Dave Arquati wrote:
TfL have announced their branding plans for the North London Railway
concession:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-cent...t.asp?prID=886
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5316358.stm

Good news: More frequent service.
Good news: Will allow pre-pay Oyster.

Potentially good news: Improvement of station facilities?
Potentially good news: Metros?

Bad news: Replacing the trains with carriages where the seats face
longitudal (all sideways). (Some of us actually prefer the transverse
seating, i.e. front-backward facing).

Bad news: No plans for a Northern Line interchange around Hampstead.
(It badly needs one).

Potentially bad news: Cycles on the trains? Will we still be allowed to
take our bikes onto that line?

Next I'd like to see more frequent trains on Capital-Connect and to
allow pre-pay Oyster on that line, but no change in the trains
themselves please.

Earl Purple wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:
TfL have announced their branding plans for the North London Railway
concession:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-cent...t.asp?prID=886
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5316358.stm


Potentially bad news: Cycles on the trains? Will we still be allowed to
take our bikes onto that line?

I would expect the answer will be "yes but only off-peak", given that
TfL allow bikes on the Circle, District, Met, EL and H+C lines at all
times except 07.30 - 09.30 and 16.00 - 19.00, Monday to Friday.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tube/using/get...d/bicycles.asp

How does that compare with the current rules for taking bikes on the
NLL?

PaulO

Earl Purple wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:
TfL have announced their branding plans for the North London Railway
concession:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-cent...t.asp?prID=886
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5316358.stm

Good news: More frequent service.
Good news: Will allow pre-pay Oyster.

Potentially good news: Improvement of station facilities?
Potentially good news: Metros?

Bad news: Replacing the trains with carriages where the seats face
longitudal (all sideways). (Some of us actually prefer the transverse
seating, i.e. front-backward facing).

The reason for longitudinal seating is to provide more space for
standing passengers.

Bad news: No plans for a Northern Line interchange around Hampstead.
(It badly needs one).

An interchange between the NLL and Northern line at Hampstead would be
so incredibly expensive it would be completely unfeasible - both the NLL
and Northern line are in deep tunnel at quite differing levels, and the
construction of an interchange station would therefore require extremely
difficult and complex tunnelling. The demand (which would chiefly be to
and from just six stations north of Hampstead) is very unlikely to
justify such costs.

The best hope for a Northern line interchange is Primrose Hill; if/when
Queen's Park to Stratford services start running, then they will pass
through disused platforms about 200m from Chalk Farm station. This would
still provide for flows to/from stations east of Camden, and would
cost a fraction of the price (especially if the old station structures,
which seem to be in situ, can be revived).

Other more-possible-than-Hampstead possibilities are Tufnell Park, and
even Camden Town to Camden Road (an additional exit from the northern
ends of the platforms at Camden Town to a second ticket office closer to
Camden Road was floated as a potential congestion-relief measure).

Potentially bad news: Cycles on the trains? Will we still be allowed to
take our bikes onto that line?

Next I'd like to see more frequent trains on Capital-Connect and to
allow pre-pay Oyster on that line, but no change in the trains
themselves please.

Prepay will come within a few years but TfL are unlikely to gain control
so frequency is probably all down to Network Rail (who would need to
provide infrastructure for it).

I'm pretty sure cycles will still be permitted outside the peak hours,
as is standard practice on all above-ground and subsurface sections of
the Underground.


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

Dave Arquati wrote:

Bad news: Replacing the trains with carriages where the seats face
longitudal (all sideways). (Some of us actually prefer the transverse
seating, i.e. front-backward facing).

The reason for longitudinal seating is to provide more space for standing
passengers.

You mean mobile cattle trucks? I wouldn't want to stand for a long time on
most of the journeys I make on that line.

Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
Bad news: Replacing the trains with carriages where the seats face
longitudal (all sideways). (Some of us actually prefer the transverse
seating, i.e. front-backward facing).

The reason for longitudinal seating is to provide more space for standing
passengers.

You mean mobile cattle trucks? I wouldn't want to stand for a long time on
most of the journeys I make on that line.

Don't know what time of day you travel, but I /already/ have to stand
for a long time on most if the journeys I make on that line. And
standing would be a lot easier in Tube-style stock rather than the
stupidly narrow gangways of the 313s...

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

Dave Arquati wrote:

The reason for longitudinal seating is to provide more space for standing passengers.

If they make use of it, but I tend to find that passengers only stand
one abreadth regardless of the seating layout. Meanwhile, when you are
sitting, you don't have the inconvenience of having people stand right
over you.

In addition, transverse seating provides more seating space.

An interchange between the NLL and Northern line at Hampstead would be
so incredibly expensive it would be completely unfeasible - both the NLL
and Northern line are in deep tunnel at quite differing levels, and the
construction of an interchange station would therefore require extremely
difficult and complex tunnelling. The demand (which would chiefly be to
and from just six stations north of Hampstead) is very unlikely to
justify such costs.

Maybe. Most of those stations are moderately close to either the
"Thameslink" (now capital connect) or the Jubilee and can make the
change at West Hampstead for the stations west of Hampstead, while for
the stations eastward you make the Camden Town / Camden Road
interchange (which is about 4 minutes because I've made it).

It does mean if you wish to go West you are back-tracking on yourself,
i.e. you go from Hampstead towards Camden Town then back towards
Hampstead again. Or you make a longer walk. There is the option of
using buses to make part of the link.

The best hope for a Northern line interchange is Primrose Hill; if/when
Queen's Park to Stratford services start running, then they will pass
through disused platforms about 200m from Chalk Farm station. This would
still provide for flows to/from stations east of Camden, and would
cost a fraction of the price (especially if the old station structures,
which seem to be in situ, can be revived).

Other more-possible-than-Hampstead possibilities are Tufnell Park, and
even Camden Town to Camden Road (an additional exit from the northern
ends of the platforms at Camden Town to a second ticket office closer to
Camden Road was floated as a potential congestion-relief measure).

Archway and Upper Holloway are already not that far apart.

I'm pretty sure cycles will still be permitted outside the peak hours,
as is standard practice on all above-ground and subsurface sections of
the Underground.

At the moment on Silverlink they're allowed at any time (as far as I'm
aware) which is useful for commuting to work if you want to cycle at
either end (often quite necessary) but don't wish to cycle the whole
journey (possibly too long). Now if they really want to promote bike
use and they're going to make the trains more frequent how about
either:

1. A proper cycle area on the train (with no seats at all)
and / or
2. Allow cycles on alternate trains with such a facility.

Dave Arquati wrote:

Camden Town to Camden Road (an additional exit from the northern
ends of the platforms at Camden Town to a second ticket office closer
to Camden Road was floated as a potential congestion-relief measure).

Floated by whom? When I phoned up the woman in charge of the public
consultation for the rebuiding of Camden Town, she clearly regarded
improving interchange with the NLL to be a bizarre and inexplicable aim.

John Rowland wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:
Camden Town to Camden Road (an additional exit from the northern
ends of the platforms at Camden Town to a second ticket office closer
to Camden Road was floated as a potential congestion-relief measure).

Floated by whom? When I phoned up the woman in charge of the public
consultation for the rebuiding of Camden Town, she clearly regarded
improving interchange with the NLL to be a bizarre and inexplicable aim.


Arup, I think. They supplied an alternative proposal to LU's (on behalf
of a campaign group organised by the markets) for the public inquiry,
which was intended to reduce the impact of the expanded station on the
surrounding markets and shops.

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

In article ,
John Rowland wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:

Camden Town to Camden Road (an additional exit from the northern
ends of the platforms at Camden Town to a second ticket office closer
to Camden Road was floated as a potential congestion-relief measure).

Floated by whom? When I phoned up the woman in charge of the public
consultation for the rebuiding of Camden Town, she clearly regarded
improving interchange with the NLL to be a bizarre and inexplicable aim.

But of course. If it doesn't add to the property redevlopment "take"
then there's no need for it in Camden Town.

Nick