Mizter T wrote:

If however the suggestion is the ELL is going to be a quiet line then
I'd offer the contrary prediction - I think it'll be a very successful
and well patronised line. I know this is contrary to what appears to be
the received wisdom in this group but I'm convinced it'll be a great
success.

I would like to be proved wrong, and my guess is that it will be a
qualified success, but I can't see how the billions being spent can be
justified. Not when you consider what the billions could be spent on.
At the end of the day it is a line that goes from no where to no where
via no where. Sorry to the people of West Croydon, Dalston and
Shorditch. It isn't as if these places don't have public transport
already.
Maybe if the people of Dalston had shown more patronage on the NLL then
Broad St wouldn't have closed.
I would agree that doing away with the useful capacity that Broad St
gave was a mistake though.

Kevin

Mizter T wrote:

Plus look at the example the West London Line and the "Two Junctions" /
"Junction to Junction" service (why does no-one ever call it either of
those!) from Willesden Junction to Clapham Junction which never existed
at all whatsoever before '94 (I think) - it's now a pretty popular
route on a day-to-day basis (as well as it's revived popularity for
Olympia exhibitions).

I don't think that drawing comparisons with the WLL is valid. For a
start it is much further from the centre so a journey from Willesden to
Clapham avoiding central London is a big boost. In fact if the
Silverlink County service stopped at Willesden the the WLL would be
even more popular.
I don't see the ELL offering the same advantages as the WLL to cross
London travellers as they will be dumped at Highbury and Islington. OK
if you are going to Arsenal I suppose but do people in SE London
support a North London team. I know that the Southern trains were very
crowded on days that Chelsea were playing.

Kevin

In message .com, Kev
writes

I would like to be proved wrong, and my guess is that it will be a
qualified success, but I can't see how the billions being spent can be
justified. Not when you consider what the billions could be spent on.

I don't think "billions" are being spent - phase 1 was costed at one
billion (the other two phases considerably less). The relative cheapness
of the scheme (in urban rail terms) was always one of its attractions.

--
Paul Terry

Paul Terry wrote:
In message .com, Kev
writes

I would like to be proved wrong, and my guess is that it will be a
qualified success, but I can't see how the billions being spent can be
justified. Not when you consider what the billions could be spent on.

I don't think "billions" are being spent - phase 1 was costed at one
billion (the other two phases considerably less). The relative cheapness
of the scheme (in urban rail terms) was always one of its attractions.

--
Paul Terry

Relative cheapness, a billion pounds. Bearing in mind this about
joining two railways about half a mile apart. OK if you accept that you
need to reinstate the couple of miles from Shorditch to Dalston, that
is a billion pounds for about three miles of new railway. Not money
well spent.
Had Broad St never closed in the first place of couse we could now be
spending a billion pounds on something that is really necessary, like
Crossrail.

Kevin

Kev wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

If however the suggestion is the ELL is going to be a quiet line then
I'd offer the contrary prediction - I think it'll be a very successful
and well patronised line. I know this is contrary to what appears to be
the received wisdom in this group but I'm convinced it'll be a great
success.

I would like to be proved wrong, and my guess is that it will be a
qualified success, but I can't see how the billions being spent can be
justified. Not when you consider what the billions could be spent on.
At the end of the day it is a line that goes from no where to no where
via no where. Sorry to the people of West Croydon, Dalston and
Shorditch. It isn't as if these places don't have public transport
already.
Maybe if the people of Dalston had shown more patronage on the NLL then
Broad St wouldn't have closed.
I would agree that doing away with the useful capacity that Broad St
gave was a mistake though.


Kev wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

If however the suggestion is the ELL is going to be a quiet line then
I'd offer the contrary prediction - I think it'll be a very successful
and well patronised line. I know this is contrary to what appears to be
the received wisdom in this group but I'm convinced it'll be a great
success.

I would like to be proved wrong, and my guess is that it will be a
qualified success, but I can't see how the billions being spent can be
justified. Not when you consider what the billions could be spent on.
At the end of the day it is a line that goes from no where to no where
via no where. Sorry to the people of West Croydon, Dalston and
Shorditch. It isn't as if these places don't have public transport
already.
Maybe if the people of Dalston had shown more patronage on the NLL then
Broad St wouldn't have closed.
I would agree that doing away with the useful capacity that Broad St
gave was a mistake though.


I guess that you demonstrate the point I was trying to make to Mr
Arquati - there are some very skeptical voices that have and do appear
on utl!

As I made clear earlier I think it'll be a great success. Your comments
seem to allow for it's success ("qualified success" being your exact
words), but you appear to suggest that even if it is a success you will
nonetheless disagree that it will be money well spent.

All I can say is that I fundamentally disagree with you on that point -
I think the money will definitely be well worth it considering the
benefits that will accrue. Orbital rail services are set to become more
and more important in London, and the ELL project is an important piece
of that jigsaw.

Regarding your comments about Dalton's poor patronage: the ELL will
provide a more useful through link that goes south rather than stopping
at Broad Street (and for those who want the City the new Shoreditch
High St. station will be _just_ round the back of Liverpool Street
station); and in the late 70's / early 80's the demand for rail
services was fundamentally different from now - see the success of the
present-day North London Line and compare it to the ghost line it was
in the early 80's.

You and many others are also scathing about the potential demand a
north/south link on the ELL - I hold a diametrically opposed view. In
addition to brand new A-B journey opportunities, many journeys that
might otherwise have taken a different central London route will
instead go via the ELL.

Anyway, people who agree with my stance have won the day and the ELL
project is going ahead. In a few years I'm sure it'll be commonly
regarded as an invaluable part of the network in London.

Tom Anderson wrote:

How about some sort of freight use? The NLL isn't just for people, you
know. However, i'm not sure where the southern end would be;
Bishopsgate is hardly the freight hub it once was, and there's no
obvious way beyond it: the Great Eastern is too busy (and you can get
there via Stratford already), and the East London line itself is
never going to be four-track south of there. You could always go down
into some point-defeatingly expensive tubes, i suppose. The big
London freight study a while ago did say we needed a new Thames
crossing to get freight from the Kent ports to the north without
faffing around on the south London commuter lines and the WLL; might
as well build it here as out at Tilbury (yes, i know, it'd still play
merry hell with the Dartford lines).

CTRL has freight facilities.

In message .com, Kev
writes

Had Broad St never closed in the first place of couse we could now be
spending a billion pounds on something that is really necessary, like
Crossrail.

But one billion would buy relatively little in terms of Crossrail - just
about one mile of central area route, IIRC.

--
Paul Terry

On 10 Oct 2006 01:15:04 -0700, Kev wrote:

Plus look at the example the West London Line and the "Two Junctions" /
"Junction to Junction" service (why does no-one ever call it either of
those!) from Willesden Junction to Clapham Junction which never existed
at all whatsoever before '94 (I think) - it's now a pretty popular
route on a day-to-day basis (as well as it's revived popularity for
Olympia exhibitions).

I don't think that drawing comparisons with the WLL is valid. For a
start it is much further from the centre so a journey from Willesden to
Clapham avoiding central London is a big boost. In fact if the
Silverlink County service stopped at Willesden the the WLL would be
even more popular.
I don't see the ELL offering the same advantages as the WLL to cross
London travellers as they will be dumped at Highbury and Islington. OK
if you are going to Arsenal I suppose but do people in SE London
support a North London team. I know that the Southern trains were very
crowded on days that Chelsea were playing.

I bet if the were the WLL opening instead of the EELL, you'd be saying
that with only 4 stations, and no obvious reason why large flows of
people would want to travel between any of them, and an infrequent
service using grubby trains, the WLL will be a complete non-starter
and a waste of money.

Mizter T wrote:
You and many others are also scathing about the potential demand a
north/south link on the ELL - I hold a diametrically opposed view. In
addition to brand new A-B journey opportunities, many journeys that
might otherwise have taken a different central London route will
instead go via the ELL.

Indeed. To use just two examples of my own (I live at New Cross):

1. I have friends in Finsbury Park. I currently get train to London
Bridge, tube to King's Cross, tube to Finsbury Park. Once the ELL is
open, it'll be tube to Highbury, tube to Finsbury Park. Much easier,
and reduces congestion on central tubes.

2. I have friends in Walthamstow. Currently I get the tube to Canada
Water, change to Jubilee to Stratford, then get the 69 bus. Again,
once the ELL opens I'll be able to do the whole journey by tube with a
single change, making public transport a very attractive option.

Patrick

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 01:32:18 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:

How about some sort of freight use? The NLL isn't just for people, you
know. However, i'm not sure where the southern end would be; Bishopsgate
is hardly the freight hub it once was, and there's no obvious way beyond
it: the Great Eastern is too busy (and you can get there via Stratford
already), and the East London line itself is never going to be four-track
south of there. You could always go down into some point-defeatingly
expensive tubes, i suppose. The big London freight study a while ago did
say we needed a new Thames crossing to get freight from the Kent ports to
the north without faffing around on the south London commuter lines and
the WLL; might as well build it here as out at Tilbury (yes, i know, it'd
still play merry hell with the Dartford lines).

Alternatively, whack in a second portal or a flyover or whatever, and run
Shoreditch - Highbury & Islington - Willesden Junction as another
Crossrail branch!

I'll throw in this idea: it could be used by a future high speed
inter-city line, as part of its route from the city to the outskirts,
saving lots of expensive tunnelling.