This was in the Metro taday and I think was in the Standard yesterday.
Just wondered what the Harrow-Rickmansworth stopping patterns refers
to. I know that all fast Met line trains have to cross over the slow
lines at Harrow on the Hill but I can't see what other bottleneck there
is.
It also describes Willesden as a bottleneck. What are they referring to
here?
Kevin

Kev wrote:
This was in the Metro taday and I think was in the Standard yesterday.
Just wondered what the Harrow-Rickmansworth stopping patterns refers
to. I know that all fast Met line trains have to cross over the slow
lines at Harrow on the Hill but I can't see what other bottleneck there
is.
It also describes Willesden as a bottleneck. What are they referring to
here?
Kevin

This was also in the Times yesterday. see:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...874489,00.html
&
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...874541,00.html

Transport for London (TfL) is drawing up a plan for the railways to cope
with a rapidly expanding population. A version of the plan, seen by The
Times, states: “Without effective intervention the situation will
deteriorate . . . resulting in severe overcrowding across most of
London’s rail corridors.”

Jim Chisholm

J. Chisholm wrote:
Kev wrote:
This was in the Metro taday and I think was in the Standard yesterday.
Just wondered what the Harrow-Rickmansworth stopping patterns refers
to. I know that all fast Met line trains have to cross over the slow
lines at Harrow on the Hill but I can't see what other bottleneck there
is.
It also describes Willesden as a bottleneck. What are they referring to
here?
Kevin

This was also in the Times yesterday. see:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...874489,00.html
&
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...874541,00.html

Transport for London (TfL) is drawing up a plan for the railways to cope
with a rapidly expanding population. A version of the plan, seen by The
Times, states: "Without effective intervention the situation will
deteriorate . . . resulting in severe overcrowding across most of
London's rail corridors."

Jim Chisholm

Rather worrying that they only just seemed to have grasped the
significance of this.

Kevin

On 17 Nov 2005 02:35:25 -0800, "Kev" wrote:

This was in the Metro taday and I think was in the Standard yesterday.
Just wondered what the Harrow-Rickmansworth stopping patterns refers
to. I know that all fast Met line trains have to cross over the slow
lines at Harrow on the Hill

....only in the eastbound direction...

but I can't see what other bottleneck there is.

There's been discussion in this group previously about the problems of
peak-hour fast Chiltern services (that run non-stop between Harrow and
Amersham) getting stuck behind Met trains, but I can't see what they'd
do about this between Harrow and Rickmansworth - remove the Moor Park
stop from Met trains on the fast lines, maybe?

It also describes Willesden as a bottleneck. What are they referring to
here?

At a guess, the fact that NLL and WLL trains have to use the same
platforms, meaning they often have to wait outside the station. This
can only get worse if frequency increases ever happen. Or perhaps it's
the fact that the short platforms restrict train lengths for the whole
of the NLL and WLL. A solution would be to remodel the entire High
Level station, with longer platforms and a west-facing bay for the
WLL.

asdf wrote:

At a guess, the fact that NLL and WLL trains have to use the same
platforms, meaning they often have to wait outside the station. This
can only get worse if frequency increases ever happen. Or perhaps it's
the fact that the short platforms restrict train lengths for the whole
of the NLL and WLL. A solution would be to remodel the entire High
Level station, with longer platforms and a west-facing bay for the
WLL.
I was wondering if it was something to do with the high level station.
It strikes me that Willesden is in need of the low level platforms to
be reinstated making a proper interchange.
That way platforms could be built on the low level for WLL and Southern
trains.
Who in their right mind gets off a Silverlink County train at Watford
or Harrow to trundle down to Willesden on a Metro to get the NLL or WLL
train.
It would also be an ideal place to change to the Bakerloo if you were
going to Paddington.
I think that would be much better money spent than the incredibley
expensive Croxley link.

Kevin

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:12:11 -0000, "londoncityslicker"
wrote:


"Kev" wrote in message
oups.com...
This was in the Metro taday and I think was in the Standard yesterday.
Just wondered what the Harrow-Rickmansworth stopping patterns refers
to. I know that all fast Met line trains have to cross over the slow
lines at Harrow on the Hill but I can't see what other bottleneck there
is.
It also describes Willesden as a bottleneck. What are they referring to
here?
Kevin


Tfl want to get control of National Rail in London.

Not exactly a secret though is it?

By highlighting all the problems (which they could've done by just reading
this NG) they are raising the profile of TfL.

All organisations jostle for position over big issues like this. The
rail industry reps weren't backwards in coming forwards to defend their
position. The contrast is that the rail industry players talk a lot and
produce very little and yet TfL are at least proposing to do something
on a big scale to make things better. The only rail franchises I have
any time for in terms of their "vision" are GNER, Virgin and Chiltern.
The rest are a waste of space in terms of any real innovation.

In reality though, there is no funding for the improvements, doing the lot
will cost billions.

Yes - and? Are you saying that London and the South East be condemned
to yet more decades of ever worsening rail congestion and delays? Money
*has* to be spent to improve matters. There are no short cuts left -
all the easy stuff to improve reliability has been squeezed out of all
of the franchises.

To my mind all TfL are doing is applying the basic DLR model to other
parts of the rail network - tackle capacity issues with a blend of
service pattern changes, signal enhancement, longer trains, amended
infrastructure and in some cases extensions where they can be justified.
Apart from the odd minor moan I don't read about a lot of problems with
the DLR operation. This is in spite of the fact that the day to say
operation is franchised, the core network is owned in the public sector
and two extensions are effectively PPPs with a third under construction
on the same basis. Goes to show that these sorts of arrangements can be
made to work.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Kev wrote:
This was in the Metro taday and I think was in the Standard yesterday.
Just wondered what the Harrow-Rickmansworth stopping patterns refers
to. I know that all fast Met line trains have to cross over the slow
lines at Harrow on the Hill but I can't see what other bottleneck there
is.
It also describes Willesden as a bottleneck. What are they referring to
here?
Kevin


The bottleneck at Elmers End stood out for me - I'm not entirely sure
where they got that one from!

Cheers

Steve M

(Admits to working for TfL, seeing as there seem to be a fair few LUL
staff on here!)

5. Kev
Nov 17, 2:23 pm show options

Newsgroups: uk.transport.london
From: "Kev" - Find messages by this author
Date: 17 Nov 2005 06:23:36 -0800
Local: Thurs, Nov 17 2005 2:23 pm
Subject: TfL Bottleneck Plan
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse



asdf wrote:

At a guess, the fact that NLL and WLL trains have to use the same
platforms, meaning they often have to wait outside the station. This
can only get worse if frequency increases ever happen. Or perhaps it's
the fact that the short platforms restrict train lengths for the whole
of the NLL and WLL. A solution would be to remodel the entire High
Level station, with longer platforms and a west-facing bay for the
WLL.



I was wondering if it was something to do with the high level station.
It strikes me that Willesden is in need of the low level platforms to
be reinstated making a proper interchange.
That way platforms could be built on the low level for WLL and Southern

trains.
Who in their right mind gets off a Silverlink County train at Watford
or Harrow to trundle down to Willesden on a Metro to get the NLL or WLL

train.
It would also be an ideal place to change to the Bakerloo if you were
going to Paddington.
I think that would be much better money spent than the incredibley
expensive Croxley link.


The Croxley Link wouldn't be so incredibly expensive, if the costs
quoted weren't just another reason to not go ahead with it!
Real cost of the Croxley Link would only be a fraction of the cost of
an interchange at Willesden Junction.

It must be pointed out, Herr Ken & TfL have no say or influence on
what Network Rail may or may not wish to do with lines in London!




On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:47:51 +0000, Steve M
wrote:

Kev wrote:
This was in the Metro taday and I think was in the Standard yesterday.
Just wondered what the Harrow-Rickmansworth stopping patterns refers
to. I know that all fast Met line trains have to cross over the slow
lines at Harrow on the Hill but I can't see what other bottleneck there
is.
It also describes Willesden as a bottleneck. What are they referring to
here?
Kevin


The bottleneck at Elmers End stood out for me - I'm not entirely sure
where they got that one from!

Cheers

Steve M

(Admits to working for TfL, seeing as there seem to be a fair few LUL
staff on here!)

"Christine" wrote in message
...
It must be pointed out, Herr Ken & TfL have no say or influence on
what Network Rail may or may not wish to do with lines in London!

The following Acts have provisions for him to do just that:

Greater London Authority Act 1999
The Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003