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.

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

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

In message .com,
writes

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.

Cost. It would require a second ticket hall for starters. But I think
escalators are still being considered as a longer term remedy. In the
meantime, there are some quite expensive improvements to the existing
layout planned for next year.

--
Paul Terry

"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.

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

"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.

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

"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.

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