Steve M wrote:
MIG wrote:



I can never remember which runs which, but I know it reverses, ie
whichever operator runs it clockwise in the morning runs it
anticlockwise in the evening.


Thameslink seem to run both ways round in the evening peak, causing two
trains clockwise within 4 minutes, then a 26 minute gap.

I honestly feel the maze of lines in South London needs unravelling and
a simplified service pattern introduced. Even as someone who works in
the industry I often get confused with the direction and routing of trains!

Such a service pattern has been considered before; I believe that
reliability and possibly frequency enhancements were identified as
advantages to a simplified network of Tube-style lines. However,
simplification generally means restricting services from most stations
to a single London terminal; that proved unpopular with south London
residents last time they were considering simplification.

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

"Matthew Dickinson" wrote in message
...
| There's a new London Connections map out with Heathrow Connect
| depicted as a seperate service between Ealing Broadway & Heathrow
| Terminals 1,2 & 3.
|
| The BAA stations are depicted outside the Zone 6 shading.
|
| It also has updated the opening dates for Shepherds Bush & Imperial
| Wharf to 2006.
|
| (These two stations were listed as calling points for the Silverlink
| service on the platform indicator at Clapham Junction yesterday)
|

That's because the times are in the Train Service Data Base, even though the
stations aren't open yet. This is because it was originally intended to
open the stations this year. The December NRT bore the legend "Station
expected to open during the currency of the timetable" although this
publication shows no times.

Get down to Clapham Junction quick and you will find those two stations
listed on the A-Z posters with the "relations" to nearby stations for when
the service starts.

The Editor has found out about the delays to the station openings, so the
new posters which will go up on Sunday will still mention the stations under
construction but reference to any train times has gone until we get some
firm idea of when they will actually open.

I doubt if anyone has even thought to look at what the CIS displays are
showing and may not even be aware that these station stops are in TSDB, so
those "ghost" stations will continue to show until either the penny drops at
the control centre or the stops are removed from TSDB for the June-December
period.
--
- Yokel -
oo oo
OOO OOO
OO 0 OO
) ( I ) (
) ( /\ ) (

"Yokel" now posts via a spam-trap account.
Replace my alias with stevejudd to reply.

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, John Rowland wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
.li...

Except on a few bits of the network (Mill Hill East, for example). That
said, even MHE gets 6 tph,

Really? I thought this single-track branch couldn't handle more than 5tph.

Er, ah, well, you see, two of the trains are Mill Hill East to Mill Hill
East services, taking zero time to run and so not having a lot of track
occupancy. Sort of a bit of a zen thing. I hear LU are planning to
increase the frequency of these to 4 tph, in fact.

Okay, so maybe it's not 6 tph. It'd still be pretty decent for an NR line.

tom

--
never mind your fingers, i've got blisters on my brain

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, 1577+2260 wrote:

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 00:22:00 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

That's one way of looking at it. My approach to a map like this would
to be try to erase superfluous distinctions; since i don't think the
difference between NR and LU lines is important per se (i think the
difference in service level is, but not the operator!), i wouldn't
try to display it.

I think the difference in service pattern is important, and so there
should be some distinction.

Absolutely - but the map should reflect the service pattern, not the
operator, so high-frequency mainlines should look similar to normal
tube lines, and low-frequency tubes should look similar to normal
mainlines, rather than having all mainlines look similar and all tube
lines look similar.

I disagree, for the moment; Tube and NR should be indicated separately
for now, mainly because of ticketing issues. I know you can use
Travelcards anywhere, but through tickets between LU and NR are a bit of
a pain at the moment, particularly for Oyster users.

Well, yes, that's true.

Even if fares were integrated, there is then the issue that
low-frequency Tube routes are often equivalent to what would be
considered high frequency on NR. The only sections of NR that approach
Tube standards of high frequency are sections like Clapham Junction -
Victoria / Waterloo. 6tph is an average frequency on outer Tube routes,
but it could be considered quite high frequency for some NR routes (e.g.
trains via Forest Hill).

Well, that doesn't actually mean my idea is a bad one, it just means that,
since all tube lines (okay, not quite all) would count as high-frequency
and none of the NR lines would (okay, not quite none), it's actually
exactly equivalent (okay, not quite exactly) to drawing tube and NR lines
differently! Still, it's the principle of the thing that matters.

tom

--
I content myself with the Speculative part [...], I care not for the
Practick. I seldom bring any thing to use, 'tis not my way. Knowledge is
my ultimate end. -- Sir Nicholas Gimcrack

Well, that doesn't actually mean my idea is a bad one, it just means that,
since all tube lines (okay, not quite all) would count as high-frequency
and none of the NR lines would (okay, not quite none), it's actually
exactly equivalent (okay, not quite exactly) to drawing tube and NR lines
differently! Still, it's the principle of the thing that matters.

The similarity in off-peak daytime frequency is not enough. A
significantly different feature of Underground lines is that they run
all day every day at high frequencies in both directions.

NR routes which have high frequencies don't necessarily run all the
time and nearly always close down hours earlier in one direction than
the other.

The types of service are so different that they can't be shown in the
same way, certainly not on the grounds of daytime frequency.

Tom Anderson wrote:

Mad props to this excellent website on the history of interchange
symbology:

http://www.ursasoft.com/maps/LURS/


The real overground network of the only real railway in London is here
:

http://virtualportmeirion.com/network/largemap.htm

--
Nick

Tom Anderson wrote:

Okay, so maybe it's not 6 tph. It'd still be pretty decent for an NR line.

Actually, the frequency of trains *to a Central London terminus* at
many stations in my part of the world is at least as good as that. Off
peak, for example, Gipsy Hill has 4 tph to Victoria and 6tph to London
Bridge (4 via Tulse Hill and 4 via Forest Hill), which makes 10tph "to
London". The problem is that, unlike Tube lines with end to end
running, they don't serve the same intermediate stations. This is fine
if you just want to get into Zone 1 quickly, but if you need to get to
Clapham Junction the frequency suddenly drops to 4tph.

The service at North Dulwich and East Dulwich is far more 'tube-like',
at least in the northbound direction - all trains go to London Bridge,
calling at the same stations, and at regular 10 minute intervals. Which
makes it feel much more 'turn up and go', but is a real nuisance if you
want to go anywhere other than London Bridge!

This would be a major argument in favour of simplification (as
discussed somewhere else in this thread) - but I think most people who
actually use the services regularly get used to having to look at a
timetable, and appreciate the one-seat ride to either London Bridge or
Victoria/Blackfriars or Victoria/Cannon St or LB/Waterloo East/Charing
Cross.

D7666 wrote:

The real overground network of the only real railway in London is here
:

http://virtualportmeirion.com/network/largemap.htm

That's a fantastic map - clearly the 'new' ON map was heavily inspired
by that! Much more useful to the passenger than the current idea of
distinguishing services by TOC. Actually, I think this is a hang over
from the original NSE/London Connections map, which was the first to
divide the map by operating areas (Kent Link, South London Lines etc).
But even that used to distinguish Victoria/Blackfriars and Cannon
St/Charing Cross services from each other with different shades of
green.

Rupert Candy wrote:

http://virtualportmeirion.com/network/largemap.htm

That's a fantastic map - clearly the 'new' ON map was heavily inspired
by that!


It shows nothing is 'new'. THe story of that BR SR map came about is
linked from the SEMG web site, here is the direct link to the index of
the maps' author :


http://virtualportmeirion.com/network/index.htm


--
Nick

Rupert Candy wrote:

D7666 wrote:


The real overground network of the only real railway in London is here
:

http://virtualportmeirion.com/network/largemap.htm


That's a fantastic map - clearly the 'new' ON map was heavily inspired
by that! Much more useful to the passenger than the current idea of
distinguishing services by TOC. Actually, I think this is a hang over
from the original NSE/London Connections map, which was the first to
divide the map by operating areas (Kent Link, South London Lines etc).
But even that used to distinguish Victoria/Blackfriars and Cannon
St/Charing Cross services from each other with different shades of
green.

It is definitely a good map - superior to the TfL high-frequency map
because it is easy to see which terminal trains end up at, and better
than the ATOC map because it doesn't force an arbritary distinction
between service of different TOCs.

The ON map is very similar, just adding in the useful frequency element.

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