On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:49:06 +0000
Water musician wrote:
On 16 Feb 2016, d wrote
(in article ):
No, its closed because TfL don't believe in installing reversing points.
To close 3 miles of the line that could satisfactorily operated otherwise
just because of work at one station is pathetic.

Presumably you DO believe in paying a £6 (or might it be a tenner?)
single-zone fare to fund lots of enhancements.

So lets get this straight, you think installing one extra set of reversing
points when the ELLX was being built would require an extra 5 quid on fares
to fund it do you?

Go and have a lie down.

--
Spud

On 2016-02-16 09:49:06 +0000, Water musician said:

Of course, if we had a different political system (France, NL, Germany?) we
might have the optimum urban rail networks, rather than the affordable
versions. OTOH, if we had another different political system (USA?) we might
have ALMOST NO urban rail networks.

While your general point is solid, the latter is patently false. Large
US cities have urban rail networks, most of them quite comprehensive.
It's InterCity and rural rail the US really lacks, and this is
understandable given the size of the place; air is much more practical.

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

On 16 Feb 2016, d wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:49:06 +0000
Water musician wrote:
On 16 Feb 2016, d wrote
(in article ):
No, its closed because TfL don't believe in installing reversing points.
To close 3 miles of the line that could satisfactorily operated otherwise
just because of work at one station is pathetic.

Presumably you DO believe in paying a £6 (or might it be a tenner?)
single-zone fare to fund lots of enhancements.

So lets get this straight, you think installing one extra set of reversing
points when the ELLX was being built would require an extra 5 quid on fares
to fund it do you?

Go and have a lie down.

Of course not. My point is that TfL has to work to budgets. Which means that
“wish lists� or optimum systems may have to be trimmed to produce
affordable, deliverable budgets.

This group could probably generate a list of 100 or more desirable
enhancements to London’s transport network in a couple of hours – many of
which could deliver more efficient / more economical operations.

But implementing them all would not be possible unless TfL had a much bigger
budget – and that can only come from two sources: taxpayers or passengers.

Personally, my No1 priority would be to double capacity on the 360 and 244
bus routes – but I accept that the best we’re likely to get is an extra 1
bus/hour when contracts are renewed.

Sadly, development of any system all too often turns out to be a tussle
between what’s desirable and what’s affordable within a given budget.

That is the point I am trying to make.

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:19:54 +0000
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2016-02-16 09:49:06 +0000, Water musician said:

Of course, if we had a different political system (France, NL, Germany?) we
might have the optimum urban rail networks, rather than the affordable
versions. OTOH, if we had another different political system (USA?) we might
have ALMOST NO urban rail networks.

While your general point is solid, the latter is patently false. Large
US cities have urban rail networks, most of them quite comprehensive.
It's InterCity and rural rail the US really lacks, and this is
understandable given the size of the place; air is much more practical.

A 200mph TGV could get up and down the east and west coasts in a few hours.
With its large amounts of land and huge economy the US is perfect for high
speed rail, there's just little political will. Air should only really be
needed for cross continent trips.

--
Spud

In message , at 10:19:54 on Tue, 16
Feb 2016, Neil Williams remarked:

Of course, if we had a different political system (France, NL, Germany?) we
might have the optimum urban rail networks, rather than the affordable
versions. OTOH, if we had another different political system (USA?) we might
have ALMOST NO urban rail networks.

While your general point is solid, the latter is patently false. Large
US cities have urban rail networks, most of them quite comprehensive.

Here's a list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ter_rail_syste
ms_by_ridership
--
Roland Perry

On 16/02/2016 10:22, Water musician wrote:

Personally, my No1 priority would be to double capacity on the 360 and 244
bus routes – but I accept that the best we’re likely to get is an extra 1
bus/hour when contracts are renewed.


Couldn't they improve capacity on those just by ironing out the meanders?

In article , d () wrote:

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 18:25:52 -0600
wrote:
In article , (Basil
Jet) wrote:
Loads of space in them, is there? (I don't know if there is.)

They may now be regretting that the link to the NLL at Highbury &
Islington has never been commissioned because of the complications of the
two electrification systems. But available it is not so there is no way
to run a shuttle, even if Shoreditch High Street had a handy crossover.

What complications? The NLL itself switches between overhead and 3rd rail.
That aside, they could store a couple of units overnight at Dalston
Junction for the 9 days and hire a security guard. But obviously
thats not going to
happen with TfLs Can't-Do culture.

Signalling immunisation hasn't been implemented, apparently.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:22:23 +0000
Water musician wrote:
On 16 Feb 2016, d wrote
(in article ):
So lets get this straight, you think installing one extra set of reversing
points when the ELLX was being built would require an extra 5 quid on fares
to fund it do you?

Go and have a lie down.

Of course not. My point is that TfL has to work to budgets. Which means that
“wish lists� or optimum systems may have to be trimmed to produce
affordable, deliverable budgets.

Compared to the total cost of the ELL extension an extra set of points
would be neither here nor there.

--
Spud

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 05:19:25 -0600
wrote:
In article , d () wrote:

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 18:25:52 -0600
wrote:
In article , (Basil
Jet) wrote:
Loads of space in them, is there? (I don't know if there is.)

They may now be regretting that the link to the NLL at Highbury &
Islington has never been commissioned because of the complications of the
two electrification systems. But available it is not so there is no way
to run a shuttle, even if Shoreditch High Street had a handy crossover.

What complications? The NLL itself switches between overhead and 3rd rail.
That aside, they could store a couple of units overnight at Dalston
Junction for the 9 days and hire a security guard. But obviously
thats not going to
happen with TfLs Can't-Do culture.

Signalling immunisation hasn't been implemented, apparently.

Would it matter if the stock was transfered in the small hours when the
lines were closed?

--
Spud

On 2016\02\16 10:03, d wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:49:06 +0000
Water musician wrote:
On 16 Feb 2016, d wrote
(in article ):
No, its closed because TfL don't believe in installing reversing points.
To close 3 miles of the line that could satisfactorily operated otherwise
just because of work at one station is pathetic.

Presumably you DO believe in paying a £6 (or might it be a tenner?)
single-zone fare to fund lots of enhancements.

So lets get this straight, you think installing one extra set of reversing
points when the ELLX was being built would require an extra 5 quid on fares
to fund it do you?

Go and have a lie down.

Even a few yards of dual electrification require expensive and bulky
equipment.