|
Mill Hill East
In article .com, MIG
writes According to the Hendon Times, Mill Hill East services will be reduced to a shuttle to Finchley Central off-peak and weekends from October 2006. And closure following closely no doubt. Not necessarily - look at Chesham, which runs in that way. Why don't they genuinely improve reliability by doubling the track? How will that improve reliability with the present service? -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
Mill Hill East
Dave Arquati wrote: MIG wrote: Dave Arquati wrote: MIG wrote: John B wrote: Kev wrote: This does sound like the thin end of the wedge. Ask people who used to use the Watford Junc to Broad St (Liverpool St) and Watford to Croxley service what they think of this. OK, so in the first case a poor frequency service has been replaced partly with the current NLL clockface 4tph timetable (set for further improvements under TfL Rail) and will be replaced further with the ELLX between Dalston and Shoreditch. In the second case, the link is set to be rebuilt with more useful connections. During London's decades of stagnation and decline, many useful rail links were short-sightedly destroyed. The ideological antipathy of a progression of governments and transport ministers towards public transport didn't help matters. However, it's now clear that the default mode for public transport in London is one of expansion not contraction. Since Mill Hill East isn't an Aldwych or an Ongar but somewhere with decent loadings, it would therefore be hard to see why anyone would choose to close it... But once it loses the through service it will have poor loadings. Aldwych is right in the centre of London, but that didn't save it. I don't suppose for a moment it would have closed if it had a through service (or why not close Temple, St Pauls or Chancery Lane?). Not sure of the logic here - St Paul's and Chancery Lane are extremely busy during the week. I was mentioning non-interchange stations that have a through service, in the same general area as Aldwych, which didn't, and wasn't as busy. I'm suggesting that the lack of through service reduced demand for Aldwych rather than its location. As other posters have suggested, Aldwych was probably doomed from its birth. If Aldwych were reopened today with through services to Cockfosters (which in itself is physically difficult), I think demand would still be poor for two reasons: 1. The frequency with which Aldwych could be served would be limited by capacity considerations on the rest of the line (it's not as though you can just slot extra trains in the timetable between Holborn and Arnos Grove, and the existing trains are busy with people heading to and from places like Piccadilly Circus). In turn, sending trains to Aldwych would pose reliability problems. 2. Even if served by a relatively high frequency, it's just too near other Piccadilly stations to be particularly useful - even Holborn is only a few minutes' walk away, and Covent Garden is much more useful for the key theatre-going market. I think we are both saying that the inevitable poor service made the station unattractive. The poor service at Alwych follows from it being on a stub with necessarily either a shuttle or infrequent through service. A station on an imaginary through line at that location might well have been popular. The first of these applies equally to Mill Hill East, particularly from a reliability point of view. The second does not. Roding Valley, Chigwell and Grange Hill are still open, despite having much poorer demand (only about enough to support a bus service, let alone rail). At least partly because they are a pain to get to by train, either a long way round (and infrequently) via Hainault or changing at Woodford. If some expensive repairs cropped up which no one was keen to fund, I suspect that the line would be under threat. Demand at those stations is surely limited by local geography rather than frequency - there are so few people living in their catchment areas (at least on foot). Even if a high-frequency through service were provided, it would probably be carting around air. The only way significant demand increases might occur would be through park-and-ride, and even then there are other equally suitable stations either south of Hainault or on the main Epping route. This would also seem to be a major consideration at Mill Hill East - low population density around the station severely limits demand, and even park-and-ride (or bus feeder) demand would probably be limited to passengers from quite nearby because of the poor road connectivity of the area. But a good through service does create demand. A lot of the Underground was financed by property speculators on that basis. |
Mill Hill East
MIG wrote:
Why don't they genuinely improve reliability by doubling the track? How will that improve reliability with the present service? Not at all, if single track doesn't cause reliability problems. I am not actually proposing doubling, I am rejecting the "reliability" excuse for cutting services. The point is not that the services on the MHE branch are unreliable in themselves, it's that having an irregular sequence of trains coming from the northeast reduces reliability at Camden Town, messes about with train frequencies through central London, exacerbates problems on the line and leads to greater system-wide delays. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Mill Hill East
Dave Arquati wrote:
As other posters have suggested, Aldwych was probably doomed from its birth. If Aldwych were reopened today with through services to Cockfosters (which in itself is physically difficult), I think demand would still be poor for two reasons: .... 2. Even if served by a relatively high frequency, it's just too near other Piccadilly stations to be particularly useful - even Holborn is only a few minutes' walk away, and Covent Garden is much more useful for the key theatre-going market. And yet which station on the Picadilly Line is so over capacity that it frequently has to limit passenger access and could really benefit from a nearby alternative station? |
Mill Hill East
Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote: As other posters have suggested, Aldwych was probably doomed from its birth. If Aldwych were reopened today with through services to Cockfosters (which in itself is physically difficult), I think demand would still be poor for two reasons: .... 2. Even if served by a relatively high frequency, it's just too near other Piccadilly stations to be particularly useful - even Holborn is only a few minutes' walk away, and Covent Garden is much more useful for the key theatre-going market. And yet which station on the Picadilly Line is so over capacity that it frequently has to limit passenger access and could really benefit from a nearby alternative station? The only feasible alternatives are Holborn and Leicester Square. As an alternative to Covent Garden, Aldwych would be fairly useless, given the slow access and egress, and its northbound orientation. I also wouldn't separate point one (the effect on the rest of the line) from point two. Trains that went to Aldwych wouldn't be able to go to Covent Garden or Leicester Square, making overcrowding at those stations worse. The solution to Covent Garden overcrowding is to increase capacity at Covent Garden, not to reopen a station that would be of little use to the majority of people heading to the area. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Mill Hill East
