On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:04:03 -0700, MIG
wrote:

On Aug 27, 4:08 am, Helen Deborah Vecht
wrote:
(Colin Rosenstiel)typed

In article .com,
(sweek) wrote:
More trains and less delays will ease congestion, making this worth
the effort, I think. And there is quite a good chance you will get a
seat when changing at Camden Town, since a lot of other people will
be getting off and changing for the other line, too.
If you arrive at Camden Town on a crush loaded train do you really think
you will be able to change to a train that is not crush loaded? So if you
had a seat before you won't in future in the peak hour.

Station dwell times are bound to increase when about half the passengers
on board are changing trains.



No they won't, because drivers will face discipline if they don't
stick to "target dwell times". So they will shut the doors before
anyone can get on (as they already do at Bank and elsewhere), leaving
anyone who politely lets people off first standing on the platform
indefinitely.

A nice rant, spoiled only by its lack of grounding in the facts.

Let me translate into English: you once couldn't get on a train at
Bank because, in your opinion, the driver shut the doors too early.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007, MIG wrote:

On Aug 26, 8:15 am, Mr Thant
wrote:
On Aug 26, 12:58 am, MIG wrote:

Are the proposals really going to increase Northern Line frequency by
25%?

That's what they say:

"Following the PPP Northern line upgrade, the line will operate 30tph
on the southern Morden to Kennington section, but the branches through
central London will be operating at only 22-25tph and will remain
crowded. The limit on capacity is the need to inter-work services to
different destinations via different branches. It is possible to
achieve higher frequencies and capacity using the existing
infrastructure if junction capacity limitations can be overcome.

"A segregation of services would deliver simpler service patterns on
the line. This will allow more trains to be run through both the West
End and City branches - enabling 30tph services on the central London
branches. This will provide roughly 25 per cent extra capacity and
crowding relief on these busy sections. With the core infrastructure
being capable of supporting these service patterns, the main
requirements are some additional trains (and stabling) and station
capacity improvements at Camden Town."

Well, it's all a bit smoke and mirrors and hypothetical. The
hypothetical increase in frequency will be down to the upgrade, not to
the service pattern changes, but they are suggesting that they won't be
able to take full advantage of the upgrade without the changes to the
service pattern.

Huh? It seems quite clear to me. The situation post-upgrade will be 22-25
tph on the branches; changing the service pattern will raise it to 30 tph.
I don't think you can say that 'increase in frequency will be down to the
upgrade' if the upgrade alone doesn't cause it!

tom

--
Also giving up smoking (cigarettes) today so apologies if it reads wierd
or I trail off into maddness at any point!! -- Agent D, 20051129

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007, 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.

Oh, that's impressive debating. Snip the part where I quoted what I was
responding to, and then claim that I haven't correctly responded to
something else.

What I was responding to *was*:

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.

So the correct analogy would be: consider if TfL said that half of
the Victoria Line trains would now go to Cockfosters and half of the
Piccadilly trains would go to Walthamstow.

AND that the total frequency on each line would fall by 20%.

It's equally impressive debating to separate these aspects of the problem;
you can have direct trains, but you also have to have 20% fewer of them.

Yes, it may be true that a simpler service pattern allows higher train
frequencies, and that might be a worthwhile benefit. But there is a
cost as well, so don't go around making fallacious arguments to say that
there isn't.

Quite so, and i didn't think anyone was. The question is simply whether
the benefits outweigh the costs.

For

tom

--
Also giving up smoking (cigarettes) today so apologies if it reads wierd
or I trail off into maddness at any point!! -- Agent D, 20051129

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article .com,
(sweek) wrote:

More trains and less delays will ease congestion, making this worth the
effort, I think. And there is quite a good chance you will get a seat
when changing at Camden Town, since a lot of other people will be
getting off and changing for the other line, too.

If you arrive at Camden Town on a crush loaded train do you really think
you will be able to change to a train that is not crush loaded? So if
you had a seat before you won't in future in the peak hour.

