In message , Iain Archer
writes

Was it not once planned to go through Peckham Rye?

It still is - on the way to Clapham Junction.

When and why was that plan changed?

I don't think it has changed - although the Clapham Junction line is
Phase 2 of the scheme, not Phase 1, and dates for Phase 2 seem a bit
vague!

--
Paul Terry

Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Iain Archer
writes

Was it not once planned to go through Peckham Rye?

It still is - on the way to Clapham Junction.

When and why was that plan changed?

I don't think it has changed - although the Clapham Junction line is
Phase 2 of the scheme, not Phase 1, and dates for Phase 2 seem a bit
vague!

--
Paul Terry

Maybe I'm missing something here , but given the southern section isn't
actually a "line" but simply a route over pre-existing tracks , what
exactly
is the problem? They could send it to dover via bournemouth if they
were
so inclined. Seems to me all it requires is some pen pusher to rubber
stamp it and a team of workers to spend a weekend putting some
connecting
track in at new cross and thats that. The hard parts as far as I can
see
are building the northern part and converting the current LUL line to
3rd
rail.

B2003

"Boltar" wrote in message
ups.com...


Maybe I'm missing something here , but given the southern section isn't
actually a "line" but simply a route over pre-existing tracks , what
exactly
is the problem? They could send it to dover via bournemouth if they
were
so inclined. Seems to me all it requires is some pen pusher to rubber
stamp it and a team of workers to spend a weekend putting some
connecting
track in at new cross and thats that. The hard parts as far as I can
see
are building the northern part and converting the current LUL line to
3rd
rail.

B2003


I understand there is a short stretch at Surrey Canal Rd, where the track
and junctions needs to be reinstated, not sure if the formation is still
available; and a modern 'gold plated' station built. Funding for this is
not yet earmarked but may be in 2006/8 or sometime...

Paul

Well , I suspect there'll be a fair amount of renewing. IMO
tho extending the ELL south is a bad idea anyway. It should
have been kept as a self contained LUL line with a northern
extension, making it run on the crowded south london network
rail tracks is only going to make a timetable disaster whatever
they brag about 10 trains an hour (or whatever it is this week).
Would have been far easier (and cheaper , they could have
kept the same trains, saved on 3rd rail conversion etc etc) to
just make better interconnecting services at New Cross and
New Cross Gate. Next they'll be having C2C takiing over
the District line to Upminster.

B2003

Exactly, having multiple southern end destinations all with varying
journey times is a nightmare for timetable compilation and reliability
and will prevent 'tube' levels of frequency on the individual branches.


It was bad enough when the individual ELL termini had a 20 min evening
service, if you just missed a train at the 'Cross' at night, you could
walk to the 'Gate' only to just miss that departure too 10 mins' later!
Far better a combined service running to one or other only but then no
good for the BR interchange.

On 16 Sep 2005 15:31:45 -0700, wrote:

Exactly, having multiple southern end destinations all with varying
journey times is a nightmare for timetable compilation and reliability
and will prevent 'tube' levels of frequency on the individual branches.

I thought the frequencies on the ELLX branches were going to be every 10
minutes peaks and daytimes? This is the same frequency as offered on a
number of Tube services such as the Met to Watford, Uxbridge, Rayners
Lane branch of the Picc, Mill Hill East branch.

Providing the schedule is robust and the need for conflicting moves is
reduced I don't see that there should be too much to worry about. I
obviously recognise that Network Rail will control part of the
infrastructure and there is some risk of delays from other services but
I think TfL will apply a lot of pressure to make the service work
properly. It is too important for the investment to be allowed to fail
through inadequate operation.

It was bad enough when the individual ELL termini had a 20 min evening
service, if you just missed a train at the 'Cross' at night, you could
walk to the 'Gate' only to just miss that departure too 10 mins' later!
Far better a combined service running to one or other only but then no
good for the BR interchange.

This simply reduces the utility of the rail network and certainly does
nothing to improve the lot of people needing to travel into Docklands
and East London from South London. The DLR has shown that a properly run
cross river link will be immensely popular. Anyway, imagine you are in
control, which branch would you opt not to serve and why?
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:03:47 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

Exactly, having multiple southern end destinations all with varying
journey times is a nightmare for timetable compilation and reliability
and will prevent 'tube' levels of frequency on the individual branches.

I thought the frequencies on the ELLX branches were going to be every 10
minutes peaks and daytimes?

Every 15, according to the TfL website:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/rail/initiativ...services.shtml

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, Paul Corfield wrote:

On 16 Sep 2005 15:31:45 -0700, wrote:

Exactly, having multiple southern end destinations all with varying
journey times is a nightmare for timetable compilation and reliability
and will prevent 'tube' levels of frequency on the individual branches.

I thought the frequencies on the ELLX branches were going to be every 10
minutes peaks and daytimes? This is the same frequency as offered on a
number of Tube services such as the Met to Watford, Uxbridge, Rayners
Lane branch of the Picc, Mill Hill East branch.

Yes, all of which are pitiful services. Even so, they are perhaps
appropriate to the places those line serve: Watford and Uxbridge are
essentially outside London, the Rayner's branch of the Picc also has the
Met, and Mill Hill East isn't exactly a dense hub of population.

The ELLX, on the other hand, is going to be serving some extremely densely
populated parts of south and east London, areas which really deserve and
currently lack high-frequency tube-style services.

It was bad enough when the individual ELL termini had a 20 min evening
service, if you just missed a train at the 'Cross' at night, you could
walk to the 'Gate' only to just miss that departure too 10 mins' later!
Far better a combined service running to one or other only but then no
good for the BR interchange.

This simply reduces the utility of the rail network and certainly does
nothing to improve the lot of people needing to travel into Docklands
and East London from South London.

What? Would you care to explain the reasoning behind that?

The DLR has shown that a properly run cross river link will be immensely
popular.

Absolutely - which is why it needs high frequencies.

Anyway, imagine you are in control, which branch would you opt not to
serve and why?

New Cross. If you're near New Cross and need the ELL, walk to New Cross
Gate; if you're on a NR train coming into New Cross and need the ELL,
change at the Surrey Canal Road/Deptford Park station various people have
proposed.

tom

--
the logical extension of a zero-infinity nightmare topology

"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...

IMO tho extending the ELL south is a bad
idea anyway. It should have been kept as
a self contained LUL line with a northern extension

Except that the new large depot will be at Selhurst.

--
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

IMO tho extending the ELL south is a bad
idea anyway. It should have been kept as
a self contained LUL line with a northern extension

Except that the new large depot will be at Selhurst.

Well if it had been kept as an LUL line they wouldn't
have needed a new large depot would they?

B2003