On 18 Oct, 12:41, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"lonelytraveller" wrote in
ooglegroups.com...

On 17 Oct, 18:36, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Its not easy to summarise, this RUS being 200 odd pages, but it looks
like
they want the capacity at the terminii to allow increased frequency on
existing longer distnce routes into LB and/or VIC, even before bringing
Thameslink into teh equation. As you say, Ken also wants this route for
Orbirail, so the objectors are going to have a lot of work on...

Paul

Is there any particular reason that the objecting people don't want to
travel via extended East London Line, and change at Canada water onto
the Jubilee line?

Because it will take half an hour longer?



Presume its just that the pax who currently use the service use it to get
directly to London Bridge or Victoria. Everyone is happy with improvements
for the greater good, except when directly affected themselves.

I'm sure very similar objections will be raised when the DC lines are
diverted away from Euston, or the Greenford shuttle stops going to
Paddington...


People decide where to live, what jobs to apply for etc based on
existing facilities, including transport links.

Of course objections will be raised, and quite rightly.

I really can't see what "improvements for the greater good" are going
to be achieved by diverting trains from already overcrowded routes
into central London into a stopping service to Hackney.

The dream of an orbital railway is being pursued in a very blinkered
way. There may be a need for one, but when people agree to the need
for a new service, it's wrong to infer that they mean "and existing
services should be taken away".

The fact that railways developed as they did, with radial routes
having precedence over orbital ones, is a clue to which are more
important.