The East London Line is dead... Long live the East London Line
 

On Dec 23, 9:46*pm, David Jackman pleasereplytogroup wrote:
MIG wrote :

An orbital route might be a nice to have, but only in addition to the
radial routes, not replacing them. *I've mentioned many times that the
trains from the Forest Hill direction are appallingly overcrowded. *I
can't see how it improves things to shorten them to fit the ELL and
divert them to Hackney. *Even if changing at Canada Water is not
perceived as an extra burden, it doesn't resolve the issue of the
short trains.

Isn't the intention that these are extra trains south of New Cross Gate,
and not replacing the existing service?


That would be nice, but if they can fit more trains in, I wonder why
they don't already, on such an overcrowded route.

The East London Line is dead... Long live the East London Line
 

"MIG" wrote in message
...
On Dec 23, 9:46 pm, David Jackman pleasereplytogroup wrote:
MIG wrote
:

An orbital route might be a nice to have, but only in addition to the
radial routes, not replacing them. I've mentioned many times that the
trains from the Forest Hill direction are appallingly overcrowded. I
can't see how it improves things to shorten them to fit the ELL and
divert them to Hackney. Even if changing at Canada Water is not
perceived as an extra burden, it doesn't resolve the issue of the
short trains.

Isn't the intention that these are extra trains south of New Cross Gate,
and not replacing the existing service?


That would be nice, but if they can fit more trains in, I wonder why
they don't already, on such an overcrowded route.


Probably not enough platforms/paths to deal with them at the various
existing termini, remember the recent discussions about the SLL, and how it
would have to be diverted anyway with the reduction in terminal platforms at
LB due to Thameslink. Dalston Junction and Highbury and Islington will
effectively become 4 additional terminating platforms for the Southeastern
network, notwithstanding being LO services.

Dave A attempted to summarise on his site a year or more ago:

http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/3

There's a table about 1/3 of the way down, suggests a couple of calls per
hour by existing trains might be lost.

Paul S

The East London Line is dead... Long live the East London Line
 

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:18:40 -0000, "Paul Scott"
wrote:


"MIG" wrote in message
...
On Dec 23, 9:46 pm, David Jackman pleasereplytogroup wrote:
MIG wrote
:

An orbital route might be a nice to have, but only in addition to the
radial routes, not replacing them. I've mentioned many times that the
trains from the Forest Hill direction are appallingly overcrowded. I
can't see how it improves things to shorten them to fit the ELL and
divert them to Hackney. Even if changing at Canada Water is not
perceived as an extra burden, it doesn't resolve the issue of the
short trains.

Isn't the intention that these are extra trains south of New Cross Gate,
and not replacing the existing service?


That would be nice, but if they can fit more trains in, I wonder why
they don't already, on such an overcrowded route.


Probably not enough platforms/paths to deal with them at the various
existing termini

Seems likely. ISTR a TV documentary a few years ago stating that in
the morning peak, London Bridge was operating at 138% of its
theoretical capacity (in terms of train movements).

The East London Line is dead... Long live the East London Line
 

Am Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:11:34 UTC, schrieb Tom Anderson
auf uk.railway :

I'm not saying there's no use for orbital services - quite clearly, there
is, and i look forward to the NLL having a frequency and last train time
which make it a viable option for me to travel between my friends in
Kilburn and Camden and my house in Islington instead of taking a tube via
the middle of town. But the simple fact is that the vast majority of the
demand is for radial travel, not orbital.

Are you sure that there are not more like you, who clog the radial
lines just to make a trip which could well be done by an orbital line?



Curious,
L.W.

The East London Line is dead... Long live the East London Line
 

On Dec 24, 1:17*am, James Farrar wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:18:40 -0000, "Paul Scott"





wrote:

"MIG" wrote in message
...
On Dec 23, 9:46 pm, David Jackman pleasereplytogroup wrote:
MIG wrote
:

An orbital route might be a nice to have, but only in addition to the
radial routes, not replacing them. I've mentioned many times that the
trains from the Forest Hill direction are appallingly overcrowded. I
can't see how it improves things to shorten them to fit the ELL and
divert them to Hackney. Even if changing at Canada Water is not
perceived as an extra burden, it doesn't resolve the issue of the
short trains.

Isn't the intention that these are extra trains south of New Cross Gate,
and not replacing the existing service?

That would be nice, but if they can fit more trains in, I wonder why
they don't already, on such an overcrowded route.

Probably not enough platforms/paths to deal with them at the various
existing termini

Seems likely. ISTR a TV documentary a few years ago stating that in
the morning peak, London Bridge was operating at 138% of its
theoretical capacity (in terms of train movements).-

I hope that the frequences are not just wishful, but I note that a
number of things in Dave's piece are out of date now.

As for London Bridge, that percentage may apply to the through part of
the station, but the terminus part (where trains from the NXG line go)
is distinctly underused compared with Charing Cross or Cannon Street.

The East London Line is dead... Long live the East London Line
 

Steve Fitzgerald wrote:
In message
,
EE507 writes
I believe the original plan was to run the 4-car 1938TS in public
service, but the unions refused to allow it and LU was unable to
persuade them.

Why did they object? Was it to be driven by a non-union member?

I wonder if the union actually asked the drivers...

All this talk about unions is a red herring. It was nothing to do with
them and they haven't objected to anything to my knowledge.

Apologies, this was the information I heard, but it appears that it was
incorrect and the platform heights were the major issue.

It's a shame it didn't run, it would have been interesting to see what
the 'normal' passengers made of having the 1938 stock forming their
train. (Having said that, If I was the LT Museum, I'm not sure I'd want
some of the ELL's 'customers' anywhere near my nice train!).