|
Mill Hill East
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. http://www.hendontimes.co.uk/news/lo... ondon_cut.php Peter Smyth |
Mill Hill East
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. http://www.hendontimes.co.uk/news/lo... ondon_cut.php Peter Smyth 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. Why don't they genuinely improve reliability by doubling the track? The service is being made less attractive so that a decline in use can be given as an excuse to make more cuts, leading to more unattractiveness and further decline in use. The most reliable railway is one that runs no trains at all: none are ever late or cancelled. |
Mill Hill East
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. http://www.hendontimes.co.uk/news/lo... ondon_cut.php 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. Why don't they genuinely improve reliability by doubling the track? The service is being made less attractive so that a decline in use can be given as an excuse to make more cuts, leading to more unattractiveness and further decline in use. The most reliable railway is one that runs no trains at all: none are ever late or cancelled. I don't think this is fair. It's uncontroversial among transport planning professionals that the more branches a service has, the more scope there is for it to go wrong. This is particularly pronounced in a system as complicated as the Northern Line, where minor delays in one branch have the potential to cause serious system-wide distruption once trains start arriving out of timetabled order in the wrong places. The Northern Line would be significantly more reliable if the junction at Camden were abolished and all trains ran either Edgware - City - Morden and High Barnet - Charing Cross - Kennington. This isn't feasible, at least until Camden Town is rebuilt (and possibly not even then): the station is not big enough to take the required volume of interchanging passengers. It would also be significantly more reliable if the signalling were replaced to allow ATO. This will happen, but not for years. On the other hand, the interchange at Finchley Central is easily capable of taking the required volume of Mill Hill East passengers, and this change can happen with immediate effect. The cost of the manoeuvre to MHE pax is very limited: they can get a once-every-four-mins train to Finchley, then a once-every-15-mins shuttle to MHE as-now. This increases the average expected through journey time by about 2 minutes (can't be bothered to do the proper maths), while providing no reduction in service frequency. 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... -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Mill Hill East
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. http://www.hendontimes.co.uk/news/lo... ondon_cut.php 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. Why don't they genuinely improve reliability by doubling the track? The service is being made less attractive so that a decline in use can be given as an excuse to make more cuts, leading to more unattractiveness and further decline in use. The most reliable railway is one that runs no trains at all: none are ever late or cancelled. I don't think this is fair. It's uncontroversial among transport planning professionals that the more branches a service has, the more scope there is for it to go wrong. This is particularly pronounced in a system as complicated as the Northern Line, where minor delays in one branch have the potential to cause serious system-wide distruption once trains start arriving out of timetabled order in the wrong places. The Northern Line would be significantly more reliable if the junction at Camden were abolished and all trains ran either Edgware - City - Morden and High Barnet - Charing Cross - Kennington. This isn't feasible, at least until Camden Town is rebuilt (and possibly not even then): the station is not big enough to take the required volume of interchanging passengers. It would also be significantly more reliable if the signalling were replaced to allow ATO. This will happen, but not for years. On the other hand, the interchange at Finchley Central is easily capable of taking the required volume of Mill Hill East passengers, and this change can happen with immediate effect. The cost of the manoeuvre to MHE pax is very limited: they can get a once-every-four-mins train to Finchley, then a once-every-15-mins shuttle to MHE as-now. This increases the average expected through journey time by about 2 minutes (can't be bothered to do the proper maths), while providing no reduction in service frequency. 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... -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org 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. Kevin |
Mill Hill East
On 4 Apr 2006 03:03:36 -0700, "John B" wrote:
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. Why don't they genuinely improve reliability by doubling the track? The service is being made less attractive so that a decline in use can be given as an excuse to make more cuts, leading to more unattractiveness and further decline in use. The most reliable railway is one that runs no trains at all: none are ever late or cancelled. I don't think this is fair. It's uncontroversial among transport planning professionals that the more branches a service has, the more scope there is for it to go wrong. This is particularly pronounced in a system as complicated as the Northern Line, where minor delays in one branch have the potential to cause serious system-wide distruption once trains start arriving out of timetabled order in the wrong places. So why retain the through services at the times when the network is under the most strain of all? And why not, say, double the frequency of the shuttle, to make up for the withdrawl of through services? |
