"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

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 21:02:32 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

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 service via South Harrow, Sudbury etc (which is what I meant when I
referred to the Rayners Lane branch) is only served by the Picc Line. I
think we will simply have to disagree about a 10 minute service being
pitiful. 20 minute headways - fairly typical for NR - is what I would
call pitiful.

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.

Having looked again there will be 8 trains an hour north of Sydenham and
then a train every 5 minutes north of Surrey Quays to Dalston. I think
that is pretty good really.

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 person I was responding to suggested that either NX or NXG branch be
closed. I was disagreeing and saying that to shut one of them reduces
the potential for people to make sensible connections with NR services.
Not every train via NX stops at Lewisham for the DLR so therefore there
will be people wishing to use the ELL to get to Canada Water or Shadwell
for connections into Docklands. Forcing people to wander round the
streets of New Cross or go via London Bridge and Zone 1 to change onto a
tube service doesn't strike me as very sensible.

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.

This proposed station is part of Phase 2 and does not seem to have any
connection whatsoever with any National Rail services. Having looked at
a map it is also a very long walk from New Cross. I don't think this is
a sensible option at all.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 21:02:32 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

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 service via South Harrow, Sudbury etc (which is what I meant when I
referred to the Rayners Lane branch) is only served by the Picc Line.

Ah, of course, sorry.

I think we will simply have to disagree about a 10 minute service being
pitiful. 20 minute headways - fairly typical for NR - is what I would
call pitiful.

I think what constitutes pitiful varies according to context - for
somewhere like Sudbury Town that's out in the sticks (and served by fast
mainline trains into town), a train every 10 minutes might well be enough.
For somewhere like Holloway Road, which is closer in and more densely
populated, it wouldn't be. The question is whether the demand on the ELL
is going to be more like Sudbury or Holloway. I have to admit that i think
demand isn't going to be that heavy - the line serves some very densely
populated areas, but i don't see any heavyweight destinations on it - so
perhaps 6 tph will be enough. On the other hand, TfL and plenty of pundits
seem to think it's going be heavily used, in which case 10 tph (especially
with 4-car trains) is going to look pretty silly.

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 person I was responding to suggested that either NX or NXG branch be
closed. I was disagreeing and saying that to shut one of them reduces
the potential for people to make sensible connections with NR services.
Not every train via NX stops at Lewisham for the DLR so therefore there
will be people wishing to use the ELL to get to Canada Water or Shadwell
for connections into Docklands. Forcing people to wander round the
streets of New Cross or go via London Bridge and Zone 1 to change onto a
tube service doesn't strike me as very sensible.

The flip side is that the service to the surviving branch would be twice
as frequent.

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.

This proposed station is part of Phase 2

True. I'd happily keep the NX branch open until phase 2 was done.

and does not seem to have any connection whatsoever with any National
Rail services. Having looked at a map it is also a very long walk from
New Cross. I don't think this is a sensible option at all.

The idea was to move it north a bit and build an interchange station where
the Clapham Junction branch crosses the mainline, with platforms on both
lines - you wouldn't walk from New Cross, you'd stay on your train until
Deptford Park, get off there, then catch an ELL train.

I came across the government's opinions on this idea - apparently, the
disbenefit to mainline passengers going to or from central London
resulting from the delay caused by the extra stop vastly outweighs the
benefit to those wanting to change. I haven't seen the details of the
analysis, though, so i'm not entirely convinced.

Sigh. The railways in this country really are a pain. Why didn't someone
build a station at Southwark Park with platforms on *all* the suburban
lines out of London Bridge, then run the ELL to it along under Rotherhithe
New Road? Oh yes, because all the lines were built by different companies
which all wanted to destroy each other ...

tom

--
double mashed, future mashed, millennium mashed; man it was mashed

"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