Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

I often travel from Hatch End to Euston, sometimes changing to the County
service at Harrow & Wealdstone. The Silverlink County services are fairly
good on timekeeping but I don't think I have had one of their Metro trains
on time for years !!
Cheerz,
Baz

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

Barry Salter wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 00:13:25 +0100, "Marratxi"
wrote:

I often travel from Hatch End to Euston, sometimes changing to the
County
service at Harrow & Wealdstone. The Silverlink County services are
fairly
good on timekeeping but I don't think I have had one of their Metro
trains
on time for years !!

If the second reversing siding at Harrow & Wealdstone was restored it
would go some way to clearing the backlog of late running Bakerloo's
and getting the Metro's to run to some semblence of a timetable.

Burkey

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

"Barry Salter" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 00:13:25 +0100, "Marratxi"
wrote:
I often travel from Hatch End to Euston, sometimes changing to the County
service at Harrow & Wealdstone. The Silverlink County services are fairly
good on timekeeping but I don't think I have had one of their Metro
trains
on time for years !!
At a guess, it's partly to do with having to share the route with
Bakerloo Line trains between Kensal Green and Harrow & Wealdstone.
Looking at the Live Departures for Kenton right now on the National Rail
site, for instance, shows three Bakerloo trains heading for Harrow: one
13 minutes late, one 5 minutes late and the third 6 minutes late, with
the Silverlink services showing as On Time.
Cheers,
Barry

Yes, but the Bakerloo trains cannot be blamed for making Silverlink Metro
trains late arriving at Hatch End from Watford. Are the schedules just
unworkable, the trains incapable of maintaining the timings ?
Regardz,
Baz

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

"Marratxi" wrote in message
...
Yes, but the Bakerloo trains cannot be blamed for making Silverlink Metro
trains late arriving at Hatch End from Watford. Are the schedules just
unworkable, the trains incapable of maintaining the timings ?

Of course they can. If the Bakerloo is in such disarray as to cause
Watford-bound services to be significantly late on the outward journey then
they will quite likely be late on their return, making them late slotting in
between Bakerloo services from Queens Park and making them even later on
their London-bound journey. However much recovery time is built in at the
terminii for turning trains back can easily be used up if the Bakerloo
section is completely SNAFU'd and delays can accumulate throughout the day.

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

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.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683696.html
(51368 in chocolate and cream for "GWR 150" in 1985)

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

"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.

Yes, I can see that but I've also travelled in from Watford Junction on the
DC lines and I can tell you that there seems to be quite a long layover
there with as many as two or three trains in the station.
Cheerz,
Baz

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

"Marratxi" wrote in message
...

Yes, I can see that but I've also travelled in from Watford Junction on
the
DC lines and I can tell you that there seems to be quite a long layover
there with as many as two or three trains in the station.

One is often stabled there as cover in the event of a failure. You could
argue that this should be used in the event of serious late running but the
problem is most likely then one of late incoming train crew.

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...

"Marratxi" wrote in message
...
Yes, but the Bakerloo trains cannot be blamed for making Silverlink Metro
trains late arriving at Hatch End from Watford. Are the schedules just
unworkable, the trains incapable of maintaining the timings ?

Of course they can. If the Bakerloo is in such disarray as to cause
Watford-bound services to be significantly late on the outward journey
then
they will quite likely be late on their return, making them late slotting
in
between Bakerloo services from Queens Park and making them even later on
their London-bound journey. However much recovery time is built in at the
terminii for turning trains back can easily be used up if the Bakerloo
section is completely SNAFU'd and delays can accumulate throughout the
day.


Silverlink trains ALWAYS get priority over Bakerloo trains at Queens Park on
the Northbound
quite often causing "blocking-back" or queing from Paddington. Sillylinks
also get the same
priority everywhere else (holding trains in the Harrow siding/ Stonebridge
reception roads)
It's all to do with the Network Rail signaller and his/her targets.
Sometimes I think they fail to
see the bigger picture eg Holding a Bakerloo in the siding at Harrow for
2-3mins with another
on the platform and a Sillylink outside on the north just so a southbound
train can remain on time.
They both would run alot better if they kept to their own section. But them
the poor travelling
public would suffer. Then of cause there's always points/signal failures,
defective trains etc etc

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 22:03:04 +0000 (UTC), "Colin"
wrote:

Silverlink trains ALWAYS get priority over Bakerloo trains at Queens Park on
the Northbound
quite often causing "blocking-back" or queing from Paddington.

I'd suggest that it is more important to give Silverlink priority
given their lower service frequency. LUL, generally speaking, operate
a turn-up-and-go type service where few will refer to timetables, even
though they do exist.

The half-hourly Silverlink service isn't frequent enough for this, so
delaying a Bakerloo train a couple of minutes (or sending one off
early, for that matter) is less of a concern, and is probably
worthwhile overall to keep the Silverlink on time.

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.

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...

I'd suggest that it is more important to give
Silverlink priority given their lower service frequency.
LUL, generally speaking, operate a turn-up-and-go
type service where few will refer to timetables, even
though they do exist.

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.

The half-hourly Silverlink service isn't frequent
enough for this, so delaying a Bakerloo train a
couple of minutes (or sending one off early, for
that matter) is less of a concern, and is probably
worthwhile overall to keep the Silverlink on time.

*Every* *single* *time* I've tried to catch Silverlink from Kilburn High
Road to Euston, the train has been announced as cancelled and I've had to
walk to Kilburn Park instead (this was before the station burned down,
obviously). They would keep me waiting until ten minutes after the scheduled
departure time before the tannoy would suddenly announce that my train
wasn't coming because it had not left Watford Junction half an hour earlier.
*******s. I think it is unfair to blame LU for what goes on on that line.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

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.

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

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

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

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?

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

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

TfL and Silverlink Metro ( Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?)
 

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!

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

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.

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

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.

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

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

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

"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

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

"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. ;-))

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

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

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

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

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

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

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

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

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

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 :(

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

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

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

"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

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

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.

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

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

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

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.

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:

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 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.

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...

http://map.tfl.gov.uk/buslinear.asp?route=92
http://map.tfl.gov.uk/buslinear.asp?route=59
http://map.tfl.gov.uk/buslinear.asp?route=68
http://map.tfl.gov.uk/buslinear.asp?route=168

:)

I take your point, though, it's about a mile, and even the interchange at
Oxford Circus isn't that long.

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'm sure a large number of offices are within easy walking distance from
Bakerloo line stations.

True - all that Paddington Basin stuff, plus the Embankment.

The Bakerloo does seem to do a very good job of running under posh, quiet
bits of central London on its way into town, though. The environs of
Paddington and Marylebone are not exactly the hives of activity that
surround Liverpool Street or Waterloo.

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.

One of the things i find most fascinating about London is the way that
some many people can live here and yet have such different lives, even if
doing ostensibly similar things; i manage to waste plenty of money on
unnecessary things which are probably broadly similar to yours, and yet i
rarely step over the Central line, and then it's only ever a run down
Charing Cross road for books, films, chinese buns, etc. London's almost
like ten or twenty separate cities, occupying the same physical space but
lying parallel to each other in some psychosocial dimension.

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?

Pulling your own teeth is easier than that doing anything at Oxford Circus
when it's busy.

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.

No, fair enough, that wasn't a criticism.

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

Metroland seemed to work!

True. Maybe Ken's planning to rebrand the swath of Brent around the line
as Bakerland and regenerate it. After all, he's a Brentish man himself.

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...

I'm going to email LTUC and get them to do it.

tom

--
Our only chance for survival is better engineering. -- James Dyson

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

It was a dark and stormy night when Tom Anderson
wrote in article
i...
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Marratxi wrote:


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)

*frenzied applause*
--
Grebbsy McLaren

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

"Grebbsy McLaren" wrote in message
...
It was a dark and stormy night when Tom Anderson
wrote in article
i...
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Marratxi wrote:

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)
*frenzied applause*
--
Groan !!
Baz ;-)

Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ?
 

2) If the Metro service were entirely self-contained, and the extra
stock was available, then 12tph would be feasible (as witnessed at
Moorgate in the peaks, and that's with just *two* platforms).

And that's nothing compared to Brixton, which (IIRC) has the same
layout and handles 30tph in the peaks.