Martin Underwood wrote:
"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

"Dave Hillam" ] wrote in message
...

Tom Anderson wrote in uk.transport.london on Thu, 8 Jul 2004 10:27:37
+0100 :


On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Solar Penguin wrote:


And, it still shows a Network Rail connection at
Old Street while the WAGN line from Finsbury Park
runs to the Thameslink instead of Moorgate.
Confused? I am.

AIUI, the TL2K plan doesn't involve closing the GN Electrics
route from Finsbury Park to Moorgate, just taking trains
which currently terminate at King's Cross onto Thameslink.
Thus, there will still be service from FP to MG, via Old Street.

AIUI also, but that's not wot the map shows!

No, that is exactly what the map shows. The NR symbols at Moorgate, Old
Street, H&I and Finsbury Park represent the unchanged GN inner suburban.


The map fails in one respect: it doesn't show existing NR lines - such as
the Finsbury Park to Moorgate line and the North London Line which were
usually shown even on LT-only maps long after FP-Moorgate transferred from
LT to BR. But I agree: the NR symbols at FP, OS and Moorgate *imply* the
existence of the NR line.

Where existing NR lines are shown on the map as extensions to LT lines (eg
Peckham to Clapham Junction extension to East London Line), does this imply
that NR and LT services will run together on the same lines or does it imply
that NR services will cease when LT services begin? The map doesn't answer
that question. Similarly for the New Cross to Crystal Palace and West
Croydon extensions to the East London line - will those routes be LT-only or
LT and NR interleaved?

The latter.

Actually, the situation at Clapham Junction is interesting because the map
shows the existing Willesden Junction to Clapham Junction line as Silverlink
Metro, continuing unbroken (implying no change of train) as the ELL
extension. Does this mean WJ-CJ trains will be routed to use one of the
high-numbered platforms at CJ (as for long-distance trains that use the
WJ-CJ line), since Platform 2 at CJ is a terminus platform!

I think this is just bad design - there is no plan yet for ELL services
to continue up the WLL; the capacity just isn't there. However there are
plans for a single TOC to run the WLL, ELL, NLL and GOBLIN.

Lots of interesting additions:

- Shepherd's Bush to Uxbridge, presumably along GW Main line for some of the
route - will it then use the disused trackbed of the GW Main Line - Uxbridge
Vine Street line, I wonder?

Nope, this is the West London Tram which runs along the Uxbridge Road.
Not all stops are shown (it has about 40 stops).

- Heathrow to Essex and Kent via Crossrail: I wonder if this will be the
death knell of the premium-rate Heathrow Express service?

Probably not. A new service is starting in December run jointly by BAA
and First; it is a stopping service running between Paddington, Ealing
Broadway, Southall, Hayes & Harlington and Heathrow Central. It is this
service which Crossrail would take over.

There will be no ticket for Heathrow Connect from Paddington to
Heathrow; only for Paddington to intermediate stations (fares go to
First), and for those stations to Heathrow (fares go to BAA).

I have information on my website at:
http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/67

This fares structure will have to change if Crossrail runs these
services, but I imagine that BAA will still charge a (smaller) premium
for tickets to Heathrow.


- North London Line terminating at Stratford instead of continuing to North
Woolwich

The section from Canning Town to North Woolwich is already being made
obsolete by the DLR City Airport extension which has better-placed
stations than Silvertown and North Woolwich. They also want to run
services along the NLL from Canning Town to Stratford since this will
make it easier for them to reach Stratford International than extending
the current Stratford branch. Actually their plans involve diverting the
NLL up to Tottenham Hale but that's not shown on this map.

(http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/45)

- Greenwich Waterfront line - interesting!

Not so much a railway or tram as a "super-bus". Segregated alignments
initially for bendy-buses, with allowance for later conversion to tram.
TfL view this as a "transit" network - superior to buses and almost as
good as tram - so this is presumably why they are including it on this
map. It would certainly encourage people to use it. There are many more
stops than shown on this map, although not as many as a traditional bus
route.

(http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/27)

- Cross River Transit using a re-opened Aldwych station

Not quite - this is another tram and does not involve reopening Aldwych
underground station. Aldwych on this map is a tramstop near the junction
of Aldwych and Drury Lane. Altogether there are about 30 stops, so again
not all of these are shown. Also, the map fails to show the other
proposed northern branch which runs from Euston to King's Cross, and
then into the King's Cross railway lands to serve the planned new
development there.

(http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/2)

- Thameslink using ECML as well as existing MML - I wonder how far north it
will serve on the ECML

Peterborough (and King's Lynn). Services on that branch will run:
Peterborough - Horsham / East Grinstead
King's Lynn - Ashford International via Sevenoaks
Cambridge - Eastbourne / Littlehampton
Letchworth - Guildford via West Croydon.

(http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/23)

Thanks for the ideal post with which to plug my website :-)

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

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

Actually, the situation at Clapham Junction is interesting because the
map
shows the existing Willesden Junction to Clapham Junction line as
Silverlink
Metro, continuing unbroken (implying no change of train) as the ELL
extension. Does this mean WJ-CJ trains will be routed to use one of the
high-numbered platforms at CJ (as for long-distance trains that use the
WJ-CJ line), since Platform 2 at CJ is a terminus platform!

I think this is just bad design - there is no plan yet for ELL services
to continue up the WLL; the capacity just isn't there. However there are
plans for a single TOC to run the WLL, ELL, NLL and GOBLIN.

Surely they could extend the ELL services to take over the existing WLL
Clapham - Willesden ones?

Also they've missed out the planned station on the ELL extension at Brixton.
Not having an ELL station at Brixton would be a cardinal sin IMHO.

Angus

Sir Benjamin Nunn wrote:

"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
...

I guess it could cut into the common slightly where the horse riding
track is at the moment, then cut into the Streatham Hill area (not sure
about how the well heeled residents would feel about that though...
what do I care, BULLDOZE!). Come out at the high road at Streatham
Hill and onto Brixton from there.

Well, whatever - by then, we very much hope, the Streatham Hub will be
operational, and Streatham Station itself the site of a major transport
interchange (and a wonderful new leisure centre including ice rink and
swimming-pool etc). So why on earth not link it to Brixton by whatever
means possible - there is even a possibility for a railway connection
over existing lines.....



Streatham needs the Victoria Line extension first mooted about 50 years ago.

Brixton-Streatham Hill-Streatham-Streatham Common----- thence overground to
Croydon.

It's a blindingly simple idea, and would almost definitely become the most
heavily-trafficked tube route out of Central London overnight thanks to the
existing rapidity of the Vic.

You've just hit the problem. The Victoria is already bursting at the
seams in the peaks. They can't extend it because there isn't enough
capacity on the current route.

Annabel pointed out in another post that the frequency is already every
2 minutes (30tph). If the line were extended to Croydon, the extra
passengers would mean that either the frequency in the centre would have
to be increased (very difficult) or platforms would have to be extended,
both along the existing route and the overground stations to Croydon
(very expensive).

An extension to Streatham with a corresponding frequency increase in the
centre with new signalling might be able to cope - but Croydon would be
too much.

I know there were tunnelling problems in the 1960s, but surely technology
has moved on sufficiently now for this not to be a problem. They could
resite Brixton on a straight alignment and at a deeper level if necessary.

Seems like TfL are obsessed with pouring their money into 'new' schemes
which actually don't involve a lot of new routes at all, but are simply
using existing infrastructure in a differently-branded way.

I think this is just a reflection of the times - for radial routes, many
key traffic generators are already based around the existing rail
routes, so services like Crossrail are most useful since they take the
traffic from these routes directly to their destination rather than
dropping it off at the edges of the centre.

Construction costs also seem to be escalating out of control (see the
Jubilee Line Extension) and using existing infrastructure in a different
way keeps costs down. I believe the JLE cost around £1,000,000 per metre
of length - tunnelling is expensive even if it is now technically
possible under South London.


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

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Sir Benjamin Nunn wrote:

It's a blindingly simple idea, and would almost definitely become the
most
heavily-trafficked tube route out of Central London overnight thanks to
the
existing rapidity of the Vic.

You've just hit the problem. The Victoria is already bursting at the
seams in the peaks. They can't extend it because there isn't enough
capacity on the current route.


So... they are avoiding building the routes for which there would be the
greatest demand...

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Surely extending the Vic Southwards and the Bakerloo South-Easterly would
reduce the bottleneck situations at Stockwell, Kennington and Elephant?

As I see it, the more unique routes that exist, the greater the choice for
the traveller, and therefore the less congested each individual route is.
Because most of the current schemes are only contextually repositioning the
existing infrastructure, they aren't solving the problems at all.

South London needs more rapid routes to the centre, and better radial
connections (ever tried getting from anywhere in South/SW London to SE
London _without_ going into London Bridge? It's a joke).

BTN

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Martin Underwood wrote:

- Heathrow to Essex and Kent via Crossrail: I wonder if this will be the
death knell of the premium-rate Heathrow Express service?

Probably not. A new service is starting in December run jointly by BAA
and First; it is a stopping service running between Paddington, Ealing
Broadway, Southall, Hayes & Harlington and Heathrow Central. It is this
service which Crossrail would take over.

There will be no ticket for Heathrow Connect from Paddington to
Heathrow; only for Paddington to intermediate stations (fares go to
First), and for those stations to Heathrow (fares go to BAA).

I have information on my website at:
http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/67

This fares structure will have to change if Crossrail runs these
services, but I imagine that BAA will still charge a (smaller) premium
for tickets to Heathrow.

And I bet Heathrow will be "conveniently" outside the outer-most Travelcard
zone. I wonder how many people will use Heathrow to (for example) Southall
and then Thames Trains Southall to Paddington (and vice versa) to avoid
paying the premium. I certainly would. What's the betting that TT are
"asked" to arrange that their connecting trains depart 1 minute before the
Heathrow Connect train arrives and vice versa, giving the longest journey
time possible? The BAA fare is ridiculously expensive and is just taking the
**** - they deserve to be undercut by Heathrow Connect. It's a shame that GW
and TT services from the west can't introduce Southall or Hayes & Harlington
as an additional stop for connection to Heathrow: a cross-platform change at
a railway station would be much easier than having to lug your cases down
the steps at Reading and enduring the delays while the luggage is loaded
onto the coach and endure the slow journey out of Reading and along the M4
to Heathrow.

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

- Thameslink using ECML as well as existing MML - I wonder how far north
it
will serve on the ECML

Peterborough (and King's Lynn). Services on that branch will run:
Peterborough - Horsham / East Grinstead
King's Lynn - Ashford International via Sevenoaks
Cambridge - Eastbourne / Littlehampton
Letchworth - Guildford via West Croydon.

(http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/23)

Thanks for the ideal post with which to plug my website :-)

Glad to be able to oblige! It looks an excellent site: I've just bookmarked
it for future reference.

I was wondering how the link from the Thameslink line to the ECML would be
achieved: you explain it all. Presumably whereas the Eurostar trains will
rise from the tunnel to the platforms in the Barlow train shed, the
Thameslink lines will remain at low level to feed into the existing
low-level (underground!) Thameslink tracks just north of the St Pancras
Midland station.

Will the pedestrian connections between KX and St P Midland be an underpass
with connections from each platform, or will passengers have to walk south
onto the concourse of KX for the tunnels north-west to St P Midland?

I'll have to explore the area around KX and St P (avoiding the "working
girls"!) when I'm next in London - things have obviously changed a great
deal since I was last there about 18 months ago. Is the CTRL exhibition in
the Portakabin north of St Pancras still open? I've forgotten which road it
was on.

Sir Benjamin Nunn wrote:

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

Sir Benjamin Nunn wrote:


It's a blindingly simple idea, and would almost definitely become the

most

heavily-trafficked tube route out of Central London overnight thanks to

the

existing rapidity of the Vic.

You've just hit the problem. The Victoria is already bursting at the
seams in the peaks. They can't extend it because there isn't enough
capacity on the current route.



So... they are avoiding building the routes for which there would be the
greatest demand...

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Surely extending the Vic Southwards and the Bakerloo South-Easterly would
reduce the bottleneck situations at Stockwell, Kennington and Elephant?

As I see it, the more unique routes that exist, the greater the choice for
the traveller, and therefore the less congested each individual route is.
Because most of the current schemes are only contextually repositioning the
existing infrastructure, they aren't solving the problems at all.

This is a bit self-contradictory. Since it would be so difficult to
extend the Victoria to Croydon, the alternative should be to build an
entirely new cross-London route. Unfortunately this is very expensive
(Crossrail is est. £10-13bn and increasing with every review) and we can
probably only expect a project like this about every 20 years.

The problem on the Victoria line is in the centre rather than at the
edges. You *could* extend it to Croydon - but there'd be no room on the
trains for anyone else to actually get on them. In the outer areas, it
might be possible to dedicate existing track to Crossrail-like services
and thus improve the frequency (part of the current problem in South
London is conflicting movements as trains cross each other's routes).

Long sections of tunnel in south London would be prohibitively expensive
for the benefits gained; these tunnels are likely to cost more than the
JLE (i.e. more than £1m per metre!!).

South London needs more rapid routes to the centre, and better radial
connections (ever tried getting from anywhere in South/SW London to SE
London _without_ going into London Bridge? It's a joke).

I think south London needs more *capacity* into the centre (either
through higher frequency or longer/double-deck trains). Rapidity
certainly seems to be good from key centres such as East Croydon (about
30 mins to Victoria or London Bridge on a fast train?), Bromley South
and Wimbledon (SWT).

However, even increased capacity just shifts the problem to the termini
and the central Underground network. Enter Crossrail 2 & Thameslink 2000.

As for orbital connections (I assume you mean orbital not radial), I
agree that these are a problem. However, improvements are planned, with
the East London Line extensions and Croydon Tramlink extensions to
Sutton, Tooting, Crystal Palace and Streatham on the table. Further
improvements are likely to be difficult since it is difficult to cater
for the large number of origins and destinations in south London.

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

Angus Bryant wrote:

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

Actually, the situation at Clapham Junction is interesting because the

map

shows the existing Willesden Junction to Clapham Junction line as

Silverlink

Metro, continuing unbroken (implying no change of train) as the ELL
extension. Does this mean WJ-CJ trains will be routed to use one of the
high-numbered platforms at CJ (as for long-distance trains that use the
WJ-CJ line), since Platform 2 at CJ is a terminus platform!

I think this is just bad design - there is no plan yet for ELL services
to continue up the WLL; the capacity just isn't there. However there are
plans for a single TOC to run the WLL, ELL, NLL and GOBLIN.


Surely they could extend the ELL services to take over the existing WLL
Clapham - Willesden ones?

Which way? Clapham Junction would require a time-consuming reversal and
there isn't enough capacity on the NLL to extend ELL services from
Highbury to Willesden. I also suspect that it would be difficult to
ensure a robust service as timetabling would be a nightmare on the scale
of Virgin's Cross Country services! And we know how reliable those
were/are :-)

Also they've missed out the planned station on the ELL extension at Brixton.
Not having an ELL station at Brixton would be a cardinal sin IMHO.

I agree - missing out Loughborough Junction would also be sinful as it
allows interchange with Thameslink (and thus orbital connections for
those from Wimbledon, Sutton, & Streatham). The problem is the viaduct;
new stations on the SLL viaduct at Brixton and Lougborough Jcn will be
expensive.

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

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
s.com...

I was wondering how the link from the Thameslink line to the ECML would be
achieved: you explain it all. Presumably whereas the Eurostar trains will
rise from the tunnel to the platforms in the Barlow train shed, the
Thameslink lines will remain at low level to feed into the existing
low-level (underground!) Thameslink tracks just north of the St Pancras
Midland station.

Try this too (it's a big picture):

http://www.ctrl.co.uk/photos/galleryimage.asp?ID=4607

Will the pedestrian connections between KX and St P Midland be an
underpass
with connections from each platform, or will passengers have to walk south
onto the concourse of KX for the tunnels north-west to St P Midland?

I think what you are talking about will be handled by the new Northern
ticket hall which is underneath the forecourt by the suburban platforms at
KX (platforms 9-11). The main entrance to/from St Pancras will eventually
shift to where the old St P shed meets the new canpoy (actually where the
interim MML station is now). See "LUL north connection subway" on the
picture linked above. This subway is also photographed on the CTRL site:

http://www.ctrl.co.uk/photos/newdisplay.asp?ID=4576

I'll have to explore the area around KX and St P (avoiding the "working
girls"!) when I'm next in London - things have obviously changed a great
deal since I was last there about 18 months ago. Is the CTRL exhibition in
the Portakabin north of St Pancras still open? I've forgotten which road
it
was on.

Brill Place (just north of the British Library):

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/streetmap...183071&A=Y&Z=1

I went there a year or two ago and got some handouts etc. Apparently you're
supposed to book a visit before turning up but they didn't really seem to
mind me turning up out of the blue.

Angus

Martin Underwood wrote:

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

Martin Underwood wrote:


- Heathrow to Essex and Kent via Crossrail: I wonder if this will be the
death knell of the premium-rate Heathrow Express service?

Probably not. A new service is starting in December run jointly by BAA
and First; it is a stopping service running between Paddington, Ealing
Broadway, Southall, Hayes & Harlington and Heathrow Central. It is this
service which Crossrail would take over.

There will be no ticket for Heathrow Connect from Paddington to
Heathrow; only for Paddington to intermediate stations (fares go to
First), and for those stations to Heathrow (fares go to BAA).

I have information on my website at:
http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/67

This fares structure will have to change if Crossrail runs these
services, but I imagine that BAA will still charge a (smaller) premium
for tickets to Heathrow.


And I bet Heathrow will be "conveniently" outside the outer-most Travelcard
zone.

London Underground would be upset about that! However I do foresee
ticket restrictions between Hayes & Harlington and Heathrow Central -
unless Señor Livingstone stepped in. I believe he wants Travelcards to
be completely valid on Crossrail, and he has also expressed a desire to
congestion charge Heathrow (but by imposing a TfL parking levy rather
than charging vehicles for travelling within it).

I wonder how many people will use Heathrow to (for example) Southall
and then Thames Trains Southall to Paddington (and vice versa) to avoid
paying the premium. I certainly would.

I guess it depends how much the premium is! Note that the section from
Paddington to Hayes is under "control" of FGW Link, so Travelcards will
be valid on Heathrow Connect services as far as Hayes & Harlington
anyway; it all depends on what BAA charge for that short section into
Heathrow Central. They will probably have to bear in mind that some
airport workers may want to use this to commute to work.

What's the betting that TT are
"asked" to arrange that their connecting trains depart 1 minute before the
Heathrow Connect train arrives and vice versa, giving the longest journey
time possible?

Heathrow Connect is taking over paths from current FGW Link Paddington
to Slough stoppers (not sure what is happening to the Hayes-Slough
service!) - so there aren't really any connections to be made.

The BAA fare is ridiculously expensive and is just taking the
**** - they deserve to be undercut by Heathrow Connect.

Nice idea in theory - but BAA built the branch into their airport, and
are also running Heathrow Connect jointly with FGW Link - so they won't
want to undercut their own services too much!

It's a shame that GW
and TT services from the west can't introduce Southall or Hayes & Harlington
as an additional stop for connection to Heathrow: a cross-platform change at
a railway station would be much easier than having to lug your cases down
the steps at Reading and enduring the delays while the luggage is loaded
onto the coach and endure the slow journey out of Reading and along the M4
to Heathrow.

Also a good idea, and I think this is planned - almost certainly for FGW
Link services along the Thames Valley to Reading, not sure about other
services but quite possible (perhaps alternating stops at Slough with
stops at Ealing Broadway like MML alternate Luton and Luton Airport
Parkway).

However in my view, even that's not really good enough; I think that
electrification of the route to Reading and services from Reading to
Heathrow (perhaps fasts calling at Maidenhead and Slough, and stoppers
too) would do more to combat motorway congestion (on the M4) than any
other rail project, since those Thames Valley towns depend a lot on
Heathrow in their economies.


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