On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:56:22 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message
...

ICBWB I thought that one of the points of the Crystal
Palace extension was that it allows the Beckhenham
Junction-Crystal Palace service to remain, while trains
to Crystal Palace could be diverted to somewhere more
useful - Croydon, for example. So the frequency to London
should remain the same, but the frequency to Croydon
would increase.

The main point is that the Tramlink Beckenham single track section is a PITA
and Tramlink wants to take over the other track.

Why can't they share the track in the same way Nexus and * do at
Sunderland?

Running trams between
Beckenham and CP is something they just have to do in order to get their
hands on the track. If the existing trains were that empty, the service
would just be closed,

They may be empty between Crystal Palace and Beckenham Junction, but
they are not Empty north of Crystal Palace, they are an integral part
of the service pattern. I doubt there is scope to divert them to
terminate at West Croydon or East Croydon, and running further out
would require more stock (and more importantly paths on the lines
adjacent to Selhurst depot).




* insert correct name of operator at this point.

PRAR
--
http://www.i.am/prar/
As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it. Dick Cavett
Please reply to the newsgroup. That is why it exists.
NB Anti-spam measures in force
- If you must email me use the Reply to address and not