|
ELLX phase 2
|
ELLX phase 2
On Jan 22, 5:07*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, MIG wrote: On Jan 21, 5:08*pm, Tom Anderson wrote: On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, MIG wrote: New stations and better interchanges on existing lines could provide a lot of new person-routes, both north and south of the Thames, at much less cost than new lines. I think the original suggestion was about capacity, not routes. Building more stations on existing lines can't increase capacity. There are probably cheaper options than extending the Bakerloo, though. I can't work out a formula, but it seems to me that if people could travel more directly to where they wanted to go, spending less time on the transport networks and travelling a shorter distance, it actually would increase capacity. *Interchanges could make that possible. To a point. If people are making a journey using lines A, B and C, and you add an interchange between A and C, it relieves B. It doesn't relieve A or C, though, and if those are at capacity, it doesn't relieve the bottleneck. It depends on the details of the network, i suppose. I think you alluded to platforms on the South London line at Loughborough Junction (interchanging with the Holborn aka Thameslink line) and Brixton (interchanging with the Chatham main line). Would those add capacity? I'll assume that people can come from Batterclapstock, ie on the SLL west of Brixton, from Peckham, ie along the SLL west of Loughborough Junction, from the southern part of the Chatham, or the southern part of the Thameslink route, and want to go to one of Victoria, Blackfriars etc or London Bridge. Looking at the possible combinations: Batterclapstock - Victoria: no, wrong way Batterclapstock - Blackfriars: no, take a radial line into town + change Batterclapstock - London Bridge: no, direct train already Peckham - Victoria: no, direct train already Peckham - Blackfriars: no, go via London Bridge / Cannon Street (?) Peckham - London Bridge: no, wrong way Chatham - Victoria: no, direct train already Chatham - Blackfriars: no, change at Herne Hill Chatham - London Bridge: maybe Thameslink - Victoria: no, change at Herne Hill Thameslink - Blackfriars: no, direct train already Thameslink - London Bridge: no, change at Elephant or Blackfriars The only journey that gets improved is Chatham - London Bridge: if you're south of Penge, you can get a direct train or a good change (at Shortlands or Penge). If you're north of there, you either backtrack to Penge, or do a double change via Herne and Tulse Hills, both of which are a bit awkward. Being able to change at Brixton onto an SLL train would make life easier, even though the SLL route to London Bridge is a bit roundabout. This would take people off the Tulse Hill or New Cross Gate lines into London Bridge, and put them on the SLL. Possibly a minor win, i'm not sure. To sum up, i think building those platforms would be a good idea, to add flexibility and resiliency to the network, and to serve local users better, but i don't think they're going to deliver extra capacity. tom I can see that it's limited, but it's also cheap, and therefore possibly possible. And I was thinking about journeys south as well. For example, going from Lewisham* to Herne Hill really needn't be as difficult as it is. To do it by train you'd have to clutter up routes into London Bridge and Blackfriars or Victoria and back out again, when a change at Brixton or Loughborough Junction would make it simple. Given the enthusiasm for orbital routes, which I don't entirely share, surely it should be possible to come in from one direction and travel along the orbital route a bit before proceeding in or out on another radial route, thereby benefiting those who don't live directly on the orbital corridor. *The route to Victoria has so many signal stops, there might as well be lots of stations with no effect on journey time. |
ELLX phase 2
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Mizter T wrote:
On 20 Jan, 20:12, Mr Thant wrote: Mwmbwls wrote: The 1974 London Rail Study believed the cost benefit case to be weak and so Camberwell like sleeping beauty nodded off until most recently in 2006 Tim O'Toole mentioned it in a Time Out interview last year: http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...line-extenstio... Pure rumour says the plan involves the Hayes branch. I'm not so sure that the travellers on the Hayes branch would really want it - they already have a 4tph service, two of those being fast from Ladywell to London Bridge (which is an advantage for those who wish to get into town quicker, though a disadvantage for those who want Lewisham either in its own right or for connections including the DLR to the Docklands). Indeed. Those wanting London Bridge or the City would have to change at Lewisham. Or Elephant, after they've sat through some number of additional stops. The change at Lewisham would have to be pretty painless for this to work, and there would have to be enough capacity on that line for it. Would the Bakerloo service intermingle with other services? The Bakerloo would presumably have to intermingle with freight trains on the line from Peckham Rye to Lewisham, which could present safety and reliability issues (though many of the freights do run late or at night). Even if there was a new separated route constructed through Lewisham for the Bakerloo to reach the Hayes branch, it would still have to share tracks with other services from Peckham Rye (if that is indeed where it surfaced) to the junction just past Nunhead. I had the idea it was to be a tunnel from Elephant and Castle all the way to Lewisham, surfacing south of there, from where the Hayes branch is separate from all other lines (one of the striking things about that branch that makes it so attractive for tubulation). That would mean it was an entirely segregated route, and so there were no worries about intermingling, freight, safety, performance pollution, etc. Plus, it would reduce conflicts and release capacity on the surface lines. If you draw a straight line from Elephant to Lewisham, it goes pretty much along the Old Kent Road; this is a very densely populated area that's very poorly served by railways, so it would be a great route for a new tube line, regardless of where it went past Lewisham. You run via stations at Bricklayers Arms, Thomas a Becket aka Albany Road aka Southernwood Retail Park aka Burgess Park, Canal Bridge aka Rotherhithe New Road aka Cantium Retail Park, Queen's Road Peckham, New Cross Gate, Deptford Bridge, Lewisham. Or something like that. If it did surface at Peckham Rye, there may be space to four-track from there to Lewisham: you have to take a house, a car-park, lots of unused land, dig out some cuttings and build up some embankments, and widen some bridges, but it is doable. I'm just not quire sure how it would all work in practice - and it certainly seems like there'd be many potential pitfalls in taking the Bakerloo all the way put to Hayes. Certainly true. Don't get me wrong - I'm very much in favour of extending the Bakerloo, I just wonder if this Hayes talk is merely people grasping for a wider plan which would justify its extension. I think it'd be a great success even if it was just extended to Camberwell, with an intermediate station on the Walworth Road - and could even go further south to East Dulwich (not just the station but into the heart of the neighbourhood), or east to Peckham. The line's central/southern section has the spare capacity, and has the unfulfilled potential. Quite. I think the above route to Lewisham would be a huge boon to Peckham residents, whether it went on to Hayes or not! tom -- space, robots, pirates, vikings, ninjas, medieval castles, dinosaurs, cities, suburbia, holiday locations, wild west, the Arctic, airports, boats, racing cars, trains, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Spider-Man, Batman, SpongeBob SquarePants, Avatar: The Last Airbender and more |
ELLX phase 2
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Mizter T wrote:
Even then I still think that converting the Hayes branch to DLR is a pretty unworkable idea. Maybe I'm just not imaginative enough. Okay, let's get imaginative. What if you piggybacked DLR trains on heavy rail well wagons? Run them at high speed along the Hayes branch, using the existing stations, and then automatically unload at Lewisham for transfer to the DLR. Interleave normal trains to London Bridge as now. Solved! Apart from the fact that a DLR train is 28 metres long and 2.65 metres wide, which is longer and wider than any normal train, and 3.47 metres tall, which means that by the time it's piggybacked, it's going to be about W12 height. Apart from that, it's a great idea, obviously. tom -- space, robots, pirates, vikings, ninjas, medieval castles, dinosaurs, cities, suburbia, holiday locations, wild west, the Arctic, airports, boats, racing cars, trains, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Spider-Man, Batman, SpongeBob SquarePants, Avatar: The Last Airbender and more |
