PRAR wrote:
wrote:
"Jonn Elledge" wrote...

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?

Because the track is third rail electrified. Getting safety rules
changed is difficult at the best of times, and in this case it's
certainly not worth the effort. Conversion of the line to tramway will
bring real benefits, giving much better interchange (serving Annerley
station and Crystal Palace bus station) and increased frequency.

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).

Unless service patterns have changed in the last year or so, some of the
trains split at Purley. Why not take over half of that service?