|
East London Line update
Hi, Can anyone tell me what the official (or unofficial) word is on when the southern extension of the East London Line Project will be complete? It seems to change every time I read a different article. Thanks, JM. |
East London Line update
"Mcrith" wrote in message ps.com... Hi, Can anyone tell me what the official (or unofficial) word is on when the southern extension of the East London Line Project will be complete? It seems to change every time I read a different article. Thanks, JM. Latest official stuff giving dates on their site is: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/rail/downloads...pdate17.08.pdf Of course the site generally hasn't changed much over the last year, with the lead item still being Ken announcing that TfL are now responsible (November 2004)! Paul |
East London Line update
Paul Scott wrote on Thu, 15 Sep 2005
"Mcrith" wrote in message ups.com... Can anyone tell me what the official (or unofficial) word is on when the southern extension of the East London Line Project will be complete? It seems to change every time I read a different article. Latest official stuff giving dates on their site is: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/rail/downloads...pdate17.08.pdf Of course the site generally hasn't changed much over the last year, with the lead item still being Ken announcing that TfL are now responsible (November 2004)! Was it not once planned to go through Peckham Rye? When and why was that plan changed? -- Iain Archer To email, please use Reply-To address |
East London Line update
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:44:57 +0100, Iain Archer
wrote: Was it not once planned to go through Peckham Rye? When and why was that plan changed? That's part of Phase 2. There is apparently no date specified for the completion (or even start of construction) of Phase 2. Perhaps it depends on the success of Phase 1 (which is supposed to be completed in 2010). |
East London Line update
In message , Iain Archer
writes Was it not once planned to go through Peckham Rye? It still is - on the way to Clapham Junction. When and why was that plan changed? I don't think it has changed - although the Clapham Junction line is Phase 2 of the scheme, not Phase 1, and dates for Phase 2 seem a bit vague! -- Paul Terry |
East London Line update
Paul Terry wrote: In message , Iain Archer writes Was it not once planned to go through Peckham Rye? It still is - on the way to Clapham Junction. When and why was that plan changed? I don't think it has changed - although the Clapham Junction line is Phase 2 of the scheme, not Phase 1, and dates for Phase 2 seem a bit vague! -- Paul Terry Maybe I'm missing something here , but given the southern section isn't actually a "line" but simply a route over pre-existing tracks , what exactly is the problem? They could send it to dover via bournemouth if they were so inclined. Seems to me all it requires is some pen pusher to rubber stamp it and a team of workers to spend a weekend putting some connecting track in at new cross and thats that. The hard parts as far as I can see are building the northern part and converting the current LUL line to 3rd rail. B2003 |
East London Line update
"Boltar" wrote in message ups.com... Maybe I'm missing something here , but given the southern section isn't actually a "line" but simply a route over pre-existing tracks , what exactly is the problem? They could send it to dover via bournemouth if they were so inclined. Seems to me all it requires is some pen pusher to rubber stamp it and a team of workers to spend a weekend putting some connecting track in at new cross and thats that. The hard parts as far as I can see are building the northern part and converting the current LUL line to 3rd rail. B2003 I understand there is a short stretch at Surrey Canal Rd, where the track and junctions needs to be reinstated, not sure if the formation is still available; and a modern 'gold plated' station built. Funding for this is not yet earmarked but may be in 2006/8 or sometime... Paul |
East London Line update
Well , I suspect there'll be a fair amount of renewing. IMO
tho extending the ELL south is a bad idea anyway. It should have been kept as a self contained LUL line with a northern extension, making it run on the crowded south london network rail tracks is only going to make a timetable disaster whatever they brag about 10 trains an hour (or whatever it is this week). Would have been far easier (and cheaper , they could have kept the same trains, saved on 3rd rail conversion etc etc) to just make better interconnecting services at New Cross and New Cross Gate. Next they'll be having C2C takiing over the District line to Upminster. B2003 |
East London Line update
Exactly, having multiple southern end destinations all with varying
journey times is a nightmare for timetable compilation and reliability and will prevent 'tube' levels of frequency on the individual branches. It was bad enough when the individual ELL termini had a 20 min evening service, if you just missed a train at the 'Cross' at night, you could walk to the 'Gate' only to just miss that departure too 10 mins' later! Far better a combined service running to one or other only but then no good for the BR interchange. |
East London Line update
"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com... IMO tho extending the ELL south is a bad idea anyway. It should have been kept as a self contained LUL line with a northern extension Except that the new large depot will be at Selhurst. -- 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 |
East London Line update
In article . com,
Boltar writes Seems to me all it requires is some pen pusher to rubber stamp it and a team of workers to spend a weekend putting some connecting track in at new cross and thats that. Not as simple as that: the line is four track paired by direction, so northbound trains would have to cross the other three running lines to reach the ELL alignment. That direction is going to require a new flyover. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
East London Line update
Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
Northbound trains would have to cross the other three running lines to reach the ELL alignment. That direction is going to require a new flyover. Correct. At the Infrarail O5 RCEA seminar in Manchester last week Parsons Brinkerhof, the project managers for ELL briefed on the project status. Major works on the phase 1 line include turn back facilities at West Croydon, restoration of the bay(s) at Crystal Palace - (some ongoing discusion concerning restoration of the ticket hall0, construction of a grade separated junction north of New Cross Gate linking the LBSCR up slow to the north bound ELL - possibly beginning on the old carriage road alignment. Extensive stabling north of New Cross Gate - New Cross LUL depot to close. Resignalling to Network Rail standards and slab track installation on the old ELL. North of Whitechapel a 1 in 30 gradient over a Warren truss girder bridge at GE19 just east of Liverpool Street. This will be installed during an 8 day Christmas Blockade of Liverpool Street. Shades of the City Thameslink - Blackfriars ski jump ramp. Crossing Bishopsgate goods yard on to the North London arches to Dalston. Taylor Woodrow are refurbishing the arches.Bridges have been removed and bridge bash barriers installed to stop heavy goods vehicles and buses using side roads that will eventually have new rail bridges installed. Some ongoing debate about who will own the infrastructure Network Rail or TfL - HMRI may well have views on split ownership of the line. Phase 2 timing not yet finalised but probably after Olympics as Crystal Palace is IIRC an Olympic venue. regards Bob |
East London Line update
IMO tho extending the ELL south is a bad
idea anyway. It should have been kept as a self contained LUL line with a northern extension Except that the new large depot will be at Selhurst. Well if it had been kept as an LUL line they wouldn't have needed a new large depot would they? B2003 |
East London Line update
|
East London Line update
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:03:47 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote: Exactly, having multiple southern end destinations all with varying journey times is a nightmare for timetable compilation and reliability and will prevent 'tube' levels of frequency on the individual branches. I thought the frequencies on the ELLX branches were going to be every 10 minutes peaks and daytimes? Every 15, according to the TfL website: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/rail/initiativ...services.shtml |
East London Line update
"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com... ] IMO tho extending the ELL south is a bad idea anyway. It should have been kept as a self contained LUL line with a northern extension Except that the new large depot will be at Selhurst. Well if it had been kept as an LUL line they wouldn't have needed a new large depot would they? Yes they would, the northern extension plus the increased frequency necessitate (off the top of my head) a quadrupling of the fleet size. -- 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 |
East London Line update
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, Paul Corfield wrote:
On 16 Sep 2005 15:31:45 -0700, wrote: Exactly, having multiple southern end destinations all with varying journey times is a nightmare for timetable compilation and reliability and will prevent 'tube' levels of frequency on the individual branches. I thought the frequencies on the ELLX branches were going to be every 10 minutes peaks and daytimes? This is the same frequency as offered on a number of Tube services such as the Met to Watford, Uxbridge, Rayners Lane branch of the Picc, Mill Hill East branch. Yes, all of which are pitiful services. Even so, they are perhaps appropriate to the places those line serve: Watford and Uxbridge are essentially outside London, the Rayner's branch of the Picc also has the Met, and Mill Hill East isn't exactly a dense hub of population. The ELLX, on the other hand, is going to be serving some extremely densely populated parts of south and east London, areas which really deserve and currently lack high-frequency tube-style services. It was bad enough when the individual ELL termini had a 20 min evening service, if you just missed a train at the 'Cross' at night, you could walk to the 'Gate' only to just miss that departure too 10 mins' later! Far better