John B wrote:
asdf wrote:
The plans are for the current (self-contained) WLL service to be
replaced with through running from the NLL (Stratford to Clapham
Junction), so it wouldn't be possible to use a different type of stock
just for the WLL. The Euston to Watford service will be axed
completely, but this only uses something like 4 of the 23 313 units.

It seems apparent to me from the figures that the proposed doubling of
the frequency on the WLL and NLL (and the reopening of the Queens Park
- Camden Road route) will be achieved simply by running the 376s in
addition to the 313s, rather than the 376s replacing the 313s. The
options in the contract would then allow the 313s to be replaced at a
later date with a subsequent build of 376s.

Yehbutnobut.

As far as I can tell (certainly according to NR's RUS -
http://tinyurl.com/hbkhq ), the medium-term plan to take effect by 2009
when these trains are introduced is for:

Stratford - Richmond x 4
Stratford - QP x 2
Barking - Clapham x 2
Barking - Gospel Oak x 2
Watford - Croydon (via Clapham) x 1
Shepherds Bush - Croydon (via Clapham) x 1

This is the same frequency as at present on Stratford to Richmond.
(snip)

The information coming out of various transport orifices regarding the
future "Orbirail" service patterns is a bit of a mess. The most recent
TfL plan prior to the publication of NR's RUS was relatively simple. THe
first phase was:

4tph Stratford to Richmond
4tph CJ to Stratford
2tph Gospel Oak to Barking.

However, NR's RUS now says that TfL's proposal (service variant SLC2 for
implementation in Jan 2011) is the rather bewildering:

4tph Stratford to Richmond
2tph Gospel Oak to Barking
2tph CJ to Willesden Jcn
2tph CJ to Barking
4tph Caledonian Rd to Stratford
and a possible 4tph Caledonian Rd to Dalston "ELL precursor" (what
purpose that would serve, I have no idea - they don't even say whether
that's supposed to be to Kingsland or Junction, and if it's to Junction,
why not just run the proper ELL service?)

Compare that the NR's medium-term proposal; the TfL one offers the
Queen's Park services only as far as Caledonian Road, and offers a
better service on the WLL (4tph exclusive of any Southern services,
rather than inclusive in the NR proposal).

The long-term NR proposal does match up with what TfL proposed for its
second phase:

4tph Stratford to Richmond
4tph CJ to Barking
4tph QP to Stratford

....which would (together with the non-TfL Watford J to East Croydon and
Shepherd's Bush to East Croydon services) also offer an excellent 6tph
between Shepherd's Bush and Clapham Junction.

I'm going to assume that what NR state TfL's SLC2 specification to be in
this Cross-London RUS supercedes what TfL originally submitted to the
RUS consultation.

The newer version only offers half the service (4tph) between Gospel Oak
and Camden Road - although perhaps this is to avoid the scenario in the
previous proposal where new demand might be generated by the 8tph along
that corridor, only for the service to fall back to 4tph later on. I'm
also unsure quite why TfL offer 2 extra tph on the WLL from the start
whilst NR delay it until the long-term.

It's all very confusing! Previous reports also suggested that the
Olympics transport package was funding improvements for 6-car trains on
the NLL, but that now seems unnecessary...

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

On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, Dave Arquati wrote:

4tph Caledonian Rd to Stratford

I think we should start referring to the former of those two stations as
Barnsbury. As it is, every time i read about NLL service patterns, i start
wondering where the Picc/NLL curve is.

tom

--
Baby got a masterplan. A foolproof masterplan.

In article , Dave Arquati
writes
However, NR's RUS now says that TfL's proposal (service variant SLC2
for implementation in Jan 2011) is the rather bewildering:
[...]
and a possible 4tph Caledonian Rd to Dalston "ELL precursor" (what
purpose that would serve, I have no idea

Could it be to let them get experience with the effects of pathing the
ELL on to the NLL, before it opens?

--
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 article , Dave Arquati
writes
However, NR's RUS now says that TfL's proposal (service variant SLC2
for implementation in Jan 2011) is the rather bewildering:
[...]
and a possible 4tph Caledonian Rd to Dalston "ELL precursor" (what
purpose that would serve, I have no idea

Could it be to let them get experience with the effects of pathing the
ELL on to the NLL, before it opens?

That's what I thought, but it doesn't seem to work - it must either run
to Dalston Kingsland or Dalston Junction; if it's the former, then
wouldn't they need to build expensive and temporary turnback facilities?
If it's the latter, then there seems to be little point running a
precursor when the proper ELL could be run through.

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

In article , Dave Arquati
writes
Could it be to let them get experience with the effects of pathing
the ELL on to the NLL, before it opens?
That's what I thought, but it doesn't seem to work - it must either run
to Dalston Kingsland or Dalston Junction; if it's the former, then
wouldn't they need to build expensive and temporary turnback
facilities? If it's the latter, then there seems to be little point
running a precursor when the proper ELL could be run through.

Not if they build the junction, with temporary buffer stops on the ELL
route, early, well before finishing the rest of the ELL stuff (in
particular, the link from Whitechapel to the viaduct).

--
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:

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 13:25:16 +0100, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

Could it be to let them get experience with the effects of pathing
the ELL on to the NLL, before it opens?
That's what I thought, but it doesn't seem to work - it must either run
to Dalston Kingsland or Dalston Junction; if it's the former, then
wouldn't they need to build expensive and temporary turnback
facilities? If it's the latter, then there seems to be little point
running a precursor when the proper ELL could be run through.

Not if they build the junction, with temporary buffer stops on the ELL
route, early, well before finishing the rest of the ELL stuff (in
particular, the link from Whitechapel to the viaduct).

The link from Whitechapel to the viaduct is part of ELLX Phase 1. The
connection from Dalston Junction to Canonbury, and through running
onto the NLL, is part of Phase 2, so it won't need to happen till much
later.

asdf wrote:
The link from Whitechapel to the viaduct is part of ELLX Phase 1. The
connection from Dalston Junction to Canonbury, and through running
onto the NLL, is part of Phase 2, so it won't need to happen till much
later.

TfL has requested that the ELLX project team look at (the
costs/benefits of?) connecting the extension at its northern extremity
to the NLL proper - indeed the RUS as published last week refers to
this. In addition, I read somewhere today (can't mind where - sorry)
that the new rolling stock is to be maintained at a new depot in the
New Cross Gate area (dunno where though) which would suggest that a
connection will be necessary to facilitate stock transfer.

THC

On 4 Sep 2006 11:22:04 -0700, THC wrote:

The link from Whitechapel to the viaduct is part of ELLX Phase 1. The
connection from Dalston Junction to Canonbury, and through running
onto the NLL, is part of Phase 2, so it won't need to happen till much
later.

TfL has requested that the ELLX project team look at (the
costs/benefits of?) connecting the extension at its northern extremity
to the NLL proper - indeed the RUS as published last week refers to
this. In addition, I read somewhere today (can't mind where - sorry)
that the new rolling stock is to be maintained at a new depot in the
New Cross Gate area (dunno where though) which would suggest that a
connection will be necessary to facilitate stock transfer.

In Phase 1, there will be a connection at New Cross Gate (for the West
Croydon - Dalston Junction and Crystal Palace - Dalston Junction
services), so there will be no need for a connection at the north end
just to transfer stock. (However, ISTM that it would make the service
a lot more useful at relatively little cost if through running to the
NLL was done as part of Phase 1.)

Dave Arquati wrote:
John B wrote:
asdf wrote:
The plans are for the current (self-contained) WLL service to be
replaced with through running from the NLL (Stratford to Clapham
Junction), so it wouldn't be possible to use a different type of stock
just for the WLL. The Euston to Watford service will be axed
completely, but this only uses something like 4 of the 23 313 units.

It seems apparent to me from the figures that the proposed doubling of
the frequency on the WLL and NLL (and the reopening of the Queens Park
- Camden Road route) will be achieved simply by running the 376s in
addition to the 313s, rather than the 376s replacing the 313s. The
options in the contract would then allow the 313s to be replaced at a
later date with a subsequent build of 376s.

Yehbutnobut.

As far as I can tell (certainly according to NR's RUS -
http://tinyurl.com/hbkhq ), the medium-term plan to take effect by 2009
when these trains are introduced is for:

Stratford - Richmond x 4
Stratford - QP x 2
Barking - Clapham x 2
Barking - Gospel Oak x 2
Watford - Croydon (via Clapham) x 1
Shepherds Bush - Croydon (via Clapham) x 1

This is the same frequency as at present on Stratford to Richmond.
(snip)

The information coming out of various transport orifices regarding the
future "Orbirail" service patterns is a bit of a mess. The most recent
TfL plan prior to the publication of NR's RUS was relatively simple. THe
first phase was:

4tph Stratford to Richmond
4tph CJ to Stratford
2tph Gospel Oak to Barking.

However, NR's RUS now says that TfL's proposal (service variant SLC2 for
implementation in Jan 2011) is the rather bewildering:

4tph Stratford to Richmond
2tph Gospel Oak to Barking
2tph CJ to Willesden Jcn
2tph CJ to Barking
4tph Caledonian Rd to Stratford
and a possible 4tph Caledonian Rd to Dalston "ELL precursor" (what
purpose that would serve, I have no idea - they don't even say whether
that's supposed to be to Kingsland or Junction, and if it's to Junction,
why not just run the proper ELL service?)

Compare that the NR's medium-term proposal; the TfL one offers the
Queen's Park services only as far as Caledonian Road, and offers a
better service on the WLL (4tph exclusive of any Southern services,
rather than inclusive in the NR proposal).
(snip my own post)

Incidentally, NLL services to/from Stratford are diverted to Queen's
Park on a few weekends soon because of engineering work on the rest of
the line.


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

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 16:27:44 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote:

Incidentally, NLL services to/from Stratford are diverted to Queen's
Park on a few weekends soon because of engineering work on the rest of
the line.

I went on one of these last time they ran. In the westbound direction,
the train even stopped for a couple of minutes in the (rather
overgrown) platform at Primrose Hill. (I guessed this was part of the
timetable, as recovery time.)