On Fri, 20 May 2005 23:42:14 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005, TheOneKEA wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:

A loop at Herne Hill is not the only way to increase capacity on the Vic
- a flying terminus would do the job just as well, without the pain of
turning trains around.

What the hell is a flying terminus? I'm getting visions of some sort of
Hayao Miyazaki sort of affair ...

Maybe he means like on the Piccadilly at Heathrow, or the Liverpool loop
line.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/ps9680060.html
(British Electric Locomotives)

Many of the other suggestions are sound, though. I share his frustration
over Earl's Court

Me too - it's really inconvenient that there's no proper interchange
between the WLL and the Picc.

- it (or the WLL, depending on how you look at it) is
just in the wrong place for interchange with the WLL (and concomitant
extermination of the Kenny O stub, which i find really irritating).

You may find the Olympia stub irritating, but many others find it useful
- it has good interchange at Earl's Court across the platform to
services towards Victoria or Edgware Road, and is relatively reliable
compared to the WLL.

What I'd really like to see done with the Olympia branch, is
restoration of the through services from Earl's Court to Willesden
Junction. (OK so it's totally unrealistic. But maybe one day the WLL
will be quadrupled or something - it is supposed to have major
capacity problems after all - and it'll become possible

In message , Tom
Anderson writes

That is one conclusion. The other is that the shops and the exhibition
centre are in the wrong place.

That isn't an entirely facetious comment - the location of the station
probably had a lot to do with the structure of development in the area.

When the line was built through Earls Court in 1869, no station was
thought necessary as the area was still mostly market gardens.

Housing rapidly followed the railway and, after petitioning by residents
a small wooden station was built to the EAST of Earl's Court Road in
1871 (where lonelytraveller suggests it should be now).

This burned down in 1875 and was replaced by the present station, a
larger site being deemed necessary as the area was rapidly becoming
built-up. What is now the Earl's Court Exhibition Centre was just waste
ground (but used for various shows) on the triangle created by the
railway lines to the west of the new station - the exhibition hall was
not completed until 1937.

So the area actually developed around the railway, rather than
vice-versa.

--
Paul Terry

Tom Anderson wrote:

I might have lost the plot, but that seems to make no sense
whatsoever - making the line longer wouldn't have capacity
implications. You could run trains at exactly the same frequency
(if you had a few more), so as far as Brixton is concerned, it
wouldn't be any different. Or am i being stupid?

Extending the line and adding more stations increases the number of
passengers that the line must carry. To ensure that loadings remain
even, train frequency must be increased to compensate, which is the
problem at hand.

All Victoria Line trains that can be used are in use, AFAIK. The only
way to get more trains is to build them - the 2009TS.


However, what i really want to know is ...

A loop at Herne Hill is not the only way to increase capacity
on the Vic - a flying terminus would do the job just as well,
without the pain of turning trains around.

What the hell is a flying terminus? I'm getting visions of some
sort of Hayao Miyazaki sort of affair ...

http://216.55.161.203/theonekea/unde...g-terminus.txt

The person who invented this has done the math and discovered that
reversing capacity on this terminal layout is very high - capacity is
only limited by the run in time + dwell time + run out time; if these
values are kept low, frequencies as high as 40tph can be contemplated.

TheOneKEA wrote to uk.transport.london on Fri, 20 May 2005:

A loop at Herne Hill is not the only way to increase capacity on the
Vic - a flying terminus would do the job just as well, without the pain
of turning trains around.

Yeah, but a loop at Herne Hill would be a very great deal more useful!
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 3 April 2005

Mrs Redboots wrote:

Yeah, but a loop at Herne Hill would be a very great deal more
useful!

Why? A loop only has one platform - a flying terminus has two.

http://216.55.161.203/theonekea/unde...g-terminus.txt

TheOneKEA wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 21 May 2005:

Mrs Redboots wrote:

Yeah, but a loop at Herne Hill would be a very great deal more
useful!

Why? A loop only has one platform - a flying terminus has two.

http://216.55.161.203/theonekea/unde...g-terminus.txt

I don't care what sort of terminus they have - but having one at Herne
Hill rather than Brixton is the point! I'd rather they extended it to
HH than changed the one at Brixton.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 3 April 2005

On 21 May 2005 06:15:08 -0700, "TheOneKEA"
wrote:

Mrs Redboots wrote:

Yeah, but a loop at Herne Hill would be a very great deal more
useful!

Why? A loop only has one platform

It can have as many as you want. Heathrow T123 has 2.

asdf wrote:

It can have as many as you want. Heathrow T123 has 2.

And the Next Train Out doohickey doesn't work right either...

What the hell is a flying terminus? I'm getting visions of some
sort of Hayao Miyazaki sort of affair ...

http://216.55.161.203/theonekea/unde...g-terminus.txt

The person who invented this

Huh? Grade-separating the scissors crossover is hardly a huge leap of
the imagination. I'm sure a lot more than 1 person has thought of it
before, and then only considered it a passing thought rather than an
invention!

has done the math and discovered that
reversing capacity on this terminal layout is very high - capacity is
only limited by the run in time + dwell time + run out time; if these
values are kept low, frequencies as high as 40tph can be contemplated.