You're quite right. I meant "not address." I've amended my post.

Living in Leyton, I never have any reason to travel on the
Bakerloo during rush hour. If it is less busy than other lines,
is it to the extent of being able to absorb refugees from an
abandoned Watford/Euston service?

I come back to my original suggestion. Diverting the service
via Camden Road would free up platforms at Euston while still
utilising the bulk of the route south of Willesden Junction. Is
this idea workable?

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 11:51:16 +0100, Robin9
wrote:
[color=blue][i]

'Recliner[_3_ Wrote:
;153217']Robin9 wrote:-

'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
;153191']On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:26:44 +0100, Robin9
wrote:
-

;153065 Wrote: -
In article , (Basil
Jet)
wrote:
-
I was thinking about what a wasted resource the DC lines from Queens
Park to Euston are. A twin track railway to the edge of Central
London with only 3tph. But what to do with it?-

Surely the real pressure is to turf the suburban services out to
provide

more mainline and HS2 capacity?

Colin Rosenstiel-

Is diverting the service away from Euston via Camden Road
to wherever a feasible option?-

Wouldn't it be easier to simply replace the LO service to Watford
Junction with the Bakerloo? It might have to wait till the Bakerloo
gets new stock in a few years time, of course.-

Certainly it would be simpler but would it be practicable?
I assume the Bakerloo Line is as overcrowded during rush
hour as any other Underground service. Would adding to it
the people who currently travel on the Overground service to
Euston be workable? -

I thought the Bakerloo was the least (over) crowded of the LU lines?
-

We came back to the beginning of this thread: the DC lines to
Euston are an under-utilised asset. Abandoning the service does
address that issue.-

I assume you meant "does NOT address"? That's true, but it does free
up
the LO Euston platforms for other services. On the other hand, a more
intensive LO service to make better use of the track pair would need
more
Euston platforms, which will be in short supply during the HS2
rebuilding.

You're quite right. I meant "not address." I've amended my post.

Living in Leyton, I never have any reason to travel on the
Bakerloo during rush hour. If it is less busy than other lines,
is it to the extent of being able to absorb refugees from an
abandoned Watford/Euston service?

I come back to my original suggestion. Diverting the service
via Camden Road would free up platforms at Euston while still
utilising the bulk of the route south of Willesden Junction. Is
this idea workable?

IMHO possibly yes.

Robin9 wrote:[color=blue][i]

'Recliner[_3_ Wrote:
;153217']Robin9 wrote:-

'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
;153191']On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:26:44 +0100, Robin9
wrote:
-

;153065 Wrote: -
In article , (Basil
Jet)
wrote:
-
I was thinking about what a wasted resource the DC lines from Queens
Park to Euston are. A twin track railway to the edge of Central
London with only 3tph. But what to do with it?-

Surely the real pressure is to turf the suburban services out to
provide

more mainline and HS2 capacity?

Colin Rosenstiel-

Is diverting the service away from Euston via Camden Road
to wherever a feasible option?-

Wouldn't it be easier to simply replace the LO service to Watford
Junction with the Bakerloo? It might have to wait till the Bakerloo
gets new stock in a few years time, of course.-

Certainly it would be simpler but would it be practicable?
I assume the Bakerloo Line is as overcrowded during rush
hour as any other Underground service. Would adding to it
the people who currently travel on the Overground service to
Euston be workable? -

I thought the Bakerloo was the least (over) crowded of the LU lines?
-

We came back to the beginning of this thread: the DC lines to
Euston are an under-utilised asset. Abandoning the service does
address that issue.-

I assume you meant "does NOT address"? That's true, but it does free
up the LO Euston platforms for other services. On the other hand, a more
intensive LO service to make better use of the track pair would need
more Euston platforms, which will be in short supply during the HS2
rebuilding.

You're quite right. I meant "not address." I've amended my post.

Living in Leyton, I never have any reason to travel on the
Bakerloo during rush hour. If it is less busy than other lines,
is it to the extent of being able to absorb refugees from an
abandoned Watford/Euston service?

The Bakerloo currently has a peak service of something like 22 tph. With a
bigger fleet, it shouldn't be too hard to increase it to 25 tph, and
extend, say, 4 tph of the Queens Park reversers to Watford Junction.

In fact, the plan is already to increase it beyond that, with the new fleet
and new signalling. So the modernised Bakerloo should be easily able to
absorb any holes left by withdrawing the LO service, but of course the
direct link to Euston would be lost, which wouldn't go down well.


I come back to my original suggestion. Diverting the service
via Camden Road would free up platforms at Euston while still
utilising the bulk of the route south of Willesden Junction. Is
this idea workable?

I suppose it depends on how many spare paths are available on the busy NLL
between Camden Road and Stratford, assuming that's where you'd send the
trains. I doubt that there are three tph available. In fact, it's easier to
send them to Euston, which we know does have the paths and platforms
available.

But while sending them on to the NLL might provide useful journey
opportunities for some people, it still cuts the link to Euston, without
even leaving spare capacity on the DC lines for more Bakerloo trains.

e27002 aurora wrote:[color=blue][i]
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 11:51:16 +0100, Robin9
wrote:


'Recliner[_3_ Wrote:
;153217']Robin9 wrote:-

'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
;153191']On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:26:44 +0100, Robin9
wrote:
-

;153065 Wrote: -
In article , (Basil
Jet)
wrote:
-
I was thinking about what a wasted resource the DC lines from Queens
Park to Euston are. A twin track railway to the edge of Central
London with only 3tph. But what to do with it?-

Surely the real pressure is to turf the suburban services out to
provide

more mainline and HS2 capacity?

Colin Rosenstiel-

Is diverting the service away from Euston via Camden Road
to wherever a feasible option?-

Wouldn't it be easier to simply replace the LO service to Watford
Junction with the Bakerloo? It might have to wait till the Bakerloo
gets new stock in a few years time, of course.-

Certainly it would be simpler but would it be practicable?
I assume the Bakerloo Line is as overcrowded during rush
hour as any other Underground service. Would adding to it
the people who currently travel on the Overground service to
Euston be workable? -

I thought the Bakerloo was the least (over) crowded of the LU lines?
-

We came back to the beginning of this thread: the DC lines to
Euston are an under-utilised asset. Abandoning the service does
address that issue.-

I assume you meant "does NOT address"? That's true, but it does free
up
the LO Euston platforms for other services. On the other hand, a more
intensive LO service to make better use of the track pair would need
more
Euston platforms, which will be in short supply during the HS2
rebuilding.

You're quite right. I meant "not address." I've amended my post.

Living in Leyton, I never have any reason to travel on the
Bakerloo during rush hour. If it is less busy than other lines,
is it to the extent of being able to absorb refugees from an
abandoned Watford/Euston service?

I come back to my original suggestion. Diverting the service
via Camden Road would free up platforms at Euston while still
utilising the bulk of the route south of Willesden Junction. Is
this idea workable?

IMHO possibly yes.

How many spare peak paths are available on the NLL between Camden Road and
Stratford?