On Mon, 13 Apr 2009, John Rowland wrote:

MIG wrote:
On Apr 13, 12:43 pm, "Ian F." wrote:
"MIG" wrote in message

...

Are these the improvements that are due to resignalling but being
attributed to splitting the line in order to justify the
inconvenience caused by that, but then attributed to the signalling
as well to justify the disruption caused by the signalling work,

It always puzzles me why they think no one travelling south to north
wants to go to the West End. Often there are hundreds of people
changing at Kennington, with just a few left on the train to go to
the City.

I think that's purely because terminating at Kennington from the
Charing Cross direction is much easier operationally (from the City
requires reversing in a siding, not that that isn't done in plenty of
other places).

There's a rather nice diagram of Kennington on my site at
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro.../stations.html
In particular, Charing Cross reversers don't have to share track with any
City trains, whereas City reversers have to share track first with Charing
Cross-Mordens and then with Morden - Charing Crosses. LUL are well aware
that the West End is much busier than the City outside the peaks, but for
fit people a cross-platform interchange is practically as good as a through
train.

I can understand why thery run most trains to Bank in the peaks - because
of the track layout, plus the lesser fact that the Bank/CX demand ratio
his higher in the peaks than off-peak.

What i don't get is why the off-peak pattern runs all through trains to
Bank, reversing *everything* from CX. There, the density of trains is much
lower, so the track issue is surely irrelevant - even with the awkward
layout, you could surely run all trains to CX, and have space to reverse
Banks? Since in the off-peak the Bank/CX demand ratio falls dramatically,
this would serve people much better.

The existence of the cross-platform interchange to the Vic at Stockwell
may be relevant here; a huge number of people coming from Morden who want
the west end change there, IME. If they're going to do that anyway, then
running trains up the CX branch is not so important.

tom

--
Information is not knowledge. -- Albert Einstein

Tom Anderson wrote:

What i don't get is why the off-peak pattern runs all through trains to
Bank, reversing *everything* from CX. There, the density of trains is much
lower, so the track issue is surely irrelevant - even with the awkward
layout, you could surely run all trains to CX, and have space to reverse
Banks? Since in the off-peak the Bank/CX demand ratio falls dramatically,
this would serve people much better.

Yes but in the eventual split Morden goes with the City, so preparing people
for the idea that Charing Cross is accessible only by interchange is a good
long term strategy for making the split acceptable. One can't make a strong
opposition case to the split on the basis of these throughs being lost if
they've already been lost.

On Mon, 13 Apr 2009, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

What i don't get is why the off-peak pattern runs all through trains to
Bank, reversing *everything* from CX. There, the density of trains is much
lower, so the track issue is surely irrelevant - even with the awkward
layout, you could surely run all trains to CX, and have space to reverse
Banks? Since in the off-peak the Bank/CX demand ratio falls dramatically,
this would serve people much better.

Yes but in the eventual split Morden goes with the City, so preparing
people for the idea that Charing Cross is accessible only by interchange
is a good long term strategy for making the split acceptable. One can't
make a strong opposition case to the split on the basis of these
throughs being lost if they've already been lost.

Crafty!

tom

--
Information is not knowledge. -- Albert Einstein

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
rth.li...

There's a rather nice diagram of Kennington on my site at
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro.../stations.html
In particular, Charing Cross reversers don't have to share track with
any
City trains, whereas City reversers have to share track first with
Charing
Cross-Mordens and then with Morden - Charing Crosses. LUL are well
aware
that the West End is much busier than the City outside the peaks, but
for
fit people a cross-platform interchange is practically as good as a
through
train.

I can understand why thery run most trains to Bank in the peaks -
because of the track layout, plus the lesser fact that the Bank/CX
demand ratio his higher in the peaks than off-peak.

What i don't get is why the off-peak pattern runs all through trains
to Bank, reversing *everything* from CX. There, the density of trains
is much lower, so the track issue is surely irrelevant - even with the
awkward layout, you could surely run all trains to CX, and have space
to reverse Banks? Since in the off-peak the Bank/CX demand ratio falls
dramatically, this would serve people much better.

There are still 15tph on each branch off-peak. If all Banks reversed at
Kennington then there would be 30tph on the section between the junction
and the siding. Also trying to reverse a train every 4 minutes in 1
siding would be pretty difficult.

Peter Smyth

I think they did say that 24 trains per hour is possible without the
split, 30 trains per hour wouldn't be, right?


I do hope to see the split coming. The Northern Line has clearly been
more reliable the more it has been split up, and it just makes
operation so much easier and reduce the chance of delays. Just make
sure that both Kennington and Camden Town can handle it.

It would also make the choosing a branch when I go to work much easier
as I leave from Camden Town. The number of times I (and many others)
run to one platform, then run back to the other, is really quite high.