On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 11:13:31 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

They do exist alright, they control when the drivers work, have lunch breaks
and go home. Mess that up and you are paying a hell of a lot more overtime
than if you mess around a couple of Silverlink drivers.

Perhaps so, but that's irrelevant to the passenger, who should take
priority here. Most LUL passengers are turn-up-and-go, and so to them
the timetable doesn't matter. Most passengers for a half-hourly heavy
rail service are not.

Anyhow, we're talking about a few minutes here and there, not hours on
end. That really shouldn't, unless the diagrams are far too tightly
planned, end up in the payment of masses of overtime.

I think it is unfair to blame LU for what goes on on that line.

I'm not *blaming* LUL. I just suggest that the punctuality or
otherwise of their services should be secondary to ones that need,
from a passenger perspective, to run to time. To be honest, I'd be
more inclined to lose the SS service completely and run the Bakerloo
through to Watford - it'd simplify the whole sorry mess. The
Harlequin Line, NLL and the likes are an embarrassment to a capital
city, TBH.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Neil Williams wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 11:13:31 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:


They do exist alright, they control when the drivers work, have lunch breaks
and go home. Mess that up and you are paying a hell of a lot more overtime
than if you mess around a couple of Silverlink drivers.


Perhaps so, but that's irrelevant to the passenger, who should take
priority here. Most LUL passengers are turn-up-and-go, and so to them
the timetable doesn't matter. Most passengers for a half-hourly heavy
rail service are not.

Anyhow, we're talking about a few minutes here and there, not hours on
end. That really shouldn't, unless the diagrams are far too tightly
planned, end up in the payment of masses of overtime.


I think it is unfair to blame LU for what goes on on that line.


I'm not *blaming* LUL. I just suggest that the punctuality or
otherwise of their services should be secondary to ones that need,
from a passenger perspective, to run to time. To be honest, I'd be
more inclined to lose the SS service completely and run the Bakerloo
through to Watford - it'd simplify the whole sorry mess. The
Harlequin Line, NLL and the likes are an embarrassment to a capital
city, TBH.

TfL are set to direct the Silverlink Metro services soon, and they are
seriously considering re-extending the Bakerloo to Watford and
re-assessing the Silverlink services - they consider that there is an
over-supply of service to central London between Wealdstone and Queen's
Park. Some services from Watford might be diverted down the West London
Line.

The money (and stock) saved from any cuts to the Silverlink Watford
service would be used to augment North London Line services, which
desperately need an improved frequency.

At the risk of self-promotion:
http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/66

Interestingly, a cut to Watford-Euston services would place the future
of Kilburn High Road and South Hampstead in doubt... and Kilburn High
Road is already "temporarily" closed because of the fire. At one point,
it was considered that future orbital services from the ELL would run
via Camden Road, Primrose Hill, South Hampstead and Kilburn High Road to
Willesden Junction, but that could be some way off.

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

TfL are set to direct the Silverlink Metro services soon,

Any idea how soon is soon?

and they are
seriously considering re-extending the Bakerloo to Watford and
re-assessing the Silverlink services - they consider that there is an
over-supply of service to central London between Wealdstone and Queen's
Park.

I think people here are underestimating how popular Euston is as a
destination - last time I was in the area around morning peak time
(Willesden Junction at 9:30am on a weekday), the southbound Bakerloo
trains were practically empty (even the ones that hadn't just come
from the depot), but when a southbound Silverlink turned up (7 mins
late) it was *packed solid*. Don't forget the Silverlink runs almost
non-stop from Queen's Park to Euston (a fair distance), which is handy
if you want that part of London without all the faffing around in the
Warwick Ave/Paddington area. According to CULG, the reason the
Bakerloo was cut back from Watford to Wealdstone was that almost all
passengers north of Wealdstone wanted to go to Euston.

To be honest I'd probably be happiest with the status quo, provided
they can get everything running on time. Otherwise, I think it'd be
best if the Bakerloo were cut back to Queen's Park (except for depot
access) and the Silverlink frequency were boosted to a decent level
(say 12tph peak, 6tph off-peak?). Anyone wanting the Bakerloo would
have an easy cross-platform change at Queen's Park with only a short
wait (much of the time there's a Bakerloo already waiting in the
platform). The separation of services would presumably solve the
current problems, and there would be high frequencies all round (and
to both choices of central destination).

Otherwise, I suppose another way to segregate the services would be to
extend the Bakerloo to Watford and turn the Silverlink into a Queen's
Park - Euston shuttle, but I don't think that would work as well or be
as popular.

