....so says the posters that have just gone up - accompanied by a
leaflet which contains a brief precis of what the ELLX project is, and
then gives details of the replacement bus services that will operate.
The leaflet claims it went to print in August, but I've only just come
across it.

See a PDF of the leaflet he
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...-line-closure-
leaflet.pdf

There aren't any surprises here - there will be three new bus
replacement routes in addition to the existing ELS route:

- Route ELC
New Cross Gate - New Cross - Surrey Quays - Canada Water
Every 8-10 minutes daily.
Every 5 minutes Mondays to Fridays during peak times.

- Route ELP
Canada Water - Rotherhithe
Every 15 minutes daily.

- Route ELW
Every 10 minutes daily.

- Route ELS (already running)
Monday to Friday between 0700-1030 and 1530-2030 only - every 20
minutes.
Saturday - no service.
Sunday between 0700-1530 only - every 10 minutes.

Obviously what's missing here is any cross-river connection, and to
anyone who knows the Rotherhithe Tunnel it's pretty obvious why - it's
a tiny tunnel, unsuitable for anything more than minibuses.

John Biggs, the London Assembly Member for City & East London is
nonetheless somewhat sceptical about all this:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/23bosq
He also speaks of the 395, a cross-river route withdrawn last year
which he tried to save. This was in fact operated by a minibus (I went
on it once and it seemed to be patronised by little - and not so
little - old ladies). Dare I suggest that one reason this was
withdrawn is that the ELL closure might have seriously overburdened
it.

Cross-river passengers, the leaflet explains, should utilise the
Jubilee line the DLR. Whilst the leaflet is clear on the need for any
passengers travelling in Zone 1 to have an appropriate ticket, it
nonetheless doesn't mention the mainline trains from NX and NXG to
London Bridge - perhaps to avoid confusion in particular regarding
ticketing, perhaps also to avoid shunting all the ELL passengers onto
already overcrowded rush hour trains (besides many pax will work the
London Bridge connection out for themselves).


A few observations...

---
(1) Why oh why isn't this information easily found on the TfL website?
It's not on the main TfL homepage, nor the Tube modal homepage, nor
under the 'Planned works' heading on the East London Line's entry on
the Live Travel news section (what used to be called 'realtime travel
news'). Sure, the ELL closure appears in the six-month look-ahead PDF
linked to in that section, but that's no good.

To find a PDF of the leaflet you have to go to the Rail modal
homepage, then click on 'East London Railway' to take you to a further
section entitled 'East London Line', then look under the 'Line
closure' subheading before you finally find a link to the PDF of the
leaflet - i.e. you already need to have some idea of what the grand
plan is before you find this information.

This is shabby - and I hope information regarding the ELL's closure
for 2+ years is added to the 'Planned works' entry ASAP. It also
reinforces my somewhat lukewarm feelings regarding the new TfL website
design.

---
(2) Why call the replacement buses ELC, ELP, ELW and ELS - it's
confusing! I guess the alphabetical routes are used as opposed to
numerical ones so as to avoid confusion with normal buses routes, but
I think EL1 - EL4 would have been a better choice. Perhaps the London
Buses division is very proprietorial when it comes to their precious
numbers!

---
(3) Why isn't the short distance from New Cross to Deptford Bridge DLR
mentioned in the text? This is demonstrated on the map showing where
the replacement bus stops are in New Cross, but perhaps it should have
been explicitly highlighted. The walk from New Cross station really
isn't far, from New Cross Gate it's a bit further - in addition the
53, 453 and 171 buses link all these stations in a fairly straight
line.

---
(4) I quite like the graphic used on the front - which shows a London
Overground train rising up from the existing ELL to continue further
afield. This is a stylised illustration of what literally is going to
happen to the line north-east of Whitechapel, where the ELLX will rise
up on a ramp on a fairly sharp incline taking it from the level of a
cutting to that of being on a viaduct on the site of the old
Bishopsgate Goodsyard. There will also be a flyover north of New Cross
Gate which will take northbound ELLX trains across the main line to
join the existing course of the ELL.

---
(5) A final somewhat long-winded point regarding ticketing and
Oyster...
The leaflet is very precise on the need for pax to hold a valid ticket
for their journey, and also clearly states that Bus Passes won't be
accepted on the ELL replacement buses (fair enough).

However I wonder if the solution for Oyster is going to be the same as
that used for the existing ELS replacement bus, which currently
charges pax using Oyster PAYG a grand total of £0.00. I'm guessing
that implementing proper Underground PAYG fare pricing for such
replacement buses could be difficult, plus it is fair to say that it's
likely a majority of the pax will be using the replacement bus as part
of a longer Underground journey.

Nonetheless given that the replacement buses will inherently provide a
journey within zone 2 only, touching-in *and* touching-out would not
be required to work out the fare. Therefore charging the proper PAYG
fare might theoretically be possible.

Nonetheless I'd guess that nothing like that will in fact happen, and
the £0.00 'fare' will also be 'charged' on the new ELL replacement
buses. Hypothetically this could become an issue if many people
wishing to travel between New Cross and the Rotherhithe area (i.e.
Surrey Quays/ Canada Water) discover they can get a free bus ride -
but in reality I suspect this won't be a problem, or at least not one
that'll be considered to be of any magnitude.

"Mizter T" wrote in message
ups.com...
....so says the posters that have just gone up - accompanied by a
leaflet which contains a brief precis of what the ELLX project is, and
then gives details of the replacement bus services that will operate.
The leaflet claims it went to print in August, but I've only just come
across it.

See a PDF of the leaflet he
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/East-london-line-closure-leaflet.pdf

A few observations...

(2) Why call the replacement buses ELC, ELP, ELW and ELS - it's
confusing! I guess the alphabetical routes are used as opposed to
numerical ones so as to avoid confusion with normal buses routes, but
I think EL1 - EL4 would have been a better choice. Perhaps the London
Buses division is very proprietorial when it comes to their precious
numbers!



/breaking the code:

ELC - Canada Water
ELW - Wapping
ELS - Shoreditch

ELP - should have been R for Rotherhithe? Is ELR already taken?

Paul S

"Paul Scott" wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote:
...so says the posters that have just gone up - accompanied by a
leaflet which contains a brief precis of what the ELLX project is, and
then gives details of the replacement bus services that will operate.
The leaflet claims it went to print in August, but I've only just come
across it.

See a PDF of the leaflet he
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/East-london-line-closure-leaflet.pdf

A few observations...

(2) Why call the replacement buses ELC, ELP, ELW and ELS - it's
confusing! I guess the alphabetical routes are used as opposed to
numerical ones so as to avoid confusion with normal buses routes, but
I think EL1 - EL4 would have been a better choice. Perhaps the London
Buses division is very proprietorial when it comes to their precious
numbers!


/breaking the code:

ELC - Canada Water
ELW - Wapping
ELS - Shoreditch

ELP - should have been R for Rotherhithe? Is ELR already taken?

Paul S


Sure, I'd figured out as much but nonetheless I think that using letters is
potentially confusing - with two EL* buses calling at Canada Water bus
station and two EL* buses stopping on Whitechapel Road outside Whitechapel
station. Maybe my assertion that it'll be confusing is quite wrong, as using
letters rather than numbers will be easier for passengers and will
differentiate them from normal bus routes.

Regarding ELP - I presume ELR was not used as ELR is also the abbreviation
of "East London Railway", which is now the name TfL is using for the ELLX
(i.e. the whole eventual service from Croydon to Dalston)- to go alongside
the "North London Railway", which is the name TfL has given to all the
routes currently run by Silverlink Metro that it is taking over in November.

The East London Railway, when completed, will join the North London Railway
in being branded "London Overground". Whether the terms ELR and NLR will be
used in passenger facing communications is something that I don't know
about. The eventual plan of course is for there to be at least some trains
that continue from the ELR to the NLR and vice-versa.

Whilst we're on the subject, can anyone say what happened in the '90s
regarding ELL replacement buses when the line was shut for an (over)extended
period, as it wasn't a line that I used at all back then.

Mizter T wrote:

Obviously what's missing here is any cross-river connection, and to
anyone who knows the Rotherhithe Tunnel it's pretty obvious why -
it's a tiny tunnel, unsuitable for anything more than minibuses.

LT used to run double-deckers through the original single-bore Blackwall
Tunnel (routes 108, 108A) and also Rotherhithe Tunnel (route 82). They
were modified STLs with a different roof profile and tyres with
specially reinforced sidewalls to protect them from frequent contact
with the kerbs in the tunnels. Details at
http://www.countrybus.org.uk/STL/STL11.htm#tunnel

According to http://www.londonbusroutes.net/photos/395.htm, there is a
7'6" width restriction. But I thought several of the single-decker
classes like the DP were 7'6" wide (2.29 m). So why can't they be used?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...
"Paul Scott" wrote:


/breaking the code:

ELC - Canada Water
ELW - Wapping
ELS - Shoreditch

ELP - should have been R for Rotherhithe? Is ELR already taken?

Paul S


Sure, I'd figured out as much but nonetheless I think that using letters
is potentially confusing - with two EL* buses calling at Canada Water bus
station and two EL* buses stopping on Whitechapel Road outside Whitechapel
station. Maybe my assertion that it'll be confusing is quite wrong, as
using letters rather than numbers will be easier for passengers and will
differentiate them from normal bus routes.

Regarding ELP - I presume ELR was not used as ELR is also the abbreviation
of "East London Railway",

Of course - good point - not ideal to have two uses for one abbreviation...

Paul

On 21 Sep, 17:11, "Richard J." wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
Obviously what's missing here is any cross-river connection, and to
anyone who knows the Rotherhithe Tunnel it's pretty obvious why -
it's a tiny tunnel, unsuitable for anything more than minibuses.

LT used to run double-deckers through the original single-bore Blackwall
Tunnel (routes 108, 108A) and also Rotherhithe Tunnel (route 82). They
were modified STLs with a different roof profile and tyres with
specially reinforced sidewalls to protect them from frequent contact
with the kerbs in the tunnels. Details athttp://www.countrybus.org.uk/STL/STL11.htm#tunnel

According to http://www.londonbusroutes.net/photos/395.htm, there is a
7'6" width restriction. But I thought several of the single-decker
classes like the DP were 7'6" wide (2.29 m). So why can't they be used?
--
Richard J.

Blimey - I knew that there were double-deckers through the Blackwall
tunnel, but not the Rotherhithe tunnel! That must've been a squeeze.

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:15:21 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

ELP - should have been R for Rotherhithe? Is ELR already taken?

ELP! I need somebody
ELP! Not just anybody
ELP! You know I need someone
ELP!

Paul Scott wrote:
"Mizter T" wrote in message
...
"Paul Scott" wrote:

/breaking the code:

ELC - Canada Water
ELW - Wapping
ELS - Shoreditch

ELP - should have been R for Rotherhithe? Is ELR already taken?

Paul S

Sure, I'd figured out as much but nonetheless I think that using letters
is potentially confusing - with two EL* buses calling at Canada Water bus
station and two EL* buses stopping on Whitechapel Road outside Whitechapel
station. Maybe my assertion that it'll be confusing is quite wrong, as
using letters rather than numbers will be easier for passengers and will
differentiate them from normal bus routes.

Regarding ELP - I presume ELR was not used as ELR is also the abbreviation
of "East London Railway",

Of course - good point - not ideal to have two uses for one abbreviation...

Paul




As the person who decided upon this lettering system, I can now reveal
that the "P" in ELP stands for... wait for it... peninsula! Of course
the Rotherhithe service would, in an indeal world, have been ELR but as
someone else rightly suggested, this was deemed to be too similar to the
East London Railway abbreviation.

Cheers

Steve M

In article .com,
(Mizter T) wrote:

On 21 Sep, 17:11, "Richard J." wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
Obviously what's missing here is any cross-river connection, and to
anyone who knows the Rotherhithe Tunnel it's pretty obvious why -
it's a tiny tunnel, unsuitable for anything more than minibuses.

LT used to run double-deckers through the original single-bore
Blackwall Tunnel (routes 108, 108A) and also Rotherhithe Tunnel
(route 82). They were modified STLs with a different roof profile
and tyres with specially reinforced sidewalls to protect them from
frequent contact with the kerbs in the tunnels. Details at
http://www.countrybus.org.uk/STL/STL11.htm#tunnel

According to http://www.londonbusroutes.net/photos/395.htm, there is
a
7'6" width restriction. But I thought several of the single-decker
classes like the DP were 7'6" wide (2.29 m). So why can't they
be used?

Blimey - I knew that there were double-deckers through the Blackwall
tunnel, but not the Rotherhithe tunnel! That must've been a squeeze.

Don't forget that buses were all 7'6" wide until the 1950s. ISTR a a more
pronounced arch-shaped roof line than shown at that URL but there you go.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article .com,
(Mizter T) wrote:

On 21 Sep, 17:11, "Richard J." wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
Obviously what's missing here is any cross-river connection, and
to anyone who knows the Rotherhithe Tunnel it's pretty obvious
why - it's a tiny tunnel, unsuitable for anything more than
minibuses.

LT used to run double-deckers through the original single-bore
Blackwall Tunnel (routes 108, 108A) and also Rotherhithe Tunnel
(route 82). They were modified STLs with a different roof profile
and tyres with specially reinforced sidewalls to protect them from
frequent contact with the kerbs in the tunnels. Details at
http://www.countrybus.org.uk/STL/STL11.htm#tunnel

According to http://www.londonbusroutes.net/photos/395.htm, there
is a 7'6" width restriction. But I thought several of the
single-decker classes like the DP were 7'6" wide (2.29 m). So
why can't they
be used?

Blimey - I knew that there were double-deckers through the
Blackwall tunnel, but not the Rotherhithe tunnel! That must've
been a squeeze.

Don't forget that buses were all 7'6" wide until the 1950s. ISTR a
a more pronounced arch-shaped roof line than shown at that URL but
there you go.

There's a photo of a tunnel STL at
http://dewi.ca/trains/london/pix/n21_4_6.jpg

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)