On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 12:18:27 +0000, asdf
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 22:57:22 +0000, Paul Corfield wrote:

Transport for London seem intent on making every other vehicle on our
roads a half empty bendy bus. I believe it being on fire is optional :-)

Something of an exaggeration I feel.

But why don't they do some similar bribery to get more trains running on
the overground ? I come in from Palmers Green to Moorgate every morning
and there are huge gaps in the service.

I think the issue will lie somewhere between DfT and Network Rail. DfT
is more interested in screwing huge premiums out of franchise holders
than it is in getting more trains running or funding an expansion in
infrastructure. The lines out of Kings Cross and Moorgate are pretty
much full in the peaks due to the need to mesh fast, semi fast and local
trains on the tracks alongside GNER, Hull Trains and soon Grand Central.

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?

Yes and where do they then go? Moorgate is a very tight bottleneck and
Kings Cross is pretty much at capacity AIUI. Mr Cowling is complaining
about the peak timetable IIRC.

Having been caught up in disruption off peak on the Great Northern I
think there is a deliberate decision to retain spare capacity on the
Hertford Line in case GNER and others have to be diverted. It seems to
be able to handle a fast every 5 minutes or so in such circumstances
provided all the stopping trains are kicked out of the way!

There is also freight traffic to be considered.

TfL have limited rights with respect to main line rail and can offer to
fund extra services. However if there is no capacity available to run
them it is a somewhat academic exercise surely?

That may be an issue at peak times, but it certainly isn't off-peak.
The off-peak service is only 3tph (weekday daytimes) or 2tph (evenings
and all weekend). This is very poor for a suburban "metro" service -
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.

It may be poor but I do use the Hertford line infrequently and typically
off peak. It is never more than 20% full even with 3 car trains. A lot
of people seem to leave the train between Alexandra Palace and Enfield
Chase with few others boarding.

Would TfL really run that level service parallel to a 18tph tube line? I
think you've just answered your own question.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 12:56:30 +0000, Paul Corfield wrote:

But why don't they do some similar bribery to get more trains running on
the overground ? I come in from Palmers Green to Moorgate every morning
and there are huge gaps in the service.

I think the issue will lie somewhere between DfT and Network Rail. DfT
is more interested in screwing huge premiums out of franchise holders
than it is in getting more trains running or funding an expansion in
infrastructure. The lines out of Kings Cross and Moorgate are pretty
much full in the peaks due to the need to mesh fast, semi fast and local
trains on the tracks alongside GNER, Hull Trains and soon Grand Central.

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?

Yes and where do they then go? Moorgate is a very tight bottleneck and
Kings Cross is pretty much at capacity AIUI. Mr Cowling is complaining
about the peak timetable IIRC.

I was thinking Moorgate. It currently handles 12tph in the peaks;
Brixton has the same layout and manages 30tph. But I suppose it's not
that simple.

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 13:13:33 +0000, asdf
wrote:

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 12:56:30 +0000, Paul Corfield wrote:

But why don't they do some similar bribery to get more trains running on
the overground ? I come in from Palmers Green to Moorgate every morning
and there are huge gaps in the service.

I think the issue will lie somewhere between DfT and Network Rail. DfT
is more interested in screwing huge premiums out of franchise holders
than it is in getting more trains running or funding an expansion in
infrastructure. The lines out of Kings Cross and Moorgate are pretty
much full in the peaks due to the need to mesh fast, semi fast and local
trains on the tracks alongside GNER, Hull Trains and soon Grand Central.

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?

Yes and where do they then go? Moorgate is a very tight bottleneck and
Kings Cross is pretty much at capacity AIUI. Mr Cowling is complaining
about the peak timetable IIRC.

I was thinking Moorgate. It currently handles 12tph in the peaks;
Brixton has the same layout and manages 30tph. But I suppose it's not
that simple.

Platforms are shorter and narrower and much more congested at Moorgate
which may create some capacity and safety issues - I am speculating
though. There is also the issue that the flows are heavily peaked - I
can't see there being demand for a high frequency n/b service from
Moorgate in the AM Peak. There is much more two way demand at Brixton
given the tube is a gateway onto a huge local bus network into South
London.

Crews would need to "step back" to increase turn round to LU standards
thus adding to costs. I think the track approaches at Moorgate are far,
far tighter and are speed controlled thus lowering capacity. Given the
history at that location you would need a lot of work to raise approach
speeds and junction capacity without increasing the overrun and
collision risk.

Brixton is a much faster approach, there is auto train control and long
overrun tunnels so is safer. I'm not sure about relative acceleration
rates on the stock but the tube *might* be a bit faster. Obviously this
will increase considerably with the new V stock in a few years time thus
improving the capacity yet further.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Paul Corfield wrote:

Yes and where do they then go? Moorgate is a very tight bottleneck

Really? Has its capacity been reduced since all that extra stock now on the
North London Line used to run there?

It may be poor but I do use the Hertford line infrequently and
typically off peak. It is never more than 20% full even with 3 car
trains.

.... 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.

Would TfL really run that level service parallel to a 18tph tube
line? I think you've just answered your own question.

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.

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.


--
Edward Cowling London UK

Edward Cowling London UK wrote:

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.

It does have its good side... The need to read a timetable keeps out the
people with low IQs, making the Hertford Loop feel a hell of a lot safer
than the Picc, despite going through virtually identical neighbourhoods.

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

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.

It does have its good side... The need to read a timetable keeps out the
people with low IQs, making the Hertford Loop feel a hell of a lot safer
than the Picc, despite going through virtually identical neighbourhoods.

You are Baroness Thatcher and I claim my 50 pounds :-)

Yes, that sounds like a good policy. Keep the public off public
transport as it's far too good for them.

--
Edward Cowling London UK

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

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