Some services from Watford might be diverted down the West London Line.

Would they be able to stop at Willesden Junction?

asdf wrote:
TfL are set to direct the Silverlink Metro services soon,


Any idea how soon is soon?

The whole Silverlink Metro under TfL plan is essentially a pilot project
under the new Railways Act 2005 which provides for enhanced powers for
devolved administrations. Most of the Act is supposed to be in force by
November; it's anyone's guess when TfL would be allowed to get their
eager mitts on Silverlink Metro. I'd guess either latter half of this
year or early half or next year - their plans seem to be quite advanced
but it all depends on what the DfT decide.

and they are
seriously considering re-extending the Bakerloo to Watford and
re-assessing the Silverlink services - they consider that there is an
over-supply of service to central London between Wealdstone and Queen's
Park.


I think people here are underestimating how popular Euston is as a
destination - last time I was in the area around morning peak time
(Willesden Junction at 9:30am on a weekday), the southbound Bakerloo
trains were practically empty (even the ones that hadn't just come
from the depot), but when a southbound Silverlink turned up (7 mins
late) it was *packed solid*. Don't forget the Silverlink runs almost
non-stop from Queen's Park to Euston (a fair distance), which is handy
if you want that part of London without all the faffing around in the
Warwick Ave/Paddington area. According to CULG, the reason the
Bakerloo was cut back from Watford to Wealdstone was that almost all
passengers north of Wealdstone wanted to go to Euston.

I've noticed this on CULG before too, and it did make me wonder about
the TfL proposal.

It would be enlightening to see where they wanted to go upon reaching
Euston - are they generally heading for the West End or City (and
therefore need to change to the Underground anyway, so they could find a
relatively painless alternative route using the Bakerloo) or are they
heading for the vicinity of Euston, where it would make a significant
difference to their journey time if they had to use the Bakerloo?

Similarly, if people north of Wealdstone want to go to Euston, perhaps
they would be better served by a train which didn't stop at all stations
south thereof?

To be honest I'd probably be happiest with the status quo, provided
they can get everything running on time. Otherwise, I think it'd be
best if the Bakerloo were cut back to Queen's Park (except for depot
access) and the Silverlink frequency were boosted to a decent level
(say 12tph peak, 6tph off-peak?). Anyone wanting the Bakerloo would
have an easy cross-platform change at Queen's Park with only a short
wait (much of the time there's a Bakerloo already waiting in the
platform). The separation of services would presumably solve the
current problems, and there would be high frequencies all round (and
to both choices of central destination).

Presumably a reasonable number of passengers *south* of Wealdstone want
to go places other than Euston (as Wealdstone was chosen as the
truncated Bakerloo terminus), so running only Silverlinks north of
Queen's Park would be pretty unpopular.

Otherwise, I suppose another way to segregate the services would be to
extend the Bakerloo to Watford and turn the Silverlink into a Queen's
Park - Euston shuttle, but I don't think that would work as well or be
as popular.

A shuttle would probably be pointless given the availability of
alternative stations at Kilburn Park and Swiss Cottage with a much wider
range of destinations.

Some services from Watford might be diverted down the West London Line.


Would they be able to stop at Willesden Junction?

Not given the current infrastructure, but it would be possible if some
extra platforms were built... and maybe that would be possible using
some of the savings from not running the current Watford-Euston service
(presumably a hypothetical Watford-Clapham service would not be as high
frequency, so savings would be made).

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

Dave Arquati wrote:

It would be enlightening to see where they wanted to go upon
reaching Euston - are they generally heading for the West End
or City (and therefore need to change to the Underground anyway,
so they could find a relatively painless alternative route
using the Bakerloo) or are they heading for the vicinity of
Euston, where it would make a significant difference to their
journey time if they had to use the Bakerloo?

I've always wondered about this too. It seems to me that if the DC
service was curtailed in some way, maintaining the painless
cross-platform interchange available at Queens Park and Willesden
Junction would be critical. Restoring the second bay at Willesden LL
and installing a scissors-Y junction like the one that used to be at
Harrow Weald would be very useful, especially if any services started
via the incline to the east of the DC lines.


Similarly, if people north of Wealdstone want to go to Euston,
perhaps they would be better served by a train which didn't
stop at all stations south thereof?

Indeed. If I lived in Bushey and wanted to go to London I would catch a
DC service to Watford and get something fast.


Otherwise, I suppose another way to segregate the services
would be to extend the Bakerloo to Watford and turn the
Silverlink into a Queen's Park - Euston shuttle, but I don't
think that would work as well or be as popular.

A shuttle would probably be pointless given the availability of
alternative stations at Kilburn Park and Swiss Cottage with a
much wider range of destinations.

Not really. A Euston-Willesden shuttle might be worth investigating if
the DC service was to be largely superseded by a Bakerloo service to
Watford. It would maintain the interchange with the NLL and prevent
overcrowding on that section of the Bakerloo.


Would they be able to stop at Willesden Junction?

Not given the current infrastructure, but it would be possible
if some extra platforms were built... and maybe that would be
possible using some of the savings from not running the current
Watford-Euston service (presumably a hypothetical Watford-Clapham
service would not be as high frequency, so savings would be made).

The biggest problems at Willesden a

- short high-level platforms
- no easy west-facing route from the DC lines to the NLL

The former is not really critical, but the latter would involve some
major backflips. But if it were possible, services could be diverted to
Clapham and even Richmond!

Similarly, if people north of Wealdstone want to go to Euston, perhaps
they would be better served by a train which didn't stop at all stations
south thereof?

Perhaps worth noting that it's possible for them to change at Harrow &
Wealdstone for a Silverlink County non-stopper to Euston (although
currently there aren't always reasonable such connections in the
timetable). Not much use though I suppose if the shared running with
the Bakerloo makes all the trains late thus missing the connection.

Presumably a reasonable number of passengers *south* of Wealdstone want
to go places other than Euston (as Wealdstone was chosen as the
truncated Bakerloo terminus), so running only Silverlinks north of
Queen's Park would be pretty unpopular.

This would be mitigated by the easy cross-platform interchange at
Queen's Park. Although I accept that some people hate changing trains
regardless.

A shuttle would probably be pointless given the availability of
alternative stations at Kilburn Park and Swiss Cottage with a much wider
range of destinations.

I was thinking also of keeping Euston available as a destination from
north of Queens Park.

Some services from Watford might be diverted down the West London Line.

Would they be able to stop at Willesden Junction?

Not given the current infrastructure, but it would be possible if some
extra platforms were built...

It does seem a bit pointless though, just so that they can run through
trains without people having to change at Willesden (albeit a faily
inconvenient one from LL to HL). IMO the service pattern could do
without being made more complicated. A decent Willesden-Clapham
frequency is what's needed more than anything.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, asdf wrote:

and they are seriously considering re-extending the Bakerloo to Watford
and re-assessing the Silverlink services - they consider that there is
an over-supply of service to central London between Wealdstone and
Queen's Park.

I think people here are underestimating how popular Euston is as a
destination

Very true.

So, how about adding *more* trains to the Euston service, and running it
on a tube-like basis? Rather than trying to stick to a timetable in the
face of Bakerloos running about the place, just provide a high-frequency
service without a declared timetable. That should simplify operations on
the line - it would be just like other bits of track shared between two
tube lines, such as the Met/Picc beyond Rayner's Lane. Obvious problems
with this are the need for more rolling stock (bound to be some 313s
knocking around they could use!) and the issue of terminating such a
service at Euston - i haven't the faintest idea what the approach to
Euston is like; is there any chance it could take 12 tph?

The service pattern could look broadly like:

Watford Junction - Euston: 12 tph
Watford Junction * - Elephant & Castle: 12 tph
Queen's Park - Elephant & Castle: 12 tph

* Or Harrow & Wealdstone, if there really isn't demand.

That leaves capacity on the NR branch south of Queen's Park which could be
used for ELL services. I have no idea how they'd reverse at Queen's Park;
come to think of it, i have no idea how Bakerloos reverse either.

tom

--
Intensive Erfrischung

"Chris Tolley" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:31:06 +0100, Marratxi wrote:
Yes, but the Bakerloo trains cannot be blamed for making Silverlink
Metro
trains late arriving at Hatch End from Watford.
Not only can they be blamed for it, they might well be the cause of it.
Short of building in huge layovers at Watford (which could cause other
problems if trains run punctually), it's a fact that a train delayed on
the outward journey may already be running late before it even starts
back.
--
However, I don't think that is the cause. The train which arrives at Watford
Junction is hardly ever the one which then sets off back to Euston.
Cheerz,
Baz

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
...
(bound to be some 313s knocking around they could use!)

I refer you to the content of your Organization box. ;-))