Edward Cowling London UK wrote:
In message , John Rowland
writes

A train ever ten minutes all day south of Gordon Hill and New Barnet
would
do a lot to pull people back from the Picc, so frequent trains might
end up
fuller than infrequent ones. Wimbledon to West Croydon springs to mind.


Exactly ! There is tumble weed rolling about on Alley Pally station
during the day yet the Picc line is still wall to wall shoppers and back
packers. They don't even think of using the rail link because...

a. The timetable is complex and keeps changing. Leaffall !! gimme a
break it just means we all miss our trains for weeks trying to work out
when the darn trains will actually arrive.

b. The service is too sporadic. A train every ten minutes stopping at
every station and you'd see the shoppers back on the trains.

c. The stations are in much less convenient locations than the
Piccadilly stations.

d. The shoppers and backpackers may well be coming from the onward
destinations served directly by the Piccadilly line.

There are several differences between this and Wimbledon to West
Croydon, including the provision of new stops on Tramlink thus bringing
the surrounding population within easier reach of the services, the
onward tram route to East Croydon station, and the lack of a more
frequent and more conveniently-located alternative.

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

In article , (Dave Arquati) wrote:

Edward Cowling London UK wrote:
In message , John Rowland
writes

A train ever ten minutes all day south of Gordon Hill and New
Barnet would do a lot to pull people back from the Picc, so
frequent trains might end up fuller than infrequent ones. Wimbledon
to West Croydon springs to mind.

Exactly ! There is tumble weed rolling about on Alley Pally
station during the day yet the Picc line is still wall to wall
shoppers and back packers. They don't even think of using the
rail link because...

a. The timetable is complex and keeps changing. Leaffall !! gimme
a break it just means we all miss our trains for weeks trying to
work out when the darn trains will actually arrive.

b. The service is too sporadic. A train every ten minutes
stopping at every station and you'd see the shoppers back on the
trains.

c. The stations are in much less convenient locations than the
Piccadilly stations.

d. The shoppers and backpackers may well be coming from the onward
destinations served directly by the Piccadilly line.

There are several differences between this and Wimbledon to West
Croydon, including the provision of new stops on Tramlink thus
bringing the surrounding population within easier reach of the
services, the onward tram route to East Croydon station, and the
lack of a more frequent and more conveniently-located alternative.

When I'm going to Hornsey it's much better located for my destination than is Turnpike Lane. It does have double the frequency (off-peak at least) of Palmer's Green, though.

--
Colin Rosenstie

John Rowland wrote:
... because people who have a choice use the Piccadilly Line, because it's
more frequent. Too frequent, actually - north of Arnos Grove, the Picc seems
to have about 1 person per carriage for much of the week.

You are joking? In the rush hour the picc is packed north of arnos
grove and frankly the service resembles a country branch line a lot of
the time with 10 min waits for trains if the service is ****ed as it is
at least once a week. The picc needs to run more trains north of arnos
grove during rush hour , not less, and in doing so would also solve the
problems of trains backing up south of arnos grove because of no free
platforms since all the trains are just sitting the with red signals
(presumably the signalman is watching Neighbours or something). The
worst it has ever been in my experience is backed up trains to Arsenal.
This might mean trains back up from cockfosters but at least it would
mean the trains get further before they get stuck and so fewer people
would be delayed.

B2003

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article , (Dave Arquati) wrote:

Edward Cowling London UK wrote:
In message , John Rowland
writes
A train ever ten minutes all day south of Gordon Hill and New
Barnet would do a lot to pull people back from the Picc, so
frequent trains might end up fuller than infrequent ones. Wimbledon
to West Croydon springs to mind.

Exactly ! There is tumble weed rolling about on Alley Pally
station during the day yet the Picc line is still wall to wall
shoppers and back packers. They don't even think of using the
rail link because...

a. The timetable is complex and keeps changing. Leaffall !! gimme
a break it just means we all miss our trains for weeks trying to
work out when the darn trains will actually arrive.

b. The service is too sporadic. A train every ten minutes
stopping at every station and you'd see the shoppers back on the
trains.
c. The stations are in much less convenient locations than the
Piccadilly stations.

d. The shoppers and backpackers may well be coming from the onward
destinations served directly by the Piccadilly line.

There are several differences between this and Wimbledon to West
Croydon, including the provision of new stops on Tramlink thus
bringing the surrounding population within easier reach of the
services, the onward tram route to East Croydon station, and the
lack of a more frequent and more conveniently-located alternative.

When I'm going to Hornsey it's much better located for my destination than is Turnpike Lane. It does have double the frequency (off-peak at least) of Palmer's Green, though.

I'm not saying that the GN stations are inconveniently located for
*everyone* - obviously some destinations will be closer to the GN
stations than the Piccadilly ones, and some bus connections will be more
easily made at GN stations. On balance, however, major destinations and
bus connections are easier at Picc stations simply because the Picc
follows the main road.

I imagine GN stations will also be more convenient if you are starting
near another GN station, but the Picc has a much better catchment area
(particularly because it serves central London directly).


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

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006, Dave Arquati wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article , (Dave
Arquati) wrote:

Edward Cowling London UK wrote:
In message , John Rowland
writes

A train ever ten minutes all day south of Gordon Hill and New Barnet
would do a lot to pull people back from the Picc,

Exactly !

c. The stations are in much less convenient locations than the
Piccadilly stations.

When I'm going to Hornsey it's much better located for my destination
than is Turnpike Lane.

I'm not saying that the GN stations are inconveniently located for
*everyone* - obviously some destinations will be closer to the GN
stations than the Piccadilly ones, and some bus connections will be more
easily made at GN stations. On balance, however, major destinations and
bus connections are easier at Picc stations simply because the Picc
follows the main road.

I have to say, some of the GN stations really are in odd places. Oakleigh
Park in particular - it's in the middle of nowhere! Why wasn't it built it
a mile or so further south, where it would at least have been close to
some vaguely major roads? Winchmore Hill and Grane Park are also pretty
badly sited, but when with the railway having the route it does, there
aren't really any better alternatives.

I imagine GN stations will also be more convenient if you are starting
near another GN station, but the Picc has a much better catchment area
(particularly because it serves central London directly).

Unless you want to go to the City, or Shoreditch, or Docklands, or ...

tom

--
VTEC Just Kicked in, Yo!!

In article , asdf
writes
But those trains don't use the Hertford Loop (the line through Palmers
Green). The section from Alexandra Palace to Finsbury Park might be a
bottleneck, but aren't there extra tracks there?

There are three passenger tracks northbound and two southbound. This is
most obvious at Finsbury Park, where there are only two southbound
platforms. [There is also an Up Goods from south of Ally Pally, but even
if this was upgraded for passenger train use it would be pretty useless.
If you wanted fast trains to Dalston Kingsland, perhaps ....]

if it were run by TfL I'm sure there would be at least 6tph on each
branch (which they manage to run in the peaks, so there must be
capacity for it). The Piccadilly Line runs through similar areas, and
manages to justify something like 18tph.

Which may make more than 2/3tph off-peak on these lines uneconomic.

--
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 Dec 11, 6:59 am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006, Dave Arquati wrote:
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article , (Dave
Arquati) wrote:

Edward Cowling London UK wrote:
In message , John Rowland
writes

A train ever ten minutes all day south of Gordon Hill and New Barnet
would do a lot to pull people back from the Picc,

Exactly !

c. The stations are in much less convenient locations than the
Piccadilly stations.

When I'm going to Hornsey it's much better located for my destination
than is Turnpike Lane.

I'm not saying that the GN stations are inconveniently located for
*everyone* - obviously some destinations will be closer to the GN
stations than the Piccadilly ones, and some bus connections will be more
easily made at GN stations. On balance, however, major destinations and
bus connections are easier at Picc stations simply because the Picc
follows the main road.I have to say, some of the GN stations really are in odd places. Oakleigh
Park in particular - it's in the middle of nowhere! Why wasn't it built it
a mile or so further south, where it would at least have been close to
some vaguely major roads? Winchmore Hill and Grane Park are also pretty
badly sited, but when with the railway having the route it does, there
aren't really any better alternatives.

I imagine GN stations will also be more convenient if you are starting
near another GN station, but the Picc has a much better catchment area
(particularly because it serves central London directly).Unless you want to go to the City, or Shoreditch, or Docklands, or ...

tom

--
VTEC Just Kicked in, Yo!!

What Tfl would do is make sure that there was a decent service within
London - i.e. turn more trains round at Gordon Hill. London TravelWatch
(part paid for by Ken) recently published a report on WAGN slamming the
off-peak frequency and also the ridiculous situation where the contra
flow peak service is 2 tph compared to the off peak 3 tph.

Tom Anderson wrote:

I have to say, some of the GN stations really are in odd places.
Oakleigh Park in particular - it's in the middle of nowhere! Why
wasn't it built it a mile or so further south, where it would at
least have been close to some vaguely major roads? Winchmore Hill and
Grane Park are also pretty badly sited, but when with the railway
having the route it does, there aren't really any better alternatives.

Winchmore Hill station is within 50 yards of the historic centre of the
village
(http://www.old-maps.co.uk/servlets/D...nty=1 0mid231)
.. The small shopping areas down on Green Lanes might have developed after
the trams were introduced.

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, John Rowland wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

I have to say, some of the GN stations really are in odd places.
Oakleigh Park in particular - it's in the middle of nowhere! Why wasn't
it built it a mile or so further south, where it would at least have
been close to some vaguely major roads? Winchmore Hill and Grane Park
are also pretty badly sited, but when with the railway having the route
it does, there aren't really any better alternatives.

Winchmore Hill station is within 50 yards of the historic centre of the
village

Aha. Makes sense. Also, that means it's maybe not as bad on the ground as
it looks from the air.

Oakleigh Park still has no excuse, though!

It would be really handy to have a map of London which told you where the
local commercial centres were, for this sort of thing.

(http://www.old-maps.co.uk/servlets/D...nty=1 0mid231)
.

ITYM:

http://www.old-maps.co.uk/servlets/D...nty=1 0mid231

Rather than somewhere in Brent!

tom

--
Gatsos are a stealth tax on motorists in the same way that city centre
video cameras are a stealth tax on muggers and DNA testing is a stealth
tax on rapists. -- Guy Chapman

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...

I'm not saying that the GN stations are inconveniently located for
*everyone* - obviously some destinations will be closer to the GN
stations than the Piccadilly ones, and some bus connections will be more
easily made at GN stations. On balance, however, major destinations and
bus connections are easier at Picc stations simply because the Picc
follows the main road.

I have to say, some of the GN stations really are in odd places. Oakleigh
Park in particular - it's in the middle of nowhere! Why wasn't it built it
a mile or so further south, where it would at least have been close to
some vaguely major roads? Winchmore Hill and Grane Park are also pretty
badly sited, but when with the railway having the route it does, there
aren't really any better alternatives.

I don't think there is really any alternative site for Oakleigh Park. To the
south the line goes into a tunnel, and a site after the tunnel would be too
close to New Southgate. Anyway it is pretty well used where it is, it has
twice as many passengers as New Southgate for a start.

Peter Smyth