On 18 Oct, 12:41, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"lonelytraveller" wrote in
ooglegroups.com...

On 17 Oct, 18:36, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Its not easy to summarise, this RUS being 200 odd pages, but it looks
like
they want the capacity at the terminii to allow increased frequency on
existing longer distnce routes into LB and/or VIC, even before bringing
Thameslink into teh equation. As you say, Ken also wants this route for
Orbirail, so the objectors are going to have a lot of work on...

Paul

Is there any particular reason that the objecting people don't want to
travel via extended East London Line, and change at Canada water onto
the Jubilee line?

Because it will take half an hour longer?



Presume its just that the pax who currently use the service use it to get
directly to London Bridge or Victoria. Everyone is happy with improvements
for the greater good, except when directly affected themselves.

I'm sure very similar objections will be raised when the DC lines are
diverted away from Euston, or the Greenford shuttle stops going to
Paddington...


People decide where to live, what jobs to apply for etc based on
existing facilities, including transport links.

Of course objections will be raised, and quite rightly.

I really can't see what "improvements for the greater good" are going
to be achieved by diverting trains from already overcrowded routes
into central London into a stopping service to Hackney.

The dream of an orbital railway is being pursued in a very blinkered
way. There may be a need for one, but when people agree to the need
for a new service, it's wrong to infer that they mean "and existing
services should be taken away".

The fact that railways developed as they did, with radial routes
having precedence over orbital ones, is a clue to which are more
important.

"MIG" wrote in message
s.com...

Presume its just that the pax who currently use the service use it to get
directly to London Bridge or Victoria. Everyone is happy with
improvements
for the greater good, except when directly affected themselves.

I'm sure very similar objections will be raised when the DC lines are
diverted away from Euston, or the Greenford shuttle stops going to
Paddington...


People decide where to live, what jobs to apply for etc based on
existing facilities, including transport links.

Of course objections will be raised, and quite rightly.

I really can't see what "improvements for the greater good" are going
to be achieved by diverting trains from already overcrowded routes
into central London into a stopping service to Hackney.

The dream of an orbital railway is being pursued in a very blinkered
way. There may be a need for one, but when people agree to the need
for a new service, it's wrong to infer that they mean "and existing
services should be taken away".

You've hit the nail on the head there. I'm not trying to justify it, just
distil bits of the RUS into a single sentence. However, as I posted earlier
the RUS does suggest the requirement is to provide space in London Bridge
and Victoria for increased longer distance services, even without the future
Thameslink or Orbirail changes.

Paul S

On 18 Oct, 13:05, MIG wrote:
I really can't see what "improvements for the greater good" are going
to be achieved by diverting trains from already overcrowded routes
into central London into a stopping service to Hackney.

The dream of an orbital railway is being pursued in a very blinkered
way. There may be a need for one, but when people agree to the need
for a new service, it's wrong to infer that they mean "and existing
services should be taken away".

The fact that railways developed as they did, with radial routes
having precedence over orbital ones, is a clue to which are more
important.

s/"are"/"were at the time railways developed". Employment is
decreasingly concentrated in central London, and congestion is making
rail an increasingly important alternative for commuting in outer
London.

And AIUI Denmark Hill would keep its Blackfriars and Victoria to
Sevenoaks and Dartford trains (just losing the Victoria to London
Bridge SLL trains) under the Orbirail proposals, so nobody would be
denied access to town...

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

On 18 Oct, 14:12, John B wrote:
On 18 Oct, 13:05, MIG wrote:

I really can't see what "improvements for the greater good" are going
to be achieved by diverting trains from already overcrowded routes
into central London into a stopping service to Hackney.

The dream of an orbital railway is being pursued in a very blinkered
way. There may be a need for one, but when people agree to the need
for a new service, it's wrong to infer that they mean "and existing
services should be taken away".

The fact that railways developed as they did, with radial routes
having precedence over orbital ones, is a clue to which are more
important.

s/"are"/"were at the time railways developed". Employment is
decreasingly concentrated in central London, and congestion is making
rail an increasingly important alternative for commuting in outer
London.

As always, things are shifting around. The ELLX trains that will
replace some of the existing stopping services up from Croydon to New
Cross will be useful to those working at Canary Wharf and the
Docklands, given the interchange that'll be offered at Canada Water.

I'd be interested to know how many passengers on these trains head for
the Jubilee line on arrival at London Bridge to head east for Canary
Wharf, or indeed west for the West End. I'd wager it would be a
substantial number. Of course London Bridge remains an absolutely
crucial destination in itself for access to the City.


And AIUI Denmark Hill would keep its Blackfriars and Victoria to
Sevenoaks and Dartford trains (just losing the Victoria to London
Bridge SLL trains) under the Orbirail proposals, so nobody would be
denied access to town...


The whole situation regarding the future of the SLL is pretty complex,
as Paul Scott said - anyone who really wants to get their head round
it should read the RUS. I did a while back but I can't remember all
the options now - plus there's a lot of linkages between different
proposed plans to aid in one's confusion.

Without reminding myself on the plans I don't feel confident in
replying with a proper level of authority - however I can say for
certain that it is far more complicated that the mere diversion of the
SLL away from Victoria or London Bridge.

In article .com,
(John B) wrote:

On 18 Oct, 13:05, MIG wrote:
I really can't see what "improvements for the greater good" are going
to be achieved by diverting trains from already overcrowded routes
into central London into a stopping service to Hackney.

The dream of an orbital railway is being pursued in a very blinkered
way. There may be a need for one, but when people agree to the need
for a new service, it's wrong to infer that they mean "and existing
services should be taken away".

The fact that railways developed as they did, with radial routes
having precedence over orbital ones, is a clue to which are more
important.

s/"are"/"were at the time railways developed". Employment is
decreasingly concentrated in central London, and congestion is making
rail an increasingly important alternative for commuting in outer
London.

And AIUI Denmark Hill would keep its Blackfriars and Victoria to
Sevenoaks and Dartford trains (just losing the Victoria to London
Bridge SLL trains) under the Orbirail proposals, so nobody would be
denied access to town...

The original comments mentioned medical courses run jointly between
King's, for which Denmark Hill is much the nearest station, and Guy's
which is near London Bridge.

When I was born at King's and my father and later brother taught there,
Guy's was a great rival but today they are parts of the same institution
so presumably generate quite a bit of direct Denmark Hill-London Bridge
traffic.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, MIG wrote:

On 18 Oct, 12:41, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"lonelytraveller" wrote in
ooglegroups.com...

On 17 Oct, 18:36, "Paul Scott" wrote:

Its not easy to summarise, this RUS being 200 odd pages, but it looks
like they want the capacity at the terminii to allow increased
frequency on existing longer distnce routes into LB and/or VIC, even
before bringing Thameslink into teh equation. As you say, Ken also
wants this route for Orbirail, so the objectors are going to have a
lot of work on...

Is there any particular reason that the objecting people don't want to
travel via extended East London Line, and change at Canada water onto
the Jubilee line?

Presume its just that the pax who currently use the service use it to get
directly to London Bridge or Victoria. Everyone is happy with improvements
for the greater good, except when directly affected themselves.

I'm sure very similar objections will be raised when the DC lines are
diverted away from Euston, or the Greenford shuttle stops going to
Paddington...

Of course objections will be raised, and quite rightly.

I really can't see what "improvements for the greater good" are going to
be achieved by diverting trains from already overcrowded routes into
central London into a stopping service to Hackney.

The dream of an orbital railway is being pursued in a very blinkered
way. There may be a need for one, but when people agree to the need for
a new service, it's wrong to infer that they mean "and existing services
should be taken away".

Hear hear!

Even if that's not quite what's happening in this case.

tom
aka Radial Man

--
3118110161 Pies

MIG wrote:
On 18 Oct, 12:41, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"lonelytraveller" wrote in
ooglegroups.com...

On 17 Oct, 18:36, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Its not easy to summarise, this RUS being 200 odd pages, but it looks
like
they want the capacity at the terminii to allow increased frequency on
existing longer distnce routes into LB and/or VIC, even before bringing
Thameslink into teh equation. As you say, Ken also wants this route for
Orbirail, so the objectors are going to have a lot of work on...
Paul
Is there any particular reason that the objecting people don't want to
travel via extended East London Line, and change at Canada water onto
the Jubilee line?

Because it will take half an hour longer?

That's not really true, and can be checked using Journey Planner quite
easily. The main issue with London Bridge is that if you are travelling
on to anywhere else other than the immediate vicinity, the interchange
penalty from train - Tube or vice versa is pretty high; 7 minutes is
what the Journey Planner offers, which is tight (particularly in the
outbound direction where you are aiming to catch a train that leaves
every 10-20 mins).

You can compare a bunch of journey times from New Cross Gate to key
destinations via both London Bridge and via the existing ELL service to
show why diverting people via the ELL is actually not a huge hardship
(for other stations on the ELLX, just add the appropriate amount of
minutes; and remember that the ELL service will be 8tph x 4 cars to
Sydenham plus another 4tph rail x 6-8 cars to London Bridge (i.e. up to
64 cars per hour) whereas the current rail service is up to 6tph x 6-8
cars (i.e. up to 48 cars per hour).

London Bridge: via ELL, 15 mins; via rail, 11 mins
Canary Wharf: via ELL, 12 mins; via rail, 22 mins
Victoria: via ELL, 29 mins; via rail, 31 mins
Charing Cross: via ELL, 26 mins (Canada Water / Waterloo); via rail, 25 mins
Oxford Circus: via ELL, 29 mins (via C Wtr / Bond St); via rail, 30 mins
(via L Bridge / Bond St)
Tottenham Court Road: via ELL, 29 mins (via C Wtr / Waterloo); via rail,
31 mins (via L Bridge / Bond St)
Bank: via ELL, 20 mins (via Shadwell); via rail, 22 mins (fast walk from
L Bridge)
Liverpool Street: via ELL, 19 mins; via rail, 31 mins (bus from L Bridge)
King's Cross: via ELL, 30 mins; via rail, 30 mins

Dave

On Oct 28, 7:34 pm, Dave A wrote:
MIG wrote:
On 18 Oct, 12:41, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"lonelytraveller" wrote in
ooglegroups.com...

On 17 Oct, 18:36, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Its not easy to summarise, this RUS being 200 odd pages, but it looks
like
they want the capacity at the terminii to allow increased frequency on
existing longer distnce routes into LB and/or VIC, even before bringing
Thameslink into teh equation. As you say, Ken also wants this route for
Orbirail, so the objectors are going to have a lot of work on...
Paul
Is there any particular reason that the objecting people don't want to
travel via extended East London Line, and change at Canada water onto
the Jubilee line?

Because it will take half an hour longer?

That's not really true, and can be checked using Journey Planner quite
easily. The main issue with London Bridge is that if you are travelling
on to anywhere else other than the immediate vicinity, the interchange
penalty from train - Tube or vice versa is pretty high; 7 minutes is
what the Journey Planner offers, which is tight (particularly in the
outbound direction where you are aiming to catch a train that leaves
every 10-20 mins).

You can compare a bunch of journey times from New Cross Gate to key
destinations via both London Bridge and via the existing ELL service to
show why diverting people via the ELL is actually not a huge hardship
(for other stations on the ELLX, just add the appropriate amount of
minutes; and remember that the ELL service will be 8tph x 4 cars to
Sydenham plus another 4tph rail x 6-8 cars to London Bridge (i.e. up to
64 cars per hour) whereas the current rail service is up to 6tph x 6-8
cars (i.e. up to 48 cars per hour).

London Bridge: via ELL, 15 mins; via rail, 11 mins
Canary Wharf: via ELL, 12 mins; via rail, 22 mins
Victoria: via ELL, 29 mins; via rail, 31 mins
Charing Cross: via ELL, 26 mins (Canada Water / Waterloo); via rail, 25 mins
Oxford Circus: via ELL, 29 mins (via C Wtr / Bond St); via rail, 30 mins
(via L Bridge / Bond St)
Tottenham Court Road: via ELL, 29 mins (via C Wtr / Waterloo); via rail,
31 mins (via L Bridge / Bond St)
Bank: via ELL, 20 mins (via Shadwell); via rail, 22 mins (fast walk from
L Bridge)
Liverpool Street: via ELL, 19 mins; via rail, 31 mins (bus from L Bridge)
King's Cross: via ELL, 30 mins; via rail, 30 mins


Those times look very odd. I can't work them out. 11 minutes to go
one stop to London Bridge, but only 4 minutes more via the dog's leg
and changing? Is that meant to be the journey time to the Jubilee
platforms? Does the ELL go to Liverpool Street?

Trains to London Bridge were overcrowded before the Jubilee existed.
If the assumption is that the final destination is London Bridge, then
arriving at the deepest platforms via Canada Water is a much worse
option that just walking across the concourse from a direct, one-stop
train.

In practice, I don't think London Bridge is a very popular final
destination, but many people will want the Northern Line, the City or
Charing Cross. Only people travelling to Westminster, Bond Street etc
(fairly new journey options) will be relatively uninconvenienced.

In article .com,
(MIG) wrote:

Trains to London Bridge were overcrowded before the Jubilee existed.
If the assumption is that the final destination is London Bridge, then
arriving at the deepest platforms via Canada Water is a much worse
option that just walking across the concourse from a direct, one-stop
train.

In practice, I don't think London Bridge is a very popular final
destination, but many people will want the Northern Line, the City or
Charing Cross. Only people travelling to Westminster, Bond Street etc
(fairly new journey options) will be relatively uninconvenienced.

The point was made that there is a fair amount of direct traffic between
King's College Hospital, close to Denmark Hill station, and Guy's
Hospital, close to London Bridge.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

MIG wrote:
On Oct 28, 7:34 pm, Dave A wrote:
MIG wrote:
On 18 Oct, 12:41, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"lonelytraveller" wrote in
ooglegroups.com...
On 17 Oct, 18:36, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Its not easy to summarise, this RUS being 200 odd pages, but it looks
like
they want the capacity at the terminii to allow increased frequency on
existing longer distnce routes into LB and/or VIC, even before bringing
Thameslink into teh equation. As you say, Ken also wants this route for
Orbirail, so the objectors are going to have a lot of work on...
Paul
Is there any particular reason that the objecting people don't want to
travel via extended East London Line, and change at Canada water onto
the Jubilee line?
Because it will take half an hour longer?
That's not really true, and can be checked using Journey Planner quite
easily. The main issue with London Bridge is that if you are travelling
on to anywhere else other than the immediate vicinity, the interchange
penalty from train - Tube or vice versa is pretty high; 7 minutes is
what the Journey Planner offers, which is tight (particularly in the
outbound direction where you are aiming to catch a train that leaves
every 10-20 mins).

You can compare a bunch of journey times from New Cross Gate to key
destinations via both London Bridge and via the existing ELL service to
show why diverting people via the ELL is actually not a huge hardship
(for other stations on the ELLX, just add the appropriate amount of
minutes; and remember that the ELL service will be 8tph x 4 cars to
Sydenham plus another 4tph rail x 6-8 cars to London Bridge (i.e. up to
64 cars per hour) whereas the current rail service is up to 6tph x 6-8
cars (i.e. up to 48 cars per hour).

London Bridge: via ELL, 15 mins; via rail, 11 mins
Canary Wharf: via ELL, 12 mins; via rail, 22 mins
Victoria: via ELL, 29 mins; via rail, 31 mins
Charing Cross: via ELL, 26 mins (Canada Water / Waterloo); via rail, 25 mins
Oxford Circus: via ELL, 29 mins (via C Wtr / Bond St); via rail, 30 mins
(via L Bridge / Bond St)
Tottenham Court Road: via ELL, 29 mins (via C Wtr / Waterloo); via rail,
31 mins (via L Bridge / Bond St)
Bank: via ELL, 20 mins (via Shadwell); via rail, 22 mins (fast walk from
L Bridge)
Liverpool Street: via ELL, 19 mins; via rail, 31 mins (bus from L Bridge)
King's Cross: via ELL, 30 mins; via rail, 30 mins


Those times look very odd. I can't work them out. 11 minutes to go
one stop to London Bridge, but only 4 minutes more via the dog's leg
and changing? Is that meant to be the journey time to the Jubilee
platforms? Does the ELL go to Liverpool Street?

They're the timetabled times - about 11 mins (can vary between 9-13
mins) between departing NXG on a Southern service and arriving into the
terminus platforms at London Bridge. Try Journey Planner for an 0830
departure time from New Cross Gate to London Bridge. You'll get the 0836
train arriving 0846, and an 0837 Tube departure with a 5 min journey to
Canada Water, 3 minute interchange and 4 minutes to London Bridge.

Yes, it's the journey to the Jubilee platforms themselves so there is an
egress time not taken into consideration, but then again the egress from
the terminus platforms at London Bridge can also take some time given
the crowding at the gateline when an entire train empties out (let alone
two closely-timed arrivals).

No the ELL doesn't go to Liverpool Street but the route is fairly
straightforward, changing at Whitechapel to the H&C. (When the extension
opens, there will also be Shoreditch High Street station as an
alternative for anyone working north of Liverpool Street station itself.)

Trains to London Bridge were overcrowded before the Jubilee existed.
If the assumption is that the final destination is London Bridge, then
arriving at the deepest platforms via Canada Water is a much worse
option that just walking across the concourse from a direct, one-stop
train.

This is why I picked a variety of destinations including London Bridge -
to show that in practice, there isn't really a journey time penalty to
any destinations apart from London Bridge itself, because of the
difficulty of changing trains there and the slow onward rail connections.

So... if everyone who travels to the immediate vicinity of London Bridge
continues to use the (reduced) rail service, and everyone else uses the
higher-frequency London Overground service changing at Canada Water,
Shadwell or Whitechapel, the crowding problem doesn't seem quite as bad.

In practice, I don't think London Bridge is a very popular final
destination, but many people will want the Northern Line, the City or
Charing Cross. Only people travelling to Westminster, Bond Street etc
(fairly new journey options) will be relatively uninconvenienced.

This is exactly what I am proving above - very few people will be
inconvenienced because the journey times to other popular destinations
are remarkably similar via the ELL, mostly because the interchange at
London Bridge is lengthy. I deliberately used Bank in the City and
Charing Cross as examples - the journey times are different by only
about a minute.

When the Crossrail interchange at Whitechapel opens, journey times to
some destinations via the ELL will be even more attractive.