MIG wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote: MIG wrote: Dave Arquati wrote: MIG wrote: John B wrote: Kev wrote: This does sound like the thin end of the wedge. Ask people who used to use the Watford Junc to Broad St (Liverpool St) and Watford to Croxley service what they think of this. OK, so in the first case a poor frequency service has been replaced partly with the current NLL clockface 4tph timetable (set for further improvements under TfL Rail) and will be replaced further with the ELLX between Dalston and Shoreditch. In the second case, the link is set to be rebuilt with more useful connections. During London's decades of stagnation and decline, many useful rail links were short-sightedly destroyed. The ideological antipathy of a progression of governments and transport ministers towards public transport didn't help matters. However, it's now clear that the default mode for public transport in London is one of expansion not contraction. Since Mill Hill East isn't an Aldwych or an Ongar but somewhere with decent loadings, it would therefore be hard to see why anyone would choose to close it... But once it loses the through service it will have poor loadings. Aldwych is right in the centre of London, but that didn't save it. I don't suppose for a moment it would have closed if it had a through service (or why not close Temple, St Pauls or Chancery Lane?). Not sure of the logic here - St Paul's and Chancery Lane are extremely busy during the week. I was mentioning non-interchange stations that have a through service, in the same general area as Aldwych, which didn't, and wasn't as busy. I'm suggesting that the lack of through service reduced demand for Aldwych rather than its location. As other posters have suggested, Aldwych was probably doomed from its birth. If Aldwych were reopened today with through services to Cockfosters (which in itself is physically difficult), I think demand would still be poor for two reasons: 1. The frequency with which Aldwych could be served would be limited by capacity considerations on the rest of the line (it's not as though you can just slot extra trains in the timetable between Holborn and Arnos Grove, and the existing trains are busy with people heading to and from places like Piccadilly Circus). In turn, sending trains to Aldwych would pose reliability problems. 2. Even if served by a relatively high frequency, it's just too near other Piccadilly stations to be particularly useful - even Holborn is only a few minutes' walk away, and Covent Garden is much more useful for the key theatre-going market. I think we are both saying that the inevitable poor service made the station unattractive. The poor service at Alwych follows from it being on a stub with necessarily either a shuttle or infrequent through service. A station on an imaginary through line at that location might well have been popular. I think we're getting the concepts of through *services* and through *lines* muddled up here. I was saying that a through *service* to Aldwych would have never have been able to attract high levels of demand. A through *line* is an entirely different kettle of fish. The first of these applies equally to Mill Hill East, particularly from a reliability point of view. The second does not. Roding Valley, Chigwell and Grange Hill are still open, despite having much poorer demand (only about enough to support a bus service, let alone rail). At least partly because they are a pain to get to by train, either a long way round (and infrequently) via Hainault or changing at Woodford. If some expensive repairs cropped up which no one was keen to fund, I suspect that the line would be under threat. Demand at those stations is surely limited by local geography rather than frequency - there are so few people living in their catchment areas (at least on foot). Even if a high-frequency through service were provided, it would probably be carting around air. The only way significant demand increases might occur would be through park-and-ride, and even then there are other equally suitable stations either south of Hainault or on the main Epping route. This would also seem to be a major consideration at Mill Hill East - low population density around the station severely limits demand, and even park-and-ride (or bus feeder) demand would probably be limited to passengers from quite nearby because of the poor road connectivity of the area. But a good through service does create demand. A lot of the Underground was financed by property speculators on that basis. Same confusion - a good through *line* might create demand (although at Mill Hill East demand would still be limited by geography - making it a through line would increase demand because more destinations would be served, but the demand would still be drawn from a limited pool). I was talking about the through *service* from Mill Hill East to Morden, for which demand is limited because of the low population density around Mill Hill East station. High Barnet, on the other hand, is different (and the reduction of a MHE to a shuttle service is permitting an improved frequency to High Barnet). -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Mill Hill East
John B wrote:
MIG wrote: Why don't they genuinely improve reliability by doubling the track? How will that improve reliability with the present service? Not at all, if single track doesn't cause reliability problems. I am not actually proposing doubling, I am rejecting the "reliability" excuse for cutting services. The point is not that the services on the MHE branch are unreliable in themselves, it's that having an irregular sequence of trains coming from the northeast reduces reliability at Camden Town, messes about with train frequencies through central London, exacerbates problems on the line and leads to greater system-wide delays. ....and according to the article originally quoted, the service frequency to High Barnet will be increased as a result of the MHE changes, which means benefits to the four other stations north of Finchley Central. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Mill Hill East
On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Aidan Stanger wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote: On Tue, 4 Apr 2006, Aidan Stanger wrote: John B wrote: MIG wrote: Peter Smyth wrote: Mill Hill East services will be reduced to a shuttle to Finchley Central off-peak and weekends from October 2006. Yet another service reduction disguised as "reliability", If the result is to make a substantial reduction in total Misery Line misery, which it should be, then it seems like a good plan... It would be a good plan if they did it right! There's presumably room to throw in a passing loop halfway along the branch; that would cost money, but be cheaper than doubling, but would allow the frequency to be doubled, so that every mainline train could link up with a shuttle. It could if the passing loop were long, though it would be harder to coordinate the service to connect with southbound trains as well. Perhaps things could be timed so that the shuttles connect to the southbound trains in the morning, and the northbound ones in the evening. Not sure what you'd do in the middle of the day! But the biggest problem would be getting it to connect properly in the peaks when trains run more frequently than every 4 minutes. True. If they shortened the train length proportionally, it wouldn't even cost any more to run. What's the train length got to do with it? Going from 15 to 8 minutes would be done by cutting down waiting time, not running more trains, AIUI. Shorter trains use less electricity. Aha. Is that a significant cost in running a train, then? I'd never though of that. The interesting thing to consider is how the MHE branch can be made more useful