ELLX phase 2
On Jan 22, 5:54*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Mizter T wrote: On 20 Jan, 20:12, Mr Thant wrote: Mwmbwls wrote: *The 1974 London Rail Study believed the cost benefit case to be weak and so Camberwell like sleeping beauty nodded off until most recently in 2006 Tim O'Toole mentioned it in a Time Out interview last year: http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...line-extenstio... Pure rumour says the plan involves the Hayes branch. I'm not so sure that the travellers on the Hayes branch would really want it - they already have a 4tph service, two of those being fast from Ladywell to London Bridge (which is an advantage for those who wish to get into town quicker, though a disadvantage for those who want Lewisham either in its own right or for connections including the DLR to the Docklands). Indeed. Those wanting London Bridge or the City would have to change at Lewisham. Or Elephant, after they've sat through some number of additional stops. The change at Lewisham would have to be pretty painless for this to work, and there would have to be enough capacity on that line for it. Would the Bakerloo service intermingle with other services? The Bakerloo would presumably have to intermingle with freight trains on the line from Peckham Rye to Lewisham, which could present safety and reliability issues (though many of the freights do run late or at night). Even if there was a new separated route constructed through Lewisham for the Bakerloo to reach the Hayes branch, it would still have to share tracks with other services from Peckham Rye (if that is indeed where it surfaced) to the junction just past Nunhead. I had the idea it was to be a tunnel from Elephant and Castle all the way to Lewisham, surfacing south of there, from where the Hayes branch is separate from all other lines (one of the striking things about that branch that makes it so attractive for tubulation). That would mean it was an entirely segregated route, and so there were no worries about intermingling, freight, safety, performance pollution, etc. Plus, it would reduce conflicts and release capacity on the surface lines. If you draw a straight line from Elephant to Lewisham, it goes pretty much along the Old Kent Road; this is a very densely populated area that's very poorly served by railways, so it would be a great route for a new tube line, regardless of where it went past Lewisham. You run via stations at Bricklayers Arms, Thomas a Becket aka Albany Road aka Southernwood Retail Park aka Burgess Park, Canal Bridge aka Rotherhithe New Road aka Cantium Retail Park, Queen's Road Peckham, New Cross Gate, Deptford Bridge, Lewisham. Or something like that. If it did surface at Peckham Rye, there may be space to four-track from there to Lewisham: you have to take a house, a car-park, lots of unused land, dig out some cuttings and build up some embankments, and widen some bridges, but it is doable. I'm just not quire sure how it would all work in practice - and it certainly seems like there'd be many potential pitfalls in taking the Bakerloo all the way put to Hayes. Certainly true. Don't get me wrong - I'm very much in favour of extending the Bakerloo, I just wonder if this Hayes talk is merely people grasping for a wider plan which would justify its extension. I think it'd be a great success even if it was just extended to Camberwell, with an intermediate station on the Walworth Road - and could even go further south to East Dulwich (not just the station but into the heart of the neighbourhood), or east to Peckham. The line's central/southern section has the spare capacity, and has the unfulfilled potential. Quite. I think the above route to Lewisham would be a huge boon to Peckham residents, whether it went on to Hayes or not! tom I've long thought that extending the Bakerloo to Lewisham would be very useful in itself. If it was to extend to Hayes, which is already signalled to NR standards, wouldn't it be possible to intermingle on the lines of Queens Park to Harrow? Maybe the peak Cannon Street service would need to be reduced or curtailed. Otherwise, like the distinctly bad DLR idea, it removes the fairly fast route to London Bridge. |
ELLX phase 2
On 21 Jan, 19:50, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, THC wrote: On 20 Jan, 20:12, Mr Thant wrote: Pure rumour says the plan involves the Hayes branch. It's more than a rumour, as confirmed by Bakerloo line GM Kevin Bootle to Modern Railways in November 2007 (p87). *He said that "extending the line to Hayes remains a live proposition for the longer term". Which is completely meaningless, since 'live proposition' means everything from 'we're oiling the TBMs now' to 'a work experience student once had a look at a map and thought it might be doable'. The only way it could stop being a live proposition would be if a rift valley opened up in Peckham. That's as may be but it elevates the prospect from one of pure rumour to something that is verifiably under consideration. Which makes it altogether a more likely prospect than your super-Met into south-east London, no? ;-) THC |
ELLX phase 2
"MIG" wrote To sum up, i think building those platforms would be a good idea, to add flexibility and resiliency to the network, and to serve local users better, but i don't think they're going to deliver extra capacity. I once had a commute from Swanley to South Bermondsey, and the connection at Peckham Rye worked well enough. From Chatham itself to London Bridge the best route is the direct train, or backtracking from Cannon Street if the fast doesn't stop at LB, although it's a bit slow via Dartford off peak. From intermediate stations I would take the tube Elephant. For your other example of Lewisham to Herne Hill I would take a bus from Denmark Hill, or change at Peckham Rye and walk from North Dulwich. Loughborough Junction must have been quite a hive of activity when it had six platforms (2 on the Herne Hill line, two on the Denmark Hill spur - the remains are still extant, although they haven't been used for at least 90 years - and two on the spur towards Brixton. One of the bronze commuters is silently waiting on the remains of the Catford Loop platform at Brixton). I don't think South London line platforms at Loughborough Junction can really be justified, though platforms on the South London (Atlantic) lines at Brixton would be well used, though expensive to provide on the viaduct. Peter I can see that it's limited, but it's also cheap, and therefore possibly possible. And I was thinking about journeys south as well. For example, going from Lewisham* to Herne Hill really needn't be as difficult as it is. To do it by train you'd have to clutter up routes into London Bridge and Blackfriars or Victoria and back out again, when a change at Brixton or Loughborough Junction would make it simple. Given the enthusiasm for orbital routes, which I don't entirely share, surely it should be possible to come in from one direction and travel along the orbital route a bit before proceeding in or out on another radial route, thereby benefiting those who don't live directly on the orbital corridor. *The route to Victoria has so many signal stops, there might as well be lots of stations with no effect on journey time. |
ELLX phase 2
"Tom Anderson" wrote If you draw a straight line from Elephant to Lewisham, it goes pretty much along the Old Kent Road; this is a very densely populated area that's very poorly served by railways, so it would be a great route for a new tube line, regardless of where it went past Lewisham. You run via stations at Bricklayers Arms, Thomas a Becket aka Albany Road aka Southernwood Retail Park aka Burgess Park, Canal Bridge aka Rotherhithe New Road aka Cantium Retail Park, Queen's Road Peckham, New Cross Gate, Deptford Bridge, Lewisham. Or something like that. There was a missed opportunity when the Bricklayers Arms branch closed. If the Bakerloo extension surfaced at B Arms and took over the branch, with an interchange at South Bermondsey, before diving down to reach Lewisham it would be much cheaper than tunnelling all the way, and have the opportunity to regenerate what are still run down areas. Peter |
ELLX phase 2
Tom Anderson wrote: On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, MIG wrote: On Jan 21, 5:08pm, Tom Anderson wrote: On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, MIG wrote: New stations and better interchanges on existing lines could provide a lot of new person-routes, both north and south of the Thames, at much less cost than new lines. I think the original suggestion was about capacity, not routes. Building more stations on existing lines can't increase capacity. There are probably cheaper options than extending the Bakerloo, though. I can't work out a formula, but it seems to me that if people could travel more directly to where they wanted to go, spending less time on the transport networks and travelling a shorter distance, it actually would increase capacity. Interchanges could make that possible. To a point. If people are making a journey using lines A, B and C, and you add an interchange between A and C, it relieves B. It doesn't relieve A or C, though, and if those are at capacity, it doesn't relieve the bottleneck. It depends on the details of the network, i suppose. I think you alluded to platforms on the South London line at Loughborough Junction (interchanging with the Holborn aka Thameslink line) and Brixton (interchanging with the Chatham main line). Would those add capacity? I'll assume that people can come from Batterclapstock, ie on the SLL west of Brixton, from Peckham, ie along the SLL west of Loughborough Junction, ^^^ I presume you mean *east* of Loogabarooga Juntion, for that is where Peckham is. I understand the Batterclapstock amalgam you have created, but the reality is somewhat more complex - - Clapham has the Northern line + SLL - Clapham Junction - which is really in Battersea - is on the main lines to Waterloo and Victoria - also in Battersea, the almost adjacent Queenstown Rd and Battersea Park stations are on the main lines to Waterloo and Victoria respectively, albeit with less frequent services (plus Battersea Park is on the SLL - though courtesy of platform lengthening on the other lines this looks like it will be no longer) - Stockwell has the Northern line + Victoria line from the southern part of the Chatham, or the southern part of the Thameslink route, and want to go to one of Victoria, Blackfriars etc or London Bridge. Looking at the possible combinations: Batterclapstock - Victoria: no, wrong way Batterclapstock - Blackfriars: no, take a radial line into town + change From Clapham / Stockwell one could go by tube to the Elephant & Castle then change for a train to Blackfriars, but I wouldn't recommend it - however the 45 or 63 bus from E&C to Blackfriars would be a good route. Batterclapstock - London Bridge: no, direct train already Yes, from Clapham - and yes from Battersea Park via the SLL, but not in the future (see above). No, from Clapham Jn (unless you include the long way round half-hourly service via the Crystal Palace that takes 37 mins) - but CJ to London Bridge can be done via Waterloo, either by Jubilee line or by mainline train from Waterloo East. Yes, from Stockwell - Northern line. Peckham - Victoria: no, direct train already Peckham - Blackfriars: no, go via London Bridge / Cannon Street (?) Err... how about - go direct from Peckham Rye to Blackfriars (service starts at Sevenoaks). Peckham - London Bridge: no, wrong way Chatham - Victoria: no, direct train already Chatham - Blackfriars: no, change at Herne Hill Chatham - London Bridge: maybe Thameslink - Victoria: no, change at Herne Hill Thameslink - Blackfriars: no, direct train already Thameslink - London Bridge: no, change at Elephant or Blackfriars Yes, change from Thameslink at Tulse Hill and take train to London Bridge. The only journey that gets improved is Chatham - London Bridge: if you're south of Penge, you can get a direct train or a good change (at Shortlands or Penge). If you're north of there, you either backtrack to Penge, or do a double change via Herne and Tulse Hills, both of which are a bit awkward. Being able to change at Brixton onto an SLL train would make life easier, even though the SLL route to London Bridge is a bit roundabout. This would take people off the Tulse Hill or New Cross Gate lines into London Bridge, and put them on the SLL. Possibly a minor win, i'm not sure. If you are considering a journey from the Chatham main line to London Bridge via Loughborough Jn, that would still mean a change at Herne Hill too. Plus, the SLL service look like it is getting kicked out of London Bridge to make way for Thameslink 2000. The ELLX phase 2 will likely be coming to the SLL however. Also, passengers wanting London Bridge from the vicinity of Kent House can go from nearby Clock House; from the vicinity of Penge East they can go from Penge West; from the vicinity of West Dulwich they can go from North Dulwich; and from Sydenham Hill they could go from the nearbyish Gipsy Hill station. To sum up, i think building those platforms would be a good idea, to add flexibility and resiliency to the network, and to serve local users better, but i don't think they're going to deliver extra capacity. tom As MIG has already stated, your analysis purely looks at journeys into central London and ignores other journeys. However, even when one considers many of these other possible journeys, the case isn't amazingly strong - many such journeys can be achieved using a change elsewhere, or by using a bus for a bit of the journey (try me!). When the ELLX phase 2 comes, interchange at Loughborough Jn would offer some further possibilities, but again they are largely available elsewhere. In addition constructing platforms on the SLL at Loughborough Jn would be *very* expensive - it is on a viaduct at this point. From a train it might look easy, but take a look from the street and you'll see that it ain't. If there was to be platforms anywhere along the SLL, then Brixton would take preference - but again the line is high up on a viaduct here. As I put forward in another thread, perhaps rebuilding East Brixton station on the SLL might be the best bet - it's a far easier location than either Brixton or Loughborough Jn, and whilst hardly ideal for interchange purposes, and would serve the locality of Loughborough Jn as well. Don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of connecting the dots and creating interchanges - like so many others I also look out of train windows and see the missed potential, and the SLL flying over Loughborough Jn is a particularly easy one to spot. However, a cold hard look at the benefits arguably reveals that perhaps it isn't quite the magic wand solution that it might at first seem. |
ELLX phase 2
On 22 Jan, 10:18, Mwmbwls wrote:
On Jan 21, 9:14 pm, Jamie Thompson wrote: I was looking at the South London options for developing the network the other day, and it seems to me that the Hayes branch is pretty much the only option for the DLR, so it should probably go to that, with the Bakerloo going elsewhere, though going through Lewisham is probably still a good idea. I am not sure that the DLR would offer sufficient capacity down the Hayes corridor - the South of London RUS is now proposing 6 twelve car trains per hour in the peak. Plans for the original Fleet line to link Lewisham with Fenchurch Street were abandoned in 1977 and at that time an extension of the East London Line from New Cross to Lewisham and from Shoreditch to Liverpool Street were proposed instead. Thereafter long grass grew and memories faded. Under the current proposals, I have always felt that New Cross, like Elephant and Castle, is too close to the City to be a viable terminus and that an ELL phase 3 extension to relieve Lewisham, possibly going on to Hayes would be a good idea. It would at some point be necessary to tackle the four coach constraint limit on the Canada Water - Whitechapel section of the ELL but I believe that is going to be inevitable anyway sooner or later. The London Overground proposal already contains links to the "Not quite Outer Circle" core route from the east from Barking,and the north from Watford and suggestions were made for a western extension from Wimbledon to Clapham Junction. Linking the south east quadrant in a similar manner could be worth considering. Mwmbwls - "Renowned Builders of Castles in the Air to the Gentry" - our motto - "Everything will be fine until you try to move in." Interesting ideas, in particular the notion of the ELLX continuing from New Cross down to Hayes which I do quite like! I suppose one argument in favour of the terminus at New Cross is that during times of disruption on the Croydon/Crystal Palace 'branch' it would help to provide the rest of the line with a reliable, if degraded, service - and passengers from Southeastern services could still change onto it at New Cross. I'm not so sure of your certainty that ELLX trains are going to get much longer than four carriages. If Wapping and Rotherhithe were closed and with judicious use of SDO and perhaps some platform level works, perhaps six carriages might be possible - though without major works I'm not sure how feasible this would be. I don't know whether passive provision is being made at the new ELLX stations for longer trains. Of course whether the Hayes branch could get by with four car ELLX trains, even if they were just part of the mix, is questionable (as you implicitly seem to acknowledge). What's this ' "Not quite Outer Circle" core route from the east from Barking' of which you speak - it would involve taking c2c aka London, Tilbury and Southend trains up the so-called GOBLIN to Gospel Oak and beyond? |
