Brent Cross Light Rail
 

New rail line needed to tackle traffic at Brent Cross
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.co...e&KeyValue=857


quote
"25/01/2008
The huge planned Brent Cross development should include a light rail
line in order to reduce traffic growth, according to a new report
published by the London group of the Campaign for Better Transport.

Without the new line, the large residential and retail development
would have a massive traffic impact: an extra 133,000 people and
29,000 extra vehicles are expected to travel into the area each
weekday. There are 8,000 car parking spaces in the existing shopping
centre, 7,500 additional spaces planned in the new residential element
and an untold number in the commercial elements of the new scheme. The
highway network and road junctions in the area would have to be
enlarged to cope with the extra traffic.

But a new rail line would connect and improve access to the existing
Brent Cross tube station and a planned new Thameslink station, both
rather remotely sited on the edge of the development. It would provide
a public transport spine through the development from the existing
shopping centre to the new residential and commercial district on the
other side of the North Circular. It could then continue south to Park
Royal, linking large parts of Barnet, Brent and Ealing, using existing
underused railway lines and connecting the Northern, Central, Jubilee,
Piccadilly and Bakerloo Tube lines, the overground and Thameslink.

Norman Beddington, chair of Campaign for Better Transport’s London
group, said:

“Brent Cross is only one of 42 areas where the forecast growth in
London’s housing and employment is to be concentrated. There’s already
too much traffic. If they all increase traffic as Brent Cross will do,
we are in serious trouble. We really can’t go on planning these
developments as though no one had ever heard of global warming. We
must plan for alternatives to the car, hence our proposal for a new
Brent Cross rail line. This is intended to provoke debate.”

unquote


Is the underused line - the Dudding Hill Junction Line to Acton - Does
this see much traffic these days?

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

On Jan 25, 6:58 pm, Mwmbwls wrote:
New rail line needed to tackle traffic at Brent Crosshttp://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/dataview/News/News_Article.aspx...

quote
"25/01/2008
The huge planned Brent Cross development should include a light rail
line in order to reduce traffic growth, according to a new report
published by the London group of the Campaign for Better Transport.

Without the new line, the large residential and retail development
would have a massive traffic impact: an extra 133,000 people and
29,000 extra vehicles are expected to travel into the area each
weekday. There are 8,000 car parking spaces in the existing shopping
centre, 7,500 additional spaces planned in the new residential element
and an untold number in the commercial elements of the new scheme. The
highway network and road junctions in the area would have to be
enlarged to cope with the extra traffic.

But a new rail line would connect and improve access to the existing
Brent Cross tube station and a planned new Thameslink station, both
rather remotely sited on the edge of the development. It would provide
a public transport spine through the development from the existing
shopping centre to the new residential and commercial district on the
other side of the North Circular. It could then continue south to Park
Royal, linking large parts of Barnet, Brent and Ealing, using existing
underused railway lines and connecting the Northern, Central, Jubilee,
Piccadilly and Bakerloo Tube lines, the overground and Thameslink.

Norman Beddington, chair of Campaign for Better Transport's London
group, said:

"Brent Cross is only one of 42 areas where the forecast growth in
London's housing and employment is to be concentrated. There's already
too much traffic. If they all increase traffic as Brent Cross will do,
we are in serious trouble. We really can't go on planning these
developments as though no one had ever heard of global warming. We
must plan for alternatives to the car, hence our proposal for a new
Brent Cross rail line. This is intended to provoke debate."

unquote

Is the underused line - the Dudding Hill Junction Line to Acton - Does
this see much traffic these days?

No idea... But I think a better idea would be to go to Willesden Jn
instead of Harlesden...

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

On 25 Jan, 21:16, wrote:
On Jan 25, 6:58 pm, Mwmbwls wrote:



New rail line needed to tackle traffic at Brent Crosshttp://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/dataview/News/News_Article.aspx...

quote
"25/01/2008
The huge planned Brent Cross development should include a light rail
line in order to reduce traffic growth, according to a new report
published by the London group of the Campaign for Better Transport.

Without the new line, the large residential and retail development
would have a massive traffic impact: an extra 133,000 people and
29,000 extra vehicles are expected to travel into the area each
weekday. There are 8,000 car parking spaces in the existing shopping
centre, 7,500 additional spaces planned in the new residential element
and an untold number in the commercial elements of the new scheme. The
highway network and road junctions in the area would have to be
enlarged to cope with the extra traffic.

But a new rail line would connect and improve access to the existing
Brent Cross tube station and a planned new Thameslink station, both
rather remotely sited on the edge of the development. It would provide
a public transport spine through the development from the existing
shopping centre to the new residential and commercial district on the
other side of the North Circular. It could then continue south to Park
Royal, linking large parts of Barnet, Brent and Ealing, using existing
underused railway lines and connecting the Northern, Central, Jubilee,
Piccadilly and Bakerloo Tube lines, the overground and Thameslink.

Norman Beddington, chair of Campaign for Better Transport's London
group, said:

"Brent Cross is only one of 42 areas where the forecast growth in
London's housing and employment is to be concentrated. There's already
too much traffic. If they all increase traffic as Brent Cross will do,
we are in serious trouble. We really can't go on planning these
developments as though no one had ever heard of global warming. We
must plan for alternatives to the car, hence our proposal for a new
Brent Cross rail line. This is intended to provoke debate."

unquote

Is the underused line - the Dudding Hill Junction Line to Acton - Does
this see much traffic these days?

No idea... But I think a better idea would be to go to Willesden Jn
instead of Harlesden...


Though of course Willesden Junction is in Harlesden, just as Clapham
Junction is in Battersea - thus creating the somewhat odd situation
that the "two Junctions" West London Line service that links them
doesn't manage to accurately inform you of where it is going in either
direction.

Well, it amuses me.

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

On 25 Jan, 18:58, Mwmbwls wrote:
Is the underused line - the Dudding Hill Junction Line to Acton - Does
this see much traffic these days?

Yes it is, and it sees a few freight trains a day I think.

Worth looking at the accompanying PDF at the bottom of this page:
http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/me...08/brent_cross

As rail fantasy, It's up there with the finest work of uk.t.l. It even
manages to include a North Acton triangle interchange station. I
especially like the half mile gap between Brent Cross shopping centre
and the Dudding Hill branch (including the crossing of the Midland
Mainline), where they can't even see a possible route. Also, top marks
for the pasted in Windows Live Local maps and satellite pictures.

They haven't included even the beginnings of a cost-benefit analysis,
which says a lot about how seriously it wishes to be taken. It's just
hot air.

U

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

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

On 25 Jan, 22:41, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 25 Jan, 18:58, Mwmbwls wrote:

Is the underused line - the Dudding Hill Junction Line to Acton - Does
this see much traffic these days?

Yes it is, and it sees a few freight trains a day I think.

Worth looking at the accompanying PDF at the bottom of this page:
http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/me...january_2008/b...

As rail fantasy, It's up there with the finest work of uk.t.l. It even
manages to include a North Acton triangle interchange station. I
especially like the half mile gap between Brent Cross shopping centre
and the Dudding Hill branch (including the crossing of the Midland
Mainline), where they can't even see a possible route. Also, top marks
for the pasted in Windows Live Local maps and satellite pictures.

They haven't included even the beginnings of a cost-benefit analysis,
which says a lot about how seriously it wishes to be taken. It's just
hot air.

U


I think the giveaway is the quote where the gent says "This is
intended to provoke debate."

I'm all for provoking debate, and he makes some very sound basic
points about transport issues at places like Brent Cross - however I'm
not convinced that this really is the best way to provoke debate,
given that it is just a fantasy that falls apart as soon as you give
it a little thought.

Is there really anything to gain by bandying around "plans" like this,
or does it merely add to peoples scepticism (or provide ammunition for
those who downright hostile) about public transport plans and planning?

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

On 25 Jan, 23:28, Mizter T wrote:
I think the giveaway is the quote where the gent says "This is
intended to provoke debate."

But oddly the PDF is peppered with all sorts of demands that parts of
the route be safeguarded.

I'm all for provoking debate, and he makes some very sound basic
points about transport issues at places like Brent Cross - however I'm
not convinced that this really is the best way to provoke debate,
given that it is just a fantasy that falls apart as soon as you give
it a little thought.

Yes. If they're serious about pressuring government into building this
stuff then the very least they need to do is demonstrate it's
affordable and useful and we'd be daft not to build it. Their proposal
manages to do everything but that.

U

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

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

Mr Thant wrote:
Is the underused line - the Dudding Hill Junction Line to Acton - Does
this see much traffic these days?

Yes it is, and it sees a few freight trains a day I think.

Semaphore signals, links several main lines, through industrial and
heavily populated areas... The term criminal neglect comes to mind.

Passenger trains should run on it asap, with a guarantee to continue
them. Doesn't much matter where to or from - people will adjust their
commuting patterns to suit.

Worth looking at the accompanying PDF at the bottom of this page:
http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/me...08/brent_cross

As rail fantasy, It's up there with the finest work of uk.t.l. It even
manages to include a North Acton triangle interchange station. I
especially like the half mile gap between Brent Cross shopping centre
and the Dudding Hill branch (including the crossing of the Midland
Mainline), where they can't even see a possible route.

And the idea of taking over one track and leaving the other for
freight is crazy. Two shared tracks are fine, given flexible enough
signalling and passenger trains that can match the freights' average
speed.

What you might call phase 1, some sort of people-mover between Brent
Cross Northern Line and (proposed) Brent Cross Thameslink, looks
achievable and could help reduce car journeys in the area. The
technology this would use is not what you'd want for Dudden Hill, though.

Colin McKensie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message
...

What you might call phase 1, some sort of people-mover between Brent Cross
Northern Line and (proposed) Brent Cross Thameslink, looks achievable and
could help reduce car journeys in the area.

Wider roads and bus lanes would also be achievable, and should be a lot
cheaper. I don't think a sparks effect would work over such a short
distance.

A few bus lanes on the North Circular either side of Henlys Corner would
help too. The three westbound lanes from the A1000 down to the Falloden Way
junction must be one of the most expensive car parks ever built.

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

On 25 Jan, 22:41, Mr Thant
wrote:
As rail fantasy, It's up there with the finest work of uk.t.l. It even

Not just rail fantasy - one of the documents says the A406 is of
motorway standard. It most certainly isn't. No hard shoulder , narrow
lanes, sharp curves (especially just before the met bridge at
neasden), crossroads, traffic lights and minor roads connecting
directly to it mean its far from being anything close to a motorway.

B2003

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

On 26 Jan, 14:37, Colin McKenzie wrote:
Passenger trains should run on it asap, with a guarantee to continue
them. Doesn't much matter where to or from - people will adjust their
commuting patterns to suit.

All of the lines it connects together interchange at West Hampstead,
and most of its potential catchment area is covered by existing
stations (Harlesden, Neasden, Cricklewood). And it's in the wrong
place to divert any more freight to it. I think the current situation
is fairly justifiable.

U

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

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

Colin McKenzie wrote:
Mr Thant wrote:
Is the underused line - the Dudding Hill Junction Line to Acton -
Does this see much traffic these days?

Yes it is, and it sees a few freight trains a day I think.

Semaphore signals, links several main lines, through industrial and
heavily populated areas... The term criminal neglect comes to mind.

Heavily populated? The only dense population was around Taylors Lane (now
demolished) and around Fawood Avenue (to be demolished within a few years,
if not already). Industrial estates produce rail demand but it is too peaked
to be useful.

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

On Jan 26, 2:55 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Wider roads and bus lanes would also be achievable, and should be a lot
cheaper.

A few bus lanes on the North Circular either side of Henlys Corner would
help too.


Bus bus bus. While the nation's public transport planning involves
such a skanky form of transport, the car will still rule. There's a
chance that people going to Brent Cross will use their gold/travel
cards up or down from St Albans, Watford, and the lines inward, and
transfer onto a DLR-style system. They are going to drive if it
involves a bus.

People will tollerate public transport (reliabilty and cost issues
aside) in the form of trains and planes. They dont use buses. Buses
are a distress purchase, the kind of clientelle they attract are
either old or scum, even compared to things like the NLL or Watford DC
line.

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

On Jan 27, 7:12*pm, Paul Weaver wrote:
On Jan 26, 2:55 pm, "John Rowland"

wrote:
Wider roads and bus lanes would also be achievable, and should be a lot
cheaper.
A few bus lanes on the North Circular either side of Henlys Corner would
help too.

