MIG wrote:

I was assured by someone commuting to Victoria via Liverpool Street
that the Circle Line was a myth, and it always had to be
Central/Victoria Lines.

It is a very low frequency service compared with the rest of LUL - I
think it only runs every 10 minutes or so.

Neil

Neil Williams wrote:
MIG wrote:

I was assured by someone commuting to Victoria via Liverpool Street
that the Circle Line was a myth, and it always had to be
Central/Victoria Lines.

It is a very low frequency service compared with the rest of LUL - I
think it only runs every 10 minutes or so.

It's every 8.5 minutes, but if there's any disruption there's a tendency
to withdraw the Circle trains to give the other lines a better chance to
recover.

But anyway, how would Aldgate to tower Hill be covered?

By "Tea-cup" services that would run Hammersmith - Edgware Road -
Liverpool Street - Aldgate - Tower Hill - Gloucester Road - Edgware
Road, then back again in reverse.

How would Edgware Road cope with terminating services from both
Victoria and Wimbledon?

Good question! (The "Victoria" service would be the "Tea-cup" service
described above.) I thought the change was meant to improve reliability
by giving the "Circle" trains a chance to recover delays, but the
layover at Edgware Road will be so short, I can't see it being any
better.

Is there a downloadable source for the plans?

None in detail AFAIK

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Dave Arquati wrote:
MIG wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:
wrote:
asdf wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 00:45 +0100 (BST), Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

Isn't another reason simply the fact that the Aldgate terminating
platforms are between the Circle platforms so involve fewer conflicting
movements that at Moorgate or, when the bay existed there, at Liverpool
St?
That's quite correct. Terminating the Met at Moorgate (or Liverpool
Street) would cause more than twice as many conflicting moves as
running it through to Aldgate.
Then that is a good reason for the status quo. :-) All the same one
cannot help but think that the Circle line needs some simplification.
If Crossrail happens then that could be a good opportunity to review
Circle Line operation.
AIUI there are already plans to ditch the Circle line in a few years
(after the new S stock is in place, I think) - by diverting the H&C east
of Liverpool Street to Edgware Road via Tower Hill and Victoria (the
"tea cup") and having the Met take over H&C services east of Liverpool
Street.

I was assured by someone commuting to Victoria via Liverpool Street
that the Circle Line was a myth, and it always had to be
Central/Victoria Lines.

Having frequently attempted Gloucester Road to Marylebone, the
Picc/Bakerloo was always much more reliable than the Circle. So I agree
- I have much more faith in the Central & Victoria lines than the Circle!

But anyway, how would Aldgate to tower Hill be covered? How would
Edgware Road cope with terminating services from both Victoria and
Wimbledon? Is there a downloadable source for the plans?

Aldgate to Tower Hill would be covered by the new H&C service (which
would be Hammersmith - Edgware Rd - Liverpool St - Aldgate - Tower Hill
- Victoria - Edgware Road).

The available information is getting a bit old now. I have a summary on
my site which doesn't go into much more detail than this; there are also
a couple of other pages more worth looking at:

http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/39
http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/SS...%20Upgrade.htm
http://www.trainweb.org/districtdave...ade_plans.html



Aha; thanks. I think the concerns expressed in tubprune are rather
important and perhaps insurmountable, including the Edgware Road
terminating. It looks as if the frequency from Hammersmith to Edgware
Road would have to double in the off-peak (less in the peak, when the
Circle services don't increase).

I bet that in practice the Aldgate to Edgware Road via Victoria section
would be curtailed even more often than the current Circle is, with the
terminating problem added to the usual reasons.

Charing Cross also has had an interesting history. Embankment Station
was once Charing Cross Underground station. The current CX was Strand
Northern Line and Trafalgar Square Bakerloo...

That's only part of it -- the present names of both Charing Cross and
Embankment were also their original names on one line each.

Here's a table of the relevant openings, closings, and name changes.
For proper alignment view it in a monospaced font, of course. For CX
read Charing Cross, for E read Embankment, for TS read Trafalgar Square,
for S read Strand, for A read Aldwych. Line names have also changed
over the years, but I'll use the modern ones for simplicity's sake.
The separator "|" indicates separate stations.

| late
| now Charing Cross | now Embankment | Aldwych
| --------------------- | ----------------------- | -------
| B'loo Nor'n J'lee | Distr B'loo Nor'n | Pic'y
| --------------------- | ----------------------- | -------
1870 | - | - - | CX - - | -
1906 | TS | - - | CX E - | -
Jun1907 | TS | CX - | CX E - | -
Nov1907 | TS | CX - | CX E - | S
1914 | TS | CX(S) - | CX CX(E) CX(E) | S
1915 | TS | S - | CX CX CX | A
1973 | TS - - | CX CX CX | A
1974 | TS - - | CX E CX E CX E | A
1976 | TS - - | E E E | A
1979 | CX CX CX | E E E | A
1994 | CX CX CX | E E E | -
1999 | CX CX - | E E E | -
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Any story that needs a critic to explain it,
| needs rewriting." -- Larry Niven

My text in this article is in the public domain.

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

Probably too expensive... but then they might have to think about it if
running the Met through to Whitechapel/Barking proves unreliable!

Are you saying that there are plans to run a through service
from Amersham/Chesham/Watford/Uxbridge/HarrowOTH to Barking ?
If so, what's the point ?

Richard [in SG19]



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Richard M Willis wrote:
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

Probably too expensive... but then they might have to think about it if
running the Met through to Whitechapel/Barking proves unreliable!

Are you saying that there are plans to run a through service
from Amersham/Chesham/Watford/Uxbridge/HarrowOTH to Barking ?
If so, what's the point ?

Yes... its to replace the H&C service so that the H&C and Circle can be
combined (as detailed in some other posts in this thread).


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Yes... its to replace the H&C service so that the H&C and Circle can be
combined (as detailed in some other posts in this thread).

Oh I see.

But, what an unbalanced service ? Barking to Metroland would take ages. Is
there significant traffic demand for that route ? Are there many people
wanting to go all the way ?

Can you explain/describe what's going to happen to the H&C/Circle ? I
couldn't
follow the descriptions in these threads ? Is the idea that trains come from
Hammersmith H+C, travel eastwards along the top half of the circle to
Liverpool
Street, Aldgate, Tower Hill, Embankment, then on round to Edgware Road D+H+C
(so it passes through that station twice !)

If so, isn't that going to confuse the passengers, having the same route
pass through the same station twice on one trip ? The next station could be
either Baker Street, Paddington H+C, or Paddington D+C depending on which
phase
and direction it's going in. Edgware Road DHC has severe platform
predictability
problems as it is.

And anyway, isn't that just the circle line under a different name, with a
long
tail to it, which will still fall foul of all the conflicting movts which
bedog the circle line currently.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
Solario wrote:

The CX & Embankment Northern Line stations must be very close to each
other.

Not as close as some (e.g. Covent Garden & Leicester Square). From
recollection the CX Northern line platforms are on the northern side of the
Strand whilst the Embankment ones stretch under the Thams (I think the loop
that formed the northern platform does). But one can still see the light at
end of the tunnel when looking north.

Nah, that's just the headlamp of an oncoming train.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Robin

Mark Brader wrote:
Charing Cross also has had an interesting history. Embankment Station
was once Charing Cross Underground station. The current CX was Strand
Northern Line and Trafalgar Square Bakerloo...

That's only part of it -- the present names of both Charing Cross and
Embankment were also their original names on one line each.

Here's a table of the relevant openings, closings, and name changes.
For proper alignment view it in a monospaced font, of course. For CX
read Charing Cross, for E read Embankment, for TS read Trafalgar Square,
for S read Strand, for A read Aldwych. Line names have also changed
over the years, but I'll use the modern ones for simplicity's sake.
The separator "|" indicates separate stations.

| late
| now Charing Cross | now Embankment | Aldwych
| --------------------- | ----------------------- | -------
| B'loo Nor'n J'lee | Distr B'loo Nor'n | Pic'y
| --------------------- | ----------------------- | -------
1870 | - | - - | CX - - | -
1906 | TS | - - | CX E - | -
Jun1907 | TS | CX - | CX E - | -
Nov1907 | TS | CX - | CX E - | S
1914 | TS | CX(S) - | CX CX(E) CX(E) | S
1915 | TS | S - | CX CX CX | A
1973 | TS - - | CX CX CX | A
1974 | TS - - | CX E CX E CX E | A
1976 | TS - - | E E E | A
1979 | CX CX CX | E E E | A
1994 | CX CX CX | E E E | -
1999 | CX CX - | E E E | -

What happened to what is now Charing Cross on the Northern between '73
and '76? Was it closed for Jubilee line works? Not something I had
ever appreciated before.

Robin

"R.C. Payne" wrote

What happened to what is now Charing Cross on the Northern between '73
and '76? Was it closed for Jubilee line works? Not something I had
ever appreciated before.

Closed for rebuilding, and combining the Northern Line (ex-Strand) and
Bakerloo Line (ex-Trafalgar Square) and the new-build Jubilee Line into one
station.

Peter