--- Larry Lard said...

The southern part of the East London Line extension is projected to
have 4 trains per hour each way between New Cross Gate and Crystal
Palace, and also between New Cross Gate and West Croydon. Currently,
there are some not insignificant number of suburban stopping rail
services that use these slow lines from London Bridge down through
Norwood Junction to West Croydon, and also diverging to Crystal Palace
to loop back to Victoria.

How well are these services going to coexist with an additional 8
trans per hour from the ELL?

Good question, Larry.

I live in Gipsy Hill, and I'm worried that the ELLX will mean my local
station losing its existing services to London Bridge via Sydenham,
Forest Hill, etc. Will we get extra trains via Tulse Hill to make up
for it? And what's going to happen to the Victoria half of the Forest
Hill loop? Will it be scrapped as well, leaving us with fewer Victoria
trains too? Or will it remain but be diverted to Norwood Junction and
Croydon, adding to the extra congestion that the ELLX will already be
causing there?

It's ridiculous. The ELLX will cause chaos to lines around South
London, just to allow a few people in Sydenham to get to Hoxton more
easily. Why? I can't believe Sydenham is _really_ that full of people
all saying "I wish we could get to Hoxton more easily," or vice versa.
Maybe I'm wrong, but somehow it doesn't seem right to disrupt lines that
take people where we actually want to go, just to build a line that
doesn't go anywhere useful!

--
___ _ ___ _
/ __| ___ | | __ _ _ _ | _ \ ___ _ _ __ _ _ _ (_) _ _
\__ \/ _ \| |/ _` || '_| | _// -_)| ' \ / _` || || || || ' \
|___/\___/|_|\__,_||_| |_| \___||_||_|\__, | \_,_||_||_||_|
|___/
http://www.freewebs.com/solar_penguin/

"solar penguin" wrote in
message ...

It's ridiculous. The ELLX will cause chaos to lines around South
London, just to allow a few people in Sydenham to get to Hoxton more
easily. Why? I can't believe Sydenham is _really_ that full of people
all saying "I wish we could get to Hoxton more easily," or vice versa.
Maybe I'm wrong, but somehow it doesn't seem right to disrupt lines that
take people where we actually want to go, just to build a line that
doesn't go anywhere useful!


And yet they could make it all so much more useful with just a few feet of
reinstated track if they brought back the Shoreditch-Liverpool Street curve,
and used LS as an alternate Northern terminus to Dalston or Highbury &
Islington or wherever the **** it's going to terminate.

Direct services from Croydon, Forest Hill, New Cross etc. into the City
would actually be pretty useful, and Liverpool Street easily has the
capacity to spare a couple of platforms for this purpose.

BTN

Sir Benjamin Nunn wrote:
"solar penguin" wrote in
message ...

It's ridiculous. The ELLX will cause chaos to lines around South
London, just to allow a few people in Sydenham to get to Hoxton more
easily. Why? I can't believe Sydenham is _really_ that full of people
all saying "I wish we could get to Hoxton more easily," or vice versa.
Maybe I'm wrong, but somehow it doesn't seem right to disrupt lines that
take people where we actually want to go, just to build a line that
doesn't go anywhere useful!



And yet they could make it all so much more useful with just a few feet of
reinstated track if they brought back the Shoreditch-Liverpool Street curve,
and used LS as an alternate Northern terminus to Dalston or Highbury &
Islington or wherever the **** it's going to terminate.

Direct services from Croydon, Forest Hill, New Cross etc. into the City
would actually be pretty useful, and Liverpool Street easily has the
capacity to spare a couple of platforms for this purpose.

So now Blackfriars, City Thameslink, Cannon St and the like are no
longer in the City?

NB Liverpool St station, I believe, is not actually in the City, it
stands just outside the edge, unlike the above named stations, that are
within the City of London.

Robin

R.C. Payne wrote:
NB Liverpool St station, I believe, is not actually in the City, it
stands just outside the edge, unlike the above named stations, that are
within the City of London.

Actually, it's just inside:-
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corpo...undary_map.htm

Pete.

Pete Bentley wrote:
R.C. Payne wrote:

NB Liverpool St station, I believe, is not actually in the City, it
stands just outside the edge, unlike the above named stations, that are
within the City of London.


Actually, it's just inside:-
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corpo...undary_map.htm

Interesting, my understanding was that it was outside of it (from the
whole era of no (north of the river) railways may enter the city days,
am I plain wrong, or was the boundary re-drawn to include it?

Robin

"R.C. Payne" wrote in message
...
Pete Bentley wrote:
R.C. Payne wrote:

NB Liverpool St station, I believe, is not actually in the City, it
stands just outside the edge, unlike the above named stations, that are
within the City of London.


Actually, it's just inside:-
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corpo...undary_map.htm

Interesting, my understanding was that it was outside of it (from the
whole era of no (north of the river) railways may enter the city days,
am I plain wrong, or was the boundary re-drawn to include it?

The 1846 Royal Commission recommended that no railway should enter the
central area as defined in their terms of reference (encompassing much of
the West End as well as most, but not all, of the City, though it allowed
some of the southern lines to come into the protected area.. Fenchurch
Street was already in the City. The 1863 House of Lords Committee on
Metropolitan Railway Communication considered that the GER should be allowed
to come closer than its existing Bishopsgate terminus, resulting in the
construction of Liverpool Street. Also in the late 1850s/early 1860s
Parliament approved construction of Victoria, Charing Cross, Cannon Street,
Broad Street, and the Blackfriars - Farringdon link. The Joint Committee on
Railway Schemes (Metropolis) of 1864 endorsed the Inner Circle proposal.

Peter

R.C. Payne wrote:
Pete Bentley wrote:

Actually, it's just inside:-
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corpo...undary_map.htm


Interesting, my understanding was that it was outside of it (from the
whole era of no (north of the river) railways may enter the city days,
am I plain wrong, or was the boundary re-drawn to include it?

Liverpool Street station is in the City of London and I am not aware of
any historical/political/pedantic ambiguity on this.

--
T.S. Cordiner
Columbia University, New York City.

Pete Bentley wrote:

R.C. Payne wrote:
NB Liverpool St station, I believe, is not actually in the City, it
stands just outside the edge, unlike the above named stations, that are
within the City of London.

Actually, it's just inside:-
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corpo...undary_map.htm

Its being inside the City was the reason that most royal trains to
sandringham went from Kings Cross, rather than Liverpool Street.

Apparently, if the sovereign enters the City it triggers a host of
ceremonial, with the Lord Mayor required to attend, etc.

"Chippy" wrote

Its being inside the City was the reason that most royal trains to
sandringham went from Kings Cross, rather than Liverpool Street.

Apparently, if the sovereign enters the City it triggers a host of
ceremonial, with the Lord Mayor required to attend, etc.

But not always. GFF recorded an occasion when he was waiting at LSt to meet
the Royal Train when a message came through that the arm had fallen off the
up starter at Tottenham. He was therefore surprised when the train eased in
smoothly to time. It transpired that there had been no nonsense about
cautioning the driver - a porter was despatched to scamper up the post
holding the signal arm, 'to hold it proudly in the off position while his
Sovereign went by under clear signals'.

Peter

Peter Masson wrote:

"Chippy" wrote

But not always. GFF recorded an occasion when he was waiting at LSt to meet
the Royal Train when a message came through that the arm had fallen off the
up starter at Tottenham. He was therefore surprised when the train eased in
smoothly to time. It transpired that there had been no nonsense about
cautioning the driver - a porter was despatched to scamper up the post
holding the signal arm, 'to hold it proudly in the off position while his
Sovereign went by under clear signals'.

I'll doubtless be shouted down as a heretic for saying this, but that's
the sort of story that proves that GFF was a better raconteur than he
was railwayman.