On Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:53:37 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
IME the Overground timetable is not "frequently up the bloody spout".

Indeed, and at 95.5%, it has the joint second highest PPM (punctuality)
moving average of all the operators in the country. Its moving average
cancellation and significant lateness (CaSL) figure, a measure of
reliability, is also one of the best at 1.8% (only c2c, Chiltern and HEx
are slightly better). That's not bad, considering that it shares lines with
LU, freight and lower performing TOCs.

See http://www.networkrail.co.uk/about/performance/

Well if the statistics say its great then obviously I was just imagining
waiting 10-15 minutes for a highbury train on numerous occasions or waiting
*at* highbury for any train at all.

It should have remained a tube line. Linking it into the NR network was just
asking for problems. If it was a self contained tube line it could have had a
much better service frequency in the central section and since everyone thinks
closing the moorgate branch on thameslink was no big deal since everyone can
hope on the tube - the same logic applies, right? People from south london
could hope out at new cross (gate) and change.

--
Spud

On Wednesday, 4 March 2015 17:22:31 UTC, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:53:37 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
IME the Overground timetable is not "frequently up the bloody spout".

Indeed, and at 95.5%, it has the joint second highest PPM (punctuality)
moving average of all the operators in the country. Its moving average
cancellation and significant lateness (CaSL) figure, a measure of
reliability, is also one of the best at 1.8% (only c2c, Chiltern and HEx
are slightly better). That's not bad, considering that it shares lines with
LU, freight and lower performing TOCs.

See http://www.networkrail.co.uk/about/performance/

Well if the statistics say its great then obviously I was just imagining
waiting 10-15 minutes for a highbury train on numerous occasions or waiting
*at* highbury for any train at all.

It should have remained a tube line. Linking it into the NR network was just
asking for problems. If it was a self contained tube line it could have had a
much better service frequency in the central section and since everyone thinks
closing the moorgate branch on thameslink was no big deal since everyone can
hope on the tube - the same logic applies, right? People from south london
could hope out at new cross (gate) and change.

1. It was an infrequent, slow "tube" line. Without the extra passengers gained by
extra destinations there'd have been no justification for increased frequency - new
routes open up latent demand.

2. If it was rebranded back to London Underground, it wouldn't magically speed up.
It's an old and slow route, quite similar to parts of the District Line really.

2. People wouldn't change in massive numbers at New Cross Gate - they didn't
to the old East London Line.

3. Even if they did, New Cross Gate station wouldn't be able to cope with that
amount of interchange (even after rebuilding is complete)

4. Capacity and number of services at London Bridge are very reduced until 2018.
Overground via Canada Water has become the common route for stations between
Norwood Junction and New Cross Gate. That's not just passenger choice - in the
peaks the London Bridge service to these stations is now next to non-existent. (There
isn't a single southbound non-Overground train at Sydenham between 16:20 and
18:20, for example.)

5. We've really done this one to death now, surely?

On Wed, 4 Mar 2015 10:52:20 -0800 (PST)
Mark wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 March 2015 17:22:31 UTC, wrote:
It should have remained a tube line. Linking it into the NR network was just
asking for problems. If it was a self contained tube line it could have had a
much better service frequency in the central section and since everyone
thinks
closing the moorgate branch on thameslink was no big deal since everyone can
hope on the tube - the same logic applies, right? People from south london
could hope out at new cross (gate) and change.

1. It was an infrequent, slow "tube" line. Without the extra passengers gained
by
extra destinations there'd have been no justification for increased frequency
- new
routes open up latent demand.

I'm not suggesting it should have been pickled and left. If could still have
been extended to north to highbury and south queens road as a tube line and
whats more it could have been converted to ATO so allowing very high
frequencies.

2. If it was rebranded back to London Underground, it wouldn't magically speed
up.
It's an old and slow route, quite similar to parts of the District Line really.

The track has been more or less completely relaid throughout the length of
the old ELL. The only reason the service is slow is the semi comatose drivers
that seem to be employed on it. They'll close the doors. Wait up to 10 seconds
for god knows what, then slooooowly pull away at a snails pace.

2. People wouldn't change in massive numbers at New Cross Gate - they didn't
to the old East London Line.

They would if it was a much more frequent service to canada water.

3. Even if they did, New Cross Gate station wouldn't be able to cope with that
amount of interchange (even after rebuilding is complete)

Well that might be a fair point, I don't know, I've never been there.

4. Capacity and number of services at London Bridge are very reduced until
2018.
Overground via Canada Water has become the common route for stations between
Norwood Junction and New Cross Gate. That's not just passenger choice - in the
peaks the London Bridge service to these stations is now next to non-existent.
(There
isn't a single southbound non-Overground train at Sydenham between 16:20 and
18:20, for example.)

National Rails engineering works are irrelevant in this context since they
had no bearing on the ELL conversion to overground.

5. We've really done this one to death now, surely?

Well this is usenet.

--
Spud

On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 09:24:08AM +0000, d wrote:

I'm not suggesting it should have been pickled and left. If could still have
been extended to north to highbury and south queens road as a tube line and
whats more it could have been converted to ATO so allowing very high
frequencies.

I don't see much benefit from having another one station branch down to
Queens Road. You'd pretty much have to close one of either New Cross or
New Cross Gate at least. But which one? If you only consider the ELL
then it's obviously silly to have both of them, but when you look at the
network as a whole, they allow easy changes onto two different routes
further south.

--
David Cantrell | Nth greatest programmer in the world

Human Rights left unattended may be removed,
destroyed, or damaged by the security services.

On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 11:42:22 +0000
David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 09:24:08AM +0000, d wrote:

I'm not suggesting it should have been pickled and left. If could still have
been extended to north to highbury and south queens road as a tube line and
whats more it could have been converted to ATO so allowing very high
frequencies.

I don't see much benefit from having another one station branch down to

As a standalone line no, but if considered as a feed line off the southern
network then it makes sense.

Queens Road. You'd pretty much have to close one of either New Cross or
New Cross Gate at least. But which one? If you only consider the ELL
then it's obviously silly to have both of them, but when you look at the
network as a whole, they allow easy changes onto two different routes
further south.

The DLR has many different branches but the ATO copes there. I'm sure it
could have managed on an ELL with this layout.

--
Spud

On 2015\03\04 18:52, Mark wrote:

2. People wouldn't change in massive numbers at New Cross Gate - they didn't
to the old East London Line.

3. Even if they did, New Cross Gate station wouldn't be able to cope with that
amount of interchange (even after rebuilding is complete)

4. Capacity and number of services at London Bridge are very reduced until 2018.
Overground via Canada Water has become the common route for stations between
Norwood Junction and New Cross Gate. That's not just passenger choice - in the
peaks the London Bridge service to these stations is now next to non-existent. (There
isn't a single southbound non-Overground train at Sydenham between 16:20 and
18:20, for example.)

Wow. I'm surprised New Cross Gate station can cope with that amount of
interchange.

On 05/03/2015 22:48, Basil Jet wrote:

On 2015\03\04 18:52, Mark wrote:

2. People wouldn't change in massive numbers at New Cross Gate - they
didn't
to the old East London Line.

3. Even if they did, New Cross Gate station wouldn't be able to cope
with that
amount of interchange (even after rebuilding is complete)

4. Capacity and number of services at London Bridge are very reduced
until 2018.
Overground via Canada Water has become the common route for stations
between
Norwood Junction and New Cross Gate. That's not just passenger choice
- in the
peaks the London Bridge service to these stations is now next to
non-existent. (There
isn't a single southbound non-Overground train at Sydenham between
16:20 and
18:20, for example.)

Wow. I'm surprised New Cross Gate station can cope with that amount of
interchange.

There's been significant works at NXG (Mark refers to the 'rebuilding'
above) - new footbridge and lifts etc, which have provided some
breathing space:
http://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/new-cross-gate/