Paul Corfield wrote:

If you want to see the horror effect of IKEA on public transport try to
get on the 192 bus from Tottenham Hale. It can only use little midibuses
and must rank as one of the most overcrowded routes I know. If only
Angel Road Station was to the south of the North Circular road and
actually had trains stop at it - it would provide very easy access to
IKEA and the huge Tescos at Edmonton. I suspect similar IKEA horrors are
inflicted on Tramlink in south London.

Perhaps TfL might, in that case, consider recasting the routes around
that area rather than whining about it? While I'm more in favour of
TfL style regulation than a free-for-all, I can't see Stagecoach
showing that kind of "can't be bothered" attitude in the provinces.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:09:06 -0700 (PDT), TheOneKEA
wrote:

There is also the fact that the WLL is still a good cross-London link
between the former Southern Region and the former Western and London
Midland (:P) Regions. Just because there's no XC link right now
doesn't mean that a new service, serving Shepherd's Bush, won't be
eventually restored.

Even now, the link from MKC to Clapham Jn and beyond is *very* heavily
used. While there would be an issue with making the LO service 8
cars, the Southern one could easily be made so given a few units, had
the short-sighted decision to build a 4-car platform at Imperial Wharf
not been made.

That said, given that said service is mainly about linking the WCML to
the SWML, it could I suppose be extended to 8 then not stop at
Imperial Wharf. How long is the platform at Shepherd's Bush?

I suppose Platform 17 at Clapham is also short, but if that was a
problem it could terminate there and use 2 or a reinstated 1 instead.
Or is 16 long enough, if a crossover was to be installed?

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Oct 26, 9:17*pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:09:06 -0700 (PDT), TheOneKEA

wrote:
There is also the fact that the WLL is still a good cross-London link
between the former Southern Region and the former Western and London
Midland (:P) Regions. Just because there's no XC link right now
doesn't mean that a new service, serving Shepherd's Bush, won't be
eventually restored.

Even now, the link from MKC to Clapham Jn and beyond is *very* heavily
used. *While there would be an issue with making the LO service 8
cars, the Southern one could easily be made so given a few units, had
the short-sighted decision to build a 4-car platform at Imperial Wharf
not been made.

The real issue is platforms 16 and 17 at CLJ. SDO can't be used with
the sort of loadings these trains experience, but straightening and
lengthening the platforms won't happen any time soon.

That said, given that said service is mainly about linking the WCML to
the SWML, it could I suppose be extended to 8 then not stop at
Imperial Wharf. * How long is the platform at Shepherd's Bush?

4! Same at West Brompton. I think the assumption has been made that
CLJ 16 and 17 will never be sorted out, so why bother when LOROL will
be a 4-car max railway forever more?

I suppose Platform 17 at Clapham is also short, but if that was a
problem it could terminate there and use 2 or a reinstated 1 instead.
Or is 16 long enough, if a crossover was to be installed?

Cross-Clapham traffic is heavy and interchange facilities on those
platforms are grossly inadequate. If the infrastructure is ever
modified to allow 8-car trains, it could then be sensible to run them
south of East Croydon once again.

In the short term I would prefer 2 tph of ECR-WFJ rather than 1 of ECR-
MKC, although the benefits would be greater if VT bothered to stop
more than 1 tph at WFJ.

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:37:16 -0700 (PDT), EE507
wrote:

In the short term I would prefer 2 tph of ECR-WFJ rather than 1 of ECR-
MKC, although the benefits would be greater if VT bothered to stop
more than 1 tph at WFJ.

I'd agree, but *only* if the timetable was set up for good connections
with LM services in both directions, which they traditionally haven't
been.

But is there room for 2tph even if there are units for it?

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:37:16 -0700 (PDT), EE507 wrote:

That said, given that said service is mainly about linking the WCML to
the SWML, it could I suppose be extended to 8 then not stop at
Imperial Wharf. * How long is the platform at Shepherd's Bush?

4! Same at West Brompton. I think the assumption has been made that
CLJ 16 and 17 will never be sorted out, so why bother when LOROL will
be a 4-car max railway forever more?

LOROL doesn't use 16/17 at CLJ...

I don't think building 4-car platforms was that big a mistake,
provided passive provision was made for extension to 8-car. Willesden
Junction (HL) is another limiting factor. Better to have 4-car
stations that get built than 8-car stations that don't because they're
too expensive. Once the service is running and demand is proven,
there's more of a case for extending to 8-car.

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:30:24 +0000, Paul Corfield wrote:

If you want to see the horror effect of IKEA on public transport try to
get on the 192 bus from Tottenham Hale. It can only use little midibuses
and must rank as one of the most overcrowded routes I know.

Perhaps TfL might, in that case, consider recasting the routes around
that area rather than whining about it? While I'm more in favour of
TfL style regulation than a free-for-all, I can't see Stagecoach
showing that kind of "can't be bothered" attitude in the provinces.

Where did I say TfL was whining? I made a comment about the reality of
overcrowding. I don't believe I have yet absorbed the corporate
consciousness of the whole of TfL nor do I consider that I was whining.
Believe me I can whine with the best of them and you'd know it if I was.
Thankfully I don't have to use the 192 very often but that's no respite
for those who do.

The 192 was only re-tendered about a year ago and there was no frequency
enhancement so I assume it is considered adequate.

If you listen to the last 30 mins or so of the webcast of the GLA
Transport Committee meeting last week you will see Mr Hendy very
carefully explain that there is no money for bus service expansion and
that cuts at the margin of many routes are due over the next few years.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but surely if the route is overflowing
with passengers then there is no need for any subsidy?

Or are London bus fares really so low that even a fully-loaded bus
does not cover its own running costs?

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:54:37 +0000, asdf wrote:


Perhaps I'm missing something, but surely if the route is overflowing
with passengers then there is no need for any subsidy?

Or are London bus fares really so low that even a fully-loaded bus does
not cover its own running costs?


London's public transport system always seems to be far too expensive to
get more people off the roads and onto buses and trains.


--
Beware of sneezing pigs

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:09:06 -0700 (PDT), TheOneKEA wrote:

True, but keep in mind that the narrow platforms at Shepherd's Bush
will eventually become a problem if the Westfield development
eventually reaches full utilization. IMHO there will eventually be a
need to substantially increase the local service on the WLL to better
serve Shepherd's Bush, and the restoration of the up loop at Kenny O
will make it substantially easier to path a frequent local passenger
service.

I fail to see how this would make anything easier. You can get the
same number of tph through Kenny O in its current configuration as you
can through West Brompton, Shepherds Bush, etc. Modifying Kenny O
would not increase line capacity.

Also, if the headway on the WLL is (say) 3 minutes, I doubt passengers
on Kenny O stoppers would appreciate sitting there for 6 minutes while
another train overtakes.

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:30:24 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

If you listen to the last 30 mins or so of the webcast of the GLA
Transport Committee meeting last week you will see Mr Hendy very
carefully explain that there is no money for bus service expansion and
that cuts at the margin of many routes are due over the next few years.
If there is any improvement to services it will be at the cost of a cut
to something else. While I do not disagree with your basic point - a
double deck route (the 349 would do) sent over part of the 192 route
would do the trick - it simply isn't going to happen in the current
climate.

Yet if loadings are high enough that demand could be being suppressed,
might this not actually be a profitable move? (That's why I compared
with commercial services in the regions).

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

"Paul Corfield" wrote:

While I am sure that you could notionally allocate a level of revenue to
a route and then set it against the tendered cost of operation I am not
sure what it would tell you.

Is one of the problems here that TfL wish to run most routes for 19 hours a
day, usually at a (say) 15 minute frequency until end of service?

Using the example of our IKEA bus, this might generate a notional profit if
operated from 8am to 7pm Mon-Sat, and 10 am to 4pm on Sunday. But then going
on to run a bus every fifteen minutes from 7pm until midnight, largely
carrying fresh air, tips it back to a loss. I appreciate this is overly
simplistic, as each route has multiple traffic objectives, but if TfL are
looking for cost cuts, I propose that the frequency of some non-core routes
after the evening peak would be a good place to start.

I believe, as a youth*, the 248 used to convey friends and I from Upminster
to Romford at a circa 30 minute evening frequency. I don't think anyone
found this especially constricting. I see the 248 is now, sure enough, every
15 minutes until after midnight.

Despite protestations (elsewhere in this
thread) that London bus fares are high all the evidence points to the
opposite.

Two weeks ago I used a commercial service to travel approximately eight
miles in East Sussex, off peak. £4.00 single. On a fairly full bus, I was
the only fare paying passenger. Anyone who says London bus fares are high
has clearly never travelled outside London or the less developed world.

Chris
* In the days when the 248 was run (badly) under tender by a Nottingham
outfit.