Bear in mind that under the proposed scheme, half the people on any
arriving crush-loaded train will be getting off!

tom

--
Also giving up smoking (cigarettes) today so apologies if it reads wierd
or I trail off into maddness at any point!! -- Agent D, 20051129

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article
.com,
(sweek) wrote:

More trains and less delays will ease congestion, making this
worth the effort, I think. And there is quite a good chance you
will get a seat when changing at Camden Town, since a lot of
other people will be getting off and changing for the other
line, too.

If you arrive at Camden Town on a crush loaded train do you
really think you will be able to change to a train that is not
crush loaded? So if you had a seat before you won't in future in
the peak hour.

Bear in mind that under the proposed scheme, half the people on any
arriving crush-loaded train will be getting off!

And struggling to get onto another train.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Aug 27, 10:49 pm, James Farrar wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:04:03 -0700, MIG
wrote:





On Aug 27, 4:08 am, Helen Deborah Vecht
wrote:
(Colin Rosenstiel)typed

In article .com,
(sweek) wrote:
More trains and less delays will ease congestion, making this worth
the effort, I think. And there is quite a good chance you will get a
seat when changing at Camden Town, since a lot of other people will
be getting off and changing for the other line, too.
If you arrive at Camden Town on a crush loaded train do you really think
you will be able to change to a train that is not crush loaded? So if you
had a seat before you won't in future in the peak hour.

Station dwell times are bound to increase when about half the passengers
on board are changing trains.

No they won't, because drivers will face discipline if they don't
stick to "target dwell times". So they will shut the doors before
anyone can get on (as they already do at Bank and elsewhere), leaving
anyone who politely lets people off first standing on the platform
indefinitely.

A nice rant, spoiled only by its lack of grounding in the facts.

Let me translate into English: you once couldn't get on a train at
Bank because, in your opinion, the driver shut the doors too early.-


No. Many many times. I have also had a written respons from LU
confirming that it is their policy. Is that English enough for you?

On Aug 28, 4:23 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007, MIG wrote:
On Aug 26, 8:15 am, Mr Thant
wrote:
On Aug 26, 12:58 am, MIG wrote:

Are the proposals really going to increase Northern Line frequency by
25%?

That's what they say:

"Following the PPP Northern line upgrade, the line will operate 30tph
on the southern Morden to Kennington section, but the branches through
central London will be operating at only 22-25tph and will remain
crowded. The limit on capacity is the need to inter-work services to
different destinations via different branches. It is possible to
achieve higher frequencies and capacity using the existing
infrastructure if junction capacity limitations can be overcome.

"A segregation of services would deliver simpler service patterns on
the line. This will allow more trains to be run through both the West
End and City branches - enabling 30tph services on the central London
branches. This will provide roughly 25 per cent extra capacity and
crowding relief on these busy sections. With the core infrastructure
being capable of supporting these service patterns, the main
requirements are some additional trains (and stabling) and station
capacity improvements at Camden Town."

Well, it's all a bit smoke and mirrors and hypothetical. The
hypothetical increase in frequency will be down to the upgrade, not to
the service pattern changes, but they are suggesting that they won't be
able to take full advantage of the upgrade without the changes to the
service pattern.

Huh? It seems quite clear to me. The situation post-upgrade will be 22-25
tph on the branches; changing the service pattern will raise it to 30 tph.
I don't think you can say that 'increase in frequency will be down to the
upgrade' if the upgrade alone doesn't cause it!


I am inferring that the upgrade will be claimed to allow a theoretical
30 tph on any given section, but that 30 tph will not apply. This
will be excused on the grounds of the existing service pattern rather
than a failure of the upgrade, which will achieve what it claims
without actually having to achieve it.

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, MIG wrote:

On Aug 28, 4:23 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007, MIG wrote:
On Aug 26, 8:15 am, Mr Thant
wrote:
On Aug 26, 12:58 am, MIG wrote:

Are the proposals really going to increase Northern Line frequency by
25%?

That's what they say:

"Following the PPP Northern line upgrade, the line will operate 30tph
on the southern Morden to Kennington section, but the branches
through central London will be operating at only 22-25tph and will
remain crowded. The limit on capacity is the need to inter-work
services to different destinations via different branches. It is
possible to achieve higher frequencies and capacity using the
existing infrastructure if junction capacity limitations can be
overcome.

"A segregation of services would deliver simpler service patterns on
the line. This will allow more trains to be run through both the West
End and City branches - enabling 30tph services on the central London
branches. This will provide roughly 25 per cent extra capacity and
crowding relief on these busy sections. With the core infrastructure
being capable of supporting these service patterns, the main
requirements are some additional trains (and stabling) and station
capacity improvements at Camden Town."

Well, it's all a bit smoke and mirrors and hypothetical. The
hypothetical increase in frequency will be down to the upgrade, not to
the service pattern changes, but they are suggesting that they won't
be able to take full advantage of the upgrade without the changes to
the service pattern.

Huh? It seems quite clear to me. The situation post-upgrade will be
22-25 tph on the branches; changing the service pattern will raise it
to 30 tph. I don't think you can say that 'increase in frequency will
be down to the upgrade' if the upgrade alone doesn't cause it!

I am inferring that the upgrade will be claimed to allow a theoretical
30 tph on any given section, but that 30 tph will not apply. This will
be excused on the grounds of the existing service pattern rather than a
failure of the upgrade, which will achieve what it claims without
actually having to achieve it.

I see. You're predicting that they're going to claim that the upgrade will
allow 30 tph, without reference to a service pattern change. Is that
right?

If they do do that, and then use the service pattern as an excuse when
they can't deliver 30 tph, then you're quite right, that's smoke and
mirrors. But they haven't done that, and, in fact, they've explicitly
said, in whatever U was quoting, that that won't be the case. I'd say it's
the smoke and mirrors which is hypothetical at this point!

tom

--
File under 'directionless space novelty ultimately ruined by poor
self-editing'

On Aug 30, 1:18 am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, MIG wrote:
On Aug 28, 4:23 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007, MIG wrote:
On Aug 26, 8:15 am, Mr Thant
wrote:
On Aug 26, 12:58 am, MIG wrote:

Are the proposals really going to increase Northern Line frequency by
25%?

That's what they say:

"Following the PPP Northern line upgrade, the line will operate 30tph
on the southern Morden to Kennington section, but the branches
through central London will be operating at only 22-25tph and will
remain crowded. The limit on capacity is the need to inter-work
services to different destinations via different branches. It is
possible to achieve higher frequencies and capacity using the
existing infrastructure if junction capacity limitations can be
overcome.

"A segregation of services would deliver simpler service patterns on
the line. This will allow more trains to be run through both the West
End and City branches - enabling 30tph services on the central London
branches. This will provide roughly 25 per cent extra capacity and
crowding relief on these busy sections. With the core infrastructure
being capable of supporting these service patterns, the main
requirements are some additional trains (and stabling) and station
capacity improvements at Camden Town."

Well, it's all a bit smoke and mirrors and hypothetical. The
hypothetical increase in frequency will be down to the upgrade, not to
the service pattern changes, but they are suggesting that they won't
be able to take full advantage of the upgrade without the changes to
the service pattern.

Huh? It seems quite clear to me. The situation post-upgrade will be
22-25 tph on the branches; changing the service pattern will raise it
to 30 tph. I don't think you can say that 'increase in frequency will
be down to the upgrade' if the upgrade alone doesn't cause it!

I am inferring that the upgrade will be claimed to allow a theoretical
30 tph on any given section, but that 30 tph will not apply. This will
be excused on the grounds of the existing service pattern rather than a
failure of the upgrade, which will achieve what it claims without
actually having to achieve it.

I see. You're predicting that they're going to claim that the upgrade will
allow 30 tph, without reference to a service pattern change. Is that
right?

If they do do that, and then use the service pattern as an excuse when
they can't deliver 30 tph, then you're quite right, that's smoke and
mirrors. But they haven't done that, and, in fact, they've explicitly
said, in whatever U was quoting, that that won't be the case. I'd say it's
the smoke and mirrors which is hypothetical at this point!

tom



At the very least, there are different measures being applied to the
"before" and the "after". If so much could be achieved by changing
the service pattern, the perceived value of the upgrade would be
reduced. It's having it all ways, I suspect.

On Aug 24, 2:19 pm, alex_t wrote:
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 ;-)

.... and one of the lines will need a new name, and map colour.