Tom Anderson wrote:
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.

The original problem is that TfL consider there not to be sufficient
demand to sustain the *current* level of service to central London
(whether that's Oxford Circus etc or Euston only) - I highly doubt that
an *increased* level of service would be viable - certainly not fundable.

The plan is to reduce services between Queen's Park and Wealdstone in
order to use the savings made to increase services where demand is too
high for the service level, i.e. the NLL.

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.

To be useful, those ELL services really need to run through to
Willesden, to make orbital journeys easier.

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

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Marratxi wrote:

"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.

Since when was Heraclitus in charge of Silverlink, then? 8)

tom

--
We all need mirrors to remind us who we are. -- Photophobe the Solipsist, of Memento

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
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

So, how about adding *more* trains to the Euston service, and running it
on a tube-like basis?

The original problem is that TfL consider there not to be sufficient
demand to sustain the *current* level of service to central London
(whether that's Oxford Circus etc or Euston only) - I highly doubt that
an *increased* level of service would be viable - certainly not
fundable.

I thought that the problem was south of Harrow, which is really about
having all the Bakerloos, which people don't want, alongside the handful
of Silverlinks, which people do want. Granted, running 12 tph of each is
definitely overkill (there's 4 + 7-14 at the moment, i think), but the
solution can't be to destroy the Silverlinks, it has to be to cut back the
Bakerloo and run more Silverlinks! How about 6 tph of each, or 8 of
Silverlinks and 4 of Bakerloo?

The bottleneck at Euston is the killer, though. In the long run, doubling
or Crossrail N will solve it, but in the short run, i suppose there's
nothing that can be done.

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.

To be useful, those ELL services really need to run through to
Willesden, to make orbital journeys easier.

True.

tom

--
We all need mirrors to remind us who we are. -- Photophobe the Solipsist, of Memento

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Barry Salter wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 21:31:16 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

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?

Unfortunately, it isn't, as the approach lines to Euston are shared with
Silverlink County services as far as Camden Junction (around 1.5 miles
out of Euston), and occasionally with Virgin departures from Platforms 1
to 7.

Ah, that's what i was afraid of.

12 tph of metro + not a lot of tph of county (7 in the peaks?) would fit
down those lines; the problem is that 12 tph of randomly-timed trains and
however many of timetabled trains would not - it would just shift the
interference problem from one place to another.

tom

--
We all need mirrors to remind us who we are. -- Photophobe the Solipsist, of Memento

The original problem is that TfL consider there not to be sufficient
demand to sustain the *current* level of service to central London
(whether that's Oxford Circus etc or Euston only) - I highly doubt that
an *increased* level of service would be viable - certainly not fundable.

If it's not feasible to increase the peak frequency of the Euston
service due to the Euston approach, then the Euston service can't
replace the Bakerloo. And I doubt TfL would want an "Underground"
line, if it runs at all, to run at less than the current 6tph
(off-peak) that the Bakerloo has to H&W. So if they're determined to
cut something back then I can see why the Euston service may not have
a future

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:


Tom Anderson wrote:

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

So, how about adding *more* trains to the Euston service, and running it
on a tube-like basis?

The original problem is that TfL consider there not to be sufficient
demand to sustain the *current* level of service to central London
(whether that's Oxford Circus etc or Euston only) - I highly doubt that
an *increased* level of service would be viable - certainly not
fundable.


I thought that the problem was south of Harrow, which is really about
having all the Bakerloos, which people don't want, alongside the handful
of Silverlinks, which people do want. Granted, running 12 tph of each is
definitely overkill (there's 4 + 7-14 at the moment, i think), but the
solution can't be to destroy the Silverlinks, it has to be to cut back the
Bakerloo and run more Silverlinks! How about 6 tph of each, or 8 of
Silverlinks and 4 of Bakerloo?

If the Bakerloo was originally cut back to Wealdstone because more
passengers north of there wanted Euston, then there must be a sizeable
number of passengers south of Wealdstone who want the Bakerloo - and the
number probably increases towards the centre - which would make cutting
back the Bakerloo an unpopular move.

From another point of view, I find it unlikely that more people want to
travel to the immediate vicinity of Euston than people who want to
continue further into either the City or West End.

The Bakerloo provides a service direct to the West End, and to all parts
of the City with a single change. Euston provides a direct service to
neither, requiring a single change in both cases. Euston also has an
interchange disadvantage compared to Bakerloo stations, particularly
when transferring to Euston Square.

Using the Bakerloo to reach the City must have a slightly slower journey
time, but the disbenefit for those travelling to the City is probably
well offset by the money saved from not running the Silverlink services.
If the Bakerloo were cut back instead of Silverlink, then everyone
wishing to reach anywhere not in the immediate vicinity of Euston will
have to change to the Underground - but if the Bakerloo provides the
sole service, then only passengers travelling to the City have to change
- and they had to anyway.

(snip)

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

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

From another point of view, I find it unlikely that more people want to
travel to the immediate vicinity of Euston than people who want to
continue further into either the City or West End.

The Bakerloo provides a service direct to the West End, and to all parts
of the City with a single change. Euston provides a direct service to
neither, requiring a single change in both cases. Euston also has an
interchange disadvantage compared to Bakerloo stations, particularly when
transferring to Euston Square.

Using the Bakerloo to reach the City must have a slightly slower journey
time, but the disbenefit for those travelling to the City is probably well
offset by the money saved from not running the Silverlink services. If the
Bakerloo were cut back instead of Silverlink, then everyone wishing to
reach anywhere not in the immediate vicinity of Euston will have to change
to the Underground - but if the Bakerloo provides the sole service, then
only passengers travelling to the City have to change - and they had to
anyway.

It's not just the City, Bloomsbury is most easily accessed from Euston, and
I found interchange to St Pancras and King's Cross (and of course Euston)
rail services quicker by foot from Euston than from a Bakerloo line station.

Euston also has step free access which no Bakerloo line stations in the
centre provides.

Dave.




(snip)

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

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

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

So, how about adding *more* trains to the Euston service, and running
it on a tube-like basis?

The original problem is that TfL consider there not to be sufficient
demand to sustain the *current* level of service to central London
(whether that's Oxford Circus etc or Euston only) - I highly doubt
that an *increased* level of service would be viable - certainly not
fundable.

I thought that the problem was south of Harrow, which is really about
having all the Bakerloos, which people don't want, alongside the
handful of Silverlinks, which people do want. Granted, running 12 tph
of each is definitely overkill (there's 4 + 7-14 at the moment, i
think), but the solution can't be to destroy the Silverlinks, it has
to be to cut back the Bakerloo and run more Silverlinks! How about 6
tph of each, or 8 of Silverlinks and 4 of Bakerloo?

If the Bakerloo was originally cut back to Wealdstone because more
passengers north of there wanted Euston, then there must be a sizeable
number of passengers south of Wealdstone who want the Bakerloo - and the
number probably increases towards the centre - which would make cutting
back the Bakerloo an unpopular move.

Probably true. The problem with the argument we're having is that we
actually don't know where people along that line want to go, and in what
numbers. We can make arguments either way, but we're really just guessing.

I wonder how much it varies over the course of the day; i wouldn't be at
all surprised if the demand for Euston is much higher than the demand for
the Bakerloo in the peaks, but much lower off-peak. This is rather
counterintuitive, but perhaps the changes you're backing should go ahead
off-peak, with the line basically being pure Bakerloo off-peak (all the
way to Watford, perhaps with a shuttle running Queen's Park - Euston),
with the Bakerloo being cut back to Queen's Park in the peaks, allowing a
reliable, high-frequency to Euston in the peaks.

From another point of view, I find it unlikely that more people want to
travel to the immediate vicinity of Euston than people who want to
continue further into either the City or West End.

I wouldn't be surprised if they did. Euston is at the heart of a major
employment hub, comparable to the City proper - Euston Road, Bloomsbury
and Holborn are all within walking distance of Euston.

Just because that's where UCL is doesn't mean it's an utter wasteland,
Dave .

The Bakerloo provides a service direct to the West End,

Sort of. Oxford Circus, Piccadilly Circus, Charing Cross; i guess it
depends on exactly where you want to go, but i always find these are too
far west for me (Piccadilly Circus? Come on! What's at Piccadilly
Circus?). I guess Oxford Circus is fine for Oxford Street if you want to
go shopping, though. I find the Northern line stops, easily reachable from
Euston, are much more useful. On the other hand, the Bakerloo does go to
Embankment, which is the best station for the south bank.

and to all parts of the City with a single change. Euston provides a
direct service to neither, requiring a single change in both cases.
Euston also has an interchange disadvantage compared to Bakerloo
stations, particularly when transferring to Euston Square.

True. As i mention above, though, some changes are easier - the Northern
line, basically.

Using the Bakerloo to reach the City must have a slightly slower journey
time, but the disbenefit for those travelling to the City is probably
well offset by the money saved from not running the Silverlink services.

You're not proposing reinvesting that money to help those people, though?
You want to take the resources away from the people of Bakerland (or
Watfordland, or Brent D. C. or whatever you want to call it) and
reallocate them to the citizens of North London Linia. Not that this is
necessarily a bad thing, of course; greatest need and all that.

I am going to stop trying to invent placenames based on railway lines now.

If the Bakerloo were cut back instead of Silverlink, then everyone
wishing to reach anywhere not in the immediate vicinity of Euston will
have to change to the Underground - but if the Bakerloo provides the
sole service, then only passengers travelling to the City have to change
- and they had to anyway.

Unless they want to go to Euston or somewhere on the Northern line, which
i think a lot do.

tom

--
It involves police, bailiffs, vampires and a portal to hell under a tower block in Hackney.

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

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

So, how about adding *more* trains to the Euston service, and running
it on a tube-like basis?

The original problem is that TfL consider there not to be sufficient
demand to sustain the *current* level of service to central London
(whether that's Oxford Circus etc or Euston only) - I highly doubt
that an *increased* level of service would be viable - certainly not
fundable.

I thought that the problem was south of Harrow, which is really about
having all the Bakerloos, which people don't want, alongside the
handful of Silverlinks, which people do want. Granted, running 12 tph
of each is definitely overkill (there's 4 + 7-14 at the moment, i
think), but the solution can't be to destroy the Silverlinks, it has
to be to cut back the Bakerloo and run more Silverlinks! How about 6
tph of each, or 8 of Silverlinks and 4 of Bakerloo?

If the Bakerloo was originally cut back to Wealdstone because more
passengers north of there wanted Euston, then there must be a sizeable
number of passengers south of Wealdstone who want the Bakerloo - and the
number probably increases towards the centre - which would make cutting
back the Bakerloo an unpopular move.

Probably true. The problem with the argument we're having is that we
actually don't know where people along that line want to go, and in what
numbers. We can make arguments either way, but we're really just guessing.

Yup, that's true; I'd love to see some figures.

I wonder how much it varies over the course of the day; i wouldn't be at
all surprised if the demand for Euston is much higher than the demand for
the Bakerloo in the peaks, but much lower off-peak. This is rather
counterintuitive, but perhaps the changes you're backing should go ahead
off-peak, with the line basically being pure Bakerloo off-peak (all the
way to Watford, perhaps with a shuttle running Queen's Park - Euston),
with the Bakerloo being cut back to Queen's Park in the peaks, allowing a
reliable, high-frequency to Euston in the peaks.

That might work but it complicates the service somewhat (say you want to
head home from Bank to Willesden Junction; you need to check what time
of day it is before you set off via either the Central/Bakerloo or the
Northern/Silverlink), which could be an annoyance.

At least if it were Bakerloo all day, then you could be sure to head for
Oxford Circus. It would probably be annoying with either a gradual
switchover from off-peak to peak (or v.v.) or a sudden one - if it's
gradual, you get a split service from both Euston and Oxford Circus
which annoys everyone, and if it's sudden, then you might get stuck on
the way to Oxford Circus and miss the Bakerloo services out to
Willesden, and have to switch direction and head for Euston instead.

From another point of view, I find it unlikely that more people want to
travel to the immediate vicinity of Euston than people who want to
continue further into either the City or West End.

I wouldn't be surprised if they did. Euston is at the heart of a major
employment hub, comparable to the City proper - Euston Road, Bloomsbury
and Holborn are all within walking distance of Euston.

Holborn might be walking distance from Euston for you or me, but I'm
sure many would be put off by such a walk...

Just because that's where UCL is doesn't mean it's an utter wasteland,
Dave .

Well, what did you expect... South Kensington is the real centre of the
universe!

The Bakerloo provides a service direct to the West End,

Sort of. Oxford Circus, Piccadilly Circus, Charing Cross; i guess it
depends on exactly where you want to go, but i always find these are too
far west for me (Piccadilly Circus? Come on! What's at Piccadilly
Circus?). I guess Oxford Circus is fine for Oxford Street if you want to
go shopping, though. I find the Northern line stops, easily reachable from
Euston, are much more useful. On the other hand, the Bakerloo does go to
Embankment, which is the best station for the south bank.

I'm sure a large number of offices are within easy walking distance from
Bakerloo line stations. Piccadilly Circus is one of the most useful
stations in London! Admittedly for me it's usually a starting point to
waste money on things I don't need (alcoholic or otherwise) but there's
very dense employment around there.

The Northern line destinations which are easily reachable from Euston
seem equally reachable using the Bakerloo, since you have to change at
Euston anyway.

and to all parts of the City with a single change. Euston provides a
direct service to neither, requiring a single change in both cases.
Euston also has an interchange disadvantage compared to Bakerloo
stations, particularly when transferring to Euston Square.

True. As i mention above, though, some changes are easier - the Northern
line, basically.

Admittedly I've rarely done that change, but is it really any easier
than the change at Oxford Circus to the Central?

Using the Bakerloo to reach the City must have a slightly slower journey
time, but the disbenefit for those travelling to the City is probably
well offset by the money saved from not running the Silverlink services.


You're not proposing reinvesting that money to help those people, though?
You want to take the resources away from the people of Bakerland (or
Watfordland, or Brent D. C. or whatever you want to call it) and
reallocate them to the citizens of North London Linia. Not that this is
necessarily a bad thing, of course; greatest need and all that.

I'm working on TfL's ideas - TfL think there is an oversupply of service
between Wealdstone and Queen's Park, and that the money that could be
saved by reducing the service there could be redistributed to the NLL
which is in more need. I'm assuming that they've done their homework and
that the DfT is happy with it - however, I don't have the hard facts.

I am going to stop trying to invent placenames based on railway lines now.

Metroland seemed to work!

If the Bakerloo were cut back instead of Silverlink, then everyone
wishing to reach anywhere not in the immediate vicinity of Euston will
have to change to the Underground - but if the Bakerloo provides the
sole service, then only passengers travelling to the City have to change
- and they had to anyway.

Unless they want to go to Euston or somewhere on the Northern line, which
i think a lot do.

Let's do a passenger survey! Volunteers please...

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

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:08:40 +0100, Dave Arquati
wrote:

That might work but it complicates the service somewhat (say you want to
head home from Bank to Willesden Junction; you need to check what time
of day it is before you set off via either the Central/Bakerloo or the
Northern/Silverlink), which could be an annoyance.

At least if it were Bakerloo all day, then you could be sure to head for
Oxford Circus. It would probably be annoying with either a gradual
switchover from off-peak to peak (or v.v.) or a sudden one - if it's
gradual, you get a split service from both Euston and Oxford Circus
which annoys everyone, and if it's sudden, then you might get stuck on
the way to Oxford Circus and miss the Bakerloo services out to
Willesden, and have to switch direction and head for Euston instead.

Not necessary - you would *always* be able to get the Bakerloo to
Queen's Park, and then change there if necessary. Just like most
people do currently in fact (only 1 Bakerloo in 3 continues through to
Harrow & Wealdstone, and there's a chance of connecting with a
Silverlink ex Euston) - unless, of course, they wish to memorise the
Silverlink times and travel from Euston instead (which commuters would
be more prepared/likely to do).

I'm sure a large number of offices are within easy walking distance from
Bakerloo line stations. Piccadilly Circus is one of the most useful
stations in London! Admittedly for me it's usually a starting point to
waste money on things I don't need (alcoholic or otherwise) but there's
very dense employment around there.

The Northern line destinations which are easily reachable from Euston
seem equally reachable using the Bakerloo, since you have to change at
Euston anyway.

Yeah but the point is, the Silverlink offers a reduced journey time to
many locations compared to the Bakerloo. By the time the Silverlink
reaches Euston, the Bakerloo is still at Edgware Road.

and to all parts of the City with a single change. Euston provides a
direct service to neither, requiring a single change in both cases.
Euston also has an interchange disadvantage compared to Bakerloo
stations, particularly when transferring to Euston Square.

True. As i mention above, though, some changes are easier - the Northern
line, basically.

Admittedly I've rarely done that change, but is it really any easier
than the change at Oxford Circus to the Central?

I'd say journey time is what matters more to commuters and regular
travellers anyway.