On 2007-08-24, John B wrote:
... and one of the capital's least appealing music
venues.

Don't tell my son that! It has a following, and it would not be easy to find a
new location, nor would it be welcome in a new development, the management of
which never has any imagination.

On Aug 24, 7:36 am, Bob wrote:
Conservative Greater London Authority member for Camden and Barnet
Brian Coleman said:
"It is a cover for reducing the service. The service was run
like this in the past and they changed it to increase trains. Why
would it work the other way round?"

Hmm...

1) running the Northern Line as two separate lines would reduce delays
and enhance capacity, as shown both by operational experience and flow
modelling; the only reason this is not already done is because of the
Camden bottleneck.

2) TfL is very, very obviously doing its best within its budget to
maximise capacity and increase throughput across London's transport
network, and I'd defy anyone to produce evidence to the contrary

3) unless he means Yerkes' amalgamation of the C&SLR and the CCE&HR in
1924, which may be a little long ago to be representative, there is no
occasion when "the service was run like this in the past and they
changed it to increase trains".

....and people are thinking of making one of this lot the Mayor?

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

On 24 Aug, 11:04, John B wrote:
On Aug 24, 7:36 am, Bob wrote:

Conservative Greater London Authority member for Camden and Barnet
Brian Coleman said:
"It is a cover for reducing the service. The service was run
like this in the past and they changed it to increase trains. Why
would it work the other way round?"

Hmm...

1) running the Northern Line as two separate lines would reduce delays
and enhance capacity, as shown both by operational experience and flow
modelling; the only reason this is not already done is because of the
Camden bottleneck.

2) TfL is very, very obviously doing its best within its budget to
maximise capacity and increase throughput across London's transport
network, and I'd defy anyone to produce evidence to the contrary


As usual, TfL is trying to increase capacity for and throughput of its
vehicles, not of the people who need to travel. The same applies when
buses don't stop at bus stops, but arrive empty at their checkpoints
on time.

How does it help the throughput of passengers (surely the whole point
of a transport system) if half the people currently travelling through
Camden Town without getting off now have to change there, causing
congestion and taking longer for their journeys?



3) unless he means Yerkes' amalgamation of the C&SLR and the CCE&HR in
1924, which may be a little long ago to be representative, there is no
occasion when "the service was run like this in the past and they
changed it to increase trains".

...and people are thinking of making one of this lot the Mayor?

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

On Aug 24, 4:59 pm, MIG wrote:

How does it help the throughput of passengers (surely the whole point
of a transport system) if half the people currently travelling through
Camden Town without getting off now have to change there, causing
congestion and taking longer for their journeys?

Ah, but you're assuming everyone currently waits for a direct train,
which half the time will be the second one. The increase in people
changing is balanced perfectly by the reduction in people waiting for
the second train.

In other words, whatever service pattern you run, half of all journeys
will involve either waiting for the second train or changing at
Camden. So you might as well run the one that allows a much more
frequent service.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

Mr Thant wrote:

How does it help the throughput of passengers (surely the whole point
of a transport system) if half the people currently travelling through
Camden Town without getting off now have to change there, causing
congestion and taking longer for their journeys?

Ah, but you're assuming everyone currently waits for a direct train,
which half the time will be the second one. The increase in people
changing is balanced perfectly by the reduction in people waiting for
the second train.

In other words, whatever service pattern you run, half of all journeys
will involve either waiting for the second train or changing at
Camden. So you might as well run the one that allows a much more
frequent service.

What about the increase in journey times for people who'd have to change at
Kennington? A large proportion use the Charing Cross branch,

Ah, but you're assuming everyone currently waits for a direct train,
which half the time will be the second one. The increase in people
changing is balanced perfectly by the reduction in people waiting for
the second train.

It doesn't actually work like that. People prefer through trains,
much as some transit planners would prefer otherwise.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Don't let it drive you crazy...
| Leave the driving to us!" --Wayne & Shuster

On Aug 25, 6:44 am, (Mark Brader) wrote:
Ah, but you're assuming everyone currently waits for a direct train,
which half the time will be the second one. The increase in people
changing is balanced perfectly by the reduction in people waiting for
the second train.

It doesn't actually work like that. People prefer through trains,
much as some transit planners would prefer otherwise.



People will also miss the trains they are trying to change to while
stuck in the congestion at Camden. If I was paying for more zones,
I'd rather wait a couple of minutes at Colindale (say) for a through
train, get in a seat and stay in it to Bank (say).

Having to fight my way through crowds at Camden, while missing the
train I'm trying to change to, and then having to spend the rest of
the journey standing (if I can get on) would dramatically reduce the
quality of my journey.

(But a TfL that can introduce bendy buses obviously isn't concerned
about such considerations.)

On Aug 25, 6:44 am, (Mark Brader) wrote:
It doesn't actually work like that. People prefer through trains,
much as some transit planners would prefer otherwise.

But that argument doesn't really work if you put it the other way
round. Consider if TfL said they were willing to reduce the Victoria
and Piccadilly Line service frequencies by 20% if it meant everyone
currently changing at Finsbury Park could have a direct train. They'd
be laughed at.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

In article .com, John
B writes
"It is a cover for reducing the service. The service was run
like this in the past and they changed it to increase trains. Why
would it work the other way round?"

3) unless he means Yerkes' amalgamation of the C&SLR and the CCE&HR in
1924, which may be a little long ago to be representative, there is no
occasion when "the service was run like this in the past and they
changed it to increase trains".

Even so, the pre-amalgamation service wasn't two separate routes as
being proposed, but both branches feeding the CX route and neither
feeding the Bank route! So I don't think it's *ever* been run like that
except as an emergency measure.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

A draft document reveals how one branch would run from Edgware to
Kennington, while another would go from High Barnet through to
Morden.

Huh, I thought one *line* would run from Edgware to Morden, and
another from High Barnet to Kennington?

In any case, I hope that the line that will run to Kennington will
keep the name Northern ;-)