in the long term. One idea I put on my website is to have it as a branch of Crossrail Line 2, and extend it to Watford Junction via MHB, Edgware and Stanmore. This would mean that nobody in North London would have to detour to Euston to catch a train to The North, Er, provided they can get to the High Barnet branch of the Northern line, No, it would interchange with the other lines as well. Where would it go south of Finchley? and they don't want the ECML or MML! If they did, they'd be detouring to Kings Cross or St.Pancras, not Euston. However there would be a stop at Mill Hill Broadway to connect with the Thameslink service, so some MML passengers would also benefit albeit not to the same extent as the WCML passengers. I suppose if this function was considered important enough, more trains could be stopped at MHB. There's no GNER equivalent of Watford Junction. Stevenage is too far out, and they couldn't get planning permission for their Hadley Wood proposals. Potters Bar might be a better location, but their trains don't stop there yet. The closest equivalent is probably Finsbury Park. In terms of distance, that's more like Willesden Junction, but i think it gets more trains stopping there than that. If they, or their successors, ever do start stopping their trains there, it might be worth considering extending the Jubilee Line there. But it's not going to become as important a station as Watford Junction any time in the forseeable future. The Northern or Piccadilly look better placed for that to me. and more passengers would be attracted to the outer ends of lines, where there's plenty of spare capacity. Not sure i get that bit - anyone at Watford is going to catch a fast train to Euston, not sit on a tube train that stops at a dozen places on the way. Wrong! Not everyone at Watford is going to Central London. Millions of people live in North London, and detouring to Euston would be more expensive and in many cases slower and less convenient. By interchanging with the ELL, GN, Victoria and Piccadilly Lines, two branches of the Northern Line, Thameslink and the Jubilee Line, it would serve most of N London. Okay, i think i see what you mean. Does anyone else have any other ideas for it? The trouble with resurrecting the Northern Heights plan is the green belt; the intention was always to drive development of new suburbs in the north, as the Met did for Metroland, but post-WW2 planning policy has put the kybosh on that. If the illustrious Mr Prescott or his successor waves a wand and lets the golf courses and subsidy sinks of Bushey be buried under an avalanche of Barratt boxes, this plan might regain wings. It wouldn't require that. There's enough of Bushey not already served by rail to justify a station. The main destination's Watford. It's not about justifying a station - it's about justifying a new railway, a much more expensive proposition. However, linking it to the ELL would be folly, IMHO; better would be to link it to the GN electrics from Finsbury Park to Moorgate. A graded junction at Moorgate would allow this to be done without conflicting with mainline traffic to KX; the branch to Moorgate itself might need some upgrading to cope, but the frequency would be well within the capability of modern (ie early 20th century signalling systems). Of course, this all comes to pass anyway under my glorious plan to drive the tunnel further south from Moorgate, under the Bank and the Thames, to link up with the lines at London Bridge ... Where would you link them up? Do you mean where would the portal be? Good question. Is there room for a portal around the bulge in the formation where the railway crosses Dockley Road? if not, you'd need to take some land away from buildings beside the line; some grim industrial buildings would be the cheapest option, perhaps those by Tanner Road, Rouel Road, Saint James's Road, etc. Where you put the portal depends to some extent on which lines you want to join up with, and i don't have strong views on that - i don't know enough about the traffic patterns. I also wondered whether that line could be extended. There's nowhere around London Bridge to surface, but some passengers would get a much more direct journey if it ran straight to Denmark Hill and surfaced somewhere around Dulwich or Tulse Hill. That's quite a bit of tunnelling, though. I also wonder whether rather than being extended from Moorgate it could be extended from Old Street to Liverpool Street to give better interchange, then run under Gracechurch Street to London Bridge. Moorgate is a stone's throw from Liverpool Street anyway - it's a shorter walk between them than between some of the more distant platforms at Bank, i'd say. Ideally, there'd be a direct underground passage; Crossrail will join the two stations up, although i would guess that the Crossrail platform won't be usable as an ad hoc foot tunnel. tom -- Who would you help in a fight, Peter van der Linden or Bill Gates? |
Mill Hill East
Dave Arquati wrote:
And yet which station on the Picadilly Line is so over capacity that it frequently has to limit passenger access and could really benefit from a nearby alternative station? The only feasible alternatives are Holborn and Leicester Square. As an alternative to Covent Garden, Aldwych would be fairly useless, given the slow access and egress, and its northbound orientation. I also wouldn't separate point one (the effect on the rest of the line) from point two. Trains that went to Aldwych wouldn't be able to go to Covent Garden or Leicester Square, making overcrowding at those stations worse. The solution to Covent Garden overcrowding is to increase capacity at Covent Garden, not to reopen a station that would be of little use to the majority of people heading to the area. How serious are the suggestions in circulation for both a Waterloo-King's Cross St. Pancras route and reviving the old Fleet Line plans for Charing Cross to Ludgate Circus and beyond? The natural interchange for them is Aldwych and the former project could make use of the branch tunnels, although frankly at Holborn they'd either need a proper connection to the Picadilly (I saw the other day that Aldwych was built with three lift shafts and multiple exit routes from the platforms - yet another example of an over elaborate station being uselessly inaccessible for through services) or else build a new line to King's Cross St Pancras. |
Mill Hill East
On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 20:22:34 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote: How serious are the suggestions in circulation for both a Waterloo-King's Cross St. Pancras route Fairly serious, but it would be a surface tramway running Camden Town - Peckham/Brixton (ish). -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Mill Hill East
Dave Arquati wrote: MIG wrote: Dave Arquati wrote: MIG wrote: Dave Arquati wrote: MIG wrote: John B wrote: Kev wrote: This does sound like the thin end of the wedge. Ask people who used to use the Watford Junc to Broad St (Liverpool St) and Watford to Croxley service what they think of this. OK, so in the first case a poor frequency service has been replaced partly with the current NLL clockface 4tph timetable (set for further improvements under TfL Rail) and will be replaced further with the ELLX between Dalston and Shoreditch. In the second case, the link is set to be rebuilt with more useful connections. During London's decades of stagnation and decline, many useful rail links were short-sightedly destroyed. The ideological antipathy of a progression of governments and transport ministers towards public transport didn't help matters. However, it's now clear that the default mode for public transport in London is one of expansion not contraction. Since Mill Hill East isn't an Aldwych or an Ongar but somewhere with decent loadings, it would therefore be hard to see why anyone would choose to close it... But once it loses the through service it will have poor loadings. Aldwych is right in the centre of London, but that didn't save it. I don't suppose for a moment it would have closed if it had a through service (or why not close Temple, St Pauls or Chancery Lane?). Not sure of the logic here - St Paul's and Chancery Lane are extremely busy during the week. I was mentioning non-interchange stations that have a through service, in the same general area as Aldwych, which didn't, and wasn't as busy. I'm suggesting that the lack of through service reduced demand for Aldwych rather than its location. As other posters have suggested, Aldwych was probably doomed from its birth. If Aldwych were reopened today with through services to Cockfosters (which in itself is physically difficult), I think demand would still be poor for two reasons: 1. The frequency with which Aldwych could be served would be limited by capacity considerations on the rest of the line (it's not as though you can just slot extra trains in the timetable between Holborn and Arnos Grove, and the existing trains are busy with people heading to and from places like Piccadilly Circus). In turn, sending trains to Aldwych would pose reliability problems. 2. Even if served by a relatively high frequency, it's just too near other Piccadilly stations to be particularly useful - even Holborn is only a few minutes' walk away, and Covent Garden is much more useful for the key theatre-going market. I think we are both saying that the inevitable poor service made the station unattractive. The poor service at Alwych follows from it being on a stub with necessarily either a shuttle or infrequent through service. A station on an imaginary through line at that location might well have been popular. I think we're getting the concepts of through *services* and through *lines* muddled up here. I was saying that a through *service* to Aldwych would have never have been able to attract high levels of demand. A through *line* is an entirely different kettle of fish. I don't really see why the distinction matters in this regard. If you can get on at a station near where you are and there is a frequent service that goes a long way without changing after one stop, the service is more attractive than if you always have to change after one stop or if the service is infrequent. You have explained why the service from Aldwych is inevitably unattractive, relating to the nature of the branch. The unattractiveness of the service makes the station unpopular, whatever the reason. The proposed changes will go a long way towards making Mill Hill East unpopular as well, always having to change trains after one stop and cross over a bridge (unless there is going to be a reversing manoeuvre, which certainly won't help reliability). Once people stop using it in the off-peak, there will be an excuse to cut it to peak only. Once it's peak only, people will drive to Finchley Central so that they can get home if they happen to stay late after work, and then MHE will close. It's a familiar pattern. |
Covent Garden & Aldwych (was Mill Hill East)
Dave Arquati wrote: The only feasible alternatives are Holborn and Leicester Square. As an alternative to Covent Garden, Aldwych would be fairly useless, given the slow access and egress, and its northbound orientation. I also wouldn't separate point one (the effect on the rest of the line) from point two. Trains that went to Aldwych wouldn't be able to go to Covent Garden or Leicester Square, making overcrowding at those stations worse. The solution to Covent Garden overcrowding is to increase capacity at Covent Garden, not to reopen a station that would be of little use to the majority of people heading to the area. ISTR reading many years ago (1996 or so) that there was a plan for escalators at Covent Garden. I'm pretty sure it was from an official London Underground pamphlet about overall improvements to the Piccadilly Line. I wonder why that never happened. Patrick |
Mill Hill East
Tom Anderson wrote:
The closest equivalent is probably Finsbury Park. In terms of distance, that's more like Willesden Junction, but i think it gets more trains stopping there than that. Finsbury Park is closer to Harrow & Wealdstone in terms of service pattern. All FCC local services stop here, most but not all FCC long distance services stop there, and no GNER services stop here (except the weekend after next, when all GNER services will terminate there...). Stevenage is the ECML's closest equivalent to Watford in service terms, but it's much further away from London. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Covent Garden & Aldwych (was Mill Hill East)
|
Mill Hill East
"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message ... Steve Fitzgerald ] wrote: writes . Potters Bar might be a better location, but their trains don't stop there yet. If they, or their successors, ever do start stopping their trains there, it might be worth considering extending the Jubilee Line there. But it's not going to become as important a station as Watford Junction any time in the forseeable future. Wouldn't it be easier to extend the Piccadilly there in that eventuality as it's just up the road from Cockfosters? Yes it would. However the Piccadilly does not venture very far from the GN, so the benefits would be much lower. As somebody who grew up in Potters Bar and knows the area reasonably well, there is also the small question of engineering difficulties and overall cost. It would need some major earthworks or, more appropriately, tunnelling (there is the small geographical feature of Stag Hill to contend with.) This would be a hugely expensive project for little economic gain. It also falls outside the TfL area. You only have to look at the problems faced by the rather more practical proposal to join up the Watford branch of the Metropolitan to Watford Junction, along the former Croxley Green track bed to see the difficulties that scheme has faced, not least through the TfL/Hertfordshire CC interface and the different funding regimes. |
Mill Hill East
I think this discussion has grown out of all proportion. In the off
peak when things are not quite running to time, the line controllers will often just send the odd train in 4 to MHE, which is in effect the same service as a shuttle (15 mins). The shuttles are set up currently in times of severe disruption, but from what I can see, I don't quite grasp the reason for the mass debate? Whats the current interval off peak anyhow? The other flaw in the main arguments are a "through service", a "through service" to what exactly? Camden? Change. Bank? Change. Euston? Change. The Tube is unlike the rest of the railway where changes can be painstaking and frustrating. The tube network is a whole series of walks, transfers and interchanges. So a few dozen people at Finchley Central are left waiting an extra 2 minutes for a MHE train, whats the major deal? The notion of reducing train lengths incidentally to save costs is ridiculous in this instance because there would have to be customised rolling stock for a branch line. Commonality of fleet breeds reliable trains, fact. Anyone know whether the change is borne from TfL or a TubeLines infastructure related cost? Ian |
Mill Hill East
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
... low population density around the station severely limits demand Part of the problem is that Barnet Council has its works depot right by the station - a more chronic land use would be hard to imagine. That should have been replaced by yuppie flats, and the depot should have been relocated to the development site on Page St. |
Mill Hill East
MIG wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote: MIG wrote: Dave Arquati wrote: MIG wrote: Dave Arquati wrote: MIG wrote: John B wrote: Kev wrote: This does sound like the thin end of the wedge. Ask people who used to use the Watford Junc to Broad St (Liverpool St) and Watford to Croxley service what they think of this. OK, so in the first case a poor frequency service has been replaced partly with the current NLL clockface 4tph timetable (set for further improvements under TfL Rail) and will be replaced further with the ELLX between Dalston and Shoreditch. In the second case, the link is set to be rebuilt with more useful connections. During London's decades of stagnation and decline, many useful rail links were short-sightedly destroyed. The ideological antipathy of a progression of governments and transport ministers towards public transport didn't help matters. However, it's now clear that the default mode for public transport in London is one of expansion not contraction. Since Mill Hill East isn't an Aldwych or an Ongar but somewhere with decent loadings, it would therefore be hard to see why anyone would choose to close it... But once it loses the through service it will have poor loadings. Aldwych is right in the centre of London, but that didn't save it. I don't suppose for a moment it would have closed if it had a through service (or why not close Temple, St Pauls or Chancery Lane?). Not sure of the logic here - St Paul's and Chancery Lane are extremely busy during the week. I was mentioning non-interchange stations that have a through service, in the same general area as Aldwych, which didn't, and wasn't as busy. I'm suggesting that the lack of through service reduced demand for Aldwych rather than its location. As other posters have suggested, Aldwych was probably doomed from its birth. If Aldwych were reopened today with through services to Cockfosters (which in itself is physically difficult), I think demand would still be poor for two reasons: 1. The frequency with which Aldwych could be served would be limited by capacity considerations on the rest of the line (it's not as though you can just slot extra trains in the timetable between Holborn and Arnos Grove, and the existing trains are busy with people heading to and from places like Piccadilly Circus). In turn, sending trains to Aldwych would pose reliability problems. 2. Even if served by a relatively high frequency, it's just too near other Piccadilly stations to be particularly useful - even Holborn is only a few minutes' walk away, and Covent Garden is much more useful for the key theatre-going market. I think we are both saying that the inevitable poor service made the station unattractive. The poor service at Alwych follows from it being on a stub with necessarily either a shuttle or infrequent through service. A station on an imaginary through line at that location might well have been popular. I think we're getting the concepts of through *services* and through *lines* muddled up here. I was saying that a through *service* to Aldwych would have never have been able to attract high levels of demand. A through *line* is an entirely different kettle of fish. I don't really see why the distinction matters in this regard. If you can get on at a station near where you are and there is a frequent service that goes a long way without changing after one stop, the service is more attractive than if you always have to change after one stop or if the service is infrequent. OK, I understand how you are equating a through service to a through line (in terms of destinations served). However, I maintain that the catchment area of the station is the limiting factor. Even if Mill Hill East had a direct service to every single station in central London, demand could only reach a certain level because there are only a certain number of trip generators (e.g. households or workplaces) within the catchment of the station, and because those direct services will only save a certain amount of time over services involving changes. I think we're going around in circles with this though. The argument was initially that Aldwych had an unattractive service, which made it unpopular, which led to closure, and that therefore the same will happen to Mill Hill East. I disagree with this argument. Consider the sequence "through service" - "shuttle service" - "closure". For Aldwych, the through service is hypothetical, but we'll consider it anyway. Through service results in a certain level of demand (q1) from the surrounding area for Underground services. I propose that this level of demand is related to the number of destinations available, which I also propose is measured as the number of trip attractors within a fixed number of generalised minutes (e.g. 45) - by which I mean taking into account penalties for interchanges, walking, waiting and the like (e.g. an interchange is unattractive, so might attract a hypothetical penalty of 10 minutes, plus however much time it actually takes to change trains). When the through service is reduced to a shuttle service, there is a reduction in the level of demand for Tube services, which is related to the reduction in number of destinations available (e.g. within 45 generalised minutes). *However*, this reduction is small, because the closeness of other Tube stations like Covent Garden means that in reality, the number of destinations available doesn't actually decrease very much. Now the shuttle service is reduced to NO service. There is another reduction in demand for Tube services from the local area, because there is a reduction in the number of destinations available by my measure. However, once again, this reduction is small because there are many alternatives. The case for closure is easily made, because of the small drop in demand for Tube services. Turning to Mill Hill East, we have a through service. Reducing this through service to a shuttle will decrease the number of destinations by my measure, as there is a new interchange penalty and additional waiting time. This will reduce demand for Tube services from the area by an amount related to the decrease in number of destinations available within 45 generalised minutes. This is where my argument comes in. Reducing this shuttle service to NO service through closure would reduce the demand for Tube services from the area around MHE proportionally MUCH more than for Aldwych, because there would be a VAST reduction in the number of destinations available from the MHE area compared to the small reduction at Aldwych. The argument for reducing from a through service to a shuttle hinges on the size of the reduction in available destinations within the appropriate time limit. This reduction will be smaller than the reduction from closure, because although creating a shuttle service results in a penalty, destinations are still available - whereas reducing from a shuttle to closure means that, if no alternative stations are available, virtually no destinations are available. The means of measuring the inconvenience caused to Mill Hill East users is through valuation of the increases in the generalised time of their journeys (the valuation resulting in a generalised cost for each user based on their value of time). The total increase in generalised cost of all journeys from Mill Mill East will be a monetary quantity. It's then necessary to determine how much time all other Northern line users will save from improved frequency (to High Barnet) and reliability (across the line). This can then be valued in a similar way to produce an estimated decrease in generalised cost for each user, and the total decrease across all users will also be a monetary quantity. If the first quantity (costs to MHE users) is lower than the second quantity (benefits to all other users), then the move is a good one to make. You have explained why the service from Aldwych is inevitably unattractive, relating to the nature of the branch. The unattractiveness of the service makes the station unpopular, whatever the reason. The proposed changes will go a long way towards making Mill Hill East unpopular as well, always having to change trains after one stop and cross over a bridge (unless there is going to be a reversing manoeuvre, which certainly won't help reliability). Once people stop using it in the off-peak, there will be an excuse to cut it to peak only. Once it's peak only, people will drive to Finchley Central so that they can get home if they happen to stay late after work, and then MHE will close. It's a familiar pattern. MHE will close if the costs to MHE users of closure are less than any benefits that might accrue to other PT users because of its closure (from spending the money used to run the branch elsewhere). In either case - it would be justified (shock horror!). Personally, I don't think the costs to MHE users of closure *would* be lower than the benefits from the closure, so I don't think the branch will be closed. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Mill Hill East
"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message ... Mike Bristow wrote: I think that the MHE branch has a timetable publically available. Can anyone confirm this? It certainly had one approx five years ago. So did Chigwell etc. What does it look like? A single sheet of paper... imagine a portrait A4, but half as wide. |
Mill Hill East
wrote in message oups.com... Whats the current interval off peak anyhow? Between 1996 and 1998, MHE had a train every 12-15 minutes whenever the line was open. The frequency depended not on demand but on whole number intervals of the mainline headway... so at the time of night when the mainline dropped from 5 minute headways to 6, the MHE frequency went up from 15 to 12. See http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro....html#Northern |
Mill Hill East
On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 10:50:28 +0100, John Rowland wrote:
A single sheet of paper... imagine a portrait A4, but half as wide. That's A5. -- jhk |
Mill Hill East
Jarle H Knudsen wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 10:50:28 +0100, John Rowland wrote: A single sheet of paper... imagine a portrait A4, but half as wide. That's A5. Or not - it might be if it were *landscape* A4, but half as wide. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Mill Hill East
"Jarle H Knudsen" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 10:50:28 +0100, John Rowland wrote: a portrait A4, but half as wide. That's A5. No, that would be a portrait A4, but half as high. |
Mill Hill East
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message ... Trains that went to Aldwych wouldn't be able to go to Covent Garden or Leicester Square, making overcrowding at those stations worse. No. The bottleneck at Covent Garden is the lifts. Reducing train capacity wouldn't make the crowding problems worse. |
Mill Hill East
John Rowland wrote:
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message ... Trains that went to Aldwych wouldn't be able to go to Covent Garden or Leicester Square, making overcrowding at those stations worse. No. The bottleneck at Covent Garden is the lifts. Reducing train capacity wouldn't make the crowding problems worse. OK - but platform crowding levels (as opposed to overcrowding) would increase, because a similar number of people to now would be waiting longer for their trains. (I admit that overcrowding would not be worse.) I'll revise my statement: crowding levels at Leicester Square would certainly increase (potentially leading to overcrowding), as they would at every station west thereof. Running direct trains to Aldwych would have a detrimental effect on Piccadilly line crowding at *all* stations - both to the west, where frequency would drop from 30tph-ish by however many trains diverted to Aldwych, and to the east, where passengers for stations beyond Holborn would wait for a through train. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Mill Hill East
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Aidan Stanger wrote: Tom Anderson wrote: On Tue, 4 Apr 2006, Aidan Stanger wrote: [Changing Mill Hill East branch to a shuttle service] If they shortened the train length proportionally, it wouldn't even cost any more to run. What's the train length got to do with it? Going from 15 to 8 minutes would be done by cutting down waiting time, not running more trains, AIUI. Shorter trains use less electricity. Aha. Is that a significant cost in running a train, then? I'd never though of that. It can be. Although electricity is quite cheap. It really depends on how you shorten the trains - if splitting them is a labour intensive process then it could eat up the cost savings. After the peak, Thameslink used to split every alternate train into two 4 car trains until passenger numbers grew so much that overcrowding forced them to abandon this policy. But it wasn't entirely due to the cost of electricity. Trains were (and are) maintained on a "per mile" basis, so taking half of them out of service also reduced the maintenance cost. The interesting thing to consider is how the MHE branch can be made more useful in the long term. One idea I put on my website is to have it as a branch of Crossrail Line 2, and extend it to Watford Junction via MHB, Edgware and Stanmore. This would mean that nobody in North London would have to detour to Euston to catch a train to The North, Er, provided they can get to the High Barnet branch of the Northern line, No, it would interchange with the other lines as well. Where would it go south of Finchley? Highgate, Crouch End, Finsbury Park, Dalston Junction. There it would interchange with ELL and Stratford services, and join Crossrail Line 2 which would run underground to Clapham Junction (via Essex Road, Angel, Kings Cross St.Pancras, Tottenham Court Road, Piccadilly Circus, Victoria, Sloane Square, Kings Road and West Battersea). and they don't want the ECML or MML! If they did, they'd be detouring to Kings Cross or St.Pancras, not Euston. However there would be a stop at Mill Hill Broadway to connect with the Thameslink service, so some MML passengers would also benefit albeit not to the same extent as the WCML passengers. I suppose if this function was considered important enough, more trains could be stopped at MHB. Yes, but I doubt it would be - after all, not many stop at W Hampstead. There's no GNER equivalent of Watford Junction. Stevenage is too far out, and they couldn't get planning permission for their Hadley Wood proposals. Potters Bar might be a better location, but their trains don't stop there yet. The closest equivalent is probably Finsbury Park. In terms of distance, that's more like Willesden Junction, but i think it gets more trains stopping there than that. Under my Crossrail plans, Willesden Junction would become more like Finsbury Park. For more details see my website at http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk If they, or their successors, ever do start stopping their trains there, it might be worth considering extending the Jubilee Line there. But it's not going to become as important a station as Watford Junction any time in the forseeable future. The Northern or Piccadilly look better placed for that to me. They are, but as they're quite near the GN line they wouldn't extend the catchment area so much. [snip] Does anyone else have any other ideas for it? The trouble with resurrecting the Northern Heights plan is the green belt; the intention was always to drive development of new suburbs in the north, as the Met did for Metroland, but post-WW2 planning policy has put the kybosh on that. If the illustrious Mr Prescott or his successor waves a wand and lets the golf courses and subsidy sinks of Bushey be buried under an avalanche of Barratt boxes, this plan might regain wings. It wouldn't require that. There's enough of Bushey not already served by rail to justify a station. The main destination's Watford. It's not about justifying a station - it's about justifying a new railway, a much more expensive proposition. I know. This is a long term plan, mentioned on the "other stages" page of my website. It's not intended to be built until well after the core sections of Crossrail Lines 1, 2 and 3 (the latter being my own plan for a line incorporating the Canary Wharf branch, which would be deleted from the Line 1 scheme). Some freight bypass routes would have a higher priority than this. It would probably also be a lower priority than some new express tunnels (such as from Battersea to Purley, which would greatly increase capacity on the South Coast route and slash journey times on that and the reinstated Gatwick Express!) However, linking it to the ELL would be folly, IMHO; better would be to link it to the GN electrics from Finsbury Park to Moorgate. A graded junction at Moorgate would allow this to be done without conflicting with mainline traffic to KX; the branch to Moorgate itself might need some upgrading to cope, but the frequency would be well within the capability of modern (ie early 20th century signalling systems). Of course, this all comes to pass anyway under my glorious plan to drive the tunnel further south from Moorgate, under the Bank and the Thames, to link up with the lines at London Bridge ... Where would you link them up? Do you mean where would the portal be? Good question. Is there room for a portal around the bulge in the formation where the railway crosses Dockley Road? I don't think so BICBW. if not, you'd need to take some land away from buildings beside the line; some grim industrial buildings would be the cheapest option, perhaps those by Tanner Road, Rouel Road, Saint James's Road, etc. Central London land is expensive whatever it's currently used for! Where you put the portal depends to some extent on which lines you want to join up with, and i don't have strong views on that - i don't know enough about the traffic patterns. There's really two choices: South Eastern and South Central. Both have capacity issues. South Eastern trains are more overcrowded, but that can easily and relatively cheaply be solved with longer trains (IIRC BR lengthened most platforms to take 12 car trains, but the work was stopped by privatization and is yet to resume). All South Central trains detour over 2km East. Constructing a more direct line would slash journey times for the services that use it. It would also boost line capacity, which isn't much of an issue now, but may become one when the ELL Peckhan branch is constructed. It would be possible to discontinue the SouthCentral service from Victoria to London Bridge, and instead divert them onto the South Eastern via the Peckham to Lewisham line. The main disadvantage is that it would leave Denmark Hill without a direct service to London Bridge, hence the suggestion of having the new tunnel serve Denmark Hill. However there are direct buses, and light rail might be a better option than a new tunnel. I also wondered whether that line could be extended. There's nowhere around London Bridge to surface, but some passengers would get a much more direct journey if it ran straight to Denmark Hill and surfaced somewhere around Dulwich or Tulse Hill. That's quite a bit of tunnelling, though. Yes it is. Tunnelling under the City and the Thames is going to be expensive whatever you do, so if you do it, it's best to make the most of it, and deliver the best possible service improvements. However I have now thought of a cheaper option: surface near Elephant and use two of the tracks that currently run to Blackfriars. I also wonder whether rather than being extended from Moorgate it could be extended from Old Street to Liverpool Street to give better interchange, then run under Gracechurch Street to London Bridge. Moorgate is a stone's throw from Liverpool Street anyway - it's a shorter walk between them than between some of the more distant platforms at Bank, i'd say. Ideally, there'd be a direct underground passage; Crossrail will join the two stations up, although i would guess that the Crossrail platform won't be usable as an ad hoc foot tunnel. I don't see why it wouldn't. IIRC Crossrail platforms are planned to be very wide. -- Aidan Stanger http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk |
Mill Hill East
wrote:
I think this discussion has grown out of all proportion. In the off peak when things are not quite running to time, the line controllers will often just send the odd train in 4 to MHE, which is in effect the same service as a shuttle (15 mins). The shuttles are set up currently in times of severe disruption, but from what I can see, I don't quite grasp the reason for the mass debate? Introducing a shuttle service is a good idea, but the way they're planning to do it isn't, and has triggered speculation about whether they're running the service down prior to closure. Whats the current interval off peak anyhow? The other flaw in the main arguments are a "through service", a "through service" to what exactly? Camden? Change. Bank? Change. Euston? Change. Only the second of those examples would require a change. The Tube is unlike the rest of the railway where changes can be painstaking and frustrating. The tube network is a whole series of walks, transfers and interchanges. So a few dozen people at Finchley Central are left waiting an extra 2 minutes for a MHE train, whats the major deal? The big deal is that they're worsening the service, whereas it would be so easy for them to improve the service. The notion of reducing train lengths incidentally to save costs is ridiculous in this instance because there would have to be customised rolling stock for a branch line. Commonality of fleet breeds reliable trains, fact. The notion that it is a ridiculous notion is itself ridiculous! Firstly it's commonality of modular components and equipment layout that gives a reliability advantage - not how far the back cab is from the front cab! Secondly, the rest of the fleet's big enough to gain a commonality advantage. Having one train different is unlikely to impact on the reliability of the rest of the fleet, even if the reliability of the train that's different is adversely affected. And thirdly, shorter trains are cheaper to maintain because there's less of them to maintain! Supposing a 2 car train was sufficiently different from the rest of the fleet that the maintenance cost per car km was doubled. That still leaves you ahead of where you'd be if you ran a 6 car train. Anyone know whether the change is borne from TfL or a TubeLines infastructure related cost? Not for certain, but it's more likely to be TfL. -- Aidan Stanger http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk |
Aldwych is at its most useful today!
