wrote:
Second memo to Northern Line controller: why on earth do you choose to
run six trains via Charing Cross in ten minutes, with none via Bank? I
was at Kentish Town at 2210 on Friday night, thinking I'd left ample
time to get to London Bridge by 2249.

choice of 2 lines then. Thameslink changing if necessary. However I
know that Thameslink (now run by First Capital Connect) only care about
the passengers past St Albans- they get fast trains every 4 minutes at
peak hours while local passengers have to wait 16 minutes between
trains (at one point 20 minutes).

At Kentish Town station had an
eight minute wait for a train, which was a Charing Cross one. The next
two were also Charing Cross services. No problem, I thought, I'll
change at Camden Town. Got off at Camden and crossed over, to find
exactly the same situation for trains coming from Edgware. Finally a
Bank train pulled in just after 2230. By Angel it was packed worse
than peak hour. Got to London Bridge, sprinted up to the main
platforms, only got my train as it was four minutes late.

Why do the Northern Line controllers let this sort of situation arise?
It was very annoying for me, but it could have been so easily rectified
by rerouting a couple of the trains via Bank.

Because they have very few braincells when it comes to routing the
trains, or they simply don't care about passengers.

Same happens going North of course. 4 trains in a row on the Barnet
branch followed by 4 in a row on the Edgware branch.

In article .com,
wrote:
[ many Charing X trains, few bank]
Why do the Northern Line controllers let this sort of situation arise?

Perhaps there was an ill train shuffling slowly southwards on that branch;
no point in too many trains following it closly until it's safely tucked
up in a siding with a nice mechanic.

--
I don't play The Game - it's for five-year-olds with delusions of adulthood.

On 9 Oct 2006 09:25:49 -0700, Earl Purple wrote:

Second memo to Northern Line controller: why on earth do you choose to
run six trains via Charing Cross in ten minutes, with none via Bank? I
was at Kentish Town at 2210 on Friday night, thinking I'd left ample
time to get to London Bridge by 2249.

choice of 2 lines then. Thameslink changing if necessary. However I
know that Thameslink (now run by First Capital Connect) only care about
the passengers past St Albans- they get fast trains every 4 minutes at
peak hours while local passengers have to wait 16 minutes between
trains (at one point 20 minutes).

There's not much of a choice to make. Thameslink trains to London
Bridge don't stop at Kentish Town, so a change is required from
CityMetro to CityFlier, with neither service being particularly
frequent (in fact you'd be waiting on the platform at Kentish Town
until 2231). The trains are also very slow through the central area.
It is, as they say, a no-brainer.

Earl Purple wrote:

wrote:
Second memo to Northern Line controller: why on earth do you choose to
run six trains via Charing Cross in ten minutes, with none via Bank? I
was at Kentish Town at 2210 on Friday night, thinking I'd left ample
time to get to London Bridge by 2249.

choice of 2 lines then. Thameslink changing if necessary. However I
know that Thameslink (now run by First Capital Connect) only care about
the passengers past St Albans- they get fast trains every 4 minutes at
peak hours while local passengers have to wait 16 minutes between
trains (at one point 20 minutes).

They also it seems don't seem to care too much about people south
of the river. I had to get to blackfriars this morning so decided to
get Thameslink from KX instead of spending hours on the circle line.
Instead of a brighton or streatham service we got 3 moorgate trains
in a row despite 2 of them supposedly being brighton trains. In the end

I got on the 3rd one to farringdon and walked the rest of the way
since I had no idea when or if a train south would show up.
No announcements apart from a completely wrong automated one,
no nothing. Farcical.

B2003

Boltar wrote:

They also it seems don't seem to care too much about people south
of the river. I had to get to blackfriars this morning so decided to
get Thameslink from KX instead of spending hours on the circle line.
Instead of a brighton or streatham service we got 3 moorgate trains
in a row despite 2 of them supposedly being brighton trains. In the end

I think they're planning to close the line to Moorgate eventually.

Of course, it shows that the capacity for more trains is there.
Blackfriars station actually right on top of the river, not South of
it. And the station entrance is on the North side.

I got on the 3rd one to farringdon and walked the rest of the way
since I had no idea when or if a train south would show up.
No announcements apart from a completely wrong automated one,
no nothing. Farcical.

I guess there were problems. I do know that the Blackfriars to London
Bridge link is always very slow because it crosses with other lines. I
would have the slower trains on the North side go on the Brighton
branch because those coming from the North right across are far more
likely to be going to Gatwick than to anywhere on the Sutton branch. Of
course it would inconvenience the passenger who takes a plane to Luton
Airport then needs to make a connection to Gatwick, as if there are
likely to be many of those.

John B wrote:
wrote:
Unfortunately, assorted local NIMBYs are being troublesome about the
Camden Town redevelopment
IIRC the main problem they had was that the proposed development was
out of scale (and it certainly looks it in the first picture on the
alwaystouchout link, less so in the second).

I'd disagree - I think the LUL plans would have taken a pretty scabby
part of London and provided a nice new focal point, taking some of the
focus away from the hordes of weed dealers, goths and Japanese
teenagers...

Camden Town really needs
a Mile End style flat, open platform interchange, with the two
northbound branches sharing one platform, and the other platform having
trains going southwards from both sides.

Yes, this would be the ideal final layout - although a Highbury-style
interchange (ie the same cross-platform layout but in tubes) would be
functionally equivalent if a total rebuild and realignment to match
Mile End were unfeasible. I'm 95% certain that the plans involve the
latter.

I'm not sure that's the case. because of the way the junction is laid
out. It's currently essentially cross-platform between the northbound
platforms, which is fine, but putting the southbound platforms next to
each other would cause a considerable headache because of the way the
branches intersect and dive off again. They would need to be in a
completely different location, *much* further south than at present.

As far as I'm aware, the Camden Town works were primarily for congestion
relief to the existing platforms, passageways, escalators and ticket
hall - not to rebuild the layout of the junction.

The rebuild of Camden Town would present not only the opportunity to
split the line into two - with significant reliability gains - but also
to extend the Charing Cross side from Kennington towards the south east
(Camberwell and beyond) - something which has been talked about in the
past but is a bit speculative and would totally depend on the rebuild of
Camden Town. It would also be competing with the similarly-speculative
Bakerloo line extension.

I suppose the reason above
ground demolition would be "needed" is access and, maybe, to pay for
the whole redevelopment in the form of property sale & rental.

Also to provide an interim station on the Buck Street market site - but
you're right, the reason they want to build a big thing above the
station is so they can make back some of the cost of the redevelopment,
which seems fair enough.



--
Dave Arquati
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Dave Arquati wrote:
The rebuild of Camden Town would present not only the opportunity to
split the line into two - with significant reliability gains - but also
to extend the Charing Cross side from Kennington towards the south east
(Camberwell and beyond) - something which has been talked about in the
past but is a bit speculative and would totally depend on the rebuild of
Camden Town. It would also be competing with the similarly-speculative
Bakerloo line extension.

Why wouldn't they be able to extend from Kennington towards the south
east without a Camden Town rebuild?

Patrick

Dave Arquati wrote:

I'm not sure that's the case. because of the way the junction is laid
out. It's currently essentially cross-platform between the northbound
platforms, which is fine, but putting the southbound platforms next to
each other would cause a considerable headache because of the way the
branches intersect and dive off again. They would need to be in a
completely different location, *much* further south than at present.

The northbound interchange isn't such a problem because at least you
know which platform you are supposed to be on for your destination. The
problem is the Southbound direction because the trains enter the
station from their source and then branch after.

If the branching could happen first that would resolve the problem. The
other option would be to have one wide platform between them, and yes
that would be further South where they are closer together. South would
not be under the market but would be somewhere between Camden High
Street and Bayham Street maybe near Greenland Road.

As far as I'm aware, the Camden Town works were primarily for congestion
relief to the existing platforms, passageways, escalators and ticket
hall - not to rebuild the layout of the junction.

The rebuild of Camden Town would present not only the opportunity to
split the line into two - with significant reliability gains - but also
to extend the Charing Cross side from Kennington towards the south east
(Camberwell and beyond) - something which has been talked about in the
past but is a bit speculative and would totally depend on the rebuild of
Camden Town. It would also be competing with the similarly-speculative
Bakerloo line extension.

Bakerloo Line makes more sense as a branch towards Camberwell may as
well start at Elephant & Castle.

Splitting into two would hopefully mean no stop/start around Camden
Town. It's true that you would sometimes have a journey with no direct
train but the interchange would be "cross-platform" and at least you
don't get the "bunching" problem, at least I would not expect it to.
Don't know what happens when there's a signal failure though - how will
they divert all the trains via the other branch?

Maybe there should be 3 central branches. I think a direct route
between Euston and Waterloo via Russell Square, Holborn, Aldwych (hey
let's reopen it), Temple, Waterloo. Thus following the A4200.

In article , John Salmon
writes
I'm amused by your "96%". Most people would have typed 90 or 99 without
thinking about the accuracy. How did you arrive at 96?

I knew I wasn't 99% sure, but I was a bit more than 95% sure.

Quail suggests you can't get to 1 from the south siding.

Correct. I cut-and-pasted too fast.

--
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:

In article .com, Earl
Purple writes
The
problem is the Southbound direction because the trains enter the
station from their source and then branch after.

If the branching could happen first that would resolve the problem. The
other option would be to have one wide platform between them, and yes
that would be further South where they are closer together.

The junctions start immediately south of the present platforms, and are
quite long. It's basically not possible without adding brand new tunnels
somewhere (probably from Chalk Farm / South Kentish Town to the opposite
southbound platform).

--
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: