I've given up using the overground from highbury - its just a totally
inadequate service.

The main problem I can see a

- Train service too infrequent in the rush hour. Waiting 6-7 minutes for a
train to turn up then leave when the platform is bursting is absurd.

- The 387s are hopeless for a metro service. Poor acceleration and whoever
thought 2 narrow sets of doors would be adequate for a line this busy
should be sacked. I timed a packed train emptying at Highbury this week
and it took over 2 minutes for everyone to get off through all the people
waiting to get on.

- 2 out of every 3 northbound trains terminating at dalston junction is a
joke. Hardly anyone goes to Dalston, almost everyone goes to highbury.

--
Spud

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 19:42:31 GMT, d wrote:

I've given up using the overground from highbury - its just a totally
inadequate service.

The main problem I can see a

- Train service too infrequent in the rush hour. Waiting 6-7 minutes for a
train to turn up then leave when the platform is bursting is absurd.

Every 7-8 mins is the scheduled peak headway. The NLL is planned to
go up to every 6 minutes eventually. No idea about the ELL
intensifying the service to Highbury.

- The 387s are hopeless for a metro service. Poor acceleration and whoever
thought 2 narrow sets of doors would be adequate for a line this busy
should be sacked. I timed a packed train emptying at Highbury this week
and it took over 2 minutes for everyone to get off through all the people
waiting to get on.

- 2 out of every 3 northbound trains terminating at dalston junction is a
joke. Hardly anyone goes to Dalston, almost everyone goes to highbury.

And of course there are no other main line trains in use in London
with two doors per carriage are there!? I agree peak dwell times are
long but that's hardly unique on main line services in London.

I think the new Crossrail stock will be the first modern stock to have
three doors per carriage.

Do you know why the 378s and S stock are so different? Both were built at
the same time, in the same factory, for the same ultimate customer. Both
have open gangways, and a similar urban role. One is based on the Movia
platform, one on the Electrostar. Both run on modern NR tracks, and both on
current or former LU tracks.

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 19:42:31 GMT, d wrote:

I've given up using the overground from highbury - its just a totally
inadequate service.

The main problem I can see a

- Train service too infrequent in the rush hour. Waiting 6-7 minutes for
a train to turn up then leave when the platform is bursting is absurd.

Every 7-8 mins is the scheduled peak headway. The NLL is planned to
go up to every 6 minutes eventually. No idea about the ELL
intensifying the service to Highbury.

I must admit I can't see why more trains don't go to Highbury. It's not
obvious why terminating at Dalston Junction is a good idea except that the
original ELL extension plan only went there, with the Highbury extension
following later for some reason.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:
In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 19:42:31 GMT, d wrote:

I've given up using the overground from highbury - its just a totally
inadequate service.

The main problem I can see a

- Train service too infrequent in the rush hour. Waiting 6-7 minutes for
a train to turn up then leave when the platform is bursting is absurd.

Every 7-8 mins is the scheduled peak headway. The NLL is planned to
go up to every 6 minutes eventually. No idea about the ELL
intensifying the service to Highbury.

I must admit I can't see why more trains don't go to Highbury. It's not
obvious why terminating at Dalston Junction is a good idea except that the
original ELL extension plan only went there, with the Highbury extension
following later for some reason.

Is it to do with track layout? There are two bay platforms at Dalston
Junction, but I think only one at H&I.

On 2014-12-05 23:33:21 +0000, Paul Corfield said:

I think the new Crossrail stock will be the first modern stock to have
three doors per carriage.

I must admit to being surprised the LO and S-stocks were designed
separately. S-stock, or a slightly narrower version of it, would be
ideal for LO - and there is little difference practically between the
outer reaches of the Metropolitan Line and parts of LO.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

I've given up using the overground from highbury - its just a totally
inadequate service.

As it's my local line I find that a wee bit hyperbolic It is
undeniably overloaded much of the time but I rarely fail to get on and
I'm a FOG.

And did anyone predict the growth in traffic at the time of decisions on
the NLL and ELL? I certainly don't seem to recall anyone forecasting eg
14 per cent growth in London's population in the noughties, let alone
the nature and location of that growth. And while it is just my
impression, that growth accounts for a sizeable fraction of passengers
at Highbury and Islington.

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

Having used that service quite a lot recently, I agree that the proportion of services extended to H&I is too small. Especially when northbound evening peak services lto H&I lose time due to sheer passenger numbers, and then get terminated short at Dalston.

The service also suffers from using 2 platforms at H&I that don't share an island - both overbridges could do with "Next southbound ELL service..." displays.

On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 23:33:21 +0000
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 19:42:31 GMT, d wrote:
- 2 out of every 3 northbound trains terminating at dalston junction is a
joke. Hardly anyone goes to Dalston, almost everyone goes to highbury.

And of course there are no other main line trains in use in London
with two doors per carriage are there!? I agree peak dwell times are

I don't care - this used to be a tube line and we were promised a tube
style service. Using main line type stock on the ELL was an idiotic decision.

I think the new Crossrail stock will be the first modern stock to have
three doors per carriage.

I can see even that being inadequate if the usage is as high as they're
suggesting.

--
Spud

On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 10:37:11 -0000
"Robin" wrote:
I've given up using the overground from highbury - its just a totally
inadequate service.

As it's my local line I find that a wee bit hyperbolic It is
undeniably overloaded much of the time but I rarely fail to get on and
I'm a FOG.

I haven't yet failed to get on. But I've never yet got a seat and there was
always a delay and its always crush loading at highbury. The journey is
potentially more pleasent than using the tube but I just can't put up with the
**** poor service anymore.

And did anyone predict the growth in traffic at the time of decisions on
the NLL and ELL? I certainly don't seem to recall anyone forecasting eg

It should have been pretty obvious I would have thought - a major interchange
like highbury with a new service that provides a short cut to the City and
canary wharf.

14 per cent growth in London's population in the noughties, let alone
the nature and location of that growth. And while it is just my
impression, that growth accounts for a sizeable fraction of passengers
at Highbury and Islington.

Quite possibly. Frankly I'm sick of hearing foreign languages all the damn time
everywhere in this city but thats another discussion.

--
Spud

I don't care - this used to be a tube line and we were promised a tube
style service. Using main line type stock on the ELL was an idiotic
decision.

I well recall the promise of a tube-style service of 12 tph for the ELL
and ISTM that's what we have. I don't recall a promise of tube-style
service for the ELL extension but, as is apparent, I am not an
enthusiast, merely a long-time user. Can you please help me with who
made the promise when?

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid