Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 4 Apr 2006, Aidan Stanger wrote:
John B wrote:
MIG wrote:
Peter Smyth wrote:

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. Yet another service reduction
disguised as "reliability", even though for the time being there will
still be through services at the busiest and potentially most
problematic times.

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 no excuse for
sticking with a pathetic 15 minute frequency. What's the advantage to
having the train waits at the terminus for most of the time???

The MHE branch doesn't go far enough to be of much use to many people,
and having some trains go to Mill Hill East does make the service less
reliable. Converting the branch into a shuttle service makes sense, but
they should double the frequency (or better still, if as you say the
main service is every 4 minutes, run the MHE train every 8 minutes).

If they could do this reliably, so that every other mainline train made a
really good connection with a shuttle, this would be excellent.

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. Making this work reliably would be a challenge, but on
such a short and lightly-loaded line, one that could be met, i imagine.

It could if the passing loop were long, though it would be harder to
coordinate the service to connect with southbound trains as well. But
the biggest problem would be getting it to connect properly in the peaks
when trains run more frequently than every 4 minutes.

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.

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.

Is that on the old Northern Heights Alignment?

Partly.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

Does anyone else have any other ideas for it?

Extend the parkland walk .

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.

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?

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.

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.

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk

In message , Aidan Stanger
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?
--
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)

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.

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk

"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

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

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

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.

--
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:

"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

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)