Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Mizter T wrote:

On 10 Oct, 06:03, Tom Anderson wrote:
(snip) Moreover, the NLL as it
stands is increasingly popular, for some reason, and i can't see it
getting broken up in any way - quite the opposite, more trains,
services extended to more remote destinations, etc.

The NLL is popular because it takes people where they want to go,

Yes, but where are they going, and why are they going there?

I sort-of address this question in my other reply about the DLR.

I don't think that they're all going for a joy-ride (though
undoubtedly a few are - and I'm not talking about bashers, just
somewhat aimless people milling about). They're going to/from work,
the shops, hospital, the cinema, the park, the pub, their friends, the
football (both playing and spectating), their school, the museum, the
pool etc.

I guess, reading between the lines, one of your questions is whether
some of these pax would be better served by improved radial routes.
Yes, some would, but I think that the NLL (and orbital routes in
general) genuinely meets a need that radial routes either can't match,
or meets that need better than radial routes would.


and does it better than other means (despite the filthy nature of the
trains). I still can't quite understand you're dislike for orbital rail
routes, especially given that they are liked by large numbers of the
travelling public.

"People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people."

I don't dislike orbital rail routes - i even use them myself from time to
time, although of course i wear a false beard when i do so, so people
don't recognise me. My irritation stems from a preoccupation with orbital
routes that occasionally strikes some people. Yes, the NLL is busy, and
the demand would fill more and longer trains - but most of the radial
routes have vastly more demand, and are overcrowded despite having ten
times the capacity, so to talk about orbital routes as if they were the
most important thing is bonkers. Focusing attention and money on the ELL
extension, say, diverts it from problems which really are more
significant. Yes, i realise that much of the attraction of orbital routes
at the moment is the fact that they can be significantly improved for very
little money by linking things up and running more trains, but let's just
remember they're the low-hanging fruit, not the top banana.

tom


Part of the of attraction of orbital routes is to encourage people to
come and live in the city, in rejuvenated neighbourhoods, rather than
commuting in from afar on radial routes.

To an extent when you provide capacity it will be taken advantage of,
so if you provide capacity on orbital routes people will be attracted
to living near these routes rather than out on radial routes. Perhaps
one shouldn't just provide more capacity on radial routes which can
encourage longer-distance commuting - the demand is arguably
insatiable - but instead provide that capacity elsewhere, on orbital
routes.

The whole concept of orbital routes should perhaps be read in the
context of the London Plan - a hefty document, but one that clearly
sets out the aim of encouraging neighbourhoods to flourish all over
London.

And no - I'm not suggesting that radial routes have no part to play in
this, of course they do - but understanding the thinking behind this
does provide one with some idea of why orbital routes are considered
important.

That's a fair question. One could get all Daily Mail-esque and put
forward the notion that a number of these passengers during the
daytime aren't going to or from work but are supported by the state in
some way and are spending their days doing other things.
Because of course, the kinds of people who work in the docklands have
jobs and incomes that make them chained to their desks all day, never
having meetings anywhere else, working lunches, etc....?

most of the radial routes have vastly more demand, and are overcrowded despite having ten
times the capacity, so to talk about orbital routes as if they were the
most important thing is bonkers.

Most of the radial routes have vastly more demand because the orbital
routes are currently atrocious, meaning that people much prefer to
take the absurd detour of going into zone 1 and going back out again.
Orbital routes would reduce the load on the radial ones drastically.
Its a bit like the same logic that means that most people take the M25
rather than drive from Dartford to Heathrow via Oxford Street.

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, lonelytraveller wrote:

most of the radial routes have vastly more demand, and are overcrowded
despite having ten times the capacity, so to talk about orbital routes
as if they were the most important thing is bonkers.

Most of the radial routes have vastly more demand because the orbital
routes are currently atrocious,

I don't believe that's true. I think most of the radial demand is people
going between the outer bits of town, where they live, and the inner bits,
where they work and play. Not all, but a large majority.

meaning that people much prefer to take the absurd detour of going into
zone 1 and going back out again. Orbital routes would reduce the load on
the radial ones drastically. Its a bit like the same logic that means
that most people take the M25 rather than drive from Dartford to
Heathrow via Oxford Street.

But Dartford to Heathrow is half the distance via Oxford Street than via
the M25! Well, via Vauxhall Bridge, anyway - 33.6 vs 60.2 miles, according
to google. The only reason people use the M25 is because Oxford Street
isn't a six-lane motorway - if it was, people would take the through-town
route. If you had the situation where you had an overcrowded through-town
route and an underused round-town route, and expanding them didn't have
the negative environmental consequences that it does with roads, you'd be
mad to improve the orbital rather than the radial.

tom

--
4 8 15 16 23 42

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Mizter T wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Mizter T wrote:

On 10 Oct, 06:03, Tom Anderson wrote:

the NLL as it stands is increasingly popular, for some reason

The NLL is popular because it takes people where they want to go,

Yes, but where are they going, and why are they going there?

The whole concept of orbital routes should perhaps be read in the
context of the London Plan - a hefty document, but one that clearly
sets out the aim of encouraging neighbourhoods to flourish all over
London.

Ah, well that's another story. I'm off to the pub but will give you my
thoughts on the London Plan strategy when i get back ...

tom

--
4 8 15 16 23 42

On 11 Oct, 18:05, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, lonelytraveller wrote:
most of the radial routes have vastly more demand, and are overcrowded
despite having ten times the capacity, so to talk about orbital routes
as if they were the most important thing is bonkers.

Most of the radial routes have vastly more demand because the orbital
routes are currently atrocious,

I don't believe that's true. I think most of the radial demand is people
going between the outer bits of town, where they live, and the inner bits,
where they work and play. Not all, but a large majority.

meaning that people much prefer to take the absurd detour of going into
zone 1 and going back out again. Orbital routes would reduce the load on
the radial ones drastically. Its a bit like the same logic that means
that most people take the M25 rather than drive from Dartford to
Heathrow via Oxford Street.

But Dartford to Heathrow is half the distance via Oxford Street than via
the M25! Well, via Vauxhall Bridge, anyway - 33.6 vs 60.2 miles, according
to google. The only reason people use the M25 is because Oxford Street
isn't a six-lane motorway - if it was, people would take the through-town
route. If you had the situation where you had an overcrowded through-town
route and an underused round-town route, and expanding them didn't have
the negative environmental consequences that it does with roads, you'd be
mad to improve the orbital rather than the radial.

tom

--
4 8 15 16 23 42

if Oxford Street was a 6 lane motorway, then all the radial traffic
would be using it - it would be even more jammed up than it is now.

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

I wonder if such a connection ever existed around there.

Bingo! AIUI, this was the Ealing & Shepherd's Bush Railway - this
was built as a branch off the WLL at that point to go to the GWML
(don't ask me how that works). The Central used to terminate at a
depot where White City is now, and it was extended a little way
north, via the tracks that Google doesn't know about, to meet the
E&SBR and run over it.

I should point out that this understanding is based entirely on
CULG and the caption of one of Clive's photos taken around Wood
Lane, so this whole railway could be an elaborate ruse of Clive's.

The Central extension to Ealing Broadway was constructed alongside the
Ealing & Shepherd's Bush Railway on its own tracks and did not run over
it. In particular, the right-to-left hand running flyover was only
located on the Central.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:


I wonder if such a connection ever existed around there.

Bingo! AIUI, this was the Ealing & Shepherd's Bush Railway - this
was built as a branch off the WLL at that point to go to the GWML
(don't ask me how that works). The Central used to terminate at a
depot where White City is now, and it was extended a little way
north, via the tracks that Google doesn't know about, to meet the
E&SBR and run over it.

I should point out that this understanding is based entirely on
CULG and the caption of one of Clive's photos taken around Wood
Lane, so this whole railway could be an elaborate ruse of Clive's.


The Central extension to Ealing Broadway was constructed alongside the
Ealing & Shepherd's Bush Railway on its own tracks and did not run over
it. In particular, the right-to-left hand running flyover was only
located on the Central.


So this is the reason why there are long stretches of abandoned trackbed
along the Central Line around there? There are for example double
bridges where the current tracks only use one of them for both tracks etc.

--
Olof Lagerkvist
ICQ: 724451
Web: http://here.is/olof

On 12 Oct, 00:01, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
The Central extension to Ealing Broadway was constructed alongside the
Ealing & Shepherd's Bush Railway on its own tracks and did not run over
it. In particular, the right-to-left hand running flyover was only
located on the Central.

Not according to the London Railway Atlas - it says they shared tracks
east of the junction from 1920 until 1938, when a second pair for the
main line was built, and it was this pair abandoned in 1964, so in
effect the Central has always run on the original E&SB, and still
does. The flyover is shown doubling as a flying junction, so trains
from Kensington Olympia heading west could use it to cross the
eastbound Central Line.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On 11 Oct, 18:05, Tom Anderson wrote:
most of the radial routes have vastly more demand, and are overcrowded
despite having ten times the capacity, so to talk about orbital routes
as if they were the most important thing is bonkers.

Most of the radial routes have vastly more demand because the orbital
routes are currently atrocious,

I don't believe that's true. I think most of the radial demand is people
going between the outer bits of town, where they live, and the inner bits,
where they work and play. Not all, but a large majority.

Hmm.

An *awful lot* of non-financial-services companies, including major
corporations not just the traditional small-business-light-industry
roles, have relocated to outer London, where Home Counties commuters
can easily drive into work. Some of these have adequate public
transport access; others don't.

Last time I was looking to change my job, my only geographical
requirement was Greater London (at the time I was working in Finchley
Road doing consumer goods marketing). I had five interviews over six
months, for jobs based in Hanger Lane, Hayes, Uxbridge, Cambridge
(yes, I know), and Farringdon.

Eventually I decided to change careers and move into something much
more financial-services-y so my current job is in z1 (although while
writing this post, I had an unsolicited phone call offering me an
interview for a consumer goods marketing job based in Ealing. Which I
have no intention of taking, but it's another data point.)

Excluding the Cambridge outfit, that suggests that only 1/6 of jobs in
consumer goods marketing within Greater London are in z1, and that the
majority are well outside the central zones. I can see why consumer
goods marketing might be widely distributed than /some/ jobs - a lot
of firms put marketers and factories on the same sites - but
nonetheless it's a good example of an industry where the work-in-
centre, live-in-outside split doesn't seem to apply.

In terms of connections, I would have commuted to all of these jobs
via the centre, purely due to poor orbital links. When I was working
at Finchley Road, I tried to commute using the NLL for a few months,
but gave up because it was so horrible and shifted to going via z2 -
z1 - z2 on the Underground instead. It was an extra five minutes on
the journey and extra £200 p.a., but four times the frequency and only
substantial, rather than unbearable, overcrowding...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org