wrote

When it 1st electrified, (Nov. '60, when I were but a young lad....)
it was 6 tph off-peak & 9 tph in the peaks.
Train were probably longer too, 6-car off-peak & 9-car peak.
'Twas before the Victoria line opened, so perhaps that stole some of
the traffic?

Indeed it did. When the Victoria Line opened Chingford went down to 6 tph
peak, 3 tph off-peak (so the off-peak service is now more frequent than it
was in the 1970s.

Peter

On 20/07/2011 23:22, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 04:44:44 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jul 20, 11:58 am, Clive 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.


Chingford is only 4 tph?

When it 1st electrified, (Nov. '60, when I were but a young lad....)
it was 6 tph off-peak& 9 tph in the peaks.
Train were probably longer too, 6-car off-peak& 9-car peak.
'Twas before the Victoria line opened, so perhaps that stole some of
the traffic?


DC

I commuted from Chingford to Liv St to go to school (at Blackfriars)
from 65 to 72. My recollection is 9 per hour in the peaks - three groups
of three, one group every 20 mins. The first two in each group ran fast
between St. James' Street and Liverpool Street, while the third had
stops at Clapton, Hackney Downs and Bethnal Green. My memory is of just
one every 20 mins off-peak, but I could be wrong.

Rush hour trains were 9 car (3x3), but off-peak I think were only 3 cars.

That dind't change even with the opening of the Victoria Line at Hoe
Street (or Walthamstow Central as it became) - well not before my family
moved over to the SW side of London and I stopped doing that journey.

Kevin

"brixtonite" wrote

Didn't mean to complain exactly - the ELL extension to Clapham
Junction will be a huge improvement on what's currently available on
the SLL and I am sure it will be very popular. I just think it's a
shame it can't run to tube or DLR frequencies, and likewise for other
national rail routes in areas not served by the tube.

When the Clapham Junction service starts the core section of the ELL
(Dalston Junction to Surrey Quays) will go up from 12 to 16 tph. On the new
section, ELL LO trains will have to share tracks with Southern trains
between Old Kent Road Junction and Peckham Rye, and with Southeastern and
freight between Crofton Road Junction and Wandsworth Road.

Peter

"D7666" wrote

There were dummy sites before d-day where false railheads were set up
- e.g. one just to the north of South Charford (between Breamore and
Downton) level crossing where my gram was crossing keeper.

Lullingstone station was built (but not opened) before WW2. During teh War a
dummy airfield was built near to it. After the War Green Belt legislation
meant that the housing the station was meant to serve never happened, so the
station never opened and was eventually demolished. I think the platform
canopies went to Canterbury East. However, Bill Hayles, formerly of this
parish, did manage to acquire a Lullingstone platform ticket.

Peter

"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...
snip

Lullingstone station was built (but not opened) before WW2. During teh War
a dummy airfield was built near to it. After the War Green Belt legislation
meant that the housing the station was meant to serve never happened, so
the station never opened and was eventually demolished. I think the
platform canopies went to Canterbury East. However, Bill Hayles, formerly
of this parish, did manage to acquire a Lullingstone platform ticket.

Peter

Some of the platform and supports are still visible between Eynsford tunnel
and the Darenth viaduct.

MaxB

On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:55:36 -0700 (PDT), 1506
uttered:



Great isn't it. Perhaps, like DLR, the Overground will continue to
grow.


Is it!
More lines with those crap trains and having to sit facing someone and
not being able to get a decent view out of the windows.

On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:41:02 GMT
(Dave) wrote:
More lines with those crap trains and having to sit facing someone and
not being able to get a decent view out of the windows.

Not as bad as the DLR trains. They still haven't solved the bogie hunting
issue even on the new stock it seems. How flippin hard can it be?

B2003

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 07:56:26PM +0100, Paul Corfield wrote:

I'm not sure that Overground is being marketed as an almost tube line
in terms of frequencies.

Maybe not in terms of frequencies, but it is marketed as being a tube
line. Consider the announcements at stations that these days often end
"there is a good service on all other underground lines, including the
DLR and London Overground".

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "topless karaoke murders"

Human Rights left unattended may be removed,
destroyed, or damaged by the security services.

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 01:13:40PM -0700, brixtonite wrote:

Didn't mean to complain exactly - the ELL extension to Clapham
Junction will be a huge improvement on what's currently available on
the SLL and I am sure it will be very popular. I just think it's a
shame it can't run to tube or DLR frequencies, and likewise for other
national rail routes in areas not served by the tube.

The trouble is that all those NR routes have lots of junctions, much of
the track is shared between several routes, and some of those routes are
longer distance ones to places like Brighton. This makes scheduling
lots of frequent services Challenging, and means that as soon as one
route goes wrong (like, say, something running late and missing its turn
at a junction) the problems rapidly cascade to lots of other routes. If
you have lots of junctions, you need large gaps between trains so you
can recover better from things like that. A reliable service is better
than a very frequent but unreliable service.

You will note that the Underground lines that have the most junctions
are those that run at the lowest frequencies and have the most
reliability problems, whereas those with few junctions run a much more
frequent and reliable service.

This is why when I grumble about the trains being packed between
Shepherds Bush and Clapham Junction, I maintain that the solution is not
a more frequent service, but longer trains.

SOME of the route conflict problems could be solved by reducing the
number of destinations served from each station, but many of them can't
be because of a lack of good interchanges. Taking just one example and
ignoring junctions further up the line, northbound trains from Thornton
Heath go to Victoria or London Bridge, diverging at Streatham Common.
You can't change that to a single route with a change of trains at
Streatham Common because both routes use the same platforms at Streatham
Common and there is no station at the right place on the line between
Mitcham and Streatham. See he
http://tinyurl.com/3ry5l2u

Streatham Common station is at the bottom, trains to Victoria head
north, trains to London Bridge take the curve from immediately north of
the platforms up towards the top right, where they join the line from
Mitcham (off screen on the left) and Streatham (off screen top right)
stations.

The *ideal* in this simplified example would be to move the station
north a bit and make it easy to change between Streatham Common High
Level and Streatham Common Low Level, getting rid of all the junctions.
Unfortunately in the real world there are other junctions in the area
and you won't get any benefit unless those are done away with too, and
replacing eleventy squillion stations, re-laying track as necessary,
buying and demolishing surrounding buildings - all thise would be
ridiculously expensive and time-consuming. Much easier to just have
longer trains to cope with the capacity problems in the peaks.

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club"

The word "urgent" is the moral of the story "The boy who cried wolf". As
a general rule I don't believe it until a manager comes to me almost in
tears. I like to catch them in a cup and drink them later.
-- Matt Holiab, in the Monastery

In message , at 12:07:52
on Thu, 21 Jul 2011, David Cantrell remarked:

Consider the announcements at stations that these days often end
"there is a good service on all other underground lines, including the
DLR and London Overground".

Given that such announcements might just as likely be:

"there is a good service on all your other underground lines,
including your DLR and your London Overground"

I wouldn't necessarily expect 100% grammatical integrity.
--
Roland Perry