remarked:
It was said that enlarging the connaught tunnel for crossrail was "impossible"
but they managed it.

Only by a complete change of plan and draining the dock to
re-cut-and-cover, rather than widening from the inside.
--
Roland Perry

Mark wrote:

It's been said for well over a decade now that lengthening Rotherhithe and
Wapping
would either be too difficult or impossible. Selective door opening is
common on
bits of the tube network which are far newer.

Wasn't Rotherhith proposed for closing when the JLE opened with Canada Water
taking the strain? And again more recently with the ELL conversion weren't
they talking about closing both and screwing Wapping?

--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 11:03:08 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:48:26 on Tue, 13 Jan
2015, d remarked:
It was said that enlarging the connaught tunnel for crossrail was "impossible"
but they managed it.

Only by a complete change of plan and draining the dock to
re-cut-and-cover, rather than widening from the inside.

Doesn't matter - they did it. Given how long the ELL was closed for to convert
it they had plenty of time and compared to the works that were required to
raise the line out of the tunnel at shorditch I suspect it would have been
a relatively minor addition to lengthen platforms.

--
Spud

In message , at 14:36:50 on Tue, 13 Jan
2015, d remarked:
It was said that enlarging the connaught tunnel for crossrail was "impossible"
but they managed it.

Only by a complete change of plan and draining the dock to
re-cut-and-cover, rather than widening from the inside.

Doesn't matter - they did it. Given how long the ELL was closed for to convert
it they had plenty of time

The critical timing was how long they could close the dock for, as it's
on the route between the river and ExCel, which has an annual boat show.
There was a documentary about the project in the Autumn, and they
finished it by the skin of their teeth.
--
Roland Perry

In article , d
() wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 11:05:15 -0800 (PST)
Mark wrote:
On Monday, 12 January 2015 17:31:56 UTC, wrote:
entrance on the other side to add another 100m onto the walk. The line
can't take 5 car trains at some stops - and don't tell me they couldn't
have enlarged station tunnels - the trains were indequate from the
start and the service frequency is poor.

It's been said for well over a decade now that lengthening Rotherhithe
and Wapping would either be too difficult or impossible. Selective door
opening is common on bits of the tube network which are far newer.

It was said that enlarging the connaught tunnel for crossrail was
"impossible" but they managed it.

If they'd simply built the section north from whitechapel and instead
of the idiotic decision to stop at H&I instead of finsbury which would
have provided an interchange with the ECML it would have been a much
more useful line and cheaper. There was no need to co-opt pre existing
sound london lines since they were already perfectly well served.

You repeatedly say this, but repeating it doesn't mean it makes any more
sense.

Well it makes more sense than thousands of people spilling out at
finsbury, shuffling onto the victoria line - which is already seriously
overcrowded there in the rush hour - for one stop then getting off at
highbury when there is an underused freight line - albeit single track
- onto the NLL that could have been used for passenger trains.

It was singled to get it electrified through the tunnel which would
otherwise have been problematic. It's not really an answer here because it
would mean a flat crossing of the North London line.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:40:34 -0600
wrote:
Well it makes more sense than thousands of people spilling out at
finsbury, shuffling onto the victoria line - which is already seriously
overcrowded there in the rush hour - for one stop then getting off at
highbury when there is an underused freight line - albeit single track
- onto the NLL that could have been used for passenger trains.

It was singled to get it electrified through the tunnel which would
otherwise have been problematic. It's not really an answer here because it
would mean a flat crossing of the North London line.

So? Its not the M25. I've waited at H&I and not seen a train go past on the
NLL for 10 minutes.

--
Spud

In article , d
() wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:40:34 -0600
wrote:
Well it makes more sense than thousands of people spilling out at
finsbury, shuffling onto the victoria line - which is already seriously
overcrowded there in the rush hour - for one stop then getting off at
highbury when there is an underused freight line - albeit single track
- onto the NLL that could have been used for passenger trains.

It was singled to get it electrified through the tunnel which would
otherwise have been problematic. It's not really an answer here because
it would mean a flat crossing of the North London line.

So? Its not the M25. I've waited at H&I and not seen a train go past
on the NLL for 10 minutes.

ITYF that capacity is already constrained on the NLL, mainly unsatisfied
freight paths.

--
Colin Rosenstiel