Mill Hill East
I think this is a classic case of even though the numbers make sense,
they don't take account of people's mental processes. A through journey is ALWAYS going to be more attractive than a journey where you have to change, and if the idea is to get people out of their cars, you have to make the system as attractive as possible. To take just one example. From my house, I have two railway stations within an easy walk. One is two minutes away, one six minutes away. If I want to go to Charing Cross, I can either walk two minutes, get a Cannon Street train and change at London Bridge. Or I can walk six minutes and get a direct train. Which option do you think I choose? The latter, every time. Notwithstanding that, if they are determined to get rid of through services, why not upgrade the shuttle, as asdf says, by way of compensation? Patrick |
Mill Hill East
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. http://www.hendontimes.co.uk/news/lo...3442.0.mill_hi ll_east_tube_link_to_london_cut.php 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. Why don't they genuinely improve reliability by doubling the track? The service is being made less attractive so that a decline in use can be given as an excuse to make more cuts, leading to more unattractiveness and further decline in use. The most reliable railway is one that runs no trains at all: none are ever late or cancelled. I disagree. It was planned to extend the Northern Line further, but the reason it has no trains at all is because the entire extension was cancelled! I don't think this is fair. It's uncontroversial among transport planning professionals that the more branches a service has, the more scope there is for it to go wrong. This is particularly pronounced in a system as complicated as the Northern Line, where minor delays in one branch have the potential to cause serious system-wide distruption once trains start arriving out of timetabled order in the wrong places. The Northern Line would be significantly more reliable if the junction at Camden were abolished and all trains ran either Edgware - City - Morden and High Barnet - Charing Cross - Kennington. This isn't feasible, at least until Camden Town is rebuilt (and possibly not even then): the station is not big enough to take the required volume of interchanging passengers. It would also be significantly more reliable if the signalling were replaced to allow ATO. This will happen, but not for years. On the other hand, the interchange at Finchley Central is easily capable of taking the required volume of Mill Hill East passengers, and this change can happen with immediate effect. The cost of the manoeuvre to MHE pax is very limited: they can get a once-every-four-mins train to Finchley, then a once-every-15-mins shuttle to MHE as-now. This increases the average expected through journey time by about 2 minutes (can't be bothered to do the proper maths), while providing no reduction in service frequency. 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 shortened the train length proportionally, it wouldn't even cost any more to run. 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, and more passengers would be attracted to the outer ends of lines, where there's plenty of spare capacity. Does anyone else have any other ideas for it? -- Aidan Stanger http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk |
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 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, and more passengers would be attracted to the outer ends of lines, where there's plenty of spare capacity. Does anyone else have any other ideas for it? I'm sure I remember reading at some point a vague plan to run the East London Line from Highbury & Islington to Finsbury Park, then take over the old Parkland Walk to Stroud Green, Crouch End, Highgate, East Finchley, Finchley Central and Mill Hill East. This was ages ago, though, and I can't remember where I read it. Patrick |
Mill Hill East
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... -- John Band john atjoh |
Mill Hill East
What's the advantage to
having the train waits at the terminus for most of the time??? Err - Passengers? Its not a mini cab service that goes as soon as YOU turn up. Timetables are printed so why cant people like me look at them and use them? OK so it goes wrong and is late etc but really its a public service rather than turn up and go. In some parts of the country i am sure there are only 2 trains a day etc |
Mill Hill East
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?). |
Mill Hill East
MIG wrote:
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?). Well, it closed because it wasn't very well-used and needed its lifts replacing with ones that met modern safety standards at a cost of £millions. The same was true for Mornington Crescent, which only reopened because Camden Town was becoming dangerously overcrowded. Loadings and decisions are different in Central London from outer suburbia, though. Any Z1 non-interchange station could be closed without significantly increasing off-peak journey times, because any point in Z1 is only a few minutes' walk from more than one Tube station. They stay open because closing them would reduce peak capacity (and/or make the system less safe in the peaks). In this context, Aldwych was completely useless: even if you worked on the Strand itself, the walk from Holborn was quicker and easier than messing about with the shuttle. The same would've been true if Aldwych had had a once-every-15-mins through service like Mill Hill East: 1/4 of morning commuters would have been on the platform in time for the through train; most of the others would have gone to Holborn rather than waiting. In the evening, most people would've gone to Holborn rather than risk a 15-minute wait at Aldwych. On the other hand, the walk from Mill Hill East to Finchley Central is long enough that the Tube is still the easier option. So the Tube from MHE only stands a serious prospect of losing out for journeys to stations between about East Finchley and Archway (ie where parking is still just about possible). -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Mill Hill East
John B wrote:
...and then on from Mill Hill East to Edgware. Reviving the Northern Heights plan has been floating around London officials and geeks alike for years. It would be more sensible for the Northern Line than serving Mill Hill in the current way, which causes delays and provides a fairly crap service (and was only built to serve the barracks at Mill Hill during WWII...) I thought when Mill Hill East was opened the Northern Heights plan was still officially an option, albeit on hold, and Mill Hill East was just seen as bringing forward part of the plan because of the war. |
Mill Hill East
purple pete wrote:
What's the advantage to having the train waits at the terminus for most of the time??? Err - Passengers? No, when a train is waiting at the terminus it's NOT carrying passengers! Its not a mini cab service that goes as soon as YOU turn up. Of course it isn't - it only goes from one station to the next. Timetables are printed so why cant people like me look at them and use them? ISTR passenger timetables are not printed for the Northern Line! OK so it goes wrong and is late etc but really its a public service rather than turn up and go. Being turn up and go does not make it any less of a public service, and turn up and go is better than turn up and wait! In some parts of the country i am sure there are only 2 trains a day etc But does the driver wait at the terminus for longer than it actually takes to drive the trains? Have you actually used the trains in London? -- Aidan Stanger http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk |
Mill Hill East
John B wrote:
In this context, Aldwych was completely useless: even if you worked on the Strand itself, the walk from Holborn was quicker and easier than messing about with the shuttle. The same would've been true if Aldwych had had a once-every-15-mins through service like Mill Hill East: 1/4 of morning commuters would have been on the platform in time for the through train; most of the others would have gone to Holborn rather than waiting. Does anyone know why the Aldwych branch was built in such a way as to be useless? From recollection the southbound branch tunnel is linked to the northbound mainline tunnel whilst the other two aren't linked at all, ruling out both through services to Aldwych and using the branch for reversing when there are problem south of Holborn. I can just about understand why the station was built in the first place, but why wasn't any attempt made to make the branch in anyway useful? Not that a through service would have been handy in the long run, but it could have been more viable for extensions/creating a street interchange with Temple and so forth. |
Mill Hill East
In message , Tim Roll-Pickering
writes Does anyone know why the Aldwych branch was built in such a way as to be useless? From recollection the southbound branch tunnel is linked to the northbound mainline tunnel whilst the other two aren't linked at all, ruling out both through services to Aldwych and using the branch for reversing when there are problem south of Holborn. Because what eventually became the Piccadilly Railway was actually conceived as two separate lines which joined together at Holborn. The Northern of these two had been planned to continue south to "Strand" (as Aldwych was originally called) and was built anyway, becoming one of those odd relics of the Tube in the process. In the very earliest days of the line there were through services from "Strand" (not sure if it had been renamed at that point) to the then Northern terminus of the Piccadilly to cater for late evening theatre traffic. These ceased very early on and information about them is patchy. I can just about understand why the station was built in the first place, but why wasn't any attempt made to make the branch in anyway useful? Not that a through service would have been handy in the long run, but it could have been more viable for extensions/creating a street interchange with Temple and so forth. Well, there was on at least one occasion and possibly more talk of extending the branch under the Thames to Waterloo, which would have been a big help but I'm not sure how serious these plans were. -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
Mill Hill East
Ian Jelf wrote:
Does anyone know why the Aldwych branch was built in such a way as to be useless? From recollection the southbound branch tunnel is linked to the northbound mainline tunnel whilst the other two aren't linked at all, ruling out both through services to Aldwych and using the branch for reversing when there are problem south of Holborn. Because what eventually became the Piccadilly Railway was actually conceived as two separate lines which joined together at Holborn. The Northern of these two had been planned to continue south to "Strand" (as Aldwych was originally called) and was built anyway, becoming one of those odd relics of the Tube in the process. That explains why it was built but not why the connection at Holborn is so useless. Had it been built as a more conventional branch then it could have been useful for diverting trains, relieving pressure on the system and as a glorified reversing bay that the line sometimes needs. But instead any regular through service (the theatre specials were a late night northbound service) was scuppered from the point of construction. In the very earliest days of the line there were through services from "Strand" (not sure if it had been renamed at that point) to the then Northern terminus of the Piccadilly to cater for late evening theatre traffic. These ceased very early on and information about them is patchy. It was still Strand - the big round of renamings was during the First World War. As I understand it the theatre through service was only one a night. I can just about understand why the station was built in the first place, but why wasn't any attempt made to make the branch in anyway useful? Not that a through service would have been handy in the long run, but it could have been more viable for extensions/creating a street interchange with Temple and so forth. Well, there was on at least one occasion and possibly more talk of extending the branch under the Thames to Waterloo, which would have been a big help but I'm not sure how serious these plans were. How far along the Strand did the original Jubilee Line tunnels actually reach? Had they made it to Aldwych the station would probably be working and vibrant today. |
Mill Hill East
In message , Tim Roll-Pickering
writes That explains why it was built but not why the connection at Holborn is so useless. I suspect that by the time it was built, it was already obvious that Aldwych would never be more than a rather useless stub. During the planning stages it must have seemed to have had great potential to extend to Waterloo - but an attempt to get as far as Temple was killed off by the LCC and local landowners in 1902. Then a bill for a single bore tunnel direct to Waterloo was killed off by parliament in 1905 - by which time work had already begun on the Aldwych branch. So I suspect that the odd crossover arrangement at Holborn was eventually never seen as anything much more than a way of getting the Aldwych shuttle car out onto the main line for repairs, etc. (despite the very short-lived theatre through train). -- Paul Terry |
Mill Hill East
Tim Roll-Pickering:
Does anyone know why the Aldwych branch was built in such a way as to be useless? I've never seen an explanation of that. Clive Feather has never seen an explanation of that. From recollection the southbound branch tunnel is linked to the northbound mainline tunnel whilst the other two aren't linked at all, ruling out both through services to Aldwych and using the branch for reversing ... Right. In addition, there was no crossover north of Holborn on the main line that would have allowed the branch junction to be worked as a "single-lead junction" even if they'd wanted to; they put one at Covent Garden instead. Nor was there a crossover at the south end of the branch, only near Holborn on the branch. Here's an ASCII version of the diagram in Rails Through the Clay 2nd edition (RTTC2): to Finsbury Park | | | | | |# * |# /| |# /#| |# HOLBORN /##| |# /# #| / /# #| ( /## #| _/ # # = #| __/ # | | __/ _ ) # | * __/ __/ | /| _* __/ |/ | / |.__/ * | /# * | | /# #/ | | COVENT GARDEN | | and on to Hammersmith | | | | | | | | | | STRAND # | | # (- Aldwych) # | | # # | | # = = Ian Jelf: Because what eventually became the Piccadilly Railway was actually conceived as two separate lines which joined together at Holborn. The Northern of these two had been planned to continue south to "Strand" (as Aldwych was originally called) and was built anyway... Tim Roll-Pickering: That explains why it was built but not why the connection at Holborn is so useless. Had it been built as a more conventional branch then it could have been useful... Exactly. RTTC2 says the branch was originally worked using only the east track off-peak and with a train on each track working independently at peaks. By 1912 it was down to a single shuttle at all times, using the branch crossover, and in due course the other tracks were lifted and this became the only possible route. In the very earliest days of the line there were through services from "Strand" (not sure if it had been renamed at that point) to the then Northern terminus of the Piccadilly to cater for late evening theatre traffic. These ceased very early on and information about them is patchy. It was still Strand... Yes, it changed in 1915. As I understand it the theatre through service was only one a night. Before the branch opened, this train started from Holborn and ran express to Finsbury Park, calling only at King's Cross and Holloway Road. It was then altered to start at Strand (Aldwych), at 11:13 pm (later 11:28). From 1908 it called at all stations. [RTTC2] I don't see anything to say when it stopped running. -- Mark Brader "Remember, this is Mark we're dealing with. Toronto Rationality and fact won't work very well." -- Jeff Scott Franzman My text in this article is in the public domain. |
Mill Hill East
Tim Roll-Pickering:
I thought when Mill Hill East was opened the Northern Heights plan was still officially an option, albeit on hold, and Mill Hill East was just seen as bringing forward part of the plan because of the war. My understanding it that it wasn't just "an option", but a definite plan, albeit on hold. -- Mark Brader "Sixty years old and still pulling a train! Toronto That's more than I can say about most people I know." -- Frimbo |
Mill Hill East
In message , Mark Brader
writes ( the Aldwych Theatre train): It was then altered to start at Strand (Aldwych), at 11:13 pm (later 11:28). From 1908 it called at all stations. [RTTC2] I don't see anything to say when it stopped running. End of 1908, according to Croome's monograph on the Piccadilly line :( Not altogether surprising, though - Aldwych is right on the far easterly corner of "theatreland", so Covent Garden, Leicester Square or TCR have always been more convenient for the majority of theatre-goers. -- Paul Terry |
Mill Hill East
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006, 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. Why don't they genuinely improve reliability by doubling the track? Ooh, i know this one - because it would cost a fortune. tom -- The revolution is here. Get against the wall, sunshine. -- Mike Froggatt |
Mill Hill East
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. 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. 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? 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, and they don't want the ECML or MML! 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. 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. 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 ... tom -- The revolution is here. Get against the wall, sunshine. -- Mike Froggatt |
Mill Hill East
In article ,
Aidan Stanger wrote: ISTR passenger timetables are not printed for the Northern Line! I think that the MHE branch has a timetable publically available. A timetable exists - and is printed - for the whole line, but that's a pedantic point. -- "Get your head out of there or I'll fart" -- things you don't want to hear in bed, #12 |
Mill Hill East
"Patrick" writes:
I think this is a classic case of even though the numbers make sense, they don't take account of people's mental processes. A through journey is ALWAYS going to be more attractive than a journey where you have to change, and if the idea is to get people out of their cars, you have to make the system as attractive as possible. Indeed. Here in Toronto, the TTC now explicitly takes this factor into account when planning route changes. In this annual planning document (archived on a fan site) http://transit.toronto.on.ca/archives/reports/2005.pdf you will find this weighting table on page 9: each minute of in-vehicle travelling time 1.0 each minute of waiting time 1.5 each minute of walking time 2.0 each transfer 10.0 And I think the TTC has it right. (I just wish they'd followed the same principles in 1966, but that's another story and off-topic for this group.) I don't live in London, and I've been on the Mill Hill East branch exactly once, so I don't presume to say what the Underground should do with it -- but I do say that total trip time and operational convenience are not the only things they should have been thinking about. -- Mark Brader, Toronto | "It's been proven. Places stay clean until somebody | drops the first piece of litter." -- TTC poster My text in this article is in the public domain. |
Mill Hill East
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. 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). Mill Hill East annual entry + exit: 0.875m (~1500 weekday entries) c.f. Chigwell: 0.19m (~400 weekday entries) or Chancery Lane: 11.326m (~20,000 weekday entries) or Temple: 6.659m (~11,850 weekday entries) -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Mill Hill East
Ian Jelf wrote:
In message .com, John B writes Well, it closed because it wasn't very well-used and needed its lifts replacing with ones that met modern safety standards at a cost of £millions. I'd qualify that by saying that Aldwych would have had much higher loadings if services from it had gone somewhere more useful than just Holborn (possibly even if train had continued North of Holborn as the celebrated "Theatre Specials" did in the very earliest days of the Piccadilly). If Aldwych station had been on an east-West line between stations at Charing Cross and Ludgate Circus then it would have been a much busier place, dealing with large numbers of commuters in the week and taking much-needed pressure off Covent Garden. As it was, the station was - as has been said elsewhere of very little use. I always regret this as I seem to spend an inordinate amount of my life going to and from the Aldwych / Strand area but seldom from anywhere where the branch would ever have been useful and I suspect I'm not alone....... I occasionally have cause to go from the western Central line to the area around Aldwych, but the frequency of the shuttle would have to be pretty high to make it quicker than just walking from Holborn - the walk is only a little over five minutes, so I'd need an average wait of less than about 3-4 minutes along with a 1-2 minute journey time for it to be tempting (and that excludes the time it would take to exit using the lifts at Aldwych rather than the escalators at Holborn). 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. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Aldwych is at its most useful today!
