On May 21, 11:57*am, Neil Williams wrote:
On 21 May, 12:53, Andy wrote:

Interchange at Queens Park with mainline services would also be a
considerably cheaper possibility (at least for the stations north of
Queens Park). This would need changes to the mainline timetable to
accomodate the additional stop during peak times.

...on services that don't really have any room for it.

Removing the Euston DC service would, just as it did last time, cause
unnecessary overcrowding on LM services south of Harrow/Watford.


The changes to the timetable could include a regular Watford - Euston
shuttle, relieving the longer distance services. Something which LM
obviously wish to run, but for which Network Rail are not playing
ball. A twenty minute frequency, 8 coach service calling Watford,
Bushey, Harrow, Queens Park and Euston would provide a lot more
capacity than the DC lines currently provide.

Quite a few of the Harrow passengers are changing to or from the
northern DC line stations anyway and you see a few who are doubling
back to Kenton etc. via Harrow.

On 21 May, 03:44, E27002 wrote:
On May 20, 4:46*pm, "
wrote:

On 20/05/2010 21:12, Neil Williams wrote: On Thu, 20 May 2010 11:28:48 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Do we think that the Watford DC lines will always run into their
London Terminus? *Somehow I think eventually they will run thru
Primrose Hill and on to Camden Road in order to link up with the rest
of the Orbital Network.

That has been considered, but it's frequently been knocked back as
demand into Euston is pretty high.

Neil

Are there any plans for some sort of regular scheduled service from the
NLL, say to Queens Park?

Not for many years. *In the early seventies I can recall travelling
from Maida Vale to Primrose Hill by changing at Queens Park.

That would be when there was a peak service from Broad Street to
Watford (and reverse).

This was briefly diverted into Liverpool Street and then cut down to
one service that was cancelled so often that people didn't risk it and
this was used as evidence for lack of demand and it was withdrawn.

On 21/05/2010 12:33, Andy wrote:
On May 21, 11:57 am, Neil wrote:
On 21 May, 12:53, wrote:

Interchange at Queens Park with mainline services would also be a
considerably cheaper possibility (at least for the stations north of
Queens Park). This would need changes to the mainline timetable to
accomodate the additional stop during peak times.

...on services that don't really have any room for it.

Removing the Euston DC service would, just as it did last time, cause
unnecessary overcrowding on LM services south of Harrow/Watford.


The changes to the timetable could include a regular Watford - Euston
shuttle, relieving the longer distance services. Something which LM
obviously wish to run, but for which Network Rail are not playing
ball. A twenty minute frequency, 8 coach service calling Watford,
Bushey, Harrow, Queens Park and Euston would provide a lot more
capacity than the DC lines currently provide.

Such a service should be an extension of the St Albans Flyer.

On May 21, 1:00*pm, Basil Jet wrote:
On 21/05/2010 12:33, Andy wrote:





On May 21, 11:57 am, Neil *wrote:
On 21 May, 12:53, *wrote:

Interchange at Queens Park with mainline services would also be a
considerably cheaper possibility (at least for the stations north of
Queens Park). This would need changes to the mainline timetable to
accomodate the additional stop during peak times.

...on services that don't really have any room for it.

Removing the Euston DC service would, just as it did last time, cause
unnecessary overcrowding on LM services south of Harrow/Watford.

The changes to the timetable could include a regular Watford - Euston
shuttle, relieving the longer distance services. Something which LM
obviously wish to run, but for which Network Rail are not playing
ball. A twenty minute frequency, 8 coach service calling Watford,
Bushey, Harrow, Queens Park and Euston would provide a lot more
capacity than the DC lines currently provide.

Such a service should be an extension of the St Albans Flyer.

Should be, but won't be, unless:

1) A loop is put in at Bricket Wood
2) The St. Albans branch is reconnected to the current platform 10 at
Watford Junction
3) The platform reinstated on the other side to allowing a train to
wait in platform 10 for a train to arrive from the branch
4) The connection to the mainline from Platform 10 (and resited
platform 11) is reconfigured.
5) The plans to turn the branch into a more frequent light rail
service are dropped.

On 21 May, 11:57, Neil Williams wrote:

On 21 May, 12:53, Andy wrote:

Interchange at Queens Park with mainline services would also be a
considerably cheaper possibility (at least for the stations north of
Queens Park). This would need changes to the mainline timetable to
accomodate the additional stop during peak times.

...on services that don't really have any room for it.

Removing the Euston DC service would, just as it did last time, cause
unnecessary overcrowding on LM services south of Harrow/Watford.

You mean it would result in normal levels of crowding, like those
commuters everywhere else deal with?

On Fri, 21 May 2010 06:11:00 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

You mean it would result in normal levels of crowding, like those
commuters everywhere else deal with?

Just because there is a problem elsewhere doesn't mean it should
spread in aid of someone's pet project that few or no passengers
actually want.

The LM commuter services show what can be done with the will and a few
quid. Don't let's wreck it.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

On May 21, 3:09*pm, Neil Williams
wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 06:11:00 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T

wrote:
You mean it would result in normal levels of crowding, like those
commuters everywhere else deal with?

Just because there is a problem elsewhere doesn't mean it should
spread in aid of someone's pet project that few or no passengers
actually want.

I wasn't trying to propose the diversion of the DC line service - just
pointing out that you've got it sweet!

TBH in the past I did find the idea of diverting the DC line along the
Primrose Hill link to Camden Rd (and the NLL beyond to the east)
attractive - indeed, I still find the idea of there being a service of
some sort between Willesden Jn or Queen's Park and Camden Road most
attractive (with a re-opened station at Primrose Hill too) - but I am
rather more concious of the need/ demand for the DC line into Euston
these days.

However with regards to the passenger demand, Paul C said that there
was apparently a lot of positive feedback from passenger surveys
conducted during the temporary diversion of the DC line away from
Euston and onto the NLL via the Primrose Hill link - this was between
September and mid-November 2008.


The LM commuter services show what can be done with the will and a few
quid. *Don't let's wreck it.

If there ever was to be a diversion of the DC line service, then it
could be mitigated by what Andy suggested - a Watford to Euston
shuttle service. Not sure how do-able it would be to stop it at
Queen's Park, but that would make such a thing x times more useful.

On May 21, 2:20*am, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 00:46:11 +0100, "

Are there any plans for some sort of regular scheduled service from the
NLL, say to Queens Park?

There were (to Watford/Harrow/Willesden depending on which bit of
official kite-flying was current) as a replacement for the DC line
service to Euston but that seems to have been dropped now. Queens Park
would probably not be a suitable location for reversing Down trains as
would not be Willesden if the bay platforms remained at 3 coaches long
when NLL trains were gaining a 4th coach. Re-opening Primrose Hill
would have more chance of success if it became twinned with Chalk Farm
as a two-location interchange but that would not make it a
like-for-like replacement for DC services to Euston.

The DC line was diverted via the Primrose Hill link to Camden Road and
onto the NLL to Stratford between 1 September and 16 November 2008 -
see this PDF of a leaflet from the time:
http://sites.google.com/site/miztert...vices-2008.pdf

This was because work was taking place on the Hampstead tunnel to
enlarge it for freight trains with larger containers - this entailed
closing the NLL between Gospel Oak and Willesden Jn. The map in the
above leaflet illustrates the changes.

On 21 May, 16:14, Mizter T wrote:
On May 21, 3:09*pm, Neil Williams
wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 06:11:00 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T

wrote:
You mean it would result in normal levels of crowding, like those
commuters everywhere else deal with?

Just because there is a problem elsewhere doesn't mean it should
spread in aid of someone's pet project that few or no passengers
actually want.

I wasn't trying to propose the diversion of the DC line service - just
pointing out that you've got it sweet!

TBH in the past I did find the idea of diverting the DC line along the
Primrose Hill link to Camden Rd (and the NLL beyond to the east)
attractive - indeed, I still find the idea of there being a service of
some sort between Willesden Jn or Queen's Park and Camden Road most
attractive (with a re-opened station at Primrose Hill too) - but I am
rather more concious of the need/ demand for the DC line into Euston
these days.

However with regards to the passenger demand, Paul C said that there
was apparently a lot of positive feedback from passenger surveys
conducted during the temporary diversion of the DC line away from
Euston and onto the NLL via the Primrose Hill link - this was between
September and mid-November 2008.



The LM commuter services show what can be done with the will and a few
quid. *Don't let's wreck it.

If there ever was to be a diversion of the DC line service, then it
could be mitigated by what Andy suggested - a Watford to Euston
shuttle service. Not sure how do-able it would be to stop it at
Queen's Park, but that would make such a thing x times more useful.

I'm sure we've been assured that it's impossible to stop LM trains at
Queens Park without ending the world (and it would need a new
crossover to serve Kilburn High Road and South Hampstead unless those
were abandoned, and an AC/DC changeover or new wiring).

I think people would like the service from Camden Road in addition to
the service from Euston, not as a diversion.

Would there be much harm in turning round a couple more Bakerloons at
Queens Park to allow a service via Primrose Hill to Watford? Can't
see any competition for capacity.

On May 21, 4:35*pm, MIG wrote:

On 21 May, 16:14, Mizter T wrote:

On May 21, 3:09*pm, Neil Williams
wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 06:11:00 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T

wrote:
You mean it would result in normal levels of crowding, like those
commuters everywhere else deal with?

Just because there is a problem elsewhere doesn't mean it should
spread in aid of someone's pet project that few or no passengers
actually want.

I wasn't trying to propose the diversion of the DC line service - just
pointing out that you've got it sweet!

TBH in the past I did find the idea of diverting the DC line along the
Primrose Hill link to Camden Rd (and the NLL beyond to the east)
attractive - indeed, I still find the idea of there being a service of
some sort between Willesden Jn or Queen's Park and Camden Road most
attractive (with a re-opened station at Primrose Hill too) - but I am
rather more concious of the need/ demand for the DC line into Euston
these days.

However with regards to the passenger demand, Paul C said that there
was apparently a lot of positive feedback from passenger surveys
conducted during the temporary diversion of the DC line away from
Euston and onto the NLL via the Primrose Hill link - this was between
September and mid-November 2008.

The LM commuter services show what can be done with the will and a few
quid. *Don't let's wreck it.

If there ever was to be a diversion of the DC line service, then it
could be mitigated by what Andy suggested - a Watford to Euston
shuttle service. Not sure how do-able it would be to stop it at
Queen's Park, but that would make such a thing x times more useful.

I'm sure we've been assured that it's impossible to stop LM trains at
Queens Park without ending the world (and it would need a new
crossover to serve Kilburn High Road and South Hampstead unless those
were abandoned, and an AC/DC changeover or new wiring).

They wouldn't be abandoned under such a diversion, they would just
serve the combined DC line - NLL service.

As you say, we've been told fairly authoritatively that stopping LM
services at Queen's Park is a no no - the explanation is simply that
it'd mess up the timetabling, what with all the fast trains that
currently use the slow lines (IYSWIM!).


I think people would like the service from Camden Road in addition to
the service from Euston, not as a diversion.

Agreed. The positive feedback I mentioned upthread during that 2008
diversion was presumably from those who found it handy - I assume that
those who found it a PITA also said so! (The bods I know up Queen's
Park way don't use the train for commuting.)


Would there be much harm in turning round a couple more Bakerloons at
Queens Park to allow a service via Primrose Hill to Watford? *Can't
see any competition for capacity.

Dunno how do-able this is, but from a passenger's POV the cross-
platform interchange at Queen's Park that this might necessitate
couldn't really be any easier.