|
Mill Hill East
On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 11:27:22 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote:
Jarle H Knudsen wrote: On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 10:50:28 +0100, John Rowland wrote: A single sheet of paper... imagine a portrait A4, but half as wide. That's A5. Or not - it might be if it were *landscape* A4, but half as wide. I was reading portrait but thinking landscape. Sorry. -- jhk |
Mill Hill East
Dave Arquati wrote: I was talking about the through *service* from Mill Hill East to Morden, for which demand is limited because of the low population density around Mill Hill East station. High Barnet, on the other hand, is different I'm wondering if anyone in this thread has actually been to mill hill east recently. A large housing estate has in the last 2 years been built on the old gasworks. Anyone who says MHE doesn't have a population wanting to use it is talking rubbish. B2003 |
Mill Hill East
The interesting thing to consider is how the MHE branch can be made more
useful in the long term. One idea I put on my website is to have it as a branch of Crossrail Line 2, and extend it to Watford Junction via MH Just a couple of teeny problems with extending the MHE branch further than Copthall at the moment: a business park (admittedly now closed), a housing estate, the A41 and last but not least the M1 have been built on the trackbed. I suspect moving that lot out the way might break the budget somewhat. B2003 |
Mill Hill East
|
Mill Hill East
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message ... In article .com, writes The other flaw in the main arguments are a "through service", a "through service" to what exactly? Camden? Change. Bank? Change. Euston? Change. The current through service is to Morden or Kennington. The notion of reducing train lengths incidentally to save costs is ridiculous in this instance because there would have to be customised rolling stock for a branch line. No, there wouldn't. The Northern Line trains are 3-car units, coupled in pairs to make 6-car trains. You could run a single unit as the shuttle. This whole thing is *just* like the Chesham branch: shuttle off-peak, through trains in the peak, shuttle being a single unit and all other trains on the line being pairs. Although the Northern Line trains are made up of two 3-car units, they do not have cabs at both ends so it would not be possible to run a 3 car train of 95 stock. Peter Smyth |
Mill Hill East
The other flaw in the main arguments are a "through service", a
"through service" to what exactly? Camden? Change. Bank? Change. Euston? Change. The current through service is to Morden or Kennington. The notion of reducing train lengths incidentally to save costs is ridiculous in this instance because there would have to be customised rolling stock for a branch line. No, there wouldn't. The Northern Line trains are 3-car units, coupled in pairs to make 6-car trains. You could run a single unit as the shuttle. Except the trains are formed with UNDMs at the inner ends of the units and therefore have no driving cabs (Apart from the shunting panel, of course). 95 stock doesn't have any double ended 3 car units. -- 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) |
Mill Hill East
In article , Tom
Anderson writes Moorgate is a stone's throw from Liverpool Street anyway - it's a shorter walk between them than between some of the more distant platforms at Bank, i'd say. Looking in an atlas, Moorgate to LS is at least twice as far as the furthest walk between platforms at Bank. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
Mill Hill East
Steve Fitzgerald wrote:
The other flaw in the main arguments are a "through service", a "through service" to what exactly? Camden? Change. Bank? Change. Euston? Change. The current through service is to Morden or Kennington. The notion of reducing train lengths incidentally to save costs is ridiculous in this instance because there would have to be customised rolling stock for a branch line. No, there wouldn't. The Northern Line trains are 3-car units, coupled in pairs to make 6-car trains. You could run a single unit as the shuttle. Except the trains are formed with UNDMs at the inner ends of the units and therefore have no driving cabs (Apart from the shunting panel, of course). 95 stock doesn't have any double ended 3 car units. How easy/difficult would it be to create a double-ended unit using existing cars? -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Mill Hill East
Boltar wrote:
The interesting thing to consider is how the MHE branch can be made more useful in the long term. One idea I put on my website is to have it as a branch of Crossrail Line 2, and extend it to Watford Junction via MH Just a couple of teeny problems with extending the MHE branch further than Copthall at the moment: a business park (admittedly now closed), a housing estate, the A41 and last but not least the M1 have been built on the trackbed. I suspect moving that lot out the way might break the budget somewhat. Of course some of that section would have to be underground, and therefore more expensive. However, undergrounding has its own advantage: the line can be on a straighter faster alignment. -- Aidan Stanger http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk |
Mill Hill East
In message .com, John
B writes Except the trains are formed with UNDMs at the inner ends of the units and therefore have no driving cabs (Apart from the shunting panel, of course). 95 stock doesn't have any double ended 3 car units. How easy/difficult would it be to create a double-ended unit using existing cars? I'm not that familiar with 95 stock but on 73s (which I am more familiar with) it would not be even considered. For a start you would lose a full train in the process as you would need the driving cab from each end (2 units) to make up your little train. Then you would leave the other 3 cars sat around taking space up that now couldn't be used. Tube stock is formed into fixed units (either 3 or 4 car) with semi-permanent couplers within the unit and the electrics and other jumpers hard wired as they are designed to be only split in the workshops, and therefore can't be re-marshalled on a whim. Equipment is also spread throughout the train (ie, the compressors are actually in the trailers) as there is a shortage of space. It's highly likely that the cars marshalled into this little train would have to have some sort of wiring modifications and no doubt the software would have to be rewritten and then debugged as the train currently expects to find 6 cars out there. Another issue here is that the trains have everything duplicated for backup in case of problems. In the case of our 3 car 73 stock for example, (the ones with two cabs, known as double ended units) this means that the trailers have been fitted with 2 compressors to comply with this and thus can operate as a 3 car unit, so no doubt any 95s used would have to be similarly modified. Now, before anyone suggests that it might be a good wheeze to steal a 3 car double ended 73TS for this mythical exercise, I should also add that there are restrictions where various trains can go; and due to the fitment of static converters at refurbishment, 73TS is now restricted to the Piccadilly and other limited excursions where appropriate signalling immunisation has taken place. Then you have another problem in that you would now have a unique train (so, what happens when it needs serious work done, do you have a second short spare to maintain the service?). If you do have service problems, that train then couldn't be used anywhere else to maybe fill a gap in the service and then bring in a later train in to recover the MHE service. Allocations of trains to workings at depots (yes, each working is allocated a specific train at the start of the day) would be complicated as you have different types of train involved and it can't be rotated to even out the mileage either. These are just a few random thoughts why I think it would never happen. -- 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) |
Mill Hill East
These are just a few random thoughts why I think it would never happen.
Never seemed to bother them with the Aldwych and Epping-Ongar shuttles. Where theres a will theres a way, though with most LU management and staff wills are generally in short supply it seems to me. B2003 |
Mill Hill East
Of course some of that section would have to be underground, and
therefore more expensive. However, undergrounding has its own advantage: the line can be on a straighter faster alignment. Presumably it would be build on yellow brick so Dorothy , Lion and Tinman could stroll down it after operating hours just to complete the fantasy? B2003 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:15 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk