| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
Tube station revamp on the cards if route is split in two
http://www.thecnj.co.uk/camden/08230...082307_17.html quote Congestion fears as transport chiefs investigate changes to ageing Northern Line CAMDEN Town Tube station is being eyed up for redevelopment again - as Transport for London finalise plans to split the Northern Line into two separate routes. Planners believe creating two distinct services would allow more trains to run every hour. The strategy follows a series of private meetings at TfL over the summer which has seen the plans discussed at the highest level. Its success, however, hinges on Camden Town underground station - the congested stop where the two parts of the Northern Line overlap - being redeveloped. A draft document reveals how one branch would run from Edgware to Kennington, while another would go from High Barnet through to Morden. TfL believe this would allow them to increase capacity from around 20 trains per hour to as many as 30. John Prescott, the former deputy prime minister, threw out plans to redevelop Camden Town station in 2005. Transport chiefs had wanted to seize land surrounding the station to build a seven-storey tower of shops and flats. Market traders who would have lost their stalls, the neighbouring Electric Ballroom nightclub, residents and Camden Council opposed the plan. A TfL spokesman said: "We would need to refurbish the station to make it (split the Northern Line) possible, and that would cost a lot of money. This is a long-term aspiration. We think this would be a good thing for the Northern Line." He added that the current station lay-out could not cope with the extra traffic and that TfL were currently looking into how feasible the plans were. The spokesman added: "The Northern Line is one of the most challenging on the network in terms of its age, how much it is used and its design." Critics say splitting the line is unworkable and will lead to dangerous numbers of people changing at Camden Town. Conservative Greater London Authority member for Camden and Barnet Brian Coleman said: "This will lead to trouble at Camden Town. It will take at least five to 10 years to redevelop the station and I have heard TfL want to do this as soon as possible. It will make Camden Town unbearably busy, and people do not want to be forced into changing at Camden Town." He added: "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?" Andrew Bosi, of transport pressure group Friends of Capital Transport, said the jury was out on whether it would improve the service. He said: "The sticking point is congestion. When they wanted to increase the size of the Tube station there before they were too greedy - they wanted to take half of Camden with them. "However, if they do plan to have more people changing there, they will have to work out a way of making sure the station can cope." unquote Maybe an ELL extension beyond Finsbury Park could prove useful after all? |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
On Aug 24, 7:36 am, Bob wrote:
Tube station revamp on the cards if route is split in two http://www.thecnj.co.uk/camden/08230...082307_17.html quote Congestion fears as transport chiefs investigate changes to ageing Northern Line CAMDEN Town Tube station is being eyed up for redevelopment again - as Transport for London finalise plans to split the Northern Line into two separate routes. Planners believe creating two distinct services would allow more trains to run every hour. The strategy follows a series of private meetings at TfL over the summer which has seen the plans discussed at the highest level. Its success, however, hinges on Camden Town underground station - the congested stop where the two parts of the Northern Line overlap - being redeveloped. A draft document reveals how one branch would run from Edgware to Kennington, while another would go from High Barnet through to Morden. TfL believe this would allow them to increase capacity from around 20 trains per hour to as many as 30. John Prescott, the former deputy prime minister, threw out plans to redevelop Camden Town station in 2005. Transport chiefs had wanted to seize land surrounding the station to build a seven-storey tower of shops and flats. Market traders who would have lost their stalls, the neighbouring Electric Ballroom nightclub, residents and Camden Council opposed the plan. A TfL spokesman said: "We would need to refurbish the station to make it (split the Northern Line) possible, and that would cost a lot of money. This is a long-term aspiration. We think this would be a good thing for the Northern Line." He added that the current station lay-out could not cope with the extra traffic and that TfL were currently looking into how feasible the plans were. The spokesman added: "The Northern Line is one of the most challenging on the network in terms of its age, how much it is used and its design." Critics say splitting the line is unworkable and will lead to dangerous numbers of people changing at Camden Town. Conservative Greater London Authority member for Camden and Barnet Brian Coleman said: "This will lead to trouble at Camden Town. It will take at least five to 10 years to redevelop the station and I have heard TfL want to do this as soon as possible. It will make Camden Town unbearably busy, and people do not want to be forced into changing at Camden Town." He added: "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?" Andrew Bosi, of transport pressure group Friends of Capital Transport, said the jury was out on whether it would improve the service. He said: "The sticking point is congestion. When they wanted to increase the size of the Tube station there before they were too greedy - they wanted to take half of Camden with them. "However, if they do plan to have more people changing there, they will have to work out a way of making sure the station can cope." unquote Maybe an ELL extension beyond Finsbury Park could prove useful after all? It seems to be a common response when a lot of people want to visit an attraction, to demolish the attraction in order to build better facilities for the visitors ... They have been trying (and already doing) similar things in Greenwich. |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
On Aug 24, 8:14 am, MIG wrote:
It seems to be a common response when a lot of people want to visit an attraction, to demolish the attraction in order to build better facilities for the visitors ... They have been trying (and already doing) similar things in Greenwich. To be fair, the only things TfL are seeking to destroy in Camden is the chavvy Stables market right by the station selling pirated CDs and 'Adihash' t-shirts, and one of the capital's least appealing music venues. All the worthwhile things - i.e. Camden High Street, Camden Lock, the Lock market, the Barfly, Jazz Cafe, etc - would be left intact. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
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 |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
John B wrote:
To be fair, the only things TfL are seeking to destroy in Camden is the chavvy Stables market right by the station The Stables Market is on Chalk Farm Road, exactly halfway between Camden Town and Chalk Farm stations. |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
On Aug 24, 11:28 am, "John Rowland"
wrote: John B wrote: To be fair, the only things TfL are seeking to destroy in Camden is the chavvy Stables market right by the station The Stables Market is on Chalk Farm Road, exactly halfway between Camden Town and Chalk Farm stations. I have posted before about what I have considered to be the chronic waste that is the ELLx and how this is sucking up funds when many other benificial schemes that would affect far more people go unfunded. More people will probably pass through Camden in a day than will use the ELLx in a whole year but which scheme gets the money. Kevin |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
On Aug 24, 12:52 pm, Kev wrote:
I have posted before about what I have considered to be the chronic waste that is the ELLx and how this is sucking up funds when many other benificial schemes that would affect far more people go unfunded. More people will probably pass through Camden in a day than will use the ELLx in a whole year but which scheme gets the money. I think it's more about which scheme got planning permission. Weirdly most of the facts in the posted article are lifted directly from last year's Transport 2025 planning white paper - there's very little new here. It'd be interesting to know what this "draft document" amounts to. U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:55:06 -0700, John B wrote:
To be fair, the only things TfL are seeking to destroy in Camden is the chavvy Stables market right by the station selling pirated CDs and 'Adihash' t-shirts, and one of the capital's least appealing music venues. That might be fair enough if the development was in some way necessary, but the fact was that the "seven-storey tower of shops and flats" was entirely gratuitous. It's surprising that they thought their application had any chance of success. And while some degree of ground-floor-level development may be necessary to cater for entry/exit flows, the impending avalance of interchange traffic that will need to be dealt with if the line is split won't even be going anywhere near the surface. |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
On 24 Aug, 11:28, "John Rowland"
wrote: To be fair, the only things TfL are seeking to destroy in Camden is the chavvy Stables market right by the station The Stables Market is on Chalk Farm Road, exactly halfway between Camden Town and Chalk Farm stations. doh, I meant Buck Street. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
On 24 Aug, 13:42, asdf wrote:
To be fair, the only things TfL are seeking to destroy in Camden is the chavvy Stables market right by the station selling pirated CDs and 'Adihash' t-shirts, and one of the capital's least appealing music venues. That might be fair enough if the development was in some way necessary, but the fact was that the "seven-storey tower of shops and flats" was entirely gratuitous. It's surprising that they thought their application had any chance of success. And while some degree of ground-floor-level development may be necessary to cater for entry/exit flows, the impending avalance of interchange traffic that will need to be dealt with if the line is split won't even be going anywhere near the surface. Wasn't the point that, if TfL were allowed to build a tower of shops and flats, as well as making that particular part of Camden less scabby and unpleasant, it would also pay for the redevelopment works? (see also: Liverpool Street, Charing Cross, etc) -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
On Aug 24, 1:22 pm, Mr Thant
wrote: On Aug 24, 12:52 pm, Kev wrote: I think it's more about which scheme got planning permission. That really makes sense. We are basing which projects get funding on the basis of planning approvals rather that on a needs basis. It seems incredible the a very busy station in central London closes or operates as departure only on the basis of overcrowding and TfL can't get its act together to sort it out. If they can't get the planning permission then go ahead anyway without the development. How on earth can Livingstone bleed the travelling public dry then say we can't do anything unless we build a multistory office block as part of the development. They managed to rebuild St Pancras without knocking it down and putting a 50 story eyesore on top. Kevin |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:48:35 -0700, John B wrote:
That might be fair enough if the development was in some way necessary, but the fact was that the "seven-storey tower of shops and flats" was entirely gratuitous. It's surprising that they thought their application had any chance of success. Wasn't the point that, if TfL were allowed to build a tower of shops and flats, as well as making that particular part of Camden less scabby and unpleasant, It is not "scabby and unpleasant" to a whole subculture of people who use it. I find that attitude to be most ignorant. it would also pay for the redevelopment works? It would have covered 10% of the cost. (see also: Liverpool Street, Charing Cross, etc) AFAIK those didn't involve the unnecessary demolition of surrounding markets, nightclubs, etc. The office blocks also fit in with the local areas there. |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