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
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. What an excellent point, which had never occurred to me! |
Mill Hill East
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. 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. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Mill Hill East
Mark Brader wrote:
"Patrick" writes: I think this is a classic case of even though the numbers make sense, they don't take account of people's mental processes. A through journey is ALWAYS going to be more attractive than a journey where you have to change, and if the idea is to get people out of their cars, you have to make the system as attractive as possible. Indeed. Here in Toronto, the TTC now explicitly takes this factor into account when planning route changes. In this annual planning document (archived on a fan site) http://transit.toronto.on.ca/archives/reports/2005.pdf you will find this weighting table on page 9: each minute of in-vehicle travelling time 1.0 each minute of waiting time 1.5 each minute of walking time 2.0 each transfer 10.0 And I think the TTC has it right. (I just wish they'd followed the same principles in 1966, but that's another story and off-topic for this group.) I don't live in London, and I've been on the Mill Hill East branch exactly once, so I don't presume to say what the Underground should do with it -- but I do say that total trip time and operational convenience are not the only things they should have been thinking about. I agree that transfers are inherently unattractive - although the actual number is subject to some debate (10 (generalised) minutes seems a bit arbitrary, if easy to use - research suggests that it depends on different weightings for transfer walk time and transfer wait time (as distinct from access walk time and wait time)). In planning terms, it all comes down to the question: is the net additional inconvenience to MHE passengers (including a transfer penalty) less than the net benefit (in terms of reliability) to all other Northern line passengers? If the answer is yes, the decision is a sensible one. Given the relative contribution of MHE to total Northern line ridership, I suspect the decision *is* sensible. Of course, it depends how much it actually improves reliability on the rest of the line! -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Aldwych is at its most useful today!
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? -- Mark Brader "It is hard to be brave," said Piglet, sniffing Toronto slightly, when you're only a Very Small Animal". -- A. A. Milne, Winnie-the-Pooh My text in this article is in the public domain. |
Mill Hill East
In ,
Peter Smyth typed: 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. http://www.hendontimes.co.uk/news/lo... ondon_cut.php Peter Smyth If you read it carefully, it says weekdays offpeak. Weekends will remain as they are now. -- Lawrence Myers Fax No 08719892164 |
Mill Hill East
Paul Terry wrote:
That explains why it was built but not why the connection at Holborn is so useless. I suspect that by the time it was built, it was already obvious that Aldwych would never be more than a rather useless stub. In which case, a great lack of foresight. Had an extension later become available then a Waterloo to King's Cross St. Pancras direct route could have been constructed. (Isn't something similar floating about in current official long term pipe dreams?) Even just as a reversing bay the line would have been of some use - what are the current cut-off points for truncated services on the Picadilly? |
Mill Hill East
Mike Bristow wrote:
Aidan Stanger wrote: ISTR passenger timetables are not printed for the Northern Line! I think that the MHE branch has a timetable publically available. Can anyone confirm this? What does it look like? A timetable exists - and is printed - for the whole line, but that's a pedantic point. And it's precisely because of that pedantic point that I included the word "passenger". -- Aidan Stanger http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk |
Mill Hill East
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 |
Mill Hill East
In message , Tim Roll-Pickering
writes I suspect that by the time it was built, it was already obvious that Aldwych would never be more than a rather useless stub. In which case, a great lack of foresight. Had an extension later become available then a Waterloo to King's Cross St. Pancras direct route could have been constructed. (Isn't something similar floating about in current official long term pipe dreams?) Even just as a reversing bay the line would have been of some use - what are the current cut-off points for truncated services on the Picadilly? If you're referring to reversing points then we have (from east to west) Oakwood (east to west move only) Arnos Grove Wood Green (east to west only) Kings Cross Green Park (west to east via Down Street sidings only) Hyde Park Corner Barons Court (west to east only) Hammersmith Acton Town Northfields (west to east only) Boston Manor (west to east only) Hounslow Central (west to east only) Hatton Cross (west to east only) South Harrow Rayners Lane Ruislip Hillingdon (via Uxbridge sidings) There are also available to us: Ealing Broadway (west to east) West kensington (east to west) in emergencies. -- 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 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) |
Mill Hill East
wrote in message oups.com... 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?). Aldwych was closed because the cost of renewing the lifts was completly out of proportion to the number of passengers using the station. If it had been a through station, chances are that those passenger numbers would have been much higher, so the upgrade would have been viable. Chancery Lane is, of course, closed on Sundays. Chancery Lane wasn't closed last Sunday....... |
Mill Hill East
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 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk