Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
ONscotland wrote:


I read that LUL are withdrawing the "Circle" line service, as it causes
far too many delays at the various bottlenecks on the route.


Naturally, the lines will still be there (ie: H&C, Met and District
Line will still have services), but without a circular service
operating. The nickname "tea-cup" was mentioned, as this will basically
cover the stylised map of new routes that will be utilised.


Does anyone have any other details on this: or is it just another plan
that is being considered?


No knowledge on the scheme, but the proposals on other threads to dig up the
Aldgate stations and produce an integrated interchange could help such a
plan no end! In my humble opinion the lines don't really work properly - far
too travellers are left with no idea when the through service they need is
coming, with the result that Liverpool Street fills up with everyone trying
to get as far as possible and many having to make sprints between Aldgate or
running around at Tower Hill in the hope of making an interchange, if they
can get that far (the number of times it seems that only the Met is running
astounds me). Even an upgrade of the platform indicators so that they can
always show the next train for each destination combination would be an
improvement (although the patisserie on the Aldgates-bound platform at
Liverpool Street may not see it that way!)

Well, hopefully any changes made to the way the subsurface network
operates would improve reliability and thus reduce the "getting as far
as you can" problem that happens at the moment.

The problem is that although the proposed change is meant to improve
reliability on the Circle and increase the service to Hammersmith, it
requires that Met trains are diverted from Aldgate to Whitechapel or
Barking to replace the lost H&C service from Liverpool Street eastwards.
Not only does that mean that Met City services are required to
traverse an extra flat junction at Aldgate East, the longer route will
be more susceptible to delay.

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

On Mon, 30 May 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:

Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
ONscotland wrote:

I read that LUL are withdrawing the "Circle" line service, as it
causes far too many delays at the various bottlenecks on the route.

Naturally, the lines will still be there (ie: H&C, Met and District
Line will still have services), but without a circular service
operating. The nickname "tea-cup" was mentioned, as this will
basically cover the stylised map of new routes that will be utilised.

Does anyone have any other details on this: or is it just another plan
that is being considered?

The problem is that although the proposed change is meant to improve
reliability on the Circle and increase the service to Hammersmith, it
requires that Met trains are diverted from Aldgate to Whitechapel or
Barking to replace the lost H&C service from Liverpool Street eastwards.
Not only does that mean that Met City services are required to traverse
an extra flat junction at Aldgate East, the longer route will be more
susceptible to delay.

Isn't there also a significant increase in the number of movements over
Praed Street junction? 22.5 up to 30 tph springs to mind, BICBW. I'm
skeptical about the chances of a plan which increases the exposure to two
flat junctions increasing reliability!

I was thinking about this the other day, and i realised there's another
downside: no direct trains from east of Aldgate to Paddington. Not a
showstopper, but it does make catching a train out west that bit harder
from the east end. Again, the improved overall frequency in practice
should more than make up for this, but still, a pain.

tom

--
I think it would be a good idea -- Mohandas Gandhi, on Western civilisation

On Mon, 30 May 2005 23:52:23 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

I was thinking about this the other day, and i realised there's another
downside: no direct trains from east of Aldgate to Paddington. Not a
showstopper, but it does make catching a train out west that bit harder
from the east end. Again, the improved overall frequency in practice
should more than make up for this, but still, a pain.

I personally don't use the District or Circle for a journey of that
length because it's too slow/infrequent. Such passengers would
probably be better off using the Central and changing.

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.

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:

Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:

ONscotland wrote:

I read that LUL are withdrawing the "Circle" line service, as it
causes far too many delays at the various bottlenecks on the route.


Naturally, the lines will still be there (ie: H&C, Met and District
Line will still have services), but without a circular service
operating. The nickname "tea-cup" was mentioned, as this will
basically cover the stylised map of new routes that will be utilised.

Does anyone have any other details on this: or is it just another plan
that is being considered?


The problem is that although the proposed change is meant to improve
reliability on the Circle and increase the service to Hammersmith, it
requires that Met trains are diverted from Aldgate to Whitechapel or
Barking to replace the lost H&C service from Liverpool Street
eastwards. Not only does that mean that Met City services are required
to traverse an extra flat junction at Aldgate East, the longer route
will be more susceptible to delay.


Isn't there also a significant increase in the number of movements over
Praed Street junction? 22.5 up to 30 tph springs to mind, BICBW. I'm
skeptical about the chances of a plan which increases the exposure to
two flat junctions increasing reliability!

Well, yes. There's also a need to reverse a large number of trains at
Edgware Road. I wonder what alternative plans have been considered and
why they have been rejected. All sorts of combinations of H&C, Met,
Circle and Wimbleware services are possible, and I think there was a big
discussion about this on here a few months ago.

I wondered whether Crossrail could take over Hammersmith - Paddington;
it would make use of some/all of those 15tph from the east that would be
terminating at Paddington (or rather, reverse at Westbourne Park
sidings), it would remove all conflicting movements across Praed St
junction, and would release two platforms at Paddington for suburban
services to use. Frequency on the northern side of the Circle could be
maintained by extending Wimblewares through to Whitechapel etc.

The problems would include the resiting of Royal Oak station (as the
Crossrail tunnel will surface right next to it) and poorer access to
stations Edgware Road - King's Cross.

I was thinking about this the other day, and i realised there's another
downside: no direct trains from east of Aldgate to Paddington. Not a
showstopper, but it does make catching a train out west that bit harder
from the east end. Again, the improved overall frequency in practice
should more than make up for this, but still, a pain.

tom



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

On Tue, 31 May 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:

I wondered whether Crossrail could take over Hammersmith - Paddington;

Yes, i've heard that idea mentioned by others. Strikes me as a good one,
basically.

Frequency on the northern side of the Circle could be maintained by
extending Wimblewares through to Whitechapel etc.

Or bringing more Metropolitan trains down from Baker Street to Aldgate -
sorry, Barking? That would leave a gap on the section before Baker Street,
though. Oh, if only they'd built a reversing bay at Baker Street, and we
could have a Wimbleker service ...

The problems would include the resiting of Royal Oak station (as the
Crossrail tunnel will surface right next to it)

Although if they knew they were going to do this all along, they could
probably bring the tunnel up slightly further east, destroying the link
from the SSL to Royal Oak in the process.

Where are the Crossrail lines going to be in the GW formation? Would
Crossrail - Hammersmith trains have to cross other lines? I doubt there's
room for a flying junction in the Paddington throat ...

and poorer access to stations Edgware Road - King's Cross.

That's probably the biggest issue - i should imagine lots of people living
on the H&C route work somewhere on the northern edge of the circle. All
such people who i know do. But then i work somewhere on the northern edge
of the circle, so they would!

tom

--
power to the people and the beats

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:

I wondered whether Crossrail could take over Hammersmith - Paddington;


Yes, i've heard that idea mentioned by others. Strikes me as a good one,
basically.

Frequency on the northern side of the Circle could be maintained by
extending Wimblewares through to Whitechapel etc.


Or bringing more Metropolitan trains down from Baker Street to Aldgate -
sorry, Barking? That would leave a gap on the section before Baker
Street, though. Oh, if only they'd built a reversing bay at Baker
Street, and we could have a Wimbleker service ...

I'm still not keen on Met trains running through to Barking - too long a
journey across too many flat junctions.

Perhaps the Wimblewares should take over Circle services by running all
the way around to Edgware Road again - or even loop-the-loop and then
head out to Whitechapel.

The problems would include the resiting of Royal Oak station (as the
Crossrail tunnel will surface right next to it)


Although if they knew they were going to do this all along, they could
probably bring the tunnel up slightly further east, destroying the link
from the SSL to Royal Oak in the process.

Assuming the current plans go ahead, it all depends on how long it takes
any gradient to level out to the west of the tunnel portal. I suspect
that it doesn't do so properly until around half the way to Westbourne
Park, which would be a pain.

Where are the Crossrail lines going to be in the GW formation? Would
Crossrail - Hammersmith trains have to cross other lines? I doubt
there's room for a flying junction in the Paddington throat ...

Crossrail is on the northern side of the formation as it surfaces,
immediately adjacent to the platforms at Royal Oak - no problem
connecting the infrastructure.

There might be some trickiness in extending the elevated station
platforms though.

and poorer access to stations Edgware Road - King's Cross.


That's probably the biggest issue - i should imagine lots of people
living on the H&C route work somewhere on the northern edge of the
circle. All such people who i know do. But then i work somewhere on the
northern edge of the circle, so they would!

Presumably the major destination on the H&C is the City, which Crossrail
serves fine. The Euston area poses some problems - people would have to
change at Paddington or Tottenham Court Road. Then again, the
interchange at Paddington shouldn't be too bad (if the Crossrail station
is under Eastbourne Terrace and the Circle line is under Praed St,
interchange won't be too long, particularly for Crossrail eastbound to
Circle eastbound), and if the main traffic generators around Euston are
to the south of the Euston Road, then they may not be that much further
from TCR Crossrail.


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

On Tue, 31 May 2005 22:46:56 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Tue, 31 May 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:

I wondered whether Crossrail could take over Hammersmith - Paddington;

Yes, i've heard that idea mentioned by others. Strikes me as a good one,
basically.

Aren't the stations a bit too close together for a Crossrail-type
line? At times they seem to approach DLR proximity...

And no doubt people would be up in arms if their local station were to
close.

Frequency on the northern side of the Circle could be maintained by
extending Wimblewares through to Whitechapel etc.

Or how about adding a service running Ealing Broadway (or Richmond) -
Earl's Court - Edgware Rd - Aldgate/Whitechapel. That would also
supplement the rather meagre service on those branches.


Here's another idea... why not combine the Hammersmith idea with the
(scrapped) proposal to take over the Richmond branch, by reinstating
the connection at Hammersmith (Grove Road)?

Part of the viaduct still exists. Trains could run Paddington -
Latimer Road - Hammersmith (Grove Road?) - Turnham Green - Richmond -
Kingston.

In article ,
lid (asdf) wrote:

Here's another idea... why not combine the Hammersmith idea with the
(scrapped) proposal to take over the Richmond branch, by reinstating
the connection at Hammersmith (Grove Road)?

Part of the viaduct still exists. Trains could run Paddington -
Latimer Road - Hammersmith (Grove Road?) - Turnham Green - Richmond -
Kingston.

Part being the operative word. I have a feeling there's a substantial
office block in the way.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message ,
Colin Rosenstiel writes

Here's another idea... why not combine the Hammersmith idea with the
(scrapped) proposal to take over the Richmond branch, by reinstating
the connection at Hammersmith (Grove Road)?

Part of the viaduct still exists. Trains could run Paddington -
Latimer Road - Hammersmith (Grove Road?) - Turnham Green - Richmond -
Kingston.

Part being the operative word. I have a feeling there's a substantial
office block in the way.

There is - a damn big thing too. I also suspect that would cause
problems with the Piccadilly too as it would come out right in the
middle of the 'fast' lines.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)