Tom Anderson wrote:
On 13 May 2004, McGinty51Road wrote:


From: (Boltar)

Dave Arquati wrote in message
...


Closure of Watford Met is deemed "possible" rather than certain.

Am I the only person who can't see the point of this link? If they
want the tube to go to Watford Junction why not just re-extend the
bakerloo line?

There is no reason why the Bakerloo's couldn't return to Watford
Junction as well as have the Croxley Link to brings the Mets in there
too! Re-instate Platform 5 at WJ and there is plenty of room.


Could it be something to do with the difficulties of sharing the track
between NR and LU? I get the impression that it's already a headache for
the Bakerloo, and that would only make it worse, wouldn't it?


While we are at it put in a station interchange between South
Kenton/Kenton by the Metropolitan Line bridge near to Northwick Park and
we will all get home a lot quicker!


I'm glad i'm not the only person who looks at maps of the network and
wonders why there are so many lines crossing without stations. LU are
doing something about the Central/Picc at Park Royal, but there seem to be
equally daft near-misses at West Ruislip (Central/Picc+Met), Kenton as you
mention, several points along the NLL and GOBLin (admittedly not LU's
fault) and more than i want to think about in south London (also generally
not LU's fault; one exception, and my particular favourite, is the
Northern/Sutton Loop miss at Morden - the far end of Morden tube depot is
hard by Morden South NR station: how hard could it have been to join the
dots here?).

tom

I think many such links are useful, but not useful enough to warrant the
extra costs. Park Royal fortunately is being part-funded by developers;
the crossing at West Ruislip is in a highly residential (even partly
rural) area, is far too close to West Ruislip station and the journey
opportunities it would create are partly catered for by the Park Royal
interchange anyway. Saying that, having a Chiltern interchange there
could be useful for prospective Chiltern passengers to Uxbridge and Harrow.

Goblin interchanges are difficult because the Goblin carries so little
traffic compared to other lines; it would be extrememely difficult to
justify interchange costs e.g. at Leytonstone. Somewhere like Tufnell
Park wouldn't be so difficult because there used to be a station there
anyway.

The NLL on the other hand is pretty busy and would be even busier with
better interchanges - which is probably precisely why they *aren't*
being built, as the NLL needs a capacity increase first.

Most possible interchanges have a whole host of problems associated with
them, mainly in terms of cost; the most feasible ones are often already
planned and need funding more than anything else, or are being lobbied
for. For example, Park Royal, Shepherd's Bush, Brixton (SLL/ELLX),
Loughborough Junction (SLL/ELLX), Tufnell Park, Brockley.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On Thu, 13 May 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

While we are at it put in a station interchange between South
Kenton/Kenton by the Metropolitan Line bridge near to Northwick Park
and we will all get home a lot quicker!

I'm glad i'm not the only person who looks at maps of the network and
wonders why there are so many lines crossing without stations. LU are
doing something about the Central/Picc at Park Royal, but there seem
to be equally daft near-misses at West Ruislip (Central/Picc+Met),
Kenton as you mention, several points along the NLL and GOBLin
(admittedly not LU's fault) and more than i want to think about in
south London (also generally not LU's fault; one exception, and my
particular favourite, is the Northern/Sutton Loop miss at Morden - the
far end of Morden tube depot is hard by Morden South NR station: how
hard could it have been to join the dots here?).

I think many such links are useful, but not useful enough to warrant the
extra costs.

Of course; my gripe (which i admit is mostly just for the fun of griping)
is that many of these could have been got right when the lines were built
in the first place.

Park Royal fortunately is being part-funded by developers; the crossing
at West Ruislip is in a highly residential (even partly rural) area, is
far too close to West Ruislip station and the journey opportunities it
would create are partly catered for by the Park Royal interchange
anyway. Saying that, having a Chiltern interchange there could be useful
for prospective Chiltern passengers to Uxbridge and Harrow.

A station there would have to replace the existing West Ruislip, i think
(and would admittedly be in a less useful place in the road network).
Anyway, i don't know what order those lines were built in, but whichever
was built later could have put a station at the crossing, that's the
thing.

Goblin interchanges are difficult because the Goblin carries so little
traffic compared to other lines; it would be extrememely difficult to
justify interchange costs e.g. at Leytonstone.

True, but the Goblin is absurdly underused. Not helped by the lack of
useful interchanges! The most frustrating thing is that all three of the
places where the Goblin crosses the West Anglia lines are close enough to
existing WA stations that building additional interchange stations there
would be absurd, and you couldn't close the old stations, because those
are now on the Victoria line!

The NLL on the other hand is pretty busy and would be even busier with
better interchanges - which is probably precisely why they *aren't*
being built, as the NLL needs a capacity increase first.

The NLL actually does alright for interchange at the moment; it misses the
Northern line, which is a real shame, and the Hackney/Hackney Downs
near-miss is unforgivable, but other than that, it's good. And, of course,
it completely fails to provide effective interchange with the Lea/Hertford
Union waterways at Hackney Wick .

Most possible interchanges have a whole host of problems associated with
them, mainly in terms of cost;

I'd pretty much assumed that. I mean, it's not like these things aren't
obviously a good idea if you forget about the money (mostly), so if
they're not being done, it must be a question of resources. And i'm not
saying TfL are wrong here; many of these bring disproportionately little
benefit.

the most feasible ones are often already planned and need funding more
than anything else, or are being lobbied for. For example, Park Royal,
Shepherd's Bush, Brixton (SLL/ELLX), Loughborough Junction (SLL/ELLX),
Tufnell Park, Brockley.

Brockley really ought to be easy. I have no idea how useful it would be,
though.

tom

--
I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson.

"Tom Anderson" wrote...

Of course; my gripe (which i admit is mostly just for the fun of griping)
is that many of these could have been got right when the lines were built
in the first place.


But many of those lines were built by rival companies, competing with each
other, not co-operating.

What's less forgivable is not adding a Northern line station at Morden Road
for interchange with Tramlink. Yeah, I know. Costs. But it's still a real
missed opportunity.

Anyway, i don't know what order those lines were built in, but whichever
was built later could have put a station at the crossing, that's the
thing.

They probably considered it, and decided against it because they'd have
trouble getting a good working agreement with their rivals.

(To give an extreme hypothetical example, if you're the second company and
you charge two shillings for a ticket to London, you're not likely to build
an interchange with a company that only charges one shilling!)



Brockley really ought to be easy. I have no idea how useful it would be,
though.


It'd be useful for me whenever I visit my dad. I live in Crystal Palace,
he's in Blackheath. Either I have to change at London Bridge (which means
Zone 1) or spend forever on a 202. The Brockley interchange could be a
perfect compromise.

"Dave Arquati" wrote...

Goblin interchanges are difficult because the Goblin carries so little
traffic compared to other lines (**snip**)

The NLL on the other hand is pretty busy and would be even busier with
better interchanges - which is probably precisely why they *aren't*
being built, as the NLL needs a capacity increase first.

And maybe giving the Goblin some new interchanges would encourage people to
use it instead of the NLL. (I'd likee to see a subsurface travelator
connecting Holloway Road to Archway, but it'd never happen!)


Most possible interchanges have a whole host of problems associated with
them, mainly in terms of cost; the most feasible ones are often already
planned and need funding more than anything else, or are being lobbied
for. For example, Park Royal, Shepherd's Bush, Brixton (SLL/ELLX),
Loughborough Junction (SLL/ELLX), Tufnell Park, Brockley.

What about Catford/Catford Bridge? That'd be another useful one, but it'd
never get permission.

On Fri, 14 May 2004 13:36:27 +0100, Barry Salter
wrote:


As for Hackney Downs/Central, there was a direct link between the two at
one point (complete with an intermediate Ticket hut to enable people to
rebook), but then the NLL station was moved and the link taken out.

I have long thought that the design of Hackney Downs did have
interchange with Hackney Central at some point. Your comment confirms
this - thank you.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

"Solar Penguin" wrote in
message ...

. . .

What's less forgivable is not adding a Northern line station at Morden
Road
for interchange with Tramlink. Yeah, I know. Costs. But it's still a
real
missed opportunity.

Probably cheaper and more useful to build a tramlink branch into Morden
centre from the existing line across Morden Hall Park. Underground stations
are very expensive!

--
Mark

On Fri, 14 May 2004, Solar Penguin wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote...

Of course; my gripe (which i admit is mostly just for the fun of
griping) is that many of these could have been got right when the
lines were built in the first place.

But many of those lines were built by rival companies, competing with
each other, not co-operating.

I realised that about ten minutes after i posted - doh!

Anyway, i don't know what order those lines were built in, but whichever
was built later could have put a station at the crossing, that's the
thing.

They probably considered it, and decided against it because they'd have
trouble getting a good working agreement with their rivals.

(To give an extreme hypothetical example, if you're the second company
and you charge two shillings for a ticket to London, you're not likely
to build an interchange with a company that only charges one shilling!)

I'm not 100% convinced by this. The fare structures would be such that it
wouldn't make sense to come into London with company A and change to
company B - it's unlikely the saving of a Country - Interchange ticket
over a Country - Terminus ticket would be enough to pay for a separate
Interchange - Terminus ticket with compnay B. Your only problem would be
people starting a journey near the station choosing the other company over
you, but then they're probably in a position to do that anyway.

tom

--
The burger place at the bottom of the Cowley road has a menu numbered from 1-80, but you can order up to 120 -- Dave Sheldon

On Fri, 14 May 2004, Barry Salter wrote:

On Thu, 13 May 2004 23:00:55 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

The NLL actually does alright for interchange at the moment; it misses
the Northern line, which is a real shame, and the Hackney/Hackney Downs
near-miss is unforgivable, but other than that, it's good. And, of
course, it completely fails to provide effective interchange with the
Lea/Hertford Union waterways at Hackney Wick .

Camden Road (NLL) to Camden Town (Northern Line) is about a 5 to 10
minute walk, depending on how fit you are. Not ideal, but it's
reasonable.

True. TfL really ought to adopt that walkline map.

As for Hackney Downs/Central, there was a direct link between the two at
one point (complete with an intermediate Ticket hut to enable people to
rebook), but then the NLL station was moved and the link taken out.

Interesting. Do you know why it was moved?

tom

--
The burger place at the bottom of the Cowley road has a menu numbered from 1-80, but you can order up to 120 -- Dave Sheldon