ELLX phase 2
On 22 Jan, 20:15, Mizter T wrote:
I suppose one argument in favour of the terminus at New Cross is that during times of disruption on the Croydon/Crystal Palace 'branch' it would help to provide the rest of the line with a reliable, if degraded, service - and passengers from Southeastern services could still change onto it at New Cross. I'm sure they'll still have the facility to reverse trains in their own platforms at both New Crosses. I'm not so sure of your certainty that ELLX trains are going to get much longer than four carriages. If Wapping and Rotherhithe were closed and with judicious use of SDO and perhaps some platform level works, perhaps six carriages might be possible - though without major works I'm not sure how feasible this would be. I don't know whether passive provision is being made at the new ELLX stations for longer trains. I think all except Wapping, Rotherhithe and Canada Water are either 6 cars or easy to extend, though the secondary escape staircases might be being built in the way. Shoreditch High Street is 8 cars, but I don't know about the rest of the northern extension. U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
ELLX phase 2
On 22 Jan, 21:43, Mr Thant
wrote: On 22 Jan, 20:15, Mizter T wrote: I suppose one argument in favour of the terminus at New Cross is that during times of disruption on the Croydon/Crystal Palace 'branch' it would help to provide the rest of the line with a reliable, if degraded, service - and passengers from Southeastern services could still change onto it at New Cross. I'm sure they'll still have the facility to reverse trains in their own platforms at both New Crosses. Of course, good point. I'm not so sure of your certainty that ELLX trains are going to get much longer than four carriages. If Wapping and Rotherhithe were closed and with judicious use of SDO and perhaps some platform level works, perhaps six carriages might be possible - though without major works I'm not sure how feasible this would be. I don't know whether passive provision is being made at the new ELLX stations for longer trains. I think all except Wapping, Rotherhithe and Canada Water are either 6 cars or easy to extend, though the secondary escape staircases might be being built in the way. Shoreditch High Street is 8 cars, but I don't know about the rest of the northern extension. Thanks, that's interesting. So if Wapping and Rotherhithe were sacrificed (which would cause hardship in particular with regards to Wapping) and some major work was done at Canada Water then longer trains, at least up to 6 cars, would seem to be a possibility. The short platforms at Canada Water do seem to have been somewhat shortsighted, in particular in the context of an extended ELL - which was at least on the cards in the early 90's, though was not anything as extensive as the current plans. That said I'm pretty sure I read some old threads here on utl which stated that ELL interchange at Canada Water was far from a certainty when the JLE was being planned, so with hindsight we can give thanks for that! Canada Water certainly looks like a pretty solid construction, and hence extending it would be a significant endeavour, especially given the presence of the Jubilee line below. However, perhaps this has been overblown and actually it would not be such an impossibility. That said, if major excavations did occur, it looks to me like a hole would have to be dug across Surrey Quays Road along the line of Deal Porters Way. |
ELLX phase 2
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Mr Thant wrote:
On 22 Jan, 20:15, Mizter T wrote: I'm not so sure of your certainty that ELLX trains are going to get much longer than four carriages. If Wapping and Rotherhithe were closed and with judicious use of SDO and perhaps some platform level works, perhaps six carriages might be possible - though without major works I'm not sure how feasible this would be. I don't know whether passive provision is being made at the new ELLX stations for longer trains. I think all except Wapping, Rotherhithe and Canada Water are either 6 cars or easy to extend, though the secondary escape staircases might be being built in the way. I suppose if you ran 4-car trains on two of the branches, but left one four-car, those trains could call at Wapping and Rotherhithe. Better than nothing. tom -- Science is bound, by the everlasting vow of honour, to face fearlessly every problem which can be fairly presented to it. -- Lord Kelvin |
ELLX phase 2
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, THC wrote:
On 21 Jan, 19:50, Tom Anderson wrote: On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, THC wrote: On 20 Jan, 20:12, Mr Thant wrote: Pure rumour says the plan involves the Hayes branch. It's more than a rumour, as confirmed by Bakerloo line GM Kevin Bootle to Modern Railways in November 2007 (p87). *He said that "extending the line to Hayes remains a live proposition for the longer term". Which is completely meaningless, since 'live proposition' means everything from 'we're oiling the TBMs now' to 'a work experience student once had a look at a map and thought it might be doable'. The only way it could stop being a live proposition would be if a rift valley opened up in Peckham. That's as may be but it elevates the prospect from one of pure rumour to something that is verifiably under consideration. I still wouldn't say "verifiably under consideration". That implies planners are sitting down and working on the details, which i don't think we have any reason to think they are. Which makes it altogether a more likely prospect than your super-Met into south-east London, no? ;-) That's certainly true. THE FOOLS! tom -- Science is bound, by the everlasting vow of honour, to face fearlessly every problem which can be fairly presented to it. -- Lord Kelvin |
ELLX phase 2
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Mizter T wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote: On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, MIG wrote: On Jan 21, 5:08pm, Tom Anderson wrote: On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, MIG wrote: New stations and better interchanges on existing lines could provide a lot of new person-routes, both north and south of the Thames, at much less cost than new lines. I think the original suggestion was about capacity, not routes. Building more stations on existing lines can't increase capacity. There are probably cheaper options than extending the Bakerloo, though. I can't work out a formula, but it seems to me that if people could travel more directly to where they wanted to go, spending less time on the transport networks and travelling a shorter distance, it actually would increase capacity. Interchanges could make that possible. To a point. If people are making a journey using lines A, B and C, and you add an interchange between A and C, it relieves B. It doesn't relieve A or C, though, and if those are at capacity, it doesn't relieve the bottleneck. It depends on the details of the network, i suppose. I think you alluded to platforms on the South London line at Loughborough Junction (interchanging with the Holborn aka Thameslink line) and Brixton (interchanging with the Chatham main line). Would those add capacity? I'll assume that people can come from Batterclapstock, ie on the SLL west of Brixton, from Peckham, ie along the SLL west of Loughborough Junction, ^^^ I presume you mean *east* of Loogabarooga Juntion, for that is where Peckham is. Ah yes. I understand the Batterclapstock amalgam you have created, Not me! You should probably get more omega-3 or something, old chap: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....c7ec3678072cff but the reality is somewhat more complex - - Clapham has the Northern line + SLL - Clapham Junction - which is really in Battersea - is on the main lines to Waterloo and Victoria - also in Battersea, the almost adjacent Queenstown Rd and Battersea Park stations are on the main lines to Waterloo and Victoria respectively, albeit with less frequent services (plus Battersea Park is on the SLL - though courtesy of platform lengthening on the other lines this looks like it will be no longer) - Stockwell has the Northern line + Victoria line All true. I wasn't talking about people coming from Batterclapstock in general, but from the Batterclapstock side of the SLL. I should have made that clearer, i'm sorry. from the southern part of the Chatham, or the southern part of the Thameslink route, and want to go to one of Victoria, Blackfriars etc or London Bridge. Looking at the possible combinations: Batterclapstock - Victoria: no, wrong way Batterclapstock - Blackfriars: no, take a radial line into town + change From Clapham / Stockwell one could go by tube to the Elephant & Castle then change for a train to Blackfriars, but I wouldn't recommend it - however the 45 or 63 bus from E&C to Blackfriars would be a good route. Ah, but when you consider that people probably aren't going to Blackfriars itself, but to somewhere in town, "take a radial line into town + change" looks like a sensible proposition, i think. Batterclapstock - London Bridge: no, direct train already Yes, from Clapham - and yes from Battersea Park via the SLL, but not in the future (see above). No, from Clapham Jn (unless you include the long way round half-hourly service via the Crystal Palace that takes 37 mins) - but CJ to London Bridge can be done via Waterloo, either by Jubilee line or by mainline train from Waterloo East. This is also not a journey which is aided by the suggested SLL interchanges! Yes, from Stockwell - Northern line. Peckham - Victoria: no, direct train already Peckham - Blackfriars: no, go via London Bridge / Cannon Street (?) Err... how about - go direct from Peckham Rye to Blackfriars (service starts at Sevenoaks). Again, i was really referring to the Peckham side of the SLL. Peckham - London Bridge: no, wrong way Chatham - Victoria: no, direct train already Chatham - Blackfriars: no, change at Herne Hill Chatham - London Bridge: maybe Thameslink - Victoria: no, change at Herne Hill Thameslink - Blackfriars: no, direct train already Thameslink - London Bridge: no, change at Elephant or Blackfriars Yes, change from Thameslink at Tulse Hill and take train to London Bridge. Oh yes, or that. The only journey that gets improved is Chatham - London Bridge: if you're south of Penge, you can get a direct train or a good change (at Shortlands or Penge). If you're north of there, you either backtrack to Penge, or do a double change via Herne and Tulse Hills, both of which are a bit awkward. Being able to change at Brixton onto an SLL train would make life easier, even though the SLL route to London Bridge is a bit roundabout. This would take people off the Tulse Hill or New Cross Gate lines into London Bridge, and put them on the SLL. Possibly a minor win, i'm not sure. If you are considering a journey from the Chatham main line to London Bridge via Loughborough Jn, that would still mean a change at Herne Hill too. No, changing at Brixton. Plus, the SLL service look like it is getting kicked out of London Bridge to make way for Thameslink 2000. The ELLX phase 2 will likely be coming to the SLL however. Yes. All of my analysis was, rather foolishly, based on the current patterns. Also, passengers wanting London Bridge from the vicinity of Kent House can go from nearby Clock House; from the vicinity of Penge East they can go from Penge West; from the vicinity of West Dulwich they can go from North Dulwich; and from Sydenham Hill they could go from the nearbyish Gipsy Hill station. All true. To sum up, i think building those platforms would be a good idea, to add flexibility and resiliency to the network, and to serve local users better, but i don't think they're going to deliver extra capacity. As MIG has already stated, your analysis purely looks at journeys into central London and ignores other journeys. However, even when one considers many of these other possible journeys, the case isn't amazingly strong - many such journeys can be achieved using a change elsewhere, or by using a bus for a bit of the journey (try me!). Agreed. I was just trying to be even-handed! tom -- Science is bound, by the everlasting vow of honour, to face fearlessly every problem which can be fairly presented to it. -- Lord Kelvin |
ELLX phase 2
On Jan 22, 8:15*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 22 Jan, 10:18, Mwmbwls wrote: I'm not so sure of your certainty that ELLX trains are going to get much longer than four carriages. If Wapping and Rotherhithe were closed and with judicious use of SDO and perhaps some platform level works, perhaps six carriages might be possible - though without major works I'm not sure how feasible this would be. I don't know whether passive provision is being made at the new ELLX stations for longer trains. Of course whether the Hayes branch could get by with four car ELLX trains, even if they were just part of the mix, is questionable (as you implicitly seem to acknowledge). What's this ' "Not quite Outer Circle" core route from the east from Barking' of which you speak - it would involve taking c2c aka London, Tilbury and Southend trains up the so-called GOBLIN to Gospel Oak and beyond?- Apologies - gerfingatypinproblem - "should have written from the east ( from Barking)". |
ELLX phase 2
On 22 Jan, 20:15, Mizter T wrote:
Interesting ideas, in particular the notion of the ELLX continuing from New Cross down to Hayes which I do quite like! I suppose one argument in favour of the terminus at New Cross is that during times of disruption on the Croydon/Crystal Palace 'branch' it would help to provide the rest of the line with a reliable, if degraded, service - and passengers from Southeastern services could still change onto it at New Cross. Building railways in the air, I was thinking in terms of extending the ELL under the existing mainline alignment for just over a mile, (CTRL) style, from New Cross via Saint Johns to Lewisham to minimise local disruption. I envisaged an underground station at Lewisham before it ros to the surface just after Courthill Loop Junction North to join the Mid Kent Line. This would create more capacity through Lewisham which always strikes me as a real bottleneck - and as yet I cannot recall any suggestions for increasing capacity apart from lengthening trains. Because the ELL is to be signalled to National Rail Standards, retaining the Hayes-Ladywell-London Bridge-Charing Cross fast trains using the Ladywell Loop would present no difficulties. Have I dropped any logical stitches? |
ELLX phase 2
cut huge and fascinating analyses
To sum up, i think building those platforms would be a good idea, to add flexibility and resiliency to the network, and to serve local users better, but i don't think they're going to deliver extra capacity. As MIG has already stated, your analysis purely looks at journeys into central London and ignores other journeys. However, even when one considers many of these other possible journeys, the case isn't amazingly strong - many such journeys can be achieved using a change elsewhere, or by using a bus for a bit of the journey (try me!). Agreed. I was just trying to be even-handed! This all makes for an excellent board game, and I can see that some of the costs of the stations might be more than they appear at a glance, but this started from a discussion of new lines and a suggestion that new stations could increase journey possibilities much more cheaply than new lines. I just think that the starting point is not the benefits to someone who knows the network and timetables inside out and knows which stations are adjacent. The starting point should be a normal who looks at the diagrams, with no knowledge of which stations are adjacent (an interchange is not the same as a choice of starting stations for someone who lives in the area) and uses them to plan a route. The benefits to such a normal would be greater than suggested by the analyses I think, even if still not enough to persuade TPTB. The disbenefits of the changes to the SLL also need to be offset by better connections. Also ... some alternative routes might involve extra zones. |
ELLX phase 2
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, MIG wrote:
cut huge and fascinating analyses To sum up, i think building those platforms would be a good idea, to add flexibility and resiliency to the network, and to serve local users better, but i don't think they're going to deliver extra capacity. As MIG has already stated, your analysis purely looks at journeys into central London and ignores other journeys. However, even when one considers many of these other possible journeys, the case isn't amazingly strong - many such journeys can be achieved using a change elsewhere, or by using a bus for a bit of the journey (try me!). Agreed. I was just trying to be even-handed! This all makes for an excellent board game, and I can see that some of the costs of the stations might be more than they appear at a glance, but this started from a discussion of new lines and a suggestion that new stations could increase journey possibilities much more cheaply than new lines. I just think that the starting point is not the benefits to someone who knows the network and timetables inside out and knows which stations are adjacent. The starting point should be a normal who looks at the diagrams, with no knowledge of which stations are adjacent (an interchange is not the same as a choice of starting stations for someone who lives in the area) and uses them to plan a route. Fair enough. In which case, improvements to the map, showing stations which are easy walks, is probably the cheapest way to improve things. tom -- There is no latest trend. |
ELLX phase 2
On 23 Jan, 14:40, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, MIG wrote: cut huge and fascinating analyses To sum up, i think building those platforms would be a good idea, to add flexibility and resiliency to the network, and to serve local users better, but i don't think they're going to deliver extra capacity. As MIG has already stated, your analysis purely looks at journeys into central London and ignores other journeys. However, even when one considers many of these other possible journeys, the case isn't amazingly strong - many such journeys can be achieved using a change elsewhere, or by using a bus for a bit of the journey (try me!). Agreed. I was just trying to be even-handed! This all makes for an excellent board game, and I can see that some of the costs of the stations might be more than they appear at a glance, but this started from a discussion of new lines and a suggestion that new stations could increase journey possibilities much more cheaply than new lines. I just think that the starting point is not the benefits to someone who knows the network and timetables inside out and knows which stations are adjacent. The starting point should be a normal who looks at the diagrams, with no knowledge of which stations are adjacent (an interchange is not the same as a choice of starting stations for someone who lives in the area) and uses them to plan a route. Fair enough. In which case, improvements to the map, showing stations which are easy walks, is probably the cheapest way to improve things. I'd agree. I think anything up to about 500m which provides a decent connection is worth showing - as long as the distance is clearly stated. London Overground in particular becomes a lot more useful when viewed in those terms. It's a mystery to me why Camden Town/Camden Road isn't shown as a possible connection. Jonn |
ELLX phase 2
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Mr Thant wrote: On 22 Jan, 20:15, Mizter T wrote: I'm not so sure of your certainty that ELLX trains are going to get much longer than four carriages. If Wapping and Rotherhithe were closed and with judicious use of SDO and perhaps some platform level works, perhaps six carriages might be possible - though without major works I'm not sure how feasible this would be. I don't know whether passive provision is being made at the new ELLX stations for longer trains. I think all except Wapping, Rotherhithe and Canada Water are either 6 cars or easy to extend, though the secondary escape staircases might be being built in the way. I suppose if you ran 4-car trains on two of the branches, but left one four-car, those trains could call at Wapping and Rotherhithe. Better than nothing. That's a pretty good idea really, as it stands there will be trains running 4 tph from New Cross to Dalston Junction [1], terminating in the centre platforms. They alone could presumably give Wapping and Rotherhithe an adequate service? [1] Of course now that the ELLX will have its own pair of tracks as far as Highbury & Islington, there has to be a bit of a question mark over this... Paul S |
ELLX phase 2
On 23 Jan, 15:40, wrote:
On 23 Jan, 14:40, Tom Anderson wrote: On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, MIG wrote: cut huge and fascinating analyses To sum up, i think building those platforms would be a good idea, to add flexibility and resiliency to the network, and to serve local users better, but i don't think they're going to deliver extra capacity. As MIG has already stated, your analysis purely looks at journeys into central London and ignores other journeys. However, even when one considers many of these other possible journeys, the case isn't amazingly strong - many such journeys can be achieved using a change elsewhere, or by using a bus for a bit of the journey (try me!). Agreed. I was just trying to be even-handed! This all makes for an excellent board game, and I can see that some of the costs of the stations might be more than they appear at a glance, but this started from a discussion of new lines and a suggestion that new stations could increase journey possibilities much more cheaply than new lines. I just think that the starting point is not the benefits to someone who knows the network and timetables inside out and knows which stations are adjacent. The starting point should be a normal who looks at the diagrams, with no knowledge of which stations are adjacent (an interchange is not the same as a choice of starting stations for someone who lives in the area) and uses them to plan a route. Fair enough. In which case, improvements to the map, showing stations which are easy walks, is probably the cheapest way to improve things. I'd agree. I think anything up to about 500m which provides a decent connection is worth showing - as long as the distance is clearly stated. London Overground in particular becomes a lot more useful when viewed in those terms. It's a mystery to me why Camden Town/Camden Road isn't shown as a possible connection. I've certainly done the Queenstown Road - Battersea Park a few times, which may well be a shorter walk than between the extremes of Clapham Junction. I am very much in favour of a walkable Brixton interchange, no matter what. I believe that East Brixton station fell off at some point, but there might still be space. Not the best location though, as has been mentioned. I wonder about the possibility of creating full platforms on the Atlantic(?) lines no longer used by Eurostar. |
ELLX phase 2
On 23 Jan, 15:40, wrote:
I'd agree. I think anything up to about 500m which provides a decent connection is worth showing - as long as the distance is clearly stated. London Overground in particular becomes a lot more useful when viewed in those terms. It's a mystery to me why Camden Town/Camden Road isn't shown as a possible connection. AIUI it's to deter people from using Camden Town, which is already massively overcrowded. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
ELLX phase 2
"MIG" wrote I am very much in favour of a walkable Brixton interchange, no matter what. I believe that East Brixton station fell off at some point, but there might still be space. Not the best location though, as has been mentioned. I wonder about the possibility of creating full platforms on the Atlantic(?) lines no longer used by Eurostar The Atlantic Lines are the ex-Brighton or South London pair, which went through East brixton and go over the top of Brixton. To include platforms, the best location would be on the bridge over Brixton station, but it would involve replacing the bridge with one which included platforms, and you'd need four lifts down to the Brixton platforms for a full range of interchange, plus lifts down to ground level. There used (pre-1916) to be platforms on the Catford Loop lines, but platforms here would be operationally inconvenient (the South London and most of the Dartford - Victoria trains use the Atlantic Lines), and probably would be as difficult and expensive to provide. One of the bronze passengers is still waiting to catch a train from the stub of the Up Catford Loop platform. I can't quickly find a photo of that one, but here is on eof the other bronze passengers. http://www.flickr.com/photos/karen_c...7600853131454/ Peter Peter |
ELLX phase 2
On 23 Jan, 18:07, John B wrote:
On 23 Jan, 15:40, wrote: I'd agree. I think anything up to about 500m which provides a decent connection is worth showing - as long as the distance is clearly stated. London Overground in particular becomes a lot more useful when viewed in those terms. It's a mystery to me why Camden Town/Camden Road isn't shown as a possible connection. I broadly agree with the notion above, but as John B says... AIUI it's to deter people from using Camden Town, which is already massively overcrowded. Camden Town isn't perpetually crowded of course, but it often is - and LU won't be keen on encouraging yet more people to pass through this very busy station, which is what would be likely to happen if it was shown as an interchange on the Tube map, the London Overground network map or the Northern line linear maps (i.e. those displayed in the carriages). |
ELLX phase 2
On Jan 23, 6:40*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"MIG" wrote I am very much in favour of a walkable Brixton interchange, no matter what. *I believe that East Brixton station fell off at some point, but there might still be space. *Not the best location though, as has been mentioned. *I wonder about the possibility of creating full platforms on the Atlantic(?) lines no longer used by Eurostar The Atlantic Lines are the ex-Brighton or South London pair, which went through East brixton and go over the top of Brixton. To include platforms, the best location would be on the bridge over Brixton station, but it would involve replacing the bridge with one which included platforms, and you'd need four lifts down to the Brixton platforms for a full range of interchange, plus lifts down to ground level. There used (pre-1916) to be platforms on the Catford Loop lines, but platforms here would be operationally inconvenient (the South London and most of the Dartford - Victoria trains use the Atlantic Lines), and probably would be as difficult and expensive to provide. One of the bronze passengers is still waiting to catch a train from the stub of the Up Catford Loop platform. I can't quickly find a photo of that one, but here is on eof the other bronze passengers.http://www.flickr.com/photos/karen_c...-7215760085313... Ah yes, I got the names the wrong way round. I was wondering about the possibility of extending that stub and putting a platform on the opposite side. I guessed that there had been platforms there in the past. It might only be usable by the South East Trains services, to avoid crossing movements, but that's better than nothing (I note that they keep crossing anyway, but I thought that might be to avoid Eurostars when they ran). |
ELLX phase 2
"MIG" wrote Ah yes, I got the names the wrong way round. I was wondering about the possibility of extending that stub and putting a platform on the opposite side. I guessed that there had been platforms there in the past. It might only be usable by the South East Trains services, to avoid crossing movements, but that's better than nothing (I note that they keep crossing anyway, but I thought that might be to avoid Eurostars when they ran). According to PSUL http://www.avoe05.dsl.pipex.com/2008.htm all but one up train, and most down trains to and from the Catford Loop use the Atlantic Lines (over the top of Brixton). By using teh Atlantic Lines a 4-track approach to Victoria (Chatham side) has been contrived. Trains via Herne Hill use the Fast Lines between Victoria and Voltaire Road Junction (between Wandsworth Road and Clapham High Street). Down trains via Nunhead normally run on the Down Slow to Battersea Pier Junction, and the Reversible from there to Voltaire Road Junction, where they cross to the Down Atlantic, then cross back to the Catford Loop at Crofton Road Junction (short of Peckham Rye). Up Catford Loop trains cross to the Atlantic Lines at Crofton Road Junction, then at Factory Junction take the Low Level route via Stewarts Lane, joining the Up Slow at Battersea Pier Junction. Peter |
ELLX phase 2
On Jan 23, 8:31*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"MIG" wrote Ah yes, I got the names the wrong way round. *I was wondering about the possibility of extending that stub and putting a platform on the opposite side. *I guessed that there had been platforms there in the past. It might only be usable by the South East Trains services, to avoid crossing movements, but that's better than nothing (I note that they keep crossing anyway, but I thought that might be to avoid Eurostars when they ran). According to PSULhttp://www.avoe05.dsl.pipex.com/2008.htm all but one up train, and most down trains to and from the Catford Loop use the Atlantic Lines (over the top of Brixton). By using teh Atlantic Lines a 4-track approach to Victoria (Chatham side) has been contrived. Trains via Herne Hill use the Fast Lines between Victoria and Voltaire Road Junction (between Wandsworth Road and Clapham High Street). Down trains via Nunhead normally run on the Down Slow to Battersea Pier Junction, and the Reversible from there to Voltaire Road Junction, where they cross to the Down Atlantic, then cross back to the Catford Loop at Crofton Road Junction (short of Peckham Rye). Up Catford Loop trains cross to the Atlantic Lines at Crofton Road Junction, then at Factory Junction take the Low Level route via Stewarts Lane, joining the Up Slow at Battersea Pier Junction. Peter That corresponds to my casual observation, but I was hoping for change. I suppose the extra Orpingtons have eaten up the Eurostar paths. |
ELLX phase 2
MIG wrote: On Jan 23, 6:40�pm, "Peter Masson" wrote: "MIG" wrote I am very much in favour of a walkable Brixton interchange, no matter what. I believe that East Brixton station fell off at some point, but there might still be space. Not the best location though, as has been mentioned. I wonder about the possibility of creating full platforms on the Atlantic(?) lines no longer used by Eurostar More on East Brixton station here - it closed in 1976. http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/s...on/index.shtml AFAICS, both from track and street level, there isn't anything (buildings etc) that would prevent a new station from being constructed at this location. The Atlantic Lines are the ex-Brighton or South London pair, which went through East brixton and go over the top of Brixton. To include platforms, the best location would be on the bridge over Brixton station, but it would involve replacing the bridge with one which included platforms, and you'd need four lifts down to the Brixton platforms for a full range of interchange, plus lifts down to ground level. There used (pre-1916) to be platforms on the Catford Loop lines, but platforms here would be operationally inconvenient (the South London and most of the Dartford - Victoria trains use the Atlantic Lines), and probably would be as difficult and expensive to provide. One of the bronze passengers is still waiting to catch a train from the stub of the Up Catford Loop platform. I can't quickly find a photo of that one, but here is one of the other bronze passengers. http://www.flickr.com/photos/karen_c...-7215760085313... Ah yes, I got the names the wrong way round. I was wondering about the possibility of extending that stub and putting a platform on the opposite side. I guessed that there had been platforms there in the past. It might only be usable by the South East Trains services, to avoid crossing movements, but that's better than nothing (I note that they keep crossing anyway, but I thought that might be to avoid Eurostars when they ran). As ever, one has to consider things in terms of costs and benefits. New platforms at Brixton on the Catford Loop line could only be used by Southeastern's half-hourly Dartford to Victoria service - and as Peter says, nowadays this service is almost always routed via the high viaduct of the Atlantic Lines - though as you say it does end to swap around, sometimes going through Clapham High Street station, sometimes not, before then almost always going through Wandsworth Road station then down via the low level Stewarts Lane route to Grovesnor Bridge and then Victoria. However whilst the Eurostars have now gone, some of its former paths are now taken up by the extra Victoria to Orpington via Herne Hill services (which is now now every 15 mins off-peak), so shifting these trains off the Atlantic Lines and on to the Catford Loop lines could still be a major operational issue. And expensive new platforms here would only serve this one half-hourly service (which starts quite late and finishes early - though it doesn't always have to be like this of course), and many passengers will be transferring onto the Victoria line at Victoria anyway. Do the benefits really outweigh the costs? Platforms on the high level Atlantic lines through Brixton would be the real top prize. As Peter has already said, they would be very expensive, but lets pretend for a moment that's not an issue. They would enable the replacement SLL service (Victoria to Bellingham, all stations except Battersea Park), as proposed in the South London RUS, to stop there, as well as the 4tph ELLX (phase 2) service to/from Clapham Jn. They would be really useful. Perhaps, once the ELLX is up and running, there might be an ever increasing clamour from many quarters for such platforms - but it should be remembered that the DfT doesn't hand out cash willy nilly, there would have to be a very strong case for it to get funded (and it would have to be DfT money - TfL doesn't have that kind of spare cash lying around, and anyway half of TfL's cash comes from a DfT grant). Given that Crossrail is going to swallow up much of the DfT's spare change, the answer might well be no anyway. Perhaps the most doable idea would be that of rebuilding East Brixton station (one I floated not so long back). It wouldn't really be very good from an interchange point of view, but it would be great in providing more transport for the area, and both the ELLX and the new SLL service could stop there. |
ELLX phase 2
"Mizter T" wrote Perhaps the most doable idea would be that of rebuilding East Brixton station (one I floated not so long back). It wouldn't really be very good from an interchange point of view, but it would be great in providing more transport for the area, and both the ELLX and the new SLL service could stop there. I'm not sure the benefits would stack up. East Brixton was rather remote from the heart of Brixton (the market, Brixton (NR) station, and particularly Brixton (LUL) station. A replacement East Brixton, to modern standards, would be expensive, if not quite as expensive as a station over the top of Brixton (NR). Peter |
ELLX phase 2
Peter Masson wrote: "Mizter T" wrote Perhaps the most doable idea would be that of rebuilding East Brixton station (one I floated not so long back). It wouldn't really be very good from an interchange point of view, but it would be great in providing more transport for the area, and both the ELLX and the new SLL service could stop there. I'm not sure the benefits would stack up. East Brixton was rather remote from the heart of Brixton (the market, Brixton (NR) station, and particularly Brixton (LUL) station. A replacement East Brixton, to modern standards, would be expensive, if not quite as expensive as a station over the top of Brixton (NR). Peter You make a very strong point. I just had some kind of notion that if the train service was good enough, people would come, plus it would serve the immediate locality. My idea that it might be some kind of cheapo option is probably misguided. Perhaps the best option is also the most audacious - a new Atlantic lines station on top of the existing station. It is just frustrating that SLL trains go right through the heart of Brixton yet remain almost literally out of reach, and this frustration will surely grow as the service improves with the arrival of the ELLX. However, given the big expense of doing something about it, it would seem that the situation isn't going to change, not any time soon at least. Shame. |
ELLX phase 2
On 23 Jan, 18:40, "Peter Masson" wrote:
The Atlantic Lines are the ex-Brighton or South London pair, which went through East brixton and go over the top of Brixton. To include platforms, the best location would be on the bridge over Brixton station, but it would involve replacing the bridge with one which included platforms, and you'd need four lifts down to the Brixton platforms for a full range of interchange, plus lifts down to ground level. Presumably you could get away with only providing lifts to ground level, while still satisfying DDA requirements - that way, the new build would be accessible, which is the important bit (legally)... Still not small change though. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
ELLX phase 2
On 23 Jan, 18:55, Mizter T wrote:
On 23 Jan, 18:07, John B wrote: On 23 Jan, 15:40, wrote: I'd agree. I think anything up to about 500m which provides a decent connection is worth showing - as long as the distance is clearly stated. London Overground in particular becomes a lot more useful when viewed in those terms. It's a mystery to me why Camden Town/Camden Road isn't shown as a possible connection. I broadly agree with the notion above, but as John B says... AIUI it's to deter people from using Camden Town, which is already massively overcrowded. Camden Town isn't perpetually crowded of course, but it often is - and LU won't be keen on encouraging yet more people to pass through this very busy station, which is what would be likely to happen if it was shown as an interchange on the Tube map, the London Overground network map or the Northern line linear maps (i.e. those displayed in the carriages). That is terribly depressing, isn't it? What happened to the rebuilding plans? Jonn |
ELLX phase 2
On 24 Jan, 11:59, wrote:
That is terribly depressing, isn't it? What happened to the rebuilding plans? I believe a new application is slowly progressing, but they're being very quiet about it. Camden Council recently approved an area plan that includes the demolition of the buildings above for redevelopment of the station, so it has a fair chance of going through. I think the 400m between Camden Town and Road is further than will ever be put on the tube map. U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
ELLX phase 2
On Jan 24, 12:30*pm, Mr Thant
wrote: On 24 Jan, 11:59, wrote: That is terribly depressing, isn't it? What happened to the rebuilding plans? I believe a new application is slowly progressing, but they're being very quiet about it. Camden Council recently approved an area plan that includes the demolition of the buildings above for redevelopment of the station, so it has a fair chance of going through. I think the 400m between Camden Town and Road is further than will ever be put on the tube map. The demolition of the things that people go to Camden for, in order to deal with the people going to Camden, will remove the overcrowding without the need to rebuild the station. |
ELLX phase 2
In article , Peter Masson
writes Up Catford Loop trains cross to the Atlantic Lines at Crofton Road Junction, then at Factory Junction take the Low Level route via Stewarts Lane, joining the Up Slow at Battersea Pier Junction. Incorrect. Two trains per hour - the stopping service from Faversham - go "low level". Anything else goes High Level. This was said to be to avoid conflict with Eurostar trains, but I have used the Faversham train a couple of times since the end of the Eurostars, and it still goes the same way. -- Bill Borland |
ELLX phase 2
On 24 Jan, 12:30, Mr Thant
wrote: On 24 Jan, 11:59, wrote: That is terribly depressing, isn't it? What happened to the rebuilding plans? I believe a new application is slowly progressing, but they're being very quiet about it. Camden Council recently approved an area plan that includes the demolition of the buildings above for redevelopment of the station, so it has a fair chance of going through. I think the 400m between Camden Town and Road is further than will ever be put on the tube map. There are already 300m changes shown. An extra minute is surely that great a walk on a journey where this change could save a lot of time (say, Edgware to Dalston). Jonn |
ELLX phase 2
On 24 Jan, 12:57, Bill Borland wrote:
In article , Peter Masson writes Up Catford Loop trains cross to the Atlantic Lines at Crofton Road Junction, then at Factory Junction take the Low Level route via Stewarts Lane, joining the Up Slow at Battersea Pier Junction. Incorrect. Two trains per hour - the stopping service from Faversham - go "low level". Anything else goes High Level. This was said to be to avoid conflict with Eurostar trains, but I have used the Faversham train a couple of times since the end of the Eurostars, and it still goes the same way. -- Bill Borland Eh? I haven't used it much lately, but I think the Up Dartford - Victoria trains still take the low-level Stewarts Lane route. |
ELLX phase 2
On 24 Jan, 16:57, Mizter T wrote:
On 24 Jan, 12:57, Bill Borland wrote: In article , Peter Masson writes Up Catford Loop trains cross to the Atlantic Lines at Crofton Road Junction, then at Factory Junction take the Low Level route via Stewarts Lane, joining the Up Slow at Battersea Pier Junction. Incorrect. Two trains per hour - the stopping service from Faversham - go "low level". *Anything else goes High Level. *This was said to be to avoid conflict with Eurostar trains, but I have used the Faversham train a couple of times since the end of the Eurostars, and it still goes the same way. -- * Bill Borland Eh? I haven't used it much lately, but I think the Up Dartford - Victoria trains still take the low-level Stewarts Lane route. They've certainly done that a lot when I've been in them, although sometimes they seem to play it by ear. It's always a relief when they don't, because the high route is much quicker. The fact that they are often (always?) timetabled to take longer from Denmark Hill going non-stop than the ones that stop at three stations via Battersea Park implies some reason for sloth, ie the low route. Some afternoon/evening Maidstone line trains (having gone via Catford) seem to go that way as well. |
ELLX phase 2
On Jan 24, 12:30 pm, Mr Thant
wrote: On 24 Jan, 11:59, wrote: I think the 400m between Camden Town and Road is further than will ever be put on the tube map. U Didn't Southwark used to be shown as an interchange for Waterloo East, but state there was 500m between them? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk