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