On Tue, 18 May 2004 18:59:05 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:



The stratford issue is very easy to explain.

Thanks for the explanation.


Therefore street to JLE was via one gateline. In order to comply with
the overarching edict the interchange gateline was designed in to cover
the potential for people reaching JLE from "open" stations on the
Central Line, BR and DLR lines.

But surely they can get on from "open" stations elsewhere i.e. at any
other interchange? I don't see why Stratford should be unique.

On Wed, 19 May 2004 11:48:12 +0100, k wrote:

On Tue, 18 May 2004 18:59:05 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:



The stratford issue is very easy to explain.

Thanks for the explanation.


Therefore street to JLE was via one gateline. In order to comply with
the overarching edict the interchange gateline was designed in to cover
the potential for people reaching JLE from "open" stations on the
Central Line, BR and DLR lines.

But surely they can get on from "open" stations elsewhere i.e. at any
other interchange? I don't see why Stratford should be unique.

Stratford was unique because of a policy statement to gate the JLE (a
new piece of railway) off from all other operators. The end result of
that policy only really applies at Stratford and the concept was not
applied at places like Canning Town although we did have some utterly
bizarre gateline designs to assess. I think in the end we convinced
people that the cost far outweighed any benefit. This is what happens
when people have high level concepts and ignore the practical detail.

Similar arguments were put forward when we were designing the gate
layouts for the North end of the Victoria Line. Thankfully we managed to
convince people that such complex layouts would not work and would not
be cost effective.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On Wed, 19 May 2004 19:30:37 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

Similar arguments were put forward when we were designing the gate
layouts for the North end of the Victoria Line. Thankfully we managed to
convince people that such complex layouts would not work and would not
be cost effective.

Is this reference to Walthamstow Central, Tottenham Hale and Finsbury
Park with National Rail services where one can travel without a ticket
due to no barriers being in place?

As a passenger using these stations periodically, I'd prefer that
there *were* ticket barriers - complex layouts or not - to discourage
fare evasion and the sort of people that flock to stations for "free"
travel.

Thankfully places like Blackhorse Road, and Highbury and Islington
have gates lines even for National Rail services, so it's not all bad!


Cheers,

Jason.

On Thu, 27 May 2004 16:29:26 +0100, Jason wrote:

On Wed, 19 May 2004 19:30:37 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

Similar arguments were put forward when we were designing the gate
layouts for the North end of the Victoria Line. Thankfully we managed to
convince people that such complex layouts would not work and would not
be cost effective.

Is this reference to Walthamstow Central, Tottenham Hale and Finsbury
Park with National Rail services where one can travel without a ticket
due to no barriers being in place?

No it isn't. It is a reference to LU people wanting every possible route
to and from street as well as between operators gated. This means a
combination of normal gatelines and interchange ones as per stratford.
It would mean at least 50% more gates, probably building works, more
maintenance cost for next to no benefit.

Where there has always been within the barrier line interchange then it
seems completely pointless to create barriers to people moving freely -
would you put gates on the cross platform corridors between WAGN and the
Victoria Line at Highbury and Islington? If not then why put them
between WAGN and the Victoria Line at say Seven Sisters?

Walthamstow Central is impossible to deal with in its current
configuration if you want to gate everything off from everything else.
Believe me we looked at it but it would not be safe given the limited
space, position of staircases and platform edges. It is bad enough in
the LUL ticket hall area - we struggled to get in the requisite number
of gates and it would be hugely expensive to expand under the WAGN
tracks to make more room. Whether the link to the bus station makes any
difference we shall have to wait and see.

As a passenger using these stations periodically, I'd prefer that
there *were* ticket barriers - complex layouts or not - to discourage
fare evasion and the sort of people that flock to stations for "free"
travel.

Thankfully places like Blackhorse Road, and Highbury and Islington
have gates lines even for National Rail services, so it's not all bad!

But only because these stations are configured in such a way that a
gateline at the station entrance covers both operators. You can still
interchange between the operators within the gateline.

There is also the small issue about who actually benefits - the TOCs
were very reluctant to cough up any whatsoever where their lines were
covered at places like Highbury even though they benefit directly from
increased sales at Highbury and also from other stations where people
travel to Highbury. In other words LUL can stump public sector money and
they can reap the private sector gain - err I think not. We all have
duties to demonstrate that we are getting value for money. At
Tottenham Hale the second gateline you suggest would only cover WAGN -
there's nothing to stop them putting one in if they think it would pay.
It certainly would not be the responsibility of LUL.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!