|
Overground SLL link
"Paul Corfield" wrote
Well one of the newsletters says that in (IIRC) September the junction at the Surrey Quays end will be put in place. It says there will be some possessions needed to make that happen. It does indeed say that in the second newsletter, but I'm sure the pointwork was already in place before the East London line reopened. |
Overground SLL link
On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:53:01 +0100, "
wrote: On 19/07/2011 21:17, solar penguin wrote: 1506 wrote: On Jul 19, 6:29 pm, wrote: Do you have any idea of the timeline for this one? There's a broad one athttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/15401.aspx(near bottom of the page) -- Robin PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com Thank you. In eighteen months we can look forward to circumnavigating the Capital by train. We can _already_ circumnavigate the capital by train. The only difference is, in eighteen months we'll be able to do it sitting sideways the whole way. Whether or not you look forward to that depends on your personal tastes in the matter. What is the route? How many do you want ? |
Overground SLL link
"John Salmon" wrote in message
... "Paul Corfield" wrote Well one of the newsletters says that in (IIRC) September the junction at the Surrey Quays end will be put in place. It says there will be some possessions needed to make that happen. It does indeed say that in the second newsletter, but I'm sure the pointwork was already in place before the East London line reopened. It is - the points and short lengths of track are clearly visible from trains (and on the latest Google aerial view). Connection at that end shouldn't be too intrusive assuming work beyond the limits of the existing track (such as in the underpass) is in the green zone. It should only be additions to signalling and subsequent testing that will interrupt normal traffic. Paul S |
Overground SLL link
On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:00:52 +0100, "Paul Scott"
SLL extension new works by Birse Metro. The contractor's site he http://www.overgroundextension.co.uk Is it reasonable to call it a "frequent" service if there are only 4 trains/hour? -- Clive Page |
Overground SLL link
In message , at 11:58:31 on Wed, 20 Jul
2011, Clive Page remarked: SLL extension new works by Birse Metro. The contractor's site he http://www.overgroundextension.co.uk Is it reasonable to call it a "frequent" service if there are only 4 trains/hour? Many people would kill for 4tph. My own view (coloured in some part by being a past user of the outer fringes of the Met line) is that something magic happens between 3tph and 4tph - despite it only reducing the interval by 5 minutes. Such that 4tph is a frequent enough service it's turn-up-and-go for most users. -- Roland Perry |
Overground SLL link
On Jul 20, 11:58*am, Clive Page wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:00:52 +0100, "Paul Scott" SLL extension new works by Birse Metro. The contractor's site he http://www.overgroundextension.co.uk Is it reasonable to call it a "frequent" service if there are only 4 trains/hour? In broad terms I'd say yes. It is certainly a decent service level to begin a new rail service with. We're not talking about a tube line nor a tram line in an urban area where the UK expectation would be a service every few minutes. As Roland says many people would kill to have such a service level on their train or bus route. Talking a relevant Overground example - when the GOBLIN was every 20 or 30 minutes I would have to know the departure times as just missing a train would impose too long a wait and it would be worthwhile considering going another way. With the GOBLIN now every 15 minutes I am much more relaxed about "just turning up" although I do know the times anyway! The same applies for the Chingford Line - it's every 15 mins and it's not "the end of the world" if you just miss one. I guess it's all a bit psychological really in terms of people's tolerance of being delayed. -- Paul C via Google |
Overground SLL link
On 20/07/2011 12:32, Roland Perry wrote:
Many people would kill for 4tph. My own view (coloured in some part by being a past user of the outer fringes of the Met line) is that something magic happens between 3tph and 4tph - despite it only reducing the interval by 5 minutes. Such that 4tph is a frequent enough service it's turn-up-and-go for most users. Only if the 4 trains per hour are evenly spaced... The core Shipley to Leeds service has 4 trains per hour. But the trains have departure trains of xx:09, xx:14, xx:39, xx:44. This isn't really turn-up-and-go. -- Jeremy Double {real address, include nospam} Rail and transport photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdoubl...7603834894248/ |
Overground SLL link
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 04:44:44 -0700 (PDT)
plcd1 wrote: In broad terms I'd say yes. It is certainly a decent service level to begin a new rail service with. We're not talking about a tube line nor a tram line in an urban area where the UK expectation would be a But the ELL is essentially being marketed as an almost-tube line so they should back it up with a tube like service. B2003 |
Overground SLL link
In message , at 12:53:11 on
Wed, 20 Jul 2011, Jeremy Double remarked: Many people would kill for 4tph. My own view (coloured in some part by being a past user of the outer fringes of the Met line) is that something magic happens between 3tph and 4tph - despite it only reducing the interval by 5 minutes. Such that 4tph is a frequent enough service it's turn-up-and-go for most users. Only if the 4 trains per hour are evenly spaced... Agreed. I've often said how East Midlands Parkway's 2tph is really two trains once an hour. The core Shipley to Leeds service has 4 trains per hour. But the trains have departure trains of xx:09, xx:14, xx:39, xx:44. This isn't really turn-up-and-go. The airport services at both Amsterdam and Geneva are numerous, but quite poorly spaced, which catches some people out. -- Roland Perry |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:23 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk