|
Transport for London T2025 Report
|
Transport for London T2025 Report
Bob wrote: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/downloads/pdf/T2025.pdf Comments? The plan to divert the Chingford line via Stratford is an odd one. It presumably is about using the platforms free up by Crossrail, and will provide better connectivity - the only destination of significance lost is Hackney, and that should be easily doable by either bus from Walthamstow (or a reinstated Lea Bridge station) or Overground from Stratford... ....but won't it take significantly longer? Also, what happens to Clapton? Jonn |
Transport for London T2025 Report
"Bob" wrote in message oups.com... http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/downloads/pdf/T2025.pdf Comments? Some of the pictures are awful, that Trafalgar square!!!!! tim |
Transport for London T2025 Report
Bob wrote: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/downloads/pdf/T2025.pdf Comments? First I've seen about segregation of the Northern line. They reckon they can get 30 tph on both branches by sorting out the restriction around Camden. What's needed for this? I would have thought they'd need to interlace the trains and get 60 tph through Camden, which they could do by shutting Camden. Or is there a depot somewhere? TfL actually claim it just needs Capacity Improvements at Camden. What? New platforms? Otherwise, sounds so sensible why hasn't it been done before? |
Transport for London T2025 Report
wrote: Bob wrote: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/downloads/pdf/T2025.pdf Comments? First I've seen about segregation of the Northern line. They reckon they can get 30 tph on both branches by sorting out the restriction around Camden. What's needed for this? I would have thought they'd need to interlace the trains and get 60 tph through Camden, which they could do by shutting Camden. Or is there a depot somewhere? TfL actually claim it just needs Capacity Improvements at Camden. What? New platforms? Otherwise, sounds so sensible why hasn't it been done before? Ah - discussed here http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....8e4de22d7ae572 It seems Canning Town has 4 platforms but is already horrendously busy. |
Transport for London T2025 Report
Dave Arquati wrote: An interesting possibility partly related to Northern line segregation is that of an extension of the Charing Cross branch from Kennington to the south-east, towards Camberwell - it's a very long term prospect which sits with its alternative, a southern extension of the Bakerloo. -- Extending the Bakerloo to Camberwell should be a priority - how would the cost compare to, say, the DLR Woolwich extension? IME Elephant - Camberwell is the most congested and slowest bus route after Oxford Street. That's based on sitting in traffic for *hours* on the Walworth Road, which is too narrow for bus lanes in parts - so trams wouldn't help. |
Transport for London T2025 Report
In article , Dave Arquati
writes The current service pattern fails at Camden when a train from either southern branch destined for a particular northern branch reaches the junction at the same time as a train from the other southern branch, destined for the same northern branch - one of the trains must wait and blocks trains behind it (destined for the other branch). Not quite: I *think* that the junctions on the Charing Cross branch are far enough south that a train can stand between the divergence and the convergence with the Bank branch. Thus if you have one for Edgware on each route, you let the Bank one in and hold the CX one; a following CX-Barnet train can then run. Similarly in the southbound direction. -- 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: |
Transport for London T2025 Report
Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article , Dave Arquati writes The current service pattern fails at Camden when a train from either southern branch destined for a particular northern branch reaches the junction at the same time as a train from the other southern branch, destined for the same northern branch - one of the trains must wait and blocks trains behind it (destined for the other branch). Not quite: I *think* that the junctions on the Charing Cross branch are far enough south that a train can stand between the divergence and the convergence with the Bank branch. Thus if you have one for Edgware on each route, you let the Bank one in and hold the CX one; a following CX-Barnet train can then run. Similarly in the southbound direction. The diagrams at http://www.geocities.com/athens/acro...9/ltcamden.jpg and http://www.geocities.com/athens/acro...camdenjunc.gif don't prove you're right, but they do prove you haven't got it the wrong way around! |
Transport for London T2025 Report
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message ... In article , Dave Arquati writes The current service pattern fails at Camden when a train from either southern branch destined for a particular northern branch reaches the junction at the same time as a train from the other southern branch, destined for the same northern branch - one of the trains must wait and blocks trains behind it (destined for the other branch). Not quite: I *think* that the junctions on the Charing Cross branch are far enough south that a train can stand between the divergence and the convergence with the Bank branch. Thus if you have one for Edgware on each route, you let the Bank one in and hold the CX one; a following CX-Barnet train can then run. Similarly in the southbound direction. The signal diagrams at http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/Ca...wn-lct5-10.gif appear to confirm this is possible. Peter Smyth |
Transport for London T2025 Report
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, brixtonite wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote: An interesting possibility partly related to Northern line segregation is that of an extension of the Charing Cross branch from Kennington to the south-east, towards Camberwell - it's a very long term prospect which sits with its alternative, a southern extension of the Bakerloo. Extending the Bakerloo to Camberwell should be a priority - how would the cost compare to, say, the DLR Woolwich extension? IME Elephant - Camberwell is the most congested and slowest bus route after Oxford Street. That's based on sitting in traffic for *hours* on the Walworth Road, which is too narrow for bus lanes in parts - so trams wouldn't help. Restoring the stations on the Holborn line at Camberwell and Walworth Road would, though: http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/s...ad/index.shtml http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/s...ad/index.shtml I imagine it'd be rather cheaper than new Bakerloo tunnels, too. tom -- :-( bad :-) bad :-| good |
Transport for London T2025 Report
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 wrote:
Bob wrote: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/downloads/pdf/T2025.pdf Comments? The plan to divert the Chingford line via Stratford is an odd one. It presumably is about using the platforms free up by Crossrail, and will provide better connectivity - the only destination of significance lost is Hackney, and that should be easily doable by either bus from Walthamstow (or a reinstated Lea Bridge station) or Overground from Stratford... Presumably, there'll be a mix of both destinations. Personally, i thought the idea of using the platforms and line to run a Stratford - Stanstead service was better, but there you go. ...but won't it take significantly longer? The run from Coppermills junction down to Stratford should be quite fast - it's a straightish line on the surface, so i would imagine trains could get up a better speed than on the twisty, partially underground route to Hackney. Also, what happens to Clapton? Presumably, Tottenham Hale trains start stopping there. About time too! tom -- :-( bad :-) bad :-| good |
Transport for London T2025 Report
Peter Smyth wrote:
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message ... In article , Dave Arquati writes The current service pattern fails at Camden when a train from either southern branch destined for a particular northern branch reaches the junction at the same time as a train from the other southern branch, destined for the same northern branch - one of the trains must wait and blocks trains behind it (destined for the other branch). Not quite: I *think* that the junctions on the Charing Cross branch are far enough south that a train can stand between the divergence and the convergence with the Bank branch. Thus if you have one for Edgware on each route, you let the Bank one in and hold the CX one; a following CX-Barnet train can then run. Similarly in the southbound direction. The signal diagrams at http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/Ca...wn-lct5-10.gif appear to confirm this is possible. Ah, ok, my mistake. However, unless I've misunderstood that diagram, whilst NB trains from CX can be held without delaying following trains, the same is not true for NB trains from Bank. In any case, segregating the branches would prevent such dual arrivals happening in the first place, so as long as the trains are spaced far enough apart to allow for the appropriate dwell time at Camden Town platforms, there would be no need for them to stop at the junction at all. Would ATO be sophisticated enough to adjust train speeds on the central branches to avoid dual arrivals? -- Dave Arquati www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk