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number of things in Dave's piece are out of date now.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.