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

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

"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.

"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.

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

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

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

On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 00:39:23 -0000, (Mark Brader) wrote:

Dave Arquati:
The branch seems to be at its most useful now - as a film set. It
probably gains far more revenue for LU in its current job than it ever
did as a passenger branch.

Nigel Pendse:
What an excellent point, which had never occurred to me!

Well, but is it actually true?

Aldwych was already in use as a film set when it was a working station --
after all, it was the only genuine deep-level tube station with no trains
passing through it throughout every weekend. Is the demand for filming
really so great that 7-day availability makes a difference to revenue?

Didn't they used to hire it out several nights a week as a party venue
too? And I'm sure Stella Artois hired it for a week one year to show
some classic movies that were relevant to the underground, as part of
their Stella Screen campaign. Point is, I'm sure it's been used for a
lot more than just film shoots

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

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