Oh No Kenny O
 

On Apr 24, 6:02*pm, Graeme Wall wrote:
In message
* * * * * MIG wrote:





On 24 Apr, 15:17, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 24 Apr, 15:09, Mwmbwls wrote:

Is that it =A0- letting the station building to a retailer and build a
couple of sheds =96 why not use the air rights over the station to build=

a substantial high rise complex =96 office, retail, housing ala Dalston
Junction and use the profits to have decent station facilities.

Probably best to read the press release TB is repeating:http://www.lsh..co.=
uk/pages/news_detail.asp?id=3D711&q=3Doverground

"New stations are also proposed including one at Kensington and
Olympia, where there are plans to let the existing station let to a
retailer following the development of a new smaller station."

I think they're referring to letting out the land rather than just the
building - which is just a small scruffy single storey concrete thing
isn't it?

So, new facilities based on the number of people who currently go
there attracted by services which are about to be withdrawn.

What are you talking about?

Curtailment of services to Gatwick and Brighton in one direction.
It's true that one can still change at East Croydon, but with luggage
direct services are attractive.

Reduction in stops at Watford to the north in the other direction. I
happen to have recent experience of services in both directions being
very useful and making Olympia attractive.

Oh No Kenny O
 

On 25 Apr, 01:55, "John Rowland"
wrote:

MIG wrote:

3) Oh look, there's loads of people attracted to the area and a shiny
new station to bring them here, so we can make money by putting a
supermarket here (for which we'll have to knock down everything else).

A new supermarket so close to the massive Camden Sainsburys? I thought they
were building offices.


I think MIG was speaking hypothetically. As you say, there's already a
Sainsbury's, and a Morrisons close by too, so I think a new
supermarket is off the agenda!


I estimated that the money earmarked for rebuilding Camden Town station
would fund a 10-minute 7-day NLL service at Camden Road for a century,
removing the need for so many people to use Camden Town station.


Well, that's a leftfield way of looking at it! Though ultimately
however good you make the NLL at Camden I somehow doubt that's going
to take the pressure off Camden Town enough for the Northern line to
be split in two, which appears to be the long term game plan - after
all the NLL is an east-west line, the Northern line a north-south one.

My questions is, would implementing ATO on the Northern line improve
performance enough so as to make unnecessary the plan to split the
line in two? Probably not is the answer...

Oh No Kenny O
 

On 25 Apr, 10:27, Mizter T wrote:
On 25 Apr, 01:55, "John Rowland"

wrote:
MIG wrote:

3) Oh look, there's loads of people attracted to the area and a shiny
new station to bring them here, so we can make money by putting a
supermarket here (for which we'll have to knock down everything else).

A new supermarket so close to the massive Camden Sainsburys? I thought they
were building offices.

I think MIG was speaking hypothetically. As you say, there's already a
Sainsbury's, and a Morrisons close by too, so I think a new
supermarket is off the agenda!

Indeed, I was parodying the apparent thought processes involved in
what councils seem to allow. At this rate my poetic licence will be
revoked.

I estimated that the money earmarked for rebuilding Camden Town station
would fund a 10-minute 7-day NLL service at Camden Road for a century,
removing the need for so many people to use Camden Town station.

Well, that's a leftfield way of looking at it! Though ultimately
however good you make the NLL at Camden *I somehow doubt that's going
to take the pressure off Camden Town enough for the Northern line to
be split in two, which appears to be the long term game plan - after
all the NLL is an east-west line, the Northern line a north-south one.

My questions is, would implementing ATO on the Northern line improve
performance enough so as to make unnecessary the plan to split the
line in two? Probably not is the answer...

I remember having trouble getting my head round this before. It
seemed that in order to justify the splitting of the line, it was
necessary to claim that the resignalling wasn't going to achieve very
much. But at the same time, the resignalling had to be worth the
money spent on it. The justification did seem to be working backwards
from the decision already made.

Oh No Kenny O
 

On 25 Apr, 10:35, MIG wrote:

On 25 Apr, 10:27, Mizter T wrote:

(snip)

My questions is, would implementing ATO on the Northern line improve
performance enough so as to make unnecessary the plan to split the
line in two? Probably not is the answer...

I remember having trouble getting my head round this before. It
seemed that in order to justify the splitting of the line, it was
necessary to claim that the resignalling wasn't going to achieve very
much. But at the same time, the resignalling had to be worth the
money spent on it. The justification did seem to be working backwards
from the decision already made.


I suspect the argument is that ATO works best on a straightforward
'linear line' (as it were!) rather than one which has branches and
hence junctions, especially where those junctions for the branches are
at the heart of the line (Northern line at Camden) rather than at the
periphery (Central line). Having to send trains off onto different
branches means that the possible throughput of trains is
(significantly) reduced. Aiming for a situation akin to the Victoria
line (when it's working smoothly) where trains are coming through
every minute or two can't be done when one has to contend with sending
trains up different branches, and indeed merging trains coming in from
different branches.

In other words, you'll only get the optimum performance out of ATO if
you split it into two lines.

ATO and Camden - was Oh No Kenny O
 

Mizter T wrote in news:216b282d-5d89-46e3-8f57-
:

I suspect the argument is that ATO works best on a straightforward
'linear line' (as it were!) rather than one which has branches and
hence junctions, especially where those junctions for the branches are
at the heart of the line (Northern line at Camden) rather than at the
periphery (Central line).

I worked on the software for BART, the San Francisco area metro. It is
fully automated, and has several points at which lines merge and split,
notably to get through the tunnel under the bay.

In practice the ATO and associated interlocking and routing logic do
this pretty well. It copes with trains out of sequence, wrong-line
running, a stretch of reversible track (used inbound in the morning and
outbound in the evening) and so on. The control room can override the
automated decisions, but my recollection is that they rarely see the
need to do so.

Peter

PS. BART route map he
http://sfo.web.infoseek.co.jp/citymap/citymap13.html. The tunnel is
between Embarcadero and West Oakland. There is a triangular junction
just west of West Oakland, and the 3-track section runs from there up to
MacArthur. More or less all the rest is 2-track, ie the parallel routes
shown are sharing track (like LU Circle and District Lines).

--
Peter Campbell Smith ~ London ~ pjcs00 (a) gmail.com

Oh No Kenny O
 

On 24 Apr, 19:56, "Peter Masson" wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote

Nothing's changed, said ticket windows are still hidden behind the
timetables in that passage (which I perhaps somewhat confusingly
described elsewhere as a 'tunnel'), and if you look up you can see the
old (and unilluminated) lightbox signs above them (different windows
for LU and main line train tickets). I'm curious as to when they were
last in use, and when the main ticket office moved into the old
Motorail lounge? Perhaps when BR attempted to reintroduce cross-London
Intercity services in the 80's, perhaps when North London Railways
(the precursor to Silverlink) started running the Clapham Jn to
Willesden Jn service in the early/mid 90's (at least I think it was
them wot did it)...

The BR ticket office moved into the Motorail Lounge for the 1980s
cross-London InterCity. I can't remember what the arrangements were then for
buying Underground tickets.


Thanks for confirmation of that Peter. It's a rather grand looking
booking office to just be buying a return to Clapham Junction in!

Oh No Kenny O
 

On 24 Apr, 19:46, TBirdFrank wrote:
I don't claim any expertise on this specific operation - but is not
this a case of TfL being in the effective shoes of a Franchisee, and
Network Rail still being the freeholders? - a situation which has
destroyed the potential for less than stellar property transactions
due to there now being too many parties trying to extract both profit
and hypothecated gains within the life of a mere franchise.


I don't think that any time-limit has been placed on TfL's control of
the 'North London Railway' (i.e. all the old Silverlink Metro routes).
TfL's appointment of LOROL as the operator was for a set period of
something like seven years, but I think the plan is for this contract
to simply be renewed/extended if they do a good job - I don't think it
has to go out to competitive tender like a normal franchise does.

Regardless of what the situation is with the operator, TfL is in this
for the long run - therefore they can think long-term. As you say
Network Rail remains the freeholder, but the impression I get is that
they and TfL are establishing a good working relationship, not least
because Network Rail realises TfL aren't going anywhere soon!


LSH of course contains a large number of former railway surveyors and
what remains from the old station trading teams, so they do know what
they are doing.

Of course where the prize is larger it maybe worth a tripartite
developer / TOC / NR agreement to be entered - but that cannot be the
case everywhere and transactions have been lost that way

Oh No Kenny O
 

On 25 Apr, 10:35, MIG wrote:
I remember having trouble getting my head round this before. *It
seemed that in order to justify the splitting of the line, it was
necessary to claim that the resignalling wasn't going to achieve very
much. *But at the same time, the resignalling had to be worth the
money spent on it. *The justification did seem to be working backwards
from the decision already made.

The idea is that once the resignalling is done the junction will be
the bottleneck. So resignalling + splitting gives you a much bigger
boost in capacity than one or the other alone.

(and considering the resignalling is definitely happening, one can
only assume the split will as well. The northbound morning peak split
seems to now be a permanent fixture)

U

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

Oh No Kenny O
 

I do hope they don't limit themselves in the future by removing the
possibility of restoring a 4th line though the station by plonking a
great huge building over/next to the station, as whilst the original
eastern platform is unlikely to be brought back into use due the
proximity of the housing, there is plenty of room on the western side
to move the platform westwards and once again have a pair of loops for
freight to wait in as well as non-stopping services to overtake the
stopping LO ones.

Oh No Kenny O
 

On 25 Apr, 12:06, Mizter T wrote:
On 24 Apr, 19:46, TBirdFrank wrote:

I don't claim any expertise on this specific operation - but is not
this a case of TfL being in the effective shoes of a Franchisee, and
Network Rail still being the freeholders? - a situation which has
destroyed the potential for less than stellar property transactions
due to there now being too many parties trying to extract both profit
and hypothecated gains within the life of a mere franchise.

I don't think that any time-limit has been placed on TfL's control of
the 'North London Railway' (i.e. all the old Silverlink Metro routes).
TfL's appointment of LOROL as the operator was for a set period of
something like seven years, but I think the plan is for this contract
to simply be renewed/extended if they do a good job - I don't think it
has to go out to competitive tender like a normal franchise does.

Regardless of what the situation is with the operator, TfL is in this
for the long run - therefore they can think long-term. As you say
Network Rail remains the freeholder, but the impression I get is that
they and TfL are establishing a good working relationship, not least
because Network Rail realises TfL aren't going anywhere soon!

Even if Boris wins next week? It's a frightening thought.