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 |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
On 24 Aug, 15:47, asdf wrote:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:48:35 -0700, John B wrote: That might be fair enough if the development was in some way necessary, but the fact was that the "seven-storey tower of shops and flats" was entirely gratuitous. It's surprising that they thought their application had any chance of success. Wasn't the point that, if TfL were allowed to build a tower of shops and flats, as well as making that particular part of Camden less scabby and unpleasant, It is not "scabby and unpleasant" to a whole subculture of people who use it. I find that attitude to be most ignorant. More significantly, whether anyone likes the feel of Camden or not, it IS the reason why so many people go there. It's completely illogical to provide capacity for people to go there while removing the attraction to go there in the process. it would also pay for the redevelopment works? It would have covered 10% of the cost. (see also: Liverpool Street, Charing Cross, etc) AFAIK those didn't involve the unnecessary demolition of surrounding markets, nightclubs, etc. The office blocks also fit in with the local areas there. |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
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 |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
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. |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
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, |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
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 ;-) |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
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 |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
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.) |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
MIG typed
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. I suspect the thought of having to battle through Camden, then standing for the remainder of the journey would deter a substantial number from making the journey by Tube at all. I would not be surprised if City-working commuters then moved east... -- Helen D. Vecht: Edgware. |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:34:03 -0700, MIG wrote:
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, You don't have to fight anything, you just have to follow the crowd. while missing the train I'm trying to change to, If it takes x seconds to change platforms at Camden, then the first train that departs after x seconds is up is the one you'll get. If you're trying to get an earlier one, maybe you shouldn't have bothered. This may seem unjust to you, but it's how it works at every single interchange station on the network already. (And at your starting station, where you get the first train to depart at least y seconds after you leave the house, where y is the time to reach the platform, etc.) And it won't delay you any more than the current delays at Camden Town when there's a train from High Barnet towards Bank in the way of yours. and then having to spend the rest of the journey standing (if I can get on) Guess what? If the service is split and the train frequency is increased, there will be *more* seats available overall. But if TfL don't consider your personal chances of getting a seat for your entire journey as more important than everyone else's, that makes them uncaring? (Yes, I know your journey is only hypothetical.) would dramatically reduce the quality of my journey. (But a TfL that can introduce bendy buses obviously isn't concerned about such considerations.) How do you know they aren't concerned? Unlike you, they also have to take into consideration the people who will be left behind standing on crowded platforms if the service isn't split and the train frequency isn't increased, and balance everyone's needs. |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
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. Furthermore, at the stations north of Camden Town that I go to sometimes, I never really see people waiting for a train; everyone seems to get on whatever train shows up. It is faster, and you never know where a Northern Line train might end up anyway. I think we can all agree that something needs to be done at Camden Town, even if the current service pattern is upheld. I'd rather not see a tower office block on top of the station either, but if it's in the style of the rest of Camden Town, and has the same type of shops etc., I really don't mind. |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
Bob wrote:
Tube station revamp on the cards if route is split in two http://www.thecnj.co.uk/camden/08230...082307_17.html quote Congestion fears as transport chiefs investigate changes to ageing Northern Line CAMDEN Town Tube station is being eyed up for redevelopment again - as Transport for London finalise plans to split the Northern Line into two separate routes. Planners believe creating two distinct services would allow more trains to run every hour. The strategy follows a series of private meetings at TfL over the summer which has seen the plans discussed at the highest level. Its success, however, hinges on Camden Town underground station - the congested stop where the two parts of the Northern Line overlap - being redeveloped. A draft document reveals how one branch would run from Edgware to Kennington, while another would go from High Barnet through to Morden. TfL believe this would allow them to increase capacity from around 20 trains per hour to as many as 30. John Prescott, the former deputy prime minister, threw out plans to redevelop Camden Town station in 2005. Transport chiefs had wanted to seize land surrounding the station to build a seven-storey tower of shops and flats. Market traders who would have lost their stalls, the neighbouring Electric Ballroom nightclub, residents and Camden Council opposed the plan. A TfL spokesman said: "We would need to refurbish the station to make it (split the Northern Line) possible, and that would cost a lot of money. This is a long-term aspiration. We think this would be a good thing for the Northern Line." He added that the current station lay-out could not cope with the extra traffic and that TfL were currently looking into how feasible the plans were. The spokesman added: "The Northern Line is one of the most challenging on the network in terms of its age, how much it is used and its design." Critics say splitting the line is unworkable and will lead to dangerous numbers of people changing at Camden Town. Conservative Greater London Authority member for Camden and Barnet Brian Coleman said: "This will lead to trouble at Camden Town. It will take at least five to 10 years to redevelop the station and I have heard TfL want to do this as soon as possible. It will make Camden Town unbearably busy, and people do not want to be forced into changing at Camden Town." He added: "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?" Andrew Bosi, of transport pressure group Friends of Capital Transport, said the jury was out on whether it would improve the service. He said: "The sticking point is congestion. When they wanted to increase the size of the Tube station there before they were too greedy - they wanted to take half of Camden with them. "However, if they do plan to have more people changing there, they will have to work out a way of making sure the station can cope." Here's a radical idea, why don't they just try it? Just pick a date and do it from them for a while, see how it goes and if it's the predicted nightmare then revert everything back. Although didn't they run it like this after the Camden crash a few years ago? Were the crowds that bad then? |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
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 |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
On Aug 25, 12:08 pm, asdf wrote:
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:34:03 -0700, MIG wrote: 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, You don't have to fight anything, you just have to follow the crowd. while missing the train I'm trying to change to, If it takes x seconds to change platforms at Camden, then the first train that departs after x seconds is up is the one you'll get. If you're trying to get an earlier one, maybe you shouldn't have bothered. This may seem unjust to you, but it's how it works at every single interchange station on the network already. (And at your starting station, where you get the first train to depart at least y seconds after you leave the house, where y is the time to reach the platform, etc.) And it won't delay you any more than the current delays at Camden Town when there's a train from High Barnet towards Bank in the way of yours. and then having to spend the rest of the journey standing (if I can get on) Guess what? If the service is split and the train frequency is increased, there will be *more* seats available overall. But if TfL don't consider your personal chances of getting a seat for your entire journey as more important than everyone else's, that makes them uncaring? (Yes, I know your journey is only hypothetical.) would dramatically reduce the quality of my journey. (But a TfL that can introduce bendy buses obviously isn't concerned about such considerations.) How do you know they aren't concerned? Unlike you, they also have to take into consideration the people who will be left behind standing on crowded platforms if the service isn't split and the train frequency isn't increased, and balance everyone's needs. My concern is that performance is measured by the movement of TfL and the relevant providers' vehicles, rather than by the arrival of passengers at their destinations in a reasonably comfortable state. It's a case of measuring what can be measured, rather than what's important. That's perfectly understandable, but the changes in recent years are about more than just measuring. Positive steps have been taken to get the vehicles through unhindered by passengers, and while this improves "performance", based on what can be measured, it is not improving the journey experience (or timely arrival at destination) of the passengers. I am talking about measures like LU drivers risking being disciplined if they don't shut the doors before people have a chance to get on, and buses not stopping at compulsory stops. I suspect that the plans for the Northern Line are similarly about getting vehicles through unhindered by passengers, and being able to claim increased throughput, regardless of the journey experience of the passengers. |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
On Aug 25, 10:15 pm, Mr Thant
wrote: 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. Are the proposals really going to increase Northern Line frequency by 25%? |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
On Aug 25, 5:25 pm, Stuart wrote:
Bob wrote: Tube station revamp on the cards if route is split in two http://www.thecnj.co.uk/camden/08230...082307_17.html quote Congestion fears as transport chiefs investigate changes to ageing Northern Line CAMDEN Town Tube station is being eyed up for redevelopment again - as Transport for London finalise plans to split the Northern Line into two separate routes. Planners believe creating two distinct services would allow more trains to run every hour. The strategy follows a series of private meetings at TfL over the summer which has seen the plans discussed at the highest level. Its success, however, hinges on Camden Town underground station - the congested stop where the two parts of the Northern Line overlap - being redeveloped. A draft document reveals how one branch would run from Edgware to Kennington, while another would go from High Barnet through to Morden. TfL believe this would allow them to increase capacity from around 20 trains per hour to as many as 30. John Prescott, the former deputy prime minister, threw out plans to redevelop Camden Town station in 2005. Transport chiefs had wanted to seize land surrounding the station to build a seven-storey tower of shops and flats. Market traders who would have lost their stalls, the neighbouring Electric Ballroom nightclub, residents and Camden Council opposed the plan. A TfL spokesman said: "We would need to refurbish the station to make it (split the Northern Line) possible, and that would cost a lot of money. This is a long-term aspiration. We think this would be a good thing for the Northern Line." He added that the current station lay-out could not cope with the extra traffic and that TfL were currently looking into how feasible the plans were. The spokesman added: "The Northern Line is one of the most challenging on the network in terms of its age, how much it is used and its design." Critics say splitting the line is unworkable and will lead to dangerous numbers of people changing at Camden Town. Conservative Greater London Authority member for Camden and Barnet Brian Coleman said: "This will lead to trouble at Camden Town. It will take at least five to 10 years to redevelop the station and I have heard TfL want to do this as soon as possible. It will make Camden Town unbearably busy, and people do not want to be forced into changing at Camden Town." He added: "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?" Andrew Bosi, of transport pressure group Friends of Capital Transport, said the jury was out on whether it would improve the service. He said: "The sticking point is congestion. When they wanted to increase the size of the Tube station there before they were too greedy - they wanted to take half of Camden with them. "However, if they do plan to have more people changing there, they will have to work out a way of making sure the station can cope." Here's a radical idea, why don't they just try it? Just pick a date and do it from them for a while, see how it goes and if it's the predicted nightmare then revert everything back. Although didn't they run it like this after the Camden crash a few years ago? Were the crowds that bad then?- Hide quoted text - http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/twa/ir/lon...ns5651?page=18 http://www.trainweb.org/districtdave..._incident.html From 19th October to 30th October 2003 Camden Town was run as two separate lines - see District Dave's report. I also annex the DfT report on the redevelopment above ground |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
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." http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa.../T2025-new.pdf U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
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. Blaming the service pattern will be handy when the upgrade can't deliver enough to justify its cost ... but then I'm cynical. |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
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. 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. -- Mark Brader "Those who do not understand UNIX Toronto are condemned to reinvent it." -- Henry Spencer My text in this article is in the public domain. |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
On Aug 26, 1:18 pm, (Mark Brader) wrote:
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. Oh sorry, I was just looking for a place to drop in my hypothetical, and neglected to check what your comment was actually about. Mea culpa. U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
|
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
Oh sorry ... Mea culpa.
Thanks. -- Mark Brader, Toronto | "You often seem quite gracious, in your way." | --Steve Summit |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
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. That is a bizarre thing to say about a plan to increase the number of seats per hour. The people who work at Kings Cross and go home to Edgware will have a seat after Camden, whereas now they have to stand most of the way home. |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
"John Rowland" typed
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. That is a bizarre thing to say about a plan to increase the number of seats per hour. The people who work at Kings Cross and go home to Edgware will have a seat after Camden, whereas now they have to stand most of the way home. I suspect the greatly increased dwell times at Camden Town might reduce significantly the number of trains that can use the lines. A passenger injury or two on changing trains would make staff very wary about hurrying. -- Helen D. Vecht: Edgware. |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
In article ,
(John Rowland) wrote: 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. That is a bizarre thing to say about a plan to increase the number of seats per hour. The people who work at Kings Cross and go home to Edgware will have a seat after Camden, whereas now they have to stand most of the way home. Are you seriously saying that the increase in seats per hour will mean that there is no standing? I accept that it will be reduced but eliminated altogether? Hardly. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article , (John Rowland) wrote: 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. That is a bizarre thing to say about a plan to increase the number of seats per hour. The people who work at Kings Cross and go home to Edgware will have a seat after Camden, whereas now they have to stand most of the way home. Are you seriously saying that the increase in seats per hour will mean that there is no standing? I said no such thing, seriously or flippantly. I accept that it will be reduced but eliminated altogether? Hardly. |
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
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. So more vehicles will get through, and create better statistics, but the people won't be getting where they need to. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:10 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk