Travelling this morning on an engineering work special - which
travelled from Wimbledon to Clapham Junction via the District Line,
East Putney and Wandsworth Common - set me wondering - has this line
ever been used as a regular route? And would it be any use if it was?
I suppose it would connect Clapham Junction to the tube, but only to a
relatively remote part of it.

And do SWT services via the District ever stop at any of the District
stations? When I first moved to London about 10 years ago I recall a
train stopping at Southfields, which I suppose could be a sort of
alternative to Earlsfield. But I'm not sure if it was an official
stop or not as it was the days of slam door trains and passengers
could get off whenever the train happened to be stationary at a
station.

In message , Phil Clark
writes

Travelling this morning on an engineering work special - which
travelled from Wimbledon to Clapham Junction via the District Line,
East Putney and Wandsworth Common - set me wondering - has this line
ever been used as a regular route?

It certainly has. I don't have complete dates to hand, but the Southern
Railway service from Waterloo to Wimbledon via East Putney is shown as
basically hourly (with additional peak hour services) in my 1928
Bradshaw (some services terminated at Wimbledon Park). This service is
shown as suspended in the 1942 Bradshaw.

And would it be any use if it was?

Faster than the District Line into Waterloo and even Bank/Monument
(providing you knew the times, of course).

I suppose it would connect Clapham Junction to the tube, but only to a
relatively remote part of it.

I think it was the direct service to Waterloo that was the attraction.

And do SWT services via the District ever stop at any of the District
stations?

Signalling and power supply on the line are provided by National Rail
(the line was, I think, the first to be electrified by LSWR), but (and I
may be wrong) I don't think NR trains normally stop on the line these
days.

--
Paul Terry

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 18:57:47 +0100, Paul Terry
wrote:

In message , Phil Clark
writes

And do SWT services via the District ever stop at any of the District
stations?

Signalling and power supply on the line are provided by National Rail
(the line was, I think, the first to be electrified by LSWR), but (and I
may be wrong) I don't think NR trains normally stop on the line these
days.

You are correct about the signalling and power. SWT have rights to use
the line for depot access and as a diversionary route in the event of a
mess up on the main line. However those rights are obviously very
limited given that LU needs to run the District Line.

AIUI there are no rights for SWT to serve any of the intermediate
stations on the section of track - even during an emergency diversion.
This makes sense as to do so would reduce track capacity when they would
actually wish to maximise the number of trains that could go via that
route while squashing in between District Line services.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 18:57:47 +0100, Paul Terry
wrote:

In message , Phil Clark
writes

And do SWT services via the District ever stop at any of the District
stations?

Signalling and power supply on the line are provided by National Rail
(the line was, I think, the first to be electrified by LSWR), but (and I
may be wrong) I don't think NR trains normally stop on the line these
days.

You are correct about the signalling and power. SWT have rights to use
the line for depot access and as a diversionary route in the event of a
mess up on the main line. However those rights are obviously very
limited given that LU needs to run the District Line.

AIUI there are no rights for SWT to serve any of the intermediate
stations on the section of track - even during an emergency diversion.
This makes sense as to do so would reduce track capacity when they would
actually wish to maximise the number of trains that could go via that
route while squashing in between District Line services.


There's also the problem now that they'd have to use the single track
connection to the Wandsworth Town line and cross all the tracks when
heading to Clapham, since the bridge fell down (or was demolished
before it did).

I tried to find a way on to the end of that bridge, but I couldn't.
The railing at the end of it suggests that there might be access such
that protection is needed, but it looks like the area enclosed by the
old curve will remain a wasteland until it's covered with "luxury
flats" or something.

"Phil Clark" wrote:
Travelling this morning on an engineering work special - which
travelled from Wimbledon to Clapham Junction via the District Line,
East Putney and Wandsworth Common - set me wondering - has this line
ever been used as a regular route? And would it be any use if it was?
I suppose it would connect Clapham Junction to the tube, but only to a
relatively remote part of it.

Surely you mean Wandsworth Town, and not Wandsworth Common??

And yes, it would be good to have a proper link to the tube at Clapham
Junction, but it'd have to be going into Central London and not just, as you
say, a relatively remote part of the tube network. The closest they're
going to get is Crossrail 2 (Clapham to Dalston), which will do a massive
job at relieving the burden on Waterloo, and phase 2 of the ELL extension
will help, though that's not going to be part of the tube network by then.

--
AstraVanMan: Yesterday's Technology. Tomorrow.

AstraVanMan wrote:

And yes, it would be good to have a proper link to the tube at Clapham
Junction, but it'd have to be going into Central London and not just, as
you say, a relatively remote part of the tube network. The closest
they're going to get is Crossrail 2 (Clapham to Dalston),

Will our grandchildren still be alive when that happens?

which will do a massive job at relieving the burden on Waterloo, and phase
2 of the ELL extension will help, though that's not going to be part of
the tube network by then.

Of course if it were marketted as still being part of the tube, it would
boost usage and property prices. Is there anything really stopping it from
being presented that way?

More substantially, what level of demand is there for journeys from Clapham
to ELL destinations? I can't see a direct Clapham-Canada Water service
relieving pressure on the Jubilee Line at Waterloo and I'm not sure if
changing at Clapham gets one to Whitechapel faster than from Victoria.

Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
AstraVanMan wrote:
which will do a massive job at relieving the burden on Waterloo, and phase
2 of the ELL extension will help, though that's not going to be part of
the tube network by then.

Of course if it were marketted as still being part of the tube, it would
boost usage and property prices. Is there anything really stopping it from
being presented that way?

The North London Line is very busy these days, with a 15 min frequency
during the day and 20 mins in the evening. It's on a tube map, which is
good marketing. The filthy state of the train interiors isn't a good
promotion for the service, but that will I'm sure all change once TfL
takes control next year (TfL will appoint an operator to run the
concession but will I'm certain take a very hands on attitude).

I'd expect that the extended ELL will similarly have an operator
awarded the concession to run it as opposed to be franchised in the
conventional way by the Department for Transport.

More substantially, what level of demand is there for journeys from Clapham
to ELL destinations? I can't see a direct Clapham-Canada Water service
relieving pressure on the Jubilee Line at Waterloo and I'm not sure if
changing at Clapham gets one to Whitechapel faster than from Victoria.

Both good points, I don't know what the relative merits in terms of
journey times will be. But the ELL will have many audiences, and will
provide orbital rather than radial journey opportunities. It's not just
for the benefit of the SWT traveller! It will provide useful local
links, and I think it will be similarly popular to the North London
Line (in terms of loadings as opposed to popularity of the decor).

And - an important point - if it does provide a good alternative to get
to Whitechapel for instance, even say if the journey times are similar,
then some passengers will choose that route as it'll be cheaper (no
travelling through pricey zone 1), which will ease the load on the
District.

Mizter T wrote:

Of course if it were marketted as still being part of the tube, it would
boost usage and property prices. Is there anything really stopping it
from
being presented that way?

The North London Line is very busy these days, with a 15 min frequency
during the day and 20 mins in the evening. It's on a tube map, which is
good marketing.

That's not quite the same thing as "this location is close to a tube
station" though. Making the NLL a nominal part of the tube (orbital services
offer as much tunnel as many current Met services have) could be the missing
link. (Also it would help the traveller if the line map on a tube train said
something more useful than "interchange with national rail" for stations.)

The filthy state of the train interiors isn't a good
promotion for the service,

You think the NLL is a dire line to be on - come try the GOBLIN some time.

More substantially, what level of demand is there for journeys from
Clapham
to ELL destinations? I can't see a direct Clapham-Canada Water service
relieving pressure on the Jubilee Line at Waterloo and I'm not sure if
changing at Clapham gets one to Whitechapel faster than from Victoria.

Both good points, I don't know what the relative merits in terms of
journey times will be. But the ELL will have many audiences, and will
provide orbital rather than radial journey opportunities. It's not just
for the benefit of the SWT traveller!

True, but from the point of view of a tube link at Clapham (which prompted
my questions), those are the distinations that spring to mind.

And - an important point - if it does provide a good alternative to get
to Whitechapel for instance, even say if the journey times are similar,
then some passengers will choose that route as it'll be cheaper (no
travelling through pricey zone 1), which will ease the load on the
District.

How will Oyster always know if people are bypassing Zone 1 or not?

"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote in message
...
And yes, it would be good to have a proper link to the tube at Clapham
Junction, but it'd have to be going into Central London and not just, as
you say, a relatively remote part of the tube network. The closest
they're going to get is Crossrail 2 (Clapham to Dalston),

Will our grandchildren still be alive when that happens?

LOL!

More substantially, what level of demand is there for journeys from
Clapham to ELL destinations? I can't see a direct Clapham-Canada Water
service relieving pressure on the Jubilee Line at Waterloo and I'm not
sure if changing at Clapham gets one to Whitechapel faster than from
Victoria.

Like Mizter T said, it's not neccessarily a direct replacement for SWT
passengers to get to the East End, rather "a local line for local people" -
I can imagine it being very handy for people living along that line who are
travelling out to any SWT destinations (Guildford, Portsmouth, Weymouth, you
get the idea!) as it'll mean they can avoid having to go into Victoria (or
Blackfriars/London Bridge) and connecting to Waterloo via tube. And as
Mizter T also said, it'll save them going via Zone 1 and potentially save
them money on their ticket, in addition to the extra time spent going in and
back out. Basically it'll be a useful orbital link in exactly the same way
orbital roads are used.

And yes, it's doubtful whether it'll save much time getting from Clapham
Junction to Whitechapel by taking the ELL as opposed to the District Line,
but I can't honestly see there being all that much in it - it's 7 minutes
from Surrey Quays to Whitechapel and 20 minutes from Victoria to
Whitechapel, both assuming no delays. So that means 13 minutes (plus the
equivalent time it'd take to go from CJ to Victoria and get down to the
tube) to cover the 7 stops from CJ to Surrey Quays. Just quickly looked on
TfL's journey planner and CJ to Victoria journey time seems to be between 6
and 10 minutes - mostly around 7 minutes off-peak, but in the morning rush
hour most of the trains seem to be around 9-10 minutes, which is strange -
I'd have thought most would bypass Battersea Park, but obviously not.

Anyway, so let's say we're talking an average journey time of 8 minutes from
CJ to Victoria, call it 3 minutes down to the tube, and 20 minutes on the
tube - that's 31 minutes, so basically the ELL will have to manage CJ to
Surrey Quays (7 stops) in 24 minutes to make it an attractive option, which
I reckon is quite realistic.

So it's not only good for the residents of Peckham/Camberwell etc, but a
handy alternative (and possibly cheaper) route to East London from the South
West. In short, it's increasing the capacity of the network and providing a
decent alternative route to a busy line, which could be a handy thing.

--
"For want of the price of tea and a slice, the old man died."

On Wed, 31 May 2006 01:04:19 +0100, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:

And - an important point - if it does provide a good alternative to get
to Whitechapel for instance, even say if the journey times are similar,
then some passengers will choose that route as it'll be cheaper (no
travelling through pricey zone 1), which will ease the load on the
District.

How will Oyster always know if people are bypassing Zone 1 or not?

With season tickets, it will know because you have a Z23 Travelcard on
your Oyster instead of a Z12 one.

With pre-pay, it wouldn't know (unless they add some logic that
charges the Z12 fare if you pass through the gatelines at
Victoria/Waterloo, and the Z2-only fare otherwise).