What's the advantage to
having the train waits at the terminus for most of the time???


Err - Passengers? Its not a mini cab service that goes as soon as YOU turn
up. Timetables are printed so why cant people like me look at them and use
them? OK so it goes wrong and is late etc but really its a public service
rather than turn up and go. In some parts of the country i am sure there
are only 2 trains a day etc

John B wrote:
Kev wrote:

This does sound like the thin end of the wedge. Ask people who used to
use the Watford Junc to Broad St (Liverpool St) and Watford to Croxley
service what they think of this.


OK, so in the first case a poor frequency service has been replaced
partly with the current NLL clockface 4tph timetable (set for further
improvements under TfL Rail) and will be replaced further with the ELLX
between Dalston and Shoreditch. In the second case, the link is set to
be rebuilt with more useful connections.

During London's decades of stagnation and decline, many useful rail
links were short-sightedly destroyed. The ideological antipathy of a
progression of governments and transport ministers towards public
transport didn't help matters.

However, it's now clear that the default mode for public transport in
London is one of expansion not contraction. Since Mill Hill East isn't
an Aldwych or an Ongar but somewhere with decent loadings, it would
therefore be hard to see why anyone would choose to close it...


But once it loses the through service it will have poor loadings.
Aldwych is right in the centre of London, but that didn't save it. I
don't suppose for a moment it would have closed if it had a through
service (or why not close Temple, St Pauls or Chancery Lane?).

MIG wrote:
Aldwych is right in the centre of London, but that didn't save it. I
don't suppose for a moment it would have closed if it had a through
service (or why not close Temple, St Pauls or Chancery Lane?).

Well, it closed because it wasn't very well-used and needed its lifts
replacing with ones that met modern safety standards at a cost of
£millions. The same was true for Mornington Crescent, which only
reopened because Camden Town was becoming dangerously overcrowded.

Loadings and decisions are different in Central London from outer
suburbia, though. Any Z1 non-interchange station could be closed
without significantly increasing off-peak journey times, because any
point in Z1 is only a few minutes' walk from more than one Tube
station. They stay open because closing them would reduce peak capacity
(and/or make the system less safe in the peaks).

In this context, Aldwych was completely useless: even if you worked on
the Strand itself, the walk from Holborn was quicker and easier than
messing about with the shuttle. The same would've been true if Aldwych
had had a once-every-15-mins through service like Mill Hill East: 1/4
of morning commuters would have been on the platform in time for the
through train; most of the others would have gone to Holborn rather
than waiting. In the evening, most people would've gone to Holborn
rather than risk a 15-minute wait at Aldwych.

On the other hand, the walk from Mill Hill East to Finchley Central is
long enough that the Tube is still the easier option. So the Tube from
MHE only stands a serious prospect of losing out for journeys to
stations between about East Finchley and Archway (ie where parking is
still just about possible).

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

John B wrote:

...and then on from Mill Hill East to Edgware.

Reviving the Northern Heights plan has been floating around London
officials and geeks alike for years. It would be more sensible for the
Northern Line than serving Mill Hill in the current way, which causes
delays and provides a fairly crap service (and was only built to serve
the barracks at Mill Hill during WWII...)

I thought when Mill Hill East was opened the Northern Heights plan was still
officially an option, albeit on hold, and Mill Hill East was just seen as
bringing forward part of the plan because of the war.

purple pete wrote:

What's the advantage to
having the train waits at the terminus for most of the time???


Err - Passengers?

No, when a train is waiting at the terminus it's NOT carrying passengers!

Its not a mini cab service that goes as soon as YOU turn up.

Of course it isn't - it only goes from one station to the next.

Timetables
are printed so why cant people like me look at them and use them?

ISTR passenger timetables are not printed for the Northern Line!

OK so it goes wrong and is late etc but really its a public service
rather than turn up and go.

Being turn up and go does not make it any less of a public service, and
turn up and go is better than turn up and wait!

In some parts of the country i am sure there
are only 2 trains a day etc

But does the driver wait at the terminus for longer than it actually takes
to drive the trains?

Have you actually used the trains in London?

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk

John B wrote:

In this context, Aldwych was completely useless: even if you worked on
the Strand itself, the walk from Holborn was quicker and easier than
messing about with the shuttle. The same would've been true if Aldwych
had had a once-every-15-mins through service like Mill Hill East: 1/4
of morning commuters would have been on the platform in time for the
through train; most of the others would have gone to Holborn rather
than waiting.

Does anyone know why the Aldwych branch was built in such a way as to be
useless? From recollection the southbound branch tunnel is linked to the
northbound mainline tunnel whilst the other two aren't linked at all, ruling
out both through services to Aldwych and using the branch for reversing when
there are problem south of Holborn.

I can just about understand why the station was built in the first place,
but why wasn't any attempt made to make the branch in anyway useful? Not
that a through service would have been handy in the long run, but it could
have been more viable for extensions/creating a street interchange with
Temple and so forth.

In message , Tim Roll-Pickering
writes
Does anyone know why the Aldwych branch was built in such a way as to be
useless? From recollection the southbound branch tunnel is linked to the
northbound mainline tunnel whilst the other two aren't linked at all, ruling
out both through services to Aldwych and using the branch for reversing when
there are problem south of Holborn.

Because what eventually became the Piccadilly Railway was actually
conceived as two separate lines which joined together at Holborn. The
Northern of these two had been planned to continue south to "Strand" (as
Aldwych was originally called) and was built anyway, becoming one of
those odd relics of the Tube in the process.

In the very earliest days of the line there were through services from
"Strand" (not sure if it had been renamed at that point) to the then
Northern terminus of the Piccadilly to cater for late evening theatre
traffic. These ceased very early on and information about them is
patchy.

I can just about understand why the station was built in the first place,
but why wasn't any attempt made to make the branch in anyway useful? Not
that a through service would have been handy in the long run, but it could
have been more viable for extensions/creating a street interchange with
Temple and so forth.
Well, there was on at least one occasion and possibly more talk of
extending the branch under the Thames to Waterloo, which would have been
a big help but I'm not sure how serious these plans were.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

Ian Jelf wrote:

Does anyone know why the Aldwych branch was built in such a way as to be
useless? From recollection the southbound branch tunnel is linked to the
northbound mainline tunnel whilst the other two aren't linked at all,
ruling
out both through services to Aldwych and using the branch for reversing
when
there are problem south of Holborn.

Because what eventually became the Piccadilly Railway was actually
conceived as two separate lines which joined together at Holborn. The
Northern of these two had been planned to continue south to "Strand" (as
Aldwych was originally called) and was built anyway, becoming one of those
odd relics of the Tube in the process.

That explains why it was built but not why the connection at Holborn is so
useless. Had it been built as a more conventional branch then it could have
been useful for diverting trains, relieving pressure on the system and as a
glorified reversing bay that the line sometimes needs. But instead any
regular through service (the theatre specials were a late night northbound
service) was scuppered from the point of construction.

In the very earliest days of the line there were through services from
"Strand" (not sure if it had been renamed at that point) to the then
Northern terminus of the Piccadilly to cater for late evening theatre
traffic. These ceased very early on and information about them is
patchy.

It was still Strand - the big round of renamings was during the First World
War. As I understand it the theatre through service was only one a night.

I can just about understand why the station was built in the first place,
but why wasn't any attempt made to make the branch in anyway useful? Not
that a through service would have been handy in the long run, but it could
have been more viable for extensions/creating a street interchange with
Temple and so forth.
Well, there was on at least one occasion and possibly more talk of
extending the branch under the Thames to Waterloo, which would have been a
big help but I'm not sure how serious these plans were.

How far along the Strand did the original Jubilee Line tunnels actually
reach? Had they made it to Aldwych the station would probably be working and
vibrant today.

In message , Tim Roll-Pickering
writes

That explains why it was built but not why the connection at Holborn is so
useless.

I suspect that by the time it was built, it was already obvious that
Aldwych would never be more than a rather useless stub. During the
planning stages it must have seemed to have had great potential to
extend to Waterloo - but an attempt to get as far as Temple was killed
off by the LCC and local landowners in 1902. Then a bill for a single
bore tunnel direct to Waterloo was killed off by parliament in 1905 - by
which time work had already begun on the Aldwych branch.

So I suspect that the odd crossover arrangement at Holborn was
eventually never seen as anything much more than a way of getting the
Aldwych shuttle car out onto the main line for repairs, etc. (despite
the very short-lived theatre through train).

--
Paul Terry

Tim Roll-Pickering:
Does anyone know why the Aldwych branch was built in such a way
as to be useless?

I've never seen an explanation of that. Clive Feather has never seen
an explanation of that.

From recollection the southbound branch tunnel is linked to the
northbound mainline tunnel whilst the other two aren't linked at
all, ruling out both through services to Aldwych and using the
branch for reversing ...

Right. In addition, there was no crossover north of Holborn on the
main line that would have allowed the branch junction to be worked
as a "single-lead junction" even if they'd wanted to; they put one
at Covent Garden instead. Nor was there a crossover at the south
end of the branch, only near Holborn on the branch. Here's an ASCII
version of the diagram in Rails Through the Clay 2nd edition (RTTC2):

to Finsbury Park
| |
| |
| |#
* |#
/| |#
/#| |#
HOLBORN /##| |#
/# #| /
/# #| (
/## #|
_/ # # = #|
__/ # | |
__/ _ ) # | *
__/ __/ | /|
_* __/ |/ |
/ |.__/ * |
/# * | |
/# #/ | |
COVENT GARDEN | |
and on to Hammersmith | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
STRAND # | | #
(- Aldwych) # | | #
# | | #
= =


Ian Jelf:
Because what eventually became the Piccadilly Railway was actually
conceived as two separate lines which joined together at Holborn. The
Northern of these two had been planned to continue south to "Strand" (as
Aldwych was originally called) and was built anyway...

Tim Roll-Pickering:
That explains why it was built but not why the connection at Holborn
is so useless. Had it been built as a more conventional branch then
it could have been useful...

Exactly.

RTTC2 says the branch was originally worked using only the east track
off-peak and with a train on each track working independently at peaks.
By 1912 it was down to a single shuttle at all times, using the branch
crossover, and in due course the other tracks were lifted and this
became the only possible route.

In the very earliest days of the line there were through services from
"Strand" (not sure if it had been renamed at that point) to the then
Northern terminus of the Piccadilly to cater for late evening theatre
traffic. These ceased very early on and information about them is
patchy.

It was still Strand...

Yes, it changed in 1915.

As I understand it the theatre through service was only one a night.

Before the branch opened, this train started from Holborn and ran express
to Finsbury Park, calling only at King's Cross and Holloway Road. It was
then altered to start at Strand (Aldwych), at 11:13 pm (later 11:28).
From 1908 it called at all stations. [RTTC2] I don't see anything to
say when it stopped running.
--
Mark Brader "Remember, this is Mark we're dealing with.
Toronto Rationality and fact won't work very well."
-- Jeff Scott Franzman

My text in this article is in the public domain.