Jonn Elledge wrote:
"Aidan Stanger" wrote...

Whom would you get to design and develop the scheme
instead of them?

The leading contender would be London Regional Metro Co.

I've been looking at their site, and two words come to mind: "performance
pollution". It'd be wonderful if Crossrail could act as a decent suburban
railway, and also serve longer distance routes; but it'd be an operational
nightmare if a tube frequency service in Ilford or Gidea Park could be
disrupted by a slight delay in Reading or Colchester.

Firstly it doesn't have to serve places as far afield as you mention.
Secondly it's quite easy to counteract the performance pollution with
recovery time.

Gary Jenkins wrote:

I'm not sure a tube type service off peak is really needed. Moving
from four to six trains an hour, as the Strategic Rail Authority is
currently suggesting, seems to be a lot of investment for
comparatively little benefit. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of most
people to plan their journey to cope with four evenly spaced trains an
hour, at the same times past each hour. If someone does just turn up
on spec then a maximum wait of 15 mins isn't that much worse than one
of ten minutes.

Oh dear. You've made the classic mistake of people who plan these
frequencies. What you are describing is a line. What we need is a
network. As soon as your journey involves a change, 4 tph is
inadequate on short-distance services. Even if both services are 4
tph, if you have a deadline you have to plan on a 15 minute delay at
the connection - in a journey where you might only spend 15 minutes
moving. This is not the way to compete with the car.

Colin McKenzie

Gary Jenkins wrote:

I'm not sure a tube type service off peak is really needed. Moving
from four to six trains an hour, as the Strategic Rail Authority is
currently suggesting, seems to be a lot of investment for
comparatively little benefit. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of most
people to plan their journey to cope with four evenly spaced trains an
hour, at the same times past each hour. If someone does just turn up
on spec then a maximum wait of 15 mins isn't that much worse than one
of ten minutes.

Six trains an hour is not a tube style service. It is a start though.

The idea of linking stations up in London is a good idea but it's
probably best to start of with closer links rather than starting with
two substantially far away from each other. Linking Moorgate to Cannon
Street and Waterloo to Waterloo East (or destroying it) would offer
plenty of benefits. Yes they would be complicated and expensive, but
I'm sure (well guessing) that they would be under or the same price as
Crossrail.

In article , Chetoph
wrote:
The idea of linking stations up in London is a good idea but it's
probably best to start of with closer links rather than starting with
two substantially far away from each other. Linking Moorgate to Cannon
Street and Waterloo to Waterloo East (or destroying it) would offer
plenty of benefits. Yes they would be complicated and expensive, but
I'm sure (well guessing) that they would be under or the same price as
Crossrail.


By this do you mean building a back-to-back link between London Bridge and
Waterloo, making them both straight-through stations? I think that would
be a great idea, to give the trains a non-terminating run straight across
the south side of the city centre, and making the north-south journey to
reach this route from places in the city centre a much shorter one. It
involves no tunnelling, so should be cheap. Well, cheaper than Crossrail
and coping with existing traffic rather than creating new.

Michael Bell

--

In article , Colin McKenzie
wrote:
Gary Jenkins wrote:

I'm not sure a tube type service off peak is really needed. Moving
from four to six trains an hour, as the Strategic Rail Authority is
currently suggesting, seems to be a lot of investment for
comparatively little benefit. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of most
people to plan their journey to cope with four evenly spaced trains an
hour, at the same times past each hour. If someone does just turn up
on spec then a maximum wait of 15 mins isn't that much worse than one
of ten minutes.

Oh dear. You've made the classic mistake of people who plan these
frequencies. What you are describing is a line. What we need is a
network. As soon as your journey involves a change, 4 tph is
inadequate on short-distance services. Even if both services are 4
tph, if you have a deadline you have to plan on a 15 minute delay at
the connection - in a journey where you might only spend 15 minutes
moving. This is not the way to compete with the car.

Colin McKenzie

I 100% agree

Michael Bell

--

"Chetoph" wrote in message
m...
The idea of linking stations up in London is a good idea but it's
probably best to start of with closer links rather than starting with
two substantially far away from each other. Linking Moorgate to Cannon
Street and Waterloo to Waterloo East (or destroying it) would offer
plenty of benefits. Yes they would be complicated and expensive, but
I'm sure (well guessing) that they would be under or the same price as
Crossrail.

Not sure about the Waterloo one - a line already exists, but I'm not sure
how much use it is - but from discussions I've seen here in the past, the
Moorgate to Cannon Street is a non-starter: there's too much difference in
height, and the Bank of England vaults in the way.

Would it be possible to run a line slightly further east, from Moorgate
under Throgmorton, perhaps with new Bank/Moorgate platforms somewhere around
Birchin Lane, to a new underground station at the eastern end of London
Bridge station, with a portal somewhere in the vicinity of Southwark Park
Road. The line could take over services on the East Dulwich line. There may
even be room for a new stop somewhere around the bottom of Bermondsey
Street, as that area's not brilliantly served by the tube. (Yes, I'm biased
because I live in it, so sue me.)

Or is this a complete impossibility because of the way the vaults are
positioned?

Just a thought.

Jonn

Dan Gravell wrote:
Gary Jenkins wrote:


I'm not sure a tube type service off peak is really needed. Moving
from four to six trains an hour, as the Strategic Rail Authority is
currently suggesting, seems to be a lot of investment for
comparatively little benefit. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of most
people to plan their journey to cope with four evenly spaced trains an
hour, at the same times past each hour. If someone does just turn up
on spec then a maximum wait of 15 mins isn't that much worse than one
of ten minutes.


Six trains an hour is not a tube style service. It is a start though.

Although it is the off-peak service Hanger Lane to West Ruislip, at
Chiswick Park, North Ealing to South Harrow, Harrow & Wealdstone to
Wembley Central, North Harrow to Northwood, Croxley and Watford, New
Cross and New Cross Gate, Mill Hill East, Kensington Olympia, Blackwall
to Beckton, and Roding Valley to Barkingside.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message
...
Gary Jenkins wrote:

As an alternative to a Bakerloo extension is it
feasible to hope for a Jubilee line branch from
North Greenwich in a south-easterly direction
towards Charlton. Eltham and Sidcup?

This would be great for Eltham, as an elongated
station (with travelators instead of escalators)
could serve both the station and the High Street.

While I can see the advantage of such a station, I can't think of any
station in London like that, so I doubt that the economics would add up.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

John Rowland wrote:
"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message
...


This would be great for Eltham, as an elongated
station (with travelators instead of escalators)
could serve both the station and the High Street.


While I can see the advantage of such a station, I can't think of any
station in London like that, so I doubt that the economics would add up.


Seven Sisters tube station has two exits at opposite ends, one serving
the high street and one serving the National Rail station. It doesn't
use travelators but apart from that little detail it sounds pretty much
like what Aidan was suggesting.