Dave wrote:
Cast_Iron writes
Cast_Iron writes
Is this some mechanism to allow "inter-city" trains to
run
from the north, right through London and down to the
South-East. Or is it nowhere near that sensible?

When completed the current East London Line project
will
allow that as

I don't consider Highbury to Croydon/Crystal Palace
trains
as being 'InterCity' - they will be local trains.

will the existing line betrween Willesden Junction and
Clapham.

Watford to Brighton trains? They are regional trains
rather than 'InterCity'.

Who said anything about existing service, I was talking
about what the new and existing railway will allow to
happen.

There will be no InterCity trains via the ELL, only local
ones.

What plans are there for InterCity trains via the
Willesden-Clapham route? I'm certainly not aware of any.

So please do enlighten us 'about what the new and existing
railway will allow to happen'.

Yet again you cite current proposals. Try thinking about
possibilites.

You appear to be confusing what will happen, with
cloud-cuckoo land.

Where is the room to fit the InterCity trains in between
the stopping trains on the ELL?

If you want to play fantasy railways; why not go the whole
hog and claim that the current Thameslink route already
'allows' the 'possibility' of running trains from the East
Midlands, via the Thameslink route, to Brighton?

Go back to the original question, "Is this some mechanism to allow
"inter-city" trains to run from the north, right through London and down to
the South-East."

The questioner isn't asking about current nor proposed train services. He's
asking about mechanisms which will allow something to happen. In this
instance the track alignments and connections will allow it to happen,
questions of timetabling, service intervals whilst relevant in the real
world are not applicable in the context of the question.

Learning to read, understand and then giving an accurate concise reply to
the question really does save an awful lot of time and energy.

"Roger H. Bennett" wrote in message
...
"Mark Hewitt" wrote in
message
...
Is this some mechanism to allow "inter-city" trains to run from the
north,
right through London and down to the South-East. Or is it nowhere near
that
sensible?

No and yes respectively.

It's a planned new tunnel to run east-west, carrying an intensive
inner-suburban service (probably from about Shenfield to Heathrow), so
would
be far too slow for intercity trains.

Sounds pretty sensible to me.

I think a lot of the complaints about Crossrail not being used to run
intercity services are missing the point - it's essentially going to be a
new express tubeline, not an addition to the national railway networks.
Considered like that I think it's a great idea - the Shenfield line is one
of the busiest NR lines in London, the Isle of Dogs and City Airport need
(another) fast link to the West End, as does Heathrow. I'm sure that'll be
far more useful to more people than express trains from Norwich to Bristol.

Okay, non-Londoners may like the idea of being able to get train services
direct to the West End without changing, but so do those who live in the
suburbs; and in terms of the number of journeys made, and the proportion of
journey time wasted on changing, I suspect that you can save far more time
by building new suburban lines than intercity ones.


The better scheme is Thameslink 2000 (or Thameslink 3000 as it's now
generally known), which keeps getting postponed. That would allow more
trains to run north-south through London than on the existing Thameslink,
but still not intercity trains.


I actually think Thameslink 2000 should be focused on suburban services as
well - perhaps taking high frequency services to Orpington, Dartford and
Hayes and increasing that on the Wimbledon loop. A few regional services
could still be run, but I would have thought that a larger population of
regular commuters could be better served by keeping the service pattern
simple and local.

Jonn Elledge

"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message
...
I think a lot of the complaints about Crossrail not being used to run
intercity services are missing the point - it's essentially going to be a
new express tubeline, not an addition to the national railway networks.
Considered like that I think it's a great idea - the Shenfield line is one
of the busiest NR lines in London, the Isle of Dogs and City Airport need
(another) fast link to the West End, as does Heathrow. I'm sure that'll be
far more useful to more people than express trains from Norwich to
Bristol.

Okay, non-Londoners may like the idea of being able to get train services
direct to the West End without changing, but so do those who live in the
suburbs; and in terms of the number of journeys made, and the proportion
of
journey time wasted on changing, I suspect that you can save far more time
by building new suburban lines than intercity ones.

Numerically you may be right, but the recent cross-London trains in that
direction showed there was a demand, even though the actual service was slow
and infrequent.

I actually think Thameslink 2000 should be focused on suburban services as
well - perhaps taking high frequency services to Orpington, Dartford and
Hayes and increasing that on the Wimbledon loop. A few regional services
could still be run, but I would have thought that a larger population of
regular commuters could be better served by keeping the service pattern
simple and local.

Once again Thameslink has been quite successful with fast(ish) trains from
Luton to Brighton. If that could be expanded to give one or two trains an
hour from Peterborough to suitable destinations in Kent, Surrey or Sussex I
should have thought that would be useful.

As a Northerner I don't know exactly what proportion of the congestion in
Central London is caused by people having to change stations to complete
their journeys, but I should have thought there would be enough demand to
justify (say) one or two trains an hour on each route, allowing passengers
to avoid the London Termini and relieving congestion on the Tube. That
still allows plenty of capacity for short-distance commuter trains as well.

Roger

Okay, non-Londoners may like the idea of being able to get train
services direct to the West End without changing, but so do those who
live in the suburbs; and in terms of the number of journeys made, and
the proportion of journey time wasted on changing, I suspect that you
can save far more time by building new suburban lines than intercity ones.

Numerically you may be right, but the recent cross-London trains in that
direction showed there was a demand, even though the actual service was slow
and infrequent.

I actually think Thameslink 2000 should be focused on suburban services as
well - perhaps taking high frequency services to Orpington, Dartford and
Hayes and increasing that on the Wimbledon loop. A few regional services
could still be run, but I would have thought that a larger population of
regular commuters could be better served by keeping the service pattern
simple and local.

Once again Thameslink has been quite successful with fast(ish) trains from
Luton to Brighton. If that could be expanded to give one or two trains an
hour from Peterborough to suitable destinations in Kent, Surrey or Sussex I
should have thought that would be useful.

That's the basic plan for Thameslink 2000.

As a Northerner I don't know exactly what proportion of the congestion in
Central London is caused by people having to change stations to complete
their journeys, but I should have thought there would be enough demand to
justify (say) one or two trains an hour on each route, allowing passengers
to avoid the London Termini and relieving congestion on the Tube. That
still allows plenty of capacity for short-distance commuter trains as well.

It depends on whether your referring to regional journeys (e.g. those
from, say, Peterborough/Cambridge/etc.) or 'InterCity' type journeys.

Cross-London regional journeys are difficult to make at present, so
Crossrail, TL2K and more effective use of the Willesden Junc-Clapham
route will help that - although the latter route probably suffers
because it avoids central London.

For InterCity-type journeys, then people may have the alternative of
using Virgin's Cross Country network of trains, instead of needing to
travel via London.



--
Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
...
It depends on whether your referring to regional journeys (e.g. those
from, say, Peterborough/Cambridge/etc.) or 'InterCity' type journeys.

Cross-London regional journeys are difficult to make at present, so
Crossrail, TL2K and more effective use of the Willesden Junc-Clapham
route will help that - although the latter route probably suffers
because it avoids central London.

For InterCity-type journeys, then people may have the alternative of
using Virgin's Cross Country network of trains, instead of needing to
travel via London.

I was thinking of intercity journeys but not necessarily intercity trains.
A regional train from Peterborough or Cambridge, with limited stops, could
provide a more attractive alternative than going to Kings Cross, changing to
the Tube, then changing again at another London terminus.

Roger

AFAIK there is no Cross Country service from the east side of the country to
the south-east or even the south coast, except via Birmingham. And (re
Crossrail) there is no direct service from Essex/East Anglia to anywhere
south of Birmingham, except via London.

Roger H. Bennett writes
Cross-London regional journeys are difficult to make at present, so
Crossrail, TL2K and more effective use of the Willesden Junc-Clapham
route will help that - although the latter route probably suffers
because it avoids central London.

I was thinking of intercity journeys but not necessarily intercity
trains. A regional train from Peterborough or Cambridge, with limited
stops, could provide a more attractive alternative than going to Kings
Cross, changing to the Tube, then changing again at another London
terminus.

Those are what are what is meant by 'regional' journeys.

--
Dave

"Roger H. Bennett" writes:

[29 lines snipped]

Once again Thameslink has been quite successful

Only if "successful" includes being the least reliable TOC in the
country, according to the SRA.


--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
The uk.transport FAQ; http://www.huge.org.uk/transport/FAQ.html
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

"Dave" wrote in message
...
I was thinking of intercity journeys but not necessarily intercity
trains. A regional train from Peterborough or Cambridge, with limited
stops, could provide a more attractive alternative than going to Kings
Cross, changing to the Tube, then changing again at another London
terminus.

Those are what are what is meant by 'regional' journeys.

Sorry, I meant to say a more attractive alternative to passengers from
Yorkshire, the North-East, etc., changing at Peterborough, Hitchin or the
like onto a fast cross-London train. Much as is available to passengers
from the East Midlands by changing at Luton.

Roger

In article , Dave
wrote:
Roger H. Bennett writes
Cross-London regional journeys are difficult to make at present, so
Crossrail, TL2K and more effective use of the Willesden Junc-Clapham
route will help that - although the latter route probably suffers
because it avoids central London.

I was thinking of intercity journeys but not necessarily intercity
trains. A regional train from Peterborough or Cambridge, with limited
stops, could provide a more attractive alternative than going to Kings
Cross, changing to the Tube, then changing again at another London
terminus.

Those are what are what is meant by 'regional' journeys.

We already have Thameslink services from Brighton to Bedford. When the
Bedford electrification is extended northwards, as surely it must be
in the end, I would think that the Brighton service would follow, so
we would have a service Brighton, London, St Albans, Luton, Bedord,
Leicester, Nottingham, Sheffield. That seems to have reasonable
commercial potential.

Michael Bell

--

In article , Huge wrote:
Only if "successful" includes being the least reliable TOC in the
country, according to the SRA.

Figures which were, in my opinion, intollerably deceptive.

There's a big difference between a TOC that can deliver one train an hour
with every train on time and one that delivers eight trains an hour with
every train five minutes late.

Dave
--
Email: MSN Messenger: