Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/trams/the-future-of-trams The pdf file contains the name of Dave Arquati formerly of this parish. -- Basil Jet - listening... S.Y.P.H.. SPK. Saccharine Trust. Saint Etienne. San Fermin. Sananda Maitreya (Terence Trent D'Arby). Sarah Cracknell. Sarah Neufeld. Sarandon. Sarathy Korwar. Sascha Funke. Savage Republic. Savath+Savalas. Scars. Schizo Fun Addict. Scientists. Scritti Politti. Seasick Steve. Section 25. Set Fire To Flames. Severed Heads. Sex Pistols. Shack. Shackleton. Sharon Van Etten. Shed 7. Shigeto. Shock Headed Peters. Shrag. Shriekback. Shut Up. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Basil Jet" wrote in message news ![]() https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/trams/the-future-of-trams "Since 2000, we have seen the number of passengers on trams increase from 14 million to 32 million passengers in 2015. Passenger numbers are expected to reach nearly 60 million by 2030. We need to upgrade the trams network to accommodate this growth" Um, how does building a new line to serve a new area create extra capacity to accommodate growth on the current network? and then there's "The second phase would unlock the potential of the Wandle Valley and St Helier areas for housing," Um, what part of these areas that is not already built on do they think has not been deliberately left as open space for leisure purposes? Perhaps they think that there should be a new estate on Morden Hall park. I doubt that the National Trust would agree with that idea and if we are going to build on this green space, there isn't a need for a new transport link to accommodate it. Though it's great to see the line being used extensively I had 30 years growing up with a local station that got a next to useless service and consequently whenever you did go and use it it had little more than a dozen passengers. and now it's got full [1] trains running every 5 minutes for 18 hours of the day. There must be a lesson here that can be learnt for (some) other Cinderella services. [1] OK I concede that when I last used it - at 8:30 on a Saturday morning, there was just me and the station cat. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Friday, 12 October 2018 08:28:10 UTC+1, tim... wrote:
"Basil Jet" basilpam.com wrote in message news ![]() https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/trams/the-future-of-trams "Since 2000, we have seen the number of passengers on trams increase from 14 million to 32 million passengers in 2015. Passenger numbers are expected to reach nearly 60 million by 2030. We need to upgrade the trams network to accommodate this growth" Um, how does building a new line to serve a new area create extra capacity to accommodate growth on the current network? and then there's "The second phase would unlock the potential of the Wandle Valley and St Helier areas for housing," Um, what part of these areas that is not already built on do they think has not been deliberately left as open space for leisure purposes? Perhaps they think that there should be a new estate on Morden Hall park. I doubt that the National Trust would agree with that idea and if we are going to build on this green space, there isn't a need for a new transport link to accommodate it. Though it's great to see the line being used extensively I had 30 years growing up with a local station that got a next to useless service and consequently whenever you did go and use it it had little more than a dozen passengers. and now it's got full [1] trains running every 5 minutes for 18 hours of the day. There must be a lesson here that can be learnt for (some) other Cinderella services. [1] OK I concede that when I last used it - at 8:30 on a Saturday morning, there was just me and the station cat. Although I agree with the general tram extension idea, Tim is right about the extra housing paradox. Extra householders to take the tram to South Wimbledon to take the Northern Line to Bank... That is just smarming the problem around. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 12/10/18 08:27, tim... wrote:
Um, how does building a new line to serve a new area create extra capacity to accommodate growth on the current network? Because some passengers will start using the new line in preference to the old one. That's what HS2 is all about. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
tim... wrote:
"Basil Jet" wrote in message news ![]() https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/trams/the-future-of-trams "Since 2000, we have seen the number of passengers on trams increase from 14 million to 32 million passengers in 2015. Passenger numbers are expected to reach nearly 60 million by 2030. We need to upgrade the trams network to accommodate this growth" Um, how does building a new line to serve a new area create extra capacity to accommodate growth on the current network? and then there's "The second phase would unlock the potential of the Wandle Valley and St Helier areas for housing," Um, what part of these areas that is not already built on do they think has not been deliberately left as open space for leisure purposes? I don't know that area, so can't comment on the specific. But in my part of suburban London, more dwellings are being squeezed into the landscape by: - Redeveloping petrol stations. Every independent petrol station and small garage within a mile from me has been replaced by a block of flats. They've been put out of business by supermarket fuel stations. - Converting office space to residential. Numerous office blocks have either been converted into, or replaced by, apartment blocks. I can think of a nearby hotel that suffered the same fate. - Squeezing new houses into large gardens. - Replacing a row of large family houses into a new apartment block complex. - In one case, a row of large houses had been converted into a private school. That's now gone, to be replaced by a block of retirement flats. Apart, perhaps, from the retirement flats, all these new dwellings (few of which have off-street parking) will increase the load on local public transport services. |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "martin.coffee" wrote in message news ![]() On 12/10/18 08:27, tim... wrote: Um, how does building a new line to serve a new area create extra capacity to accommodate growth on the current network? Because some passengers will start using the new line in preference to the old one. the new line doesn't parallel the old one. It goes somewhere completely different (having shared track for the first 2/3 stations That's what HS2 is all about. It's not analogous at all |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Recliner" wrote in message news ![]() tim... wrote: "Basil Jet" wrote in message news ![]() https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/trams/the-future-of-trams "Since 2000, we have seen the number of passengers on trams increase from 14 million to 32 million passengers in 2015. Passenger numbers are expected to reach nearly 60 million by 2030. We need to upgrade the trams network to accommodate this growth" Um, how does building a new line to serve a new area create extra capacity to accommodate growth on the current network? and then there's "The second phase would unlock the potential of the Wandle Valley and St Helier areas for housing," Um, what part of these areas that is not already built on do they think has not been deliberately left as open space for leisure purposes? I don't know that area, so can't comment on the specific. Well I do, as I spent the first 30 years of my life living there (and still occasionally pass through). But even so, I mis-understood the area that they meant by Wandle valley. As they linked it with "and St Helier" I assumed that they meant the bit of the river from around Morden Road station to Carshalton, which (more or less) is adjacent to St Helier, and likely to be serviced, at last in part, by a new tram to Sutton. That part of the river, where it is not already built up, flows through the very small amount of "high quality" open space that exists in the area, for which the suggestion of building upon it would not go down well with the community (not to mention the Eco Numpties). However, it seems (having now read the whole document and not just the summary) that they mean the area around the Waddon Trading estates (where IKEA is) which, as this is mostly brown-field run down industrial sites, does seem ripe for redevelopment, where that has not happened already. So I'll concede that one to them. But as for St Helier. It is mostly packed in terraced 2/3 bedroom houses with tiny gardens interspersed with deliberately planned open green space. And, apart from a couple of run down and closed pubs, I can't think of a redundant commercial property in the area at all. As far as I can see the only way that you could build more than a very nominal increase in properties in the area is to build on the deliberately left open, open space. (some of which is already earmarked for a replacement hospital, when/if they have funding) tim |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
tim... wrote:
"martin.coffee" wrote in message news ![]() On 12/10/18 08:27, tim... wrote: Um, how does building a new line to serve a new area create extra capacity to accommodate growth on the current network? Because some passengers will start using the new line in preference to the old one. the new line doesn't parallel the old one. It goes somewhere completely different (having shared track for the first 2/3 stations You cannot put more trams into Wimbledon station as there is no space so if you want to increase the numbr of trams along Croydon-Wimbledon axis you need another terminal. Thus add South Wimbledon - and in ths case not all its trams will go to Sutton others will go to Croydon. And that is what is says in the document. Unlocking the potential of the Wandle Valley "Trams could unlock this by delivering a new South Wimbledon-Croydon service, offering more capacity and new connectivity • The housing gain could help fund many of the needed tram enhancements " Note Wandle Valley is along the current Croydon-Mitcham tram line. That's what HS2 is all about. It's not analogous at all -- Mark |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mark Bestley" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "martin.coffee" wrote in message news ![]() On 12/10/18 08:27, tim... wrote: Um, how does building a new line to serve a new area create extra capacity to accommodate growth on the current network? Because some passengers will start using the new line in preference to the old one. the new line doesn't parallel the old one. It goes somewhere completely different (having shared track for the first 2/3 stations You cannot put more trams into Wimbledon station as there is no space so if you want to increase the numbr of trams along Croydon-Wimbledon axis you need another terminal. Thus add South Wimbledon - and in ths case not all its trams will go to Sutton others will go to Croydon. And that is what is says in the document. Unlocking the potential of the Wandle Valley "Trams could unlock this by delivering a new South Wimbledon-Croydon service, offering more capacity and new connectivity • The housing gain could help fund many of the needed tram enhancements " Note Wandle Valley is along the current Croydon-Mitcham tram line. but that's all provided by the new (proposed) terminus at S Wimbledon the line to Sutton provides none of that benefit, that's my point. You might argue that building the line to Sutton makes the S Wimbledon terminus more cost effective, but that's a fallacious argument. And in any case, if the congested part of the route is at Wandle Valley and you need somewhere short of Wimbledon to turn extra services from Croydon (until Crossrail 2 (don't laugh) releases space at Wimbledon Main), adding a third platform/track at Merton Park by using the (still undeveloped) land previously occupied by the junction to Merton Abbey, seems a much quicker/cheaper way to provide that. It might be argued that a terminus at Merton Park is no good to anybody, but what is the real benefit of S Wimbledon. Oh it interchanges with the underground. Though what percentage of travellers are going to want to do that (given that trams from Sutton have already passed Morden station)? For Central London, change at Wimbledon onto Waterloo services is much quicker. And where is this route to SW going to go. Down the already very congested main road? And where's the station going to be? I can't see that putting a station there is going to be possible without knocking down a number of properties (or putting it underground). This idea of a track to SW just looks like, what did someone call it "lineism! tim |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 11:56:57 +0100, "tim..."
wrote: "martin.coffee" wrote in message news ![]() On 12/10/18 08:27, tim... wrote: Um, how does building a new line to serve a new area create extra capacity to accommodate growth on the current network? Because some passengers will start using the new line in preference to the old one. the new line doesn't parallel the old one. It goes somewhere completely different (having shared track for the first 2/3 stations That's what HS2 is all about. It's not analogous at all It seems to me they are responding to some kites that other people have flown relating to where new housing might be placed. At the same time, they are also trying to resolves issues relating to access to central Croydon by proposing turn back loops on either side of the town centre since they believe they can't improve the frequency across the town centre. Finally, the idea of new track is too tempting to ignore! I suspect they are flying their own kites in part to try and smoke out some actual proposals they can latch on to. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
South West Trains diverted at Wimbledon? | London Transport | |||
Sutton Loop post Thameslink | London Transport | |||
Morden to Sutton - still possible? | London Transport | |||
Old depot in Sutton St E1 | London Transport |