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

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!!

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

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Peter Smyth wrote:

"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.

Hmm. Hadn't noticed the tunnel. In the light of that, the location does
make quite a bit of sense, as a least worst option.

Anyway it is pretty well used where it is, it has twice as many
passengers as New Southgate for a start.

Interesting. New Southgate suffers from being right next door to Arnos
Grove tube; i would have thought Oakleigh Park would suffer similarly from
its proximity to Totteridge and Whetstone, but apparently not.

tom

--
eggflip, brandy, bits of Tia Maria, Beecham's powder, aspirin,
Benedictine, Alka-Seltzer, black currant juice, a touch of mustard and
"other things"

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:39:32 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Peter Smyth wrote:

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

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.

Hmm. Hadn't noticed the tunnel. In the light of that, the location does
make quite a bit of sense, as a least worst option.

Anyway it is pretty well used where it is, it has twice as many
passengers as New Southgate for a start.

Interesting. New Southgate suffers from being right next door to Arnos
Grove tube; i would have thought Oakleigh Park would suffer similarly from
its proximity to Totteridge and Whetstone, but apparently not.

tom

No: there's a hill in between, and there's about a fifteen minute walk
between the two.

Oakleigh Park could have been sited a little to the North, so as to
have access to Longmore Avenue, which is crossed by a fairly tall
bridge. However, I like it where it is; it's seven minutes walk from
chez Clive!

Regards.
--
Clive R Robertson -- AS/400 Programmer.

Webmaster of http://www.osterleypark.org.uk/ -- this describes
a beautiful National Trust property in West London.

Tom Anderson wrote
Interesting. New Southgate suffers from being right next door to Arnos
Grove tube

In the morning/evening peak, a train from New Southgate will only have
a couple of stops to Finsbury Park and Kings Cross. Taking the tube
would be a silly option, but I guess more people do as Arnos Grove is
always busy and New Southgate is usually quite deserted.

When I lived in Enfield, it took ages to get into central London via
the Piccadilly Line. By contrast, Hatfield via FCC gets me there in 21
minutes (30 in the morning peak, with more stations served). Of course,
I pay a lot more for the added convenience - although I also now live
in a 3 bedroom house, having sold a 1 bedroom flat in London!

Tube trains are great in central London, but on the outskirts, they're
actually not very fast or convenient. Yes, you get more regular trains
but the overall journey time is often much worse. Your mileage may
vary, obviously - especially if you live next to a tube station and
miles from an overground railway station!!

Jonathan