On Oct 26, 9:37*pm, EE507 wrote:

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.

CLJ 16 and 17 will never be sorted out, so why bother when LOROL will
be a 4-car max railway forever more?


I would have thought the most significant length constraint would be
Willesden Junction (for LO trains obviously not SN). To extend that to
8-car would involve bridging WCML and that would not come cheap. As
there would be no benefit to LO in 8car trains if Willesden Junycion
were never done, the entire cost of 8car works on WLL would be born by
the SN operation.


IMHO a fundamental flaw in the LO / WLL / NLL / ELL shceme is being
geared around 4car trains. At this period in 21st century we should be
talking *absolute mnimum* 8-car trains by 2015 with passive provision
for 12car, and I'd say even 15-car (300 m length).


Crossrail should certainly be passively provided for 300 m; I'd like
to have seen TL likewise too.

What is going on with these lengthening schemes is fixing yesterdays
after tomorrow has started; there is minimal provision for todays
problems, and none for tomorrows.

This is why NEW tube lines - be they tube size or main line size -
need to get under way now as they take 10 years to build even once
planning is done, and that takes years too.

--
Nick

In message , Chris Read
writes

Allowing pensioners who live in £500k houses, with £100k plus in
the bank, totally free travel, whilst charging full rate to a supermarket
worker on £6 an hour, is an interesting take on social justice. But there is
no political will to challenge the status quo here.

Politicians also have to remember the environmental issue: pensioners in
that position have cars, which many would undoubtedly use if free travel
was withdrawn, thus adding to congestion and pollution.
--
Paul Terry

On 28 Oct, 04:05, D7666 wrote:
On Oct 26, 9:37*pm, EE507 wrote:

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.
CLJ 16 and 17 will never be sorted out, so why bother when LOROL will
be a 4-car max railway forever more?

I would have thought the most significant length constraint would be
Willesden Junction (for LO trains obviously not SN). To extend that to
8-car would involve bridging WCML and that would not come cheap. As
there would be no benefit to LO in 8car trains if Willesden Junycion
were never done, the entire cost of 8car works on WLL would be born by
the SN operation.

IMHO a fundamental flaw in the LO / WLL / NLL / ELL shceme is being
geared around 4car trains. At this period in 21st century we should be
talking *absolute mnimum* 8-car trains by 2015 with passive provision
for 12car, and I'd say even 15-car (300 m length).

Similar problem on the ELL, due to stringing together bits of old
infrastructure and then contaminating all the main routes that now
feed into them.

I can see the case for extending the ELL up the old viaduct to Dalston
and beyond, but Croydon to London Bridge is one of the most
ludicrously overcrowded stretches on the network. Taking up paths
with short trains diverted off to Dalston is insanity gone mad.

The ELL should terminate at NX/NXG, at least in the peaks. Maybe it
still will.

On 28 Oct, 04:05, D7666 wrote:

I would have thought the most significant length constraint would be
Willesden Junction (for LO trains obviously not SN). To extend that to
8-car would involve bridging WCML and that would not come cheap.

Which would put the high-level station back just about where it used
to be. I'm certainly not holding my breath for that to happen.
They've been talking about re-building the platforms on the slow lines
almost since the old ones were demolished. I'm not expecting that to
happen in my lifetime either.

How long were the platforms at the old station? Given the previous
platform lengths at various other North London Line stations, I'm
guessing that they were rather longer than at the present station.

The original station also had a third platform, generally known as the
'Earls Court Bay', though I believe it was actually a through
platform, rather than a real bay. If this was still available it
would have avoided the situation which existed a few years ago, I'm
not sure if it still does now as I haven't used the line for some
time, where a train arriving from the WLL is held just before the
junction while trains run through in both directions on the NLL, so
you then have a long wait for a connection on that line.

This is why NEW tube lines - be they tube size or main line size -
need to get under way now as they take 10 years to build even once
planning is done, and that takes years too.

An LU person at a LURS meeting at the time that the Jubilee Line
extension was being either planned or constructed stated that this was
being built to traditional tube dimensions only because the rest of
the tube section of the line was that size, and that any future tube
line would almost certainly be to take surface stock size trains, as
the cost of tunneling to the larger size would not be much greater
using modern equipment and techniques.

In message
Paul Terry wrote:

In message , Chris Read
writes

Allowing pensioners who live in £500k houses, with £100k plus in the
bank, totally free travel, whilst charging full rate to a supermarket
worker on £6 an hour, is an interesting take on social justice. But there
is no political will to challenge the status quo here.

Politicians also have to remember the environmental issue: pensioners in
that position have cars, which many would undoubtedly use if free travel
was withdrawn, thus adding to congestion and pollution.

There are far more pemsioners who are emphatically not in that bracket, he
said feelingly! The point being that the cost, both economically and
politically, of discriminating against your favourite hate-group is far
higher than any savings you might notionally make.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

E27002 wrote:
On Oct 27, 3:14 pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:07:45 -0700 (PDT), E27002
wrote:

Compared with other urban transit systems that I utilize, London's
fares seem unreal. Journeys cost many times their equivalent in say
Atlanta, Louisville, or Los Angeles.
But ignoring the "penalty" cash fares, they compare very favourably
with the rest of the UK.

But, they are high compared with competing international business
centers. And, for that matter tourist destinations.

When I have worked in Edinburgh, the monthly, all routes, bus pass has
seemed reasonable. Although it has been several years since I have
had that pleasure.

The all /carriers/ pass in the former metropolitan county of West
Midlands (the transit authority is still indirectly elected for the
whole area) is excellent value, with the three month version best of
all. It even includes intercity trains on the part of the
(London-Glasgow) main line within the county. The single trolley line
has street running at the Wolverhampton end. We'd love to see your
company here, and you don't have to put up with London poseurs.

--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.

Woody Guthrie

E27002 wrote:
On Oct 27, 3:37 pm, "Chris Read" wrote:
"E27002" wrote:
London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making London
and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.
Really? People won't do business here because a bus fare costs about half
the price of a small coffee in Starbucks?

When we have people hiding in trucks at Dover, trying to escape the UK, as
opposed to hiding in trucks at Calais trying to get in, I'll accept that
we're no longer a good place to do business.

When I choose an IT contract there are certain cost that I take into
account, the rate, the cost of temporary accommodation, food and
transportation costs. I then factor in issues like safety and the
local environment.

London tends to be less attractive than Edinburgh, Los Angeles, or
Omaha. But, you needn't be concerned; you have plenty of folks
waiting in trucks at Calais. I am sure they will be able to install
and maintain software at your companies, financial institutions, etc.


There's the Gas Street Basin/Brindley Place area, on a historic canal
junction. Boy, are you in for a treat, and it's less dangerous than
Baltimore.

--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.

Woody Guthrie

D7666 wrote:

I would have thought the most significant length constraint would be
Willesden Junction (for LO trains obviously not SN). To extend that to
8-car would involve bridging WCML and that would not come cheap. As
there would be no benefit to LO in 8car trains if Willesden Junycion
were never done, the entire cost of 8car works on WLL would be born by
the SN operation.

I expect WJ (HL) won't be anything like as difficult to extend to 8 car
length once the current 4 car extension is completed. Getting across the LL
tracks, which is underway now, is the main problem to solve. Having said
that - I'm not too sure where the new reversing siding is going with respect
to the new platform ends - that could prove a limiting factor in the
eastward direction as well...

A bit academic though unless Shepherds Bush and Imperial Wharf have room for
extension.

Paul S

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:49:50 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

On 28 Oct, 04:05, D7666 wrote:
On Oct 26, 9:37*pm, EE507 wrote:

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.
CLJ 16 and 17 will never be sorted out, so why bother when LOROL will
be a 4-car max railway forever more?

I would have thought the most significant length constraint would be
Willesden Junction (for LO trains obviously not SN). To extend that to
8-car would involve bridging WCML and that would not come cheap. As
there would be no benefit to LO in 8car trains if Willesden Junycion
were never done, the entire cost of 8car works on WLL would be born by
the SN operation.

IMHO a fundamental flaw in the LO / WLL / NLL / ELL shceme is being
geared around 4car trains. At this period in 21st century we should be
talking *absolute mnimum* 8-car trains by 2015 with passive provision
for 12car, and I'd say even 15-car (300 m length).

Similar problem on the ELL, due to stringing together bits of old
infrastructure and then contaminating all the main routes that now
feed into them.

I can see the case for extending the ELL up the old viaduct to Dalston
and beyond, but Croydon to London Bridge is one of the most
ludicrously overcrowded stretches on the network. Taking up paths
with short trains diverted off to Dalston is insanity gone mad.

The ELL should terminate at NX/NXG, at least in the peaks. Maybe it
still will.

Or stop trains twice at the stations with short platforms (once for
the front half, then for the rear).

On Oct 28, 4:05*am, D7666 wrote:
On Oct 26, 9:37*pm, EE507 wrote:

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.
CLJ 16 and 17 will never be sorted out, so why bother when LOROL will
be a 4-car max railway forever more?

I would have thought the most significant length constraint would be
Willesden Junction (for LO trains obviously not SN). To extend that to
8-car would involve bridging WCML and that would not come cheap. As
there would be no benefit to LO in 8car trains if Willesden Junycion
were never done, the entire cost of 8car works on WLL would be born by
the SN operation.

IMHO a fundamental flaw in the LO / WLL / NLL / ELL shceme is being
geared around 4car trains. At this period in 21st century we should be
talking *absolute mnimum* 8-car trains by 2015 with passive provision
for 12car, and I'd say even 15-car (300 m length).

Crossrail should certainly be passively provided for 300 m; I'd like
to have seen TL likewise too.

What is going on with these lengthening schemes is fixing yesterdays
after tomorrow has started

I agree that a lack of future proofing is adding to the cost of
incremental capacity enhancements. 'Locking in' 4-car capability can't
make sense in the context of the almost inevitable reigning in of car
use for congestion and climate change mitigation reasons in the years
ahead, on top of London's population growth and the location of new
development.

A general problem is having such a long list of capacity-constraining
and cost-escalating legacy issues:
1. Structure gauge - no DD. You can be sure the next wave of
electrification will not make provision for it.
2. Having to move signals as well as extend platforms to accommodate
trains of longer than 240 m on many routes.
3. A lack of terminal capacity.
4. The need to tunnel in London (and Birmingham).
5. The cancelling of new DMU orders with no replacement plan for the
next 8 years, supposing electrification starts next year, longer if
not.
6. Dealing with high platforms when converting heavy rail into tram
systems. Manchester is now stuck with them.

We're not alone in all of these issues: Zurich has the headache that
12-car DD EMUs are reaching capacity in the peaks, although they
haven't as yet adopted peak pricing.

There can't be much money left over after TL3000, Crossrail, the
Olympics, etc. but I agree with your points.