On 20 Aug, 06:20, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
I suppose the real question is, why don't they run a Willesden Jn (LL
bay platform) to Stratford service, in addition to the Euston service,
instead of completely arbitrarily withdrawing the service to Euston?

Because they want to experiment to see what happens, to dictate their
future plans?

....which makes sense. It's a shame they haven't arranged for London
Midland to stop at Queens Park during the trial period, though.

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

On 20 Aug, 08:08, John B wrote:
On 20 Aug, 06:20, (Neil Williams)
wrote:

I suppose the real question is, why don't they run a Willesden Jn (LL
bay platform) to Stratford service, in addition to the Euston service,
instead of completely arbitrarily withdrawing the service to Euston?

Because they want to experiment to see what happens, to dictate their
future plans?

...which makes sense. It's a shame they haven't arranged for London
Midland to stop at Queens Park during the trial period, though.

London Midland is already severly overcrowded from Euston to Harrow.
Adding Queens Park (which is only a 45 minute walk from Euston anyway)
would mean leaving more people behind -- people who pay a hell of a
lot more for their ticket than a Z12 travelcard.

I suppose making Queens park and Harrow pick-up-only Northbound (in
the peaks) would free up enough space on the services.

On Aug 20, 8:43*am, Paul Weaver wrote:
On 20 Aug, 08:08, John B wrote:

On 20 Aug, 06:20, (Neil Williams)
wrote:

I suppose the real question is, why don't they run a Willesden Jn (LL
bay platform) to Stratford service, in addition to the Euston service,
instead of completely arbitrarily withdrawing the service to Euston?

Because they want to experiment to see what happens, to dictate their
future plans?

...which makes sense. It's a shame they haven't arranged for London
Midland to stop at Queens Park during the trial period, though.

London Midland is already severly overcrowded from Euston to Harrow.
Adding Queens Park (which is only a 45 minute walk from Euston anyway)
would mean leaving more people behind -- people who pay a hell of a
lot more for their ticket than a Z12 travelcard.

I suppose making Queens park and Harrow pick-up-only Northbound (in
the peaks) would free up enough space on the services.

But it's been argued here that there is no need for services from
Euston to Queens Park, because people can change to/from the
(presumably empty, ha) Northern line at Chalk Farm, if they reopen
Primrose Hill.

I think it all relies on the assumption that people get used to
anything and put up with it.

On Aug 20, 8:43*am, Paul Weaver wrote:
On 20 Aug, 08:08, John B wrote:

On 20 Aug, 06:20, (Neil Williams)
wrote:

I suppose the real question is, why don't they run a Willesden Jn (LL
bay platform) to Stratford service, in addition to the Euston service,
instead of completely arbitrarily withdrawing the service to Euston?

Because they want to experiment to see what happens, to dictate their
future plans?

...which makes sense. It's a shame they haven't arranged for London
Midland to stop at Queens Park during the trial period, though.

London Midland is already severly overcrowded from Euston to Harrow.
Adding Queens Park (which is only a 45 minute walk from Euston anyway)
would mean leaving more people behind -- people who pay a hell of a
lot more for their ticket than a Z12 travelcard.


Peak London Midland services are not severely overcrowded from Euston
to Harrow (maybe with the exception of the 4 car 19.04 departure in
the evening). Sure there are usually a few people standing, but the
doorways and aisles are not packed at all. Only this Monday, the 18.04
departure stopped additionally at Queens Park due to the Bakerloo line
(and DC line) having delays due to a signal failure at Willesden
Junction and it didn't get uncomfortably full after leaving Queens
Park. I very much doubt that anyone would get left behind at Euston.

A stop by London Midland wouldn't be just for Queens Park, but would
be for passengers connecting to stations between Queens Park and
Harrow. Of course, an alternative would be to have reopened Primrose
Hill, as this is only about a mile away

I suppose making Queens park and Harrow pick-up-only Northbound (in
the peaks) would free up enough space on the services.

How would that help, when at least 100 people get on (morning) or off
(evening) each trains at Harrow each day and there is no capacity for
them on the DC lines. As I said before, the Harrow stoppers are not
overcrowded. The more overcrowded services seem to be those that are
first stop Watford and then most stops to Milton Keynes.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:14:22 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:

The more overcrowded services seem to be those that are
first stop Watford and then most stops to Milton Keynes.

From what I can see, the *most* overcrowded are the Tring locals,
followed by the Bletchley semi-locals, followed by the
Leighton/MKC/Northampton fasts, followed by the (Harrow), Watford then
most stops to Northampton runs as the least busy.

But remember that the LM timetable won't now change substantially in
the near future after the 2009 changes, and it needs to take into
account massive growth in the Milton Keynes/Bletchley to/from Euston
run. Thus, piling on the local passengers makes about as much sense
as crowding out Euston to Glasgow services between Euston and MKC,
which VT are very keen on avoiding.

LO do have a point in that the Bakerloo might actually take up the
slack (and given that most people aren't actually going *to* Euston it
probably will), with people changing from that as appropriate. But
does the Bakerloo have capacity?

Neil

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

On Aug 20, 8:21*pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:14:22 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:

The more overcrowded services seem to be those that are
first stop Watford and then most stops to Milton Keynes.

From what I can see, the *most* overcrowded are the Tring locals,
followed by the Bletchley semi-locals, followed by the
Leighton/MKC/Northampton fasts, followed by the (Harrow), Watford then
most stops to Northampton runs as the least busy.


Probably true, although the Harrow stops seem to vary between the
Tring locals and the Bletchley semi-locals and even these are never
overloaded, just a seat is not guaranteed unless you arrive a few mins
before departure.

But remember that the LM timetable won't now change substantially in
the near future after the 2009 changes, and it needs to take into
account massive growth in the Milton Keynes/Bletchley to/from Euston
run. *Thus, piling on the local passengers makes about as much sense
as crowding out Euston to Glasgow services between Euston and MKC,
which VT are very keen on avoiding.


True, but London Midland do have the possibility of lengthening all
their remaining peak trains to 12 coaches. This is a luxury that few
of the other London commuter operators have without Network Rail
spending money on the infrastructure. I would certainly expect a few
peak trains will get longer as the new class 350s come on line, as the
class 321s are not fully diagrammed, even with units on loan
elsewhere.

LO do have a point in that the Bakerloo might actually take up the
slack (and given that most people aren't actually going *to* Euston it
probably will), with people changing from that as appropriate. But
does the Bakerloo have capacity?

There are actually quite a few employers around Euston (e.g. UCLH,
UCL, University of London), and I know several people who commute into
Euston as it means that they can walk to work for the last bit. If you
look at the passengers after they pass though the gates, I'd reckon
that it is about a 60:40 split between walking down to the underground
station and upto the concourse. Like you say, it will be interesting
to see how flows change whilst LO are not serving Euston.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:26:04 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:

True, but London Midland do have the possibility of lengthening all
their remaining peak trains to 12 coaches.

No, they don't, as they are constrained by the middle platforms at
Euston not being 12 cars long, and by Bletchley's platforms 4 and 5
being only 8 cars long. (Hopefully once Bletchley depot is dispensed
with completely those two can be extended across what is currently the
junction).

This is a luxury that few
of the other London commuter operators have without Network Rail
spending money on the infrastructure. I would certainly expect a few
peak trains will get longer as the new class 350s come on line, as the
class 321s are not fully diagrammed, even with units on loan
elsewhere.

They are a 1-1 replacement for the 321s, and currently the reliability
figures are vastly better for 321 than Desiro.

Neil

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

On Aug 20, 9:30*pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:26:04 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:

True, but London Midland do have the possibility of lengthening all
their remaining peak trains to 12 coaches.

No, they don't, as they are constrained by the middle platforms at
Euston not being 12 cars long, and by Bletchley's platforms 4 and 5
being only 8 cars long. *(Hopefully once Bletchley depot is dispensed
with completely those two can be extended across what is currently the
junction).


In the short term, Bletchley could be dealt with using selective door
opening (as already used in their class 444 and 450 cousins), whilst
any trains using the single 8 car platform at Euston (the other being
LO) would have to be moved to another, but platform utilisation is not
high at Euston. Compare the number of peak departures at Euston to,
for example, King's Cross with only 11 platforms three of which are
limited to 8 cars. The idea being that, on the WCML, there is only a
small amount of infrastructure left which would cause a problem for 12
car trains. I'm not saying that all train will immediately be
lengthened to 12 cars come December, just that services which need
lengthening could be with little problem.

This is a luxury that few
of the other London commuter operators have without Network Rail
spending money on the infrastructure. I would certainly expect a few
peak trains will get longer as the new class 350s come on line, as the
class 321s are not fully diagrammed, even with units on loan
elsewhere.

They are a 1-1 replacement for the 321s, and currently the reliability
figures are vastly better for 321 than Desiro.


Personally, I'd like to see upto date reliablility figures for the LM
321s and the 350s, I think that availability for the 321s has dropped
like a stone since LM took over. The short formed trains only seem to
be those made up of 321s.

With regard to the 1-1 replacement, several of the 321s currently
aren't even used by LM, for example two with are now with NEEA and one
was on loan to Northern for a while. In 2007, diagrams were 25 for
class 350s and 28 (+1 St. Albans branch and +2 on loan to NEEA) for
321s, although there has been some change (19.04 changed from 350 to
321 for example). Even with the extended services north of Rugby, I'm
sure there will be room for more units on the London end of things. If
the current requirement is 56 units / 67 available, then this gives
availability of 84%. Modern fleets have availabilities in the mid 90%
range (for example in 2007, One had 20 of their class 360 Desiros
diagrammed out of a fleet of 21 = 95% availability). A combined LM
desiro fleet of 67, with similar availability to the Class 360s would
have 63 units available. Taking a conservative view (i.e. not counting
two units already with NEEA as extras), this would give an extra 6-7
units available for peak / extra services. Diagramming would be easier
as all units will be able to couple. Also, remember that the
Birmingham end of LM is down to get extra EMUs, whether these would be
the 323s from Manchester or new units. Some of the 350 diagrams here
may then change to these 'new' units in a few years time.

Andy wrote:
On Aug 20, 8:21 pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:

But remember that the LM timetable won't now change substantially in
the near future after the 2009 changes, and it needs to take into
account massive growth in the Milton Keynes/Bletchley to/from Euston
run. Thus, piling on the local passengers makes about as much sense
as crowding out Euston to Glasgow services between Euston and MKC,
which VT are very keen on avoiding.

True, but London Midland do have the possibility of lengthening all
their remaining peak trains to 12 coaches. This is a luxury that few
of the other London commuter operators have without Network Rail
spending money on the infrastructure. I would certainly expect a few
peak trains will get longer as the new class 350s come on line, as the
class 321s are not fully diagrammed, even with units on loan
elsewhere.

As I've just pointed out elsewhere, there are two new hourly services north
of Northampton to cover. The 350s replace 321s 1 for 1, there'll be no
increase in overall numbers...

Paul

On Aug 20, 9:33*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
Andy wrote:
On Aug 20, 8:21 pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
But remember that the LM timetable won't now change substantially in
the near future after the 2009 changes, and it needs to take into
account massive growth in the Milton Keynes/Bletchley to/from Euston
run. Thus, piling on the local passengers makes about as much sense
as crowding out Euston to Glasgow services between Euston and MKC,
which VT are very keen on avoiding.

True, but London Midland do have the possibility of lengthening all
their remaining peak trains to 12 coaches. This is a luxury that few
of the other London commuter operators have without Network Rail
spending money on the infrastructure. I would certainly expect a few
peak trains will get longer as the new class 350s come on line, as the
class 321s are not fully diagrammed, even with units on loan
elsewhere.

As I've just pointed out elsewhere, there are two new hourly services north
of Northampton to cover. The 350s replace 321s 1 for 1, there'll be no
increase in overall numbers...


Excepting the units already on loan to NEEA, of course.