Bus bus bus. While the nation's public transport planning involves
such a skanky form of transport, the car will still rule. There's a
chance that people going to Brent Cross will use their gold/travel
cards up or down from St Albans, Watford, and the lines inward, and
transfer onto a DLR-style system. They are going to drive if it
involves a bus.

People will tollerate public transport (reliabilty and cost issues
aside) in the form of trains and planes. They dont use buses. Buses
are a distress purchase, the kind of clientelle they attract are
either old or scum, even compared to things like the NLL or Watford DC
line.

The four main reasons I use buses

1) They go directly to places that aren't near a railway line.

2) They go more often than adjacent trains.

3) I want to go beyond my travelcard zones.

4) It is late at night after the trains have stopped.

I may also be old and scum, but I suspect that the above reasons may
attract to people who are not.

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

At 12:21:09 on Sun, 27 Jan 2008 MIG opined:-

The four main reasons I use buses

1) They go directly to places that aren't near a railway line.

2) They go more often than adjacent trains.

3) I want to go beyond my travelcard zones.

4) It is late at night after the trains have stopped.

You forgot
5) I don't have to find somewhere to park.
--
Thoss

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

Paul Weaver wrote:
On Jan 26, 2:55 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Wider roads and bus lanes would also be achievable, and should be a
lot cheaper.

A few bus lanes on the North Circular either side of Henlys Corner
would help too.


Bus bus bus. While the nation's public transport planning involves
such a skanky form of transport, the car will still rule. There's a
chance that people going to Brent Cross will use their gold/travel
cards up or down from St Albans, Watford, and the lines inward, and
transfer onto a DLR-style system. They are going to drive if it
involves a bus.

I hear you, but the Brent Cross bus network stetches to Watford, Edmonton,
Finsbury Park, Hammersmith etc, and all of these buses currently get stuck
in the abysmal jams around Brent Cross at closing time. I don't believe a
rail system makes sense for the distance from the Thameslink to the Northern
Line. The depot staff would seriously outnumber the drivers, for a start,
and the expense would be particularly hard to justify when it would only be
operational for 10 hours a day.

I don't think a new station so close to Hendon Thameslink adds up either.
There is an emergency-only road from Layfield Road to one of the Brent Cross
car parks, and this allows a guaranteed traffic-free route to and from
Hendon Thameslink, so they could start by running a free shuttle bus via
that route to Hendon Thameslink just to see how many people will use it.
Show the free bus on the Thameslink maps and timetables for a year. People
don't like using buses, but spending two minutes on a free bus doesn't feel
like "using a bus", it's more like using a lift or travolator.

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

People will tollerate public transport (reliabilty and cost issues
aside) in the form of trains and planes. They dont use buses. Buses
are a distress purchase, the kind of clientelle they attract are
either old or scum, even compared to things like the NLL or Watford DC
line.

Without agreeing with what you've said, I actually agree with... erm... what
you say.

Buses are very often the most convenient way of getting around, and a lot of
the traditional limitations of buses are slowly being fixed. However, the
public perception of them is trash - and you are quite right that the
general public won't get out of their cars for buses, where they might for
trains, planes and monorails (I Wish!).

And to the reply posters who give reasons as to why they use buses, that's
good for you. But if we want to encourage people who CURRENTLY use their
cars out of them, then something has to change, be it in actual
infrastructure or spreading the praises of buses.

Incidentally, buses outside of the M25 have an awful long way to catching up
with the London Bus experience. Most of them stop at 5 and are nowhere near
the frequency and reliability of National Rail (And that's saying
something...) The few bus routes that do still run, seem to serve the same
places as the trains and most local routes have vanished. (I.e. only 1 bus
each direction per day so that the powers that be don't notice.)

Best Wishes,
LEWIS

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

On Jan 27, 10:49*pm, "Lew 1"
wrote:
People will tollerate public transport (reliabilty and cost issues
aside) in the form of trains and planes. They dont use buses. Buses
are a distress purchase, the kind of clientelle they attract are
either old or scum, even compared to things like the NLL or Watford DC
line.

Without agreeing with what you've said, I actually agree with... erm... what
you say.

Buses are very often the most convenient way of getting around, and a lot of
the traditional limitations of buses are slowly being fixed. However, the
public perception of them is trash - and you are quite right that the
general public won't get out of their cars for buses, where they might for
trains, planes and monorails (I Wish!).

And to the reply posters who give reasons as to why they use buses, that's
good for you. But if we want to encourage people who CURRENTLY use their
cars out of them, then something has to change, be it in actual
infrastructure or spreading the praises of buses.

Incidentally, buses outside of the M25 have an awful long way to catching up
with the London Bus experience. Most of them stop at 5 and are nowhere near
the frequency and reliability of National Rail (And that's saying
something...) The few bus routes that do still run, seem to serve the same
places as the trains and most local routes have vanished. (I.e. only 1 bus
each direction per day so that the powers that be don't notice.)

That sort of thing is sometimes done to rail services and it isn't in
the intrinsic nature of buses to stop early, run once a day or
anything else, any more than it's in the intrinsic nature of monorails
to run frequently all night. They run when someone runs them.

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

On 27 Jan, 22:49, "Lew 1" wrote:
Incidentally, buses outside of the M25 have an awful long way to catching up
with the London Bus experience. Most of them stop at 5 and are nowhere near
the frequency and reliability of National Rail (And that's saying
something...) The few bus routes that do still run, seem to serve the same
places as the trains and most local routes have vanished. (I.e. only 1 bus
each direction per day so that the powers that be don't notice.)

I get the bus to the station because it saves on parking fees, and you
can't argue with £1.80 a day, compared to the petrol and parking costs
of driving (that said, the reliability and mind-numbingly bad
timetabling of the 258 tempts me to drive sometimes).

On the other far end of the scale, take the Arriva W9/7 service I used
to get back in 2006. £2.50 each way for a ~10 minute bus ride between
Bushey and Borehamwood, which after 6 is goes to 1 bus an hour, and
they refuse to serve the timetabled stop in the actual station's bus
stops, as the drivers apparently have trouble turning in. The TfL
buses have no trouble mind you, so it was actually cheaper (and taking
into account the wait) quicker to get the bus to Stanmore then wait
and get another to Bushey. It also worked out cheaper to drive from
Bushey to Borehamwood and pay the parking fees than get the bus. That
can't be right.

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:12:54 -0800 (PST), Paul Weaver
wrote:

People will tollerate public transport (reliabilty and cost issues
aside) in the form of trains and planes. They dont use buses. Buses
are a distress purchase, the kind of clientelle they attract are
either old or scum, even compared to things like the NLL or Watford DC
line.

Not, IMX, in Central London, nor in many other European cities. The
question is how to spread that mentality elsewhere.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:47:08 -0000, "John Rowland"
wrote:

I hear you, but the Brent Cross bus network stetches to Watford, Edmonton,
Finsbury Park, Hammersmith etc, and all of these buses currently get stuck
in the abysmal jams around Brent Cross at closing time.

Which suggests poor design of the bus infrastructure. Hamburg, for
instance, has traffic congestion like anywhere else, but the bus
infrastructure is provided such that it almost never affects the
service.

There are a lot of examples of such infrastructure, but the most
useful one is things like overtaking lanes at traffic lights, where if
a bus is approaching in the bus lane all other routes go to red and
the bus may turn in any direction necessary, including across other
traffic. There's one on the 73 route not far from Euston assisting
the buses turning right, but they are otherwise *very* rare in the UK.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:00:57 -0800 (PST), MIG
wrote:

That sort of thing is sometimes done to rail services and it isn't in
the intrinsic nature of buses to stop early, run once a day or
anything else, any more than it's in the intrinsic nature of monorails
to run frequently all night. They run when someone runs them.

And buses are typically far cheaper to run. The trouble is that there
is a reluctance to subsidise them, so the service operated is (unlike
rail) often either purely commercial or, if subsidised, on a
lowest-cost tender.

This results in services of appalling quality such as the Milton
Keynes evening routes which are tendered purely on lowest cost, for
which the cowboy operators tend to come forward.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

Worth looking at the accompanying PDF at the bottom of this page:
http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/me...08/brent_cross

As rail fantasy, It's up there with the finest work of uk.t.l. It even
manages to include a North Acton triangle interchange station. I
especially like the half mile gap between Brent Cross shopping centre
and the Dudding Hill branch (including the crossing of the Midland
Mainline), where they can't even see a possible route. Also, top marks
for the pasted in Windows Live Local maps and satellite pictures.

They haven't included even the beginnings of a cost-benefit analysis,
which says a lot about how seriously it wishes to be taken. It's just
hot air.

Hang on, though, I get the impression that the organisation behind ths
plan is not one which has the expertise or resources to do or commission a
cost-benefit analysis: they're not simple to do. It's therefore a bit
harsh to dismiss them for not doing one, as it would be for dismissing
them for not supply detailed engineering drawings, or built a test track.

It seems entirely possible that the plan is a non-starter, but i think
it's fair enough to propose it in the hope that a better-resourced
interested party, like the council, might take a harder look at it.
Particularly the 'phase 1' bit that links the Northern line station to the
Thameslink station at Brent Cross, which isn't that grandiose (although,
as was pointed out, does involve a rather high ratio of depot to track).

tom

--
made up languages, delusions, skin diseases and unaided human flight

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

On 28 Jan, 14:41, Tom Anderson wrote:
It seems entirely possible that the plan is a non-starter, but i think
it's fair enough to propose it in the hope that a better-resourced
interested party, like the council, might take a harder look at it.

Yes, maybe I was a bit harsh on it, but I wouldn't have been if it was
presented in these terms. If it'd been "we think the development
should include light rail, and here's an idea for a possible route",
that'd be one thing, but they presented it as "this particular route
must be built", and once you do that, you've got to back it up with
numbers, otherwise it's just fantasy.

Particularly the 'phase 1' bit that links the Northern line station to the
Thameslink station at Brent Cross, which isn't that grandiose (although,
as was pointed out, does involve a rather high ratio of depot to track).

Airport style people movers might be the answer.

U

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

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

On Jan 28, 3:18*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
Airport style people movers might be the answer.

Absolutely right. I understand the North-South Terminal sets at
Gatwick Airport want to be DLR trains when they grow up :-)

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

On Jan 28, 3:18 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 28 Jan, 14:41, Tom Anderson wrote:

It seems entirely possible that the plan is a non-starter, but i think
it's fair enough to propose it in the hope that a better-resourced
interested party, like the council, might take a harder look at it.

Yes, maybe I was a bit harsh on it, but I wouldn't have been if it was
presented in these terms. If it'd been "we think the development
should include light rail, and here's an idea for a possible route",
that'd be one thing, but they presented it as "this particular route
must be built", and once you do that, you've got to back it up with
numbers, otherwise it's just fantasy.

Particularly the 'phase 1' bit that links the Northern line station to the
Thameslink station at Brent Cross, which isn't that grandiose (although,
as was pointed out, does involve a rather high ratio of depot to track).

Airport style people movers might be the answer.

Be interesting to see how ULTRA goes at Terminal 5, There are small
areas like Brent Cross that could benefit from a lightweight system
like that (Euston, Kings Cross, St Pancras -- Thameslink end, or
Lancaster Gate/Paddington/Marylebone/Baker Street/Marble Arch, or
something involving City Thameslink, Bank and Charing Cross)

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Paul Weaver wrote:

On Jan 28, 3:18 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 28 Jan, 14:41, Tom Anderson wrote:

It seems entirely possible that the plan is a non-starter, but i think
it's fair enough to propose it in the hope that a better-resourced
interested party, like the council, might take a harder look at it.

Yes, maybe I was a bit harsh on it, but I wouldn't have been if it was
presented in these terms. If it'd been "we think the development
should include light rail, and here's an idea for a possible route",
that'd be one thing, but they presented it as "this particular route
must be built", and once you do that, you've got to back it up with
numbers, otherwise it's just fantasy.

Particularly the 'phase 1' bit that links the Northern line station to the
Thameslink station at Brent Cross, which isn't that grandiose (although,
as was pointed out, does involve a rather high ratio of depot to track).

Airport style people movers might be the answer.

Be interesting to see how ULTRA goes at Terminal 5,

Indeed. I have a hard time seeing how it could be better in cost/benefit
terms than a more traditional bit of light rail; the cost per passenger of
the pods must be greater, surely? As you say, we'll see.

There are small areas like Brent Cross that could benefit from a
lightweight system like that (Euston, Kings Cross, St Pancras --
Thameslink end, or Lancaster Gate/Paddington/Marylebone/Baker
Street/Marble Arch, or something involving City Thameslink, Bank and
Charing Cross)

Good points. I note that the Euston Road axis is sort of part of the
Cross-River Tram proposal, and the Oxford Street tram idea would go to
Marble Arch, if not Paddington. I'm not aware of a plan for trams to City
Thameslink (maybe Blackfriars instead?) or Charing Cross, but that would
be an excellent transverse link between the Cross-River Tram and City Tram
schemes.

Anyway, the thing to do would be to secure alignments that could be used
to build trams or light rail, and then build the cheapest kind of railway
on them to begin with. If it reaches the limits of the capacity it can
deliver, it could be upgraded to something heavier.


tom

--
The future will accost us with boob-slapping ferocity. -- H. G. Wells

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

In message , at
23:56:13 on Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Tom Anderson
remarked:
Be interesting to see how ULTRA goes at Terminal 5,

Indeed. I have a hard time seeing how it could be better in
cost/benefit terms than a more traditional bit of light rail; the cost
per passenger of the pods must be greater, surely? As you say, we'll see.

Although they have pretty much a green fields site for the pod route at
T5, if/when it is extended to T123 (via the old taxi tunnels) it would
not be easy to construct light rail instead.
--
Roland Perry

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

On Jan 29, 7:43 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
23:56:13 on Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Tom Anderson
remarked:

Be interesting to see how ULTRA goes at Terminal 5,

Indeed. I have a hard time seeing how it could be better in
cost/benefit terms than a more traditional bit of light rail; the cost
per passenger of the pods must be greater, surely? As you say, we'll see.

Although they have pretty much a green fields site for the pod route at
T5, if/when it is extended to T123 (via the old taxi tunnels) it would
not be easy to construct light rail instead.

I understand the pods can be fairly easilly mounted on pillars --
lighter than the DLR, although presumably less capacity than a DLR at
full rate (say 1.3 people per car, one car per 5 seconds, 1000 people
per hour).

That's equivelent to a DLR at ~60 people per carriage, 2 carriage per
train, 8tph, more frequent than many branches.

The size of a station to disgorge one car per 15 seconds (assume 3
stations either side of a central coridor) would be fairly high, but
it works on ski lifts.

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

On 29 Jan, 08:22, Paul Weaver wrote:
That's equivelent to a DLR at ~60 people per carriage, 2 carriage per
train, 8tph, more frequent than many branches.

Peak loading on the DLR is 200-300 people per articulated vehicle,
about the same as two tube carriages.

U

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

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

On Jan 29, 8:22*am, Paul Weaver wrote:
I understand the pods can be fairly easilly mounted on pillars --
lighter than the DLR, although presumably less capacity than a DLR at
full rate (say 1.3 people per car, one car per 5 seconds, 1000 people
per hour).

That's equivelent to a DLR at ~60 people per carriage, 2 carriage per
train, 8tph, more frequent than many branches.

The size of *a station to disgorge one car per 15 seconds (assume 3
stations either side of a central coridor) would be fairly high, but
it works on ski lifts.

However people on ski lifts are not normally encumbered with
suitcases, baby buggies and hurricane proof rucksacks. The ultra
system will work at Heathrow as it is intended to operate from
relatively low density car parks to a high density terminal. Like a
taxi rank at the terminal there will be multiple discharges taking
place in parallel rather than in series. At Brent Cross LUL and at
Cricklewood passengers for the shopping centre will arrive in groups
off the trains - undoubtedly encumbered with baby buggies even if they
have left their rucksacks at home. Batch handling because of the
larger population units and limited number of dispersion points make
an airport people carrier solution a better choice for Brent Cross.
Heresy though it might be on this group the use of rubber tyres could
allow for steeper gradients and possibly in terms of routing an
elevated section above the alignment of the North Circular Road
cutting through the back of Cricklewood TMD to a bay at the new
Cricklewood.

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

In message
, at
02:16:21 on Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Mwmbwls
remarked:
I understand the pods can be fairly easilly mounted on pillars --
lighter than the DLR, although presumably less capacity than a DLR at
full rate (say 1.3 people per car, one car per 5 seconds, 1000 people
per hour).

That's equivelent to a DLR at ~60 people per carriage, 2 carriage per
train, 8tph, more frequent than many branches.

The size of *a station to disgorge one car per 15 seconds (assume 3
stations either side of a central coridor) would be fairly high, but
it works on ski lifts.

However people on ski lifts are not normally encumbered with
suitcases, baby buggies and hurricane proof rucksacks. The ultra
system will work at Heathrow as it is intended to operate from
relatively low density car parks to a high density terminal.

The trial installation of pods will be going between *business* parking
and the new BA terminal. It's not going to be used by huge numbers of
families going on holiday.

If you want to see the exact opposite, try watching the shuttle buses
loading at the mid-stay at Luton - kitchen sink doesn't even *begin* to
describe the situation!

--
Roland Perry

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

On 28 Jan, 21:59, Paul Weaver wrote:

Be interesting to see how ULTRA goes at Terminal 5, There are small
areas like Brent Cross that could benefit from a lightweight system
like that (Euston, Kings Cross, St Pancras -- Thameslink end, or
Lancaster Gate/Paddington/Marylebone/Baker Street/Marble Arch, or
something involving City Thameslink, Bank and Charing Cross)- Hide quoted text -


Isn't the last of these an oft proposed DLR extension?

Jonn

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

On 29 Jan, 11:13, wrote:
On 28 Jan, 21:59, Paul Weaver wrote:



Be interesting to see how ULTRA goes at Terminal 5, There are small
areas like Brent Cross that could benefit from a lightweight system
like that (Euston, Kings Cross, St Pancras -- Thameslink end, or
Lancaster Gate/Paddington/Marylebone/Baker Street/Marble Arch, or
something involving City Thameslink, Bank and Charing Cross)- Hide quoted text -

Isn't the last of these an oft proposed DLR extension?

Jonn

Yeah. TfL's Transport 2025 mentions a DLR extension from Bank to
Charing X via City Thameslink and Aldwych.

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

On 27 Jan, 22:49, "Lew 1" wrote:
People will tollerate public transport (reliabilty and cost issues
aside) in the form of trains and planes. They dont use buses. Buses
are a distress purchase, the kind of clientelle they attract are
either old or scum, even compared to things like the NLL or Watford DC
line.

Without agreeing with what you've said, I actually agree with... erm... what
you say.

Buses are very often the most convenient way of getting around, and a lot of
the traditional limitations of buses are slowly being fixed. However, the
public perception of them is trash - and you are quite right that the
general public won't get out of their cars for buses, where they might for
trains, planes and monorails (I Wish!).

Car-loving people use buses (station or car park to terminal, and
terminal to gate) at airports, though - the key is making it free
(i.e. included in the cost of the main ticket - here, free to train/
tube users), regular, clean and new. Not looking like a 'normal bus'
probably helps too...

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

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

What you might call phase 1, some sort of people-mover between
Brent Cross Northern Line and (proposed) Brent Cross Thameslink,
looks achievable and could help reduce car journeys in the area.

Some kind of shuttle bus is planned. I seem to recall a suggestion
that it be like the things you find in tourist areas in the USA,
designed to look like an old fashioned tram, rather than a bus.

A few years ago there was a suggestion to use the Dudding Hill line
for a branch of the Heathrow Express, running in to St Pancras, but
that's dead now, I think

Jeremy Parker

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

In message , at 23:08:54 on Tue,
29 Jan 2008, Jeremy Parker remarked:

What you might call phase 1, some sort of people-mover between
Brent Cross Northern Line and (proposed) Brent Cross Thameslink,
looks achievable and could help reduce car journeys in the area.

Some kind of shuttle bus is planned. I seem to recall a suggestion
that it be like the things you find in tourist areas in the USA,
designed to look like an old fashioned tram, rather than a bus.

There is a similar thing - a faux train - running between York City
Centre and the Railway Museum.

Quite appropriate for a City that also has buses dressed up as trams.
--
Roland Perry

Brent Cross Light Rail
 

On 27 Jan, 20:41, thoss wrote:
At 12:21:09 on Sun, 27 Jan 2008 MIG opined:-

The four main reasons I use buses

1) They go directly to places that aren't near a railway line.

2) They go more often than adjacent trains.

3) I want to go beyond my travelcard zones.

4) It is late at night after the trains have stopped.

You forgot
5) I don't have to find somewhere to park.
--
Thoss

If there's a sensible choice between tube and bus (similar journey-
time etc) I will always choose the bus - it's less claustrophobic and
there's more to look at if you don't fancy reading.