a combined service running to one or other only but then no good for the BR interchange. This simply reduces the utility of the rail network and certainly does nothing to improve the lot of people needing to travel into Docklands and East London from South London. What? Would you care to explain the reasoning behind that? The DLR has shown that a properly run cross river link will be immensely popular. Absolutely - which is why it needs high frequencies. Anyway, imagine you are in control, which branch would you opt not to serve and why? New Cross. If you're near New Cross and need the ELL, walk to New Cross Gate; if you're on a NR train coming into New Cross and need the ELL, change at the Surrey Canal Road/Deptford Park station various people have proposed. tom -- the logical extension of a zero-infinity nightmare topology |
East London Line update
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 21:02:32 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote: On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, Paul Corfield wrote: On 16 Sep 2005 15:31:45 -0700, wrote: Exactly, having multiple southern end destinations all with varying journey times is a nightmare for timetable compilation and reliability and will prevent 'tube' levels of frequency on the individual branches. I thought the frequencies on the ELLX branches were going to be every 10 minutes peaks and daytimes? This is the same frequency as offered on a number of Tube services such as the Met to Watford, Uxbridge, Rayners Lane branch of the Picc, Mill Hill East branch. Yes, all of which are pitiful services. Even so, they are perhaps appropriate to the places those line serve: Watford and Uxbridge are essentially outside London, the Rayner's branch of the Picc also has the Met, and Mill Hill East isn't exactly a dense hub of population. The service via South Harrow, Sudbury etc (which is what I meant when I referred to the Rayners Lane branch) is only served by the Picc Line. I think we will simply have to disagree about a 10 minute service being pitiful. 20 minute headways - fairly typical for NR - is what I would call pitiful. The ELLX, on the other hand, is going to be serving some extremely densely populated parts of south and east London, areas which really deserve and currently lack high-frequency tube-style services. Having looked again there will be 8 trains an hour north of Sydenham and then a train every 5 minutes north of Surrey Quays to Dalston. I think that is pretty good really. It was bad enough when the individual ELL termini had a 20 min evening service, if you just missed a train at the 'Cross' at night, you could walk to the 'Gate' only to just miss that departure too 10 mins' later! Far better a combined service running to one or other only but then no good for the BR interchange. This simply reduces the utility of the rail network and certainly does nothing to improve the lot of people needing to travel into Docklands and East London from South London. What? Would you care to explain the reasoning behind that? The person I was responding to suggested that either NX or NXG branch be closed. I was disagreeing and saying that to shut one of them reduces the potential for people to make sensible connections with NR services. Not every train via NX stops at Lewisham for the DLR so therefore there will be people wishing to use the ELL to get to Canada Water or Shadwell for connections into Docklands. Forcing people to wander round the streets of New Cross or go via London Bridge and Zone 1 to change onto a tube service doesn't strike me as very sensible. The DLR has shown that a properly run cross river link will be immensely popular. Absolutely - which is why it needs high frequencies. Anyway, imagine you are in control, which branch would you opt not to serve and why? New Cross. If you're near New Cross and need the ELL, walk to New Cross Gate; if you're on a NR train coming into New Cross and need the ELL, change at the Surrey Canal Road/Deptford Park station various people have proposed. This proposed station is part of Phase 2 and does not seem to have any connection whatsoever with any National Rail services. Having looked at a map it is also a very long walk from New Cross. I don't think this is a sensible option at all. -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
East London Line update
"Bob Robinson" wrote in message
oups.com... At the Infrarail O5 RCEA seminar in Manchester last week Parsons Brinkerhof, the project managers for ELL briefed on the project status. Extensive stabling north of New Cross Gate - New Cross LUL depot to close. Oh! So the Selhurst depot is no longer part of the plan. I wonder why the change? Is this because the planned frequency has dropped from 18tph to 12tph, so the depot requirement has shrunk? -- 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 |
East London Line update
John Rowland wrote:
"Bob Robinson" wrote in message oups.com... At the Infrarail O5 RCEA seminar in Manchester last week Parsons Brinkerhof, the project managers for ELL briefed on the project status. Extensive stabling north of New Cross Gate - New Cross LUL depot to close. Oh! So the Selhurst depot is no longer part of the plan. I wonder why the change? Is this because the planned frequency has dropped from 18tph to 12tph, so the depot requirement has shrunk? I also wonder at the closure of New Cross Depot - if Wapping and Rotherhithe are to remain open for Phase 1, New Cross is well suited for maintaining the stock that could be used for the 'short train' service for these two stations. In this way you could run a Dalston-New Cross service using the four-car 'short train' stock and the normal Dalston-Croydon services using normal-length trains that skip the two stations on either side of the tunnel. It sounds sensible, which means that it will be deemed too hard/expensive/confusing/difficult and thus discarded. |
East London Line update
John Rowland wrote: Oh! So the Selhurst depot is no longer part of the plan. I wonder why the change? Is this because the planned frequency has dropped from 18tph to 12tph, so the depot requirement has shrunk? TheOneKEA wrote: I also wonder at the closure of New Cross Depot - if Wapping and Rotherhithe are to remain open for Phase 1, New Cross is well suited for maintaining the stock that could be used for the 'short train' service for these two stations. In this way you could run a Dalston-New Cross service using the four-car 'short train' stock and the normal Dalston-Croydon services using normal-length trains that skip the two stations on either side of the tunnel. Andrew Shepherd of Parsons Brinckerhoff spoke of stabling sidings north of New Cross Gate and did not refer to a depot. Four coach trains will be the normal formation on the line. IIRC it is not only Rotherhithe and Wapping affected by short platforms - isn't Canada Water also short and on a gradient? |
East London Line update
Bob Robinson wrote:
Andrew Shepherd of Parsons Brinckerhoff spoke of stabling sidings north of New Cross Gate and did not refer to a depot. But he did say that New Cross LUL Depot will be closed. I was merely stating that it could be kept open and used to maintain stock used for serving the short stations. Four coach trains will be the normal formation on the line. Say what? I thought the 458s or 365s were headed for the ELLX; are the four-car formations of either short enough to fit in Wapping and Rotherhithe? IIRC it is not only Rotherhithe and Wapping affected by short platforms - isn't Canada Water also short and on a gradient? Indeed. I believe it had to get especial HMRI approval, including lots of interesting signalling to trip rolling trains. |
East London Line update
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, Barry Salter wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:33:37 +0100, "John Rowland" wrote: the "Rolling Stock Prequalification Briefing Document" specifies a minimum of 18 EMUs, no more than 83 metres over couplers (IOW, no more than 4x20m vehicles per unit) So is the plan at the moment to run the extended ELL with 4-car trains throughout forever? How many of the stations are capable of taking 6- or 8-car trains? Or being converted to do so? Is it just Rotherhithe, Wapping and Surrey Keys that are problematic? Will the new stations be built with (room for) 8-car platforms? Anyone got any idea? I fear a repeat of the 2-car DLR fiasco. tom -- double mashed, future mashed, millennium mashed; man it was mashed |
East London Line update
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 21:02:32 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote: On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, Paul Corfield wrote: On 16 Sep 2005 15:31:45 -0700, wrote: Exactly, having multiple southern end destinations all with varying journey times is a nightmare for timetable compilation and reliability and will prevent 'tube' levels of frequency on the individual branches. I thought the frequencies on the ELLX branches were going to be every 10 minutes peaks and daytimes? This is the same frequency as offered on a number of Tube services such as the Met to Watford, Uxbridge, Rayners Lane branch of the Picc, Mill Hill East branch. Yes, all of which are pitiful services. Even so, they are perhaps appropriate to the places those line serve: Watford and Uxbridge are essentially outside London, the Rayner's branch of the Picc also has the Met, and Mill Hill East isn't exactly a dense hub of population. The service via South Harrow, Sudbury etc (which is what I meant when I referred to the Rayners Lane branch) is only served by the Picc Line. Ah, of course, sorry. I think we will simply have to disagree about a 10 minute service being pitiful. 20 minute headways - fairly typical for NR - is what I would call pitiful. I think what constitutes pitiful varies according to context - for somewhere like Sudbury Town that's out in the sticks (and served by fast mainline trains into town), a train every 10 minutes might well be enough. For somewhere like Holloway Road, which is closer in and more densely populated, it wouldn't be. The question is whether the demand on the ELL is going to be more like Sudbury or Holloway. I have to admit that i think demand isn't going to be that heavy - the line serves some very densely populated areas, but i don't see any heavyweight destinations on it - so perhaps 6 tph will be enough. On the other hand, TfL and plenty of pundits seem to think it's going be heavily used, in which case 10 tph (especially with 4-car trains) is going to look pretty silly. It was bad enough when the individual ELL termini had a 20 min evening service, if you just missed a train at the 'Cross' at night, you could walk to the 'Gate' only to just miss that departure too 10 mins' later! Far better a combined service running to one or other only but then no good for the BR interchange. This simply reduces the utility of the rail network and certainly does nothing to improve the lot of people needing to travel into Docklands and East London from South London. What? Would you care to explain the reasoning behind that? The person I was responding to suggested that either NX or NXG branch be closed. I was disagreeing and saying that to shut one of them reduces the potential for people to make sensible connections with NR services. Not every train via NX stops at Lewisham for the DLR so therefore there will be people wishing to use the ELL to get to Canada Water or Shadwell for connections into Docklands. Forcing people to wander round the streets of New Cross or go via London Bridge and Zone 1 to change onto a tube service doesn't strike me as very sensible. The flip side is that the service to the surviving branch would be twice as frequent. Anyway, imagine you are in control, which branch would you opt not to serve and why? New Cross. If you're near New Cross and need the ELL, walk to New Cross Gate; if you're on a NR train coming into New Cross and need the ELL, change at the Surrey Canal Road/Deptford Park station various people have proposed. This proposed station is part of Phase 2 True. I'd happily keep the NX branch open until phase 2 was done. and does not seem to have any connection whatsoever with any National Rail services. Having looked at a map it is also a very long walk from New Cross. I don't think this is a sensible option at all. The idea was to move it north a bit and build an interchange station where the Clapham Junction branch crosses the mainline, with platforms on both lines - you wouldn't walk from New Cross, you'd stay on your train until Deptford Park, get off there, then catch an ELL train. I came across the government's opinions on this idea - apparently, the disbenefit to mainline passengers going to or from central London resulting from the delay caused by the extra stop vastly outweighs the benefit to those wanting to change. I haven't seen the details of the analysis, though, so i'm not entirely convinced. Sigh. The railways in this country really are a pain. Why didn't someone build a station at Southwark Park with platforms on *all* the suburban lines out of London Bridge, then run the ELL to it along under Rotherhithe New Road? Oh yes, because all the lines were built by different companies which all wanted to destroy each other ... tom -- double mashed, future mashed, millennium mashed; man it was mashed |
East London Line update
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 00:06:14 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote: So is the plan at the moment to run the extended ELL with 4-car trains throughout forever? How many of the stations are capable of taking 6- or 8-car trains? Or being converted to do so? Is it just Rotherhithe, Wapping and Surrey Keys that are problematic? Will the new stations be built with (room for) 8-car platforms? Anyone got any idea? I fear a repeat of the 2-car DLR fiasco. IIRC, whether Phase 2 will be 4-car or longer (and thus the future of Wapping/Rotherhithe, which would be extremely expensive to extend) is as yet undecided. |
East London Line update
Barry Salter wrote:
I think I'm right in saying that *all* of the ELL stations have a useable length of 4 cars, even the relatively "new" Canada Water. And most of the North London Line stations are limited to 3 cars at present... Cheers, Barry Not quite. Whitechapel, Shadwell, Surrey Quays and New Cross Gate can all take eight-car trains - they all have pieces of platform that are out of use at the moment and can be easily brought back into use. |
East London Line update
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, Paul Corfield wrote: On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 21:02:32 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote: On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, Paul Corfield wrote: On 16 Sep 2005 15:31:45 -0700, wrote: Exactly, having multiple southern end destinations all with varying journey times is a nightmare for timetable compilation and reliability and will prevent 'tube' levels of frequency on the individual branches. I thought the frequencies on the ELLX branches were going to be every 10 minutes peaks and daytimes? This is the same frequency as offered on a number of Tube services such as the Met to Watford, Uxbridge, Rayners Lane branch of the Picc, Mill Hill East branch. Yes, all of which are pitiful services. Even so, they are perhaps appropriate to the places those line serve: Watford and Uxbridge are essentially outside London, the Rayner's branch of the Picc also has the Met, and Mill Hill East isn't exactly a dense hub of population. The service via South Harrow, Sudbury etc (which is what I meant when I referred to the Rayners Lane branch) is only served by the Picc Line. Ah, of course, sorry. I think we will simply have to disagree about a 10 minute service being pitiful. 20 minute headways - fairly typical for NR - is what I would call pitiful. I think what constitutes pitiful varies according to context - for somewhere like Sudbury Town that's out in the sticks (and served by fast mainline trains into town), a train every 10 minutes might well be enough. For somewhere like Holloway Road, which is closer in and more densely populated, it wouldn't be. The question is whether the demand on the ELL is going to be more like Sudbury or Holloway. I have to admit that i think demand isn't going to be that heavy - the line serves some very densely populated areas, but i don't see any heavyweight destinations on it - so perhaps 6 tph will be enough. On the other hand, TfL and plenty of pundits seem to think it's going be heavily used, in which case 10 tph (especially with 4-car trains) is going to look pretty silly. The major destination on the line is likely to be Shoreditch High Street, as it serves a large number of employment locations on the City fringe which were previously a ten minute walk or so from the nearest stations at Old St and Liverpool St. Canada Water will also be fairly significant, for people heading to Canary Wharf. I think some 5,000 passengers per hour were expected to switch from journeys via London Bridge (and Waterloo, if/when Phase 2 occurs) to using the ELL to Canada Water. Although initially a 6tph service will probably be fine (although fairly busy during the peaks, I should imagine - even during Phase 1), I believe the plan is to encourage new development at the key interchanges along the line, allowing it to underpin inner-London densification. The key place for this will be Whitechapel, which will become a fairly strategic interchange when Crossrail opens. It was bad enough when the individual ELL termini had a 20 min evening service, if you just missed a train at the 'Cross' at night, you could walk to the 'Gate' only to just miss that departure too 10 mins' later! Far better a combined service running to one or other only but then no good for the BR interchange. This simply reduces the utility of the rail network and certainly does nothing to improve the lot of people needing to travel into Docklands and East London from South London. What? Would you care to explain the reasoning behind that? The person I was responding to suggested that either NX or NXG branch be closed. I was disagreeing and saying that to shut one of them reduces the potential for people to make sensible connections with NR services. Not every train via NX stops at Lewisham for the DLR so therefore there will be people wishing to use the ELL to get to Canada Water or Shadwell for connections into Docklands. Forcing people to wander round the streets of New Cross or go via London Bridge and Zone 1 to change onto a tube service doesn't strike me as very sensible. The flip side is that the service to the surviving branch would be twice as frequent. Anyway, imagine you are in control, which branch would you opt not to serve and why? New Cross. If you're near New Cross and need the ELL, walk to New Cross Gate; if you're on a NR train coming into New Cross and need the ELL, change at the Surrey Canal Road/Deptford Park station various people have proposed. This proposed station is part of Phase 2 True. I'd happily keep the NX branch open until phase 2 was done. and does not seem to have any connection whatsoever with any National Rail services. Having looked at a map it is also a very long walk from New Cross. I don't think this is a sensible option at all. The idea was to move it north a bit and build an interchange station where the Clapham Junction branch crosses the mainline, with platforms on both lines - you wouldn't walk from New Cross, you'd stay on your train until Deptford Park, get off there, then catch an ELL train. I came across the government's opinions on this idea - apparently, the disbenefit to mainline passengers going to or from central London resulting from the delay caused by the extra stop vastly outweighs the benefit to those wanting to change. I haven't seen the details of the analysis, though, so i'm not entirely convinced. Such a result doesn't surprise me in the least; although the interchange would be very useful for, say, 10% of the passengers on the trains that would stop there, the other 90% of passengers just want to get to central London, and therefore if everyone's time is worth the same, then the maths is fairly obvious. It was exactly the same problem at Shoreditch High St, where a Central line interchange was mooted but dropped. Neither Shoreditch nor Deptford are easy places to build the new platforms for interchange, either - the Central line being deep tube and the Deptford lines being on a viaduct, and both having extremely busy services that would have to be maintained throughout the majority of the construction period. Sigh. The railways in this country really are a pain. Why didn't someone build a station at Southwark Park with platforms on *all* the suburban lines out of London Bridge, then run the ELL to it along under Rotherhithe New Road? Oh yes, because all the lines were built by different companies which all wanted to destroy each other ... Capitalism, eh? -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk