According to the Hendon Times, Mill Hill East services will be reduced to a
shuttle to Finchley Central off-peak and weekends from October 2006.

http://www.hendontimes.co.uk/news/lo... ondon_cut.php

Peter Smyth

Peter Smyth wrote:
According to the Hendon Times, Mill Hill East services will be reduced to a
shuttle to Finchley Central off-peak and weekends from October 2006.

http://www.hendontimes.co.uk/news/lo... ondon_cut.php

Peter Smyth


And closure following closely no doubt. Yet another service reduction
disguised as "reliability", even though for the time being there will
still be through services at the busiest and potentially most
problematic times. Why don't they genuinely improve reliability by
doubling the track?

The service is being made less attractive so that a decline in use can
be given as an excuse to make more cuts, leading to more
unattractiveness and further decline in use.

The most reliable railway is one that runs no trains at all: none are
ever late or cancelled.

MIG wrote:
Peter Smyth wrote:
According to the Hendon Times, Mill Hill East services will be reduced to a
shuttle to Finchley Central off-peak and weekends from October 2006.
http://www.hendontimes.co.uk/news/lo... ondon_cut.php

And closure following closely no doubt. Yet another service reduction
disguised as "reliability", even though for the time being there will
still be through services at the busiest and potentially most
problematic times. Why don't they genuinely improve reliability by
doubling the track?

The service is being made less attractive so that a decline in use can
be given as an excuse to make more cuts, leading to more
unattractiveness and further decline in use.

The most reliable railway is one that runs no trains at all: none are
ever late or cancelled.

I don't think this is fair.

It's uncontroversial among transport planning professionals that the
more branches a service has, the more scope there is for it to go
wrong. This is particularly pronounced in a system as complicated as
the Northern Line, where minor delays in one branch have the potential
to cause serious system-wide distruption once trains start arriving out
of timetabled order in the wrong places.

The Northern Line would be significantly more reliable if the junction
at Camden were abolished and all trains ran either Edgware - City -
Morden and High Barnet - Charing Cross - Kennington. This isn't
feasible, at least until Camden Town is rebuilt (and possibly not even
then): the station is not big enough to take the required volume of
interchanging passengers. It would also be significantly more reliable
if the signalling were replaced to allow ATO. This will happen, but not
for years.

On the other hand, the interchange at Finchley Central is easily
capable of taking the required volume of Mill Hill East passengers, and
this change can happen with immediate effect. The cost of the manoeuvre
to MHE pax is very limited: they can get a once-every-four-mins train
to Finchley, then a once-every-15-mins shuttle to MHE as-now. This
increases the average expected through journey time by about 2 minutes
(can't be bothered to do the proper maths), while providing no
reduction in service frequency.

If the result is to make a substantial reduction in total Misery Line
misery, which it should be, then it seems like a good plan...

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

John B wrote:
MIG wrote:
Peter Smyth wrote:
According to the Hendon Times, Mill Hill East services will be reduced to a
shuttle to Finchley Central off-peak and weekends from October 2006.
http://www.hendontimes.co.uk/news/lo... ondon_cut.php

And closure following closely no doubt. Yet another service reduction
disguised as "reliability", even though for the time being there will
still be through services at the busiest and potentially most
problematic times. Why don't they genuinely improve reliability by
doubling the track?

The service is being made less attractive so that a decline in use can
be given as an excuse to make more cuts, leading to more
unattractiveness and further decline in use.

The most reliable railway is one that runs no trains at all: none are
ever late or cancelled.

I don't think this is fair.

It's uncontroversial among transport planning professionals that the
more branches a service has, the more scope there is for it to go
wrong. This is particularly pronounced in a system as complicated as
the Northern Line, where minor delays in one branch have the potential
to cause serious system-wide distruption once trains start arriving out
of timetabled order in the wrong places.

The Northern Line would be significantly more reliable if the junction
at Camden were abolished and all trains ran either Edgware - City -
Morden and High Barnet - Charing Cross - Kennington. This isn't
feasible, at least until Camden Town is rebuilt (and possibly not even
then): the station is not big enough to take the required volume of
interchanging passengers. It would also be significantly more reliable
if the signalling were replaced to allow ATO. This will happen, but not
for years.

On the other hand, the interchange at Finchley Central is easily
capable of taking the required volume of Mill Hill East passengers, and
this change can happen with immediate effect. The cost of the manoeuvre
to MHE pax is very limited: they can get a once-every-four-mins train
to Finchley, then a once-every-15-mins shuttle to MHE as-now. This
increases the average expected through journey time by about 2 minutes
(can't be bothered to do the proper maths), while providing no
reduction in service frequency.

If the result is to make a substantial reduction in total Misery Line
misery, which it should be, then it seems like a good plan...

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

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.

Kevin

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...

--
John Band
john atjoh

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?).

On 4 Apr 2006 03:03:36 -0700, "John B" wrote:

And closure following closely no doubt. Yet another service reduction
disguised as "reliability", even though for the time being there will
still be through services at the busiest and potentially most
problematic times. Why don't they genuinely improve reliability by
doubling the track?

The service is being made less attractive so that a decline in use can
be given as an excuse to make more cuts, leading to more
unattractiveness and further decline in use.

The most reliable railway is one that runs no trains at all: none are
ever late or cancelled.

I don't think this is fair.

It's uncontroversial among transport planning professionals that the
more branches a service has, the more scope there is for it to go
wrong. This is particularly pronounced in a system as complicated as
the Northern Line, where minor delays in one branch have the potential
to cause serious system-wide distruption once trains start arriving out
of timetabled order in the wrong places.

So why retain the through services at the times when the network is
under the most strain of all?

And why not, say, double the frequency of the shuttle, to make up for
the withdrawl of through services?

I think this is a classic case of even though the numbers make sense,
they don't take account of people's mental processes. A through
journey is ALWAYS going to be more attractive than a journey where you
have to change, and if the idea is to get people out of their cars, you
have to make the system as attractive as possible.

To take just one example. From my house, I have two railway stations
within an easy walk. One is two minutes away, one six minutes away.
If I want to go to Charing Cross, I can either walk two minutes, get a
Cannon Street train and change at London Bridge. Or I can walk six
minutes and get a direct train. Which option do you think I choose?
The latter, every time.

Notwithstanding that, if they are determined to get rid of through
services, why not upgrade the shuttle, as asdf says, by way of
compensation?

Patrick

"Patrick" writes:
I think this is a classic case of even though the numbers make sense,
they don't take account of people's mental processes. A through
journey is ALWAYS going to be more attractive than a journey where you
have to change, and if the idea is to get people out of their cars, you
have to make the system as attractive as possible.

Indeed. Here in Toronto, the TTC now explicitly takes this factor into
account when planning route changes. In this annual planning document
(archived on a fan site)

http://transit.toronto.on.ca/archives/reports/2005.pdf

you will find this weighting table on page 9:

each minute of in-vehicle travelling time 1.0
each minute of waiting time 1.5
each minute of walking time 2.0
each transfer 10.0

And I think the TTC has it right. (I just wish they'd followed the same
principles in 1966, but that's another story and off-topic for this group.)

I don't live in London, and I've been on the Mill Hill East branch exactly
once, so I don't presume to say what the Underground should do with it --
but I do say that total trip time and operational convenience are not the
only things they should have been thinking about.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "It's been proven. Places stay clean until somebody
| drops the first piece of litter." -- TTC poster

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Mark Brader wrote:
"Patrick" writes:
I think this is a classic case of even though the numbers make sense,
they don't take account of people's mental processes. A through
journey is ALWAYS going to be more attractive than a journey where you
have to change, and if the idea is to get people out of their cars, you
have to make the system as attractive as possible.

Indeed. Here in Toronto, the TTC now explicitly takes this factor into
account when planning route changes. In this annual planning document
(archived on a fan site)

http://transit.toronto.on.ca/archives/reports/2005.pdf

you will find this weighting table on page 9:

each minute of in-vehicle travelling time 1.0
each minute of waiting time 1.5
each minute of walking time 2.0
each transfer 10.0

And I think the TTC has it right. (I just wish they'd followed the same
principles in 1966, but that's another story and off-topic for this group.)

I don't live in London, and I've been on the Mill Hill East branch exactly
once, so I don't presume to say what the Underground should do with it --
but I do say that total trip time and operational convenience are not the
only things they should have been thinking about.

I agree that transfers are inherently unattractive - although the actual
number is subject to some debate (10 (generalised) minutes seems a bit
arbitrary, if easy to use - research suggests that it depends on
different weightings for transfer walk time and transfer wait time (as
distinct from access walk time and wait time)).

In planning terms, it all comes down to the question: is the net
additional inconvenience to MHE passengers (including a transfer
penalty) less than the net benefit (in terms of reliability) to all
other Northern line passengers? If the answer is yes, the decision is a
sensible one.

Given the relative contribution of MHE to total Northern line ridership,
I suspect the decision *is* sensible. Of course, it depends how much it
actually improves reliability on the rest of the line!

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London