|
Crossrail NOT making connections
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:16:50 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote: I grew up there, and to my eyes it has been vastly "over-developed" with fill-in housing, medium sized office blocks, and bits of shopping mall tacked onto what was once quite a traditional High Street. They've even built flats on the old bus station (next to the train^H^H railway station). The new bus station is quite a nice job though. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Crossrail NOT making connections
In message
"Andrew Heenan" wrote: "Graeme Wall" wrote ... By an amazing coincidence Shenfield has the facilities to allow the trains to terminate and return to London. So have Margate, Uckfield and Blackpool, I think. But, again by a bizzare coincidence, none of them are served fron Liverpool Street. Do you see a trend forming? Yup: a trend of proposing services based on capacity and convenience, not need or future benefit. It's a sad trend, when a bit of imagination could be so rewarding. Did you not pay attention when told why the current services went to Shenfield? On that basis, they should have built the motorways in a straight line out into the North Sea. Now there's a thought! A fairly pointless one, what are you on about? -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
Crossrail NOT making connections
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:29:53 on Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Tom Anderson remarked: Shenfield is OK, but a bit of a luxury in terms of build cost, What build cost? The line's already there and working perfectly. It has OHLE. I have a feeling the platforms are even the right length (mostly). 2/3 of the current crossrail budget would appear to be tarting up existing lines. I imagine quite a bit of that is depots, a control centre, and other one-off infrastructure. Although obviously i'm only sourcing numbers from my colon here. and inconveniently distant if the Crossrail trains are all-station-stoppers. Aren't Shenfield trains stoppers already? Maybe - but when I lived there a significant number of long distance trains had their penultimate stop at Shenfield. Oh yes, good point. I assume we'll still have these on the fast lines, right? And then there were a whole bunch more that stopped every station to Harold Wood then fast to Stratford. Ah, didn't know about those, thanks. tom -- I'm angry, but not Milk and Cheese angry. -- Mike Froggatt |
Crossrail NOT making connections
On 2008-12-04 18:31:46 +0000, Tom Anderson said:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Robert wrote: On 2008-12-04 16:24:15 +0000, Tom Anderson said: On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Andrew Heenan wrote: (And please don't tell me there's not one station on the Eastern that is more appropiate than Shenfield - or I, and many others, will cease to believe a word you say.) As it happens, i also think there's no better option than Shenfield. The GEML is four-track to Shenfield, and has two two-track branches beyond that. That means you can run Crossrail as a stopping service to Shenfield with one pair of tracks entirely to itself, and leave the other pair for non-stop long-distance services, with no possibility of performance pollution between the two. Running those Crossrail trains beyond Shenfield supplies residents of those towns with a stopping service into London which they simply won't use. Making some of the Crossrails non-stop on the fasts to points beyond Shenfield, and filling in the deficit on the slow lines with Liverpool Street-terminating trains, throws away the advantages of segregation. Turning some of the Crossrails off short of Shenfield - say up the West Anglia, to suburban destinations or Stansted, means taking trains away from the stations towards Shenfield, which means a net reduction in service on an already overcrowded line. So, we have one useless option, one impractical one, and one actively harmful one. I look forward to hearing your suggestion. To balance peak hour loadings between trains running on the same Line on the RER in Paris, the stopping patterns are varied. For example on the western arm of the Line A, most trains ran through to the terminus at St. Germain-en-Laye, but some turned back before the end of the line at Le Vesinet-Le Pecq. The longer distance trains tended to skip some of the stations nearer Paris which were covered by the trains which turned back early. All of the trains stopped at all of the stations in the central section. This was all done on a 2 track railway and it seemed to work very well. Outside the central section I would suggest that not all the Crossrail trains should be all-stations. The only point to this that i can see is to guarantee that passengers on the inner section have a chance to get seats; if all trains ran the whole way, passengers from the outer section would all get a seat, and get all of the seats, leaving none for the poor inner sectioners. The flip side of this is that some people coming from the outer section will have to stand, despite having further to travel than anyone from the inner section. That was, I think,the main reason. The maximum journey length was about 25 minutes from Étoile. The lack of seats problem arose mainly in the evening peaks when trains leaving the central section were full and standing. I lived there about 12 years ago and I seem to remember that there was a pattern of 3 trains every 10 or 12 minutes down the St. Germain branch. Also using the central section tracks on the Line A were the dual-voltage trains to both Poissy and Cergy which diverged at Nanterre-Prefecture. So there were trains every 90/120 seconds or so in the central section which had automatic train control. In the opposite direction, as St. Germain was a terminus, you could practically always get a seat in the morning peak. The St. Germain trains were always 3 sets of 3-car emus, I forget the class number but they were built in the 50s; the Cergy/Poissy trains were modern aluminium bodied 4-car units running in pairs. The total train length was the same for both types. Specifically, the arrangement can't make the long-distance trains much faster. Since trains can't overtake on a two-track railway (without passing loops, anyway - do they have those?), then assuming that stopping trains are all evenly spaced, the most time that a skipper can save is equal to the interval between stoppers - if it sets out from the central section just ahead of one stopper, it can reach the turnback point just behind another one. If the trains all come out of the core evenly spaced, skippers and stoppers, then the maximum gain is the time between a skipper and a stopper - half the interval between stoppers, if they're half and half. There were no passing loops, except at Le Vesinet-Le Pecq where the central reversing siding had 2 platform faces, being the insides of the up and down island platforms. In my previous post I forgot that trains could also be reversed in 2 bays at Rueil-Malmaison, but that was mainly to be able to get trains into and out of the maintenance depot there. Crossrail is going to run at 12 tph along the GEML, along with another 6 tph of Liverpool Street trains. That's 18 tph, or a train every 3 minutes 20 seconds, that also being the maximum saving a skipper could make. That doesn't seem like much of a saving over the 36 minutes it currently takes to run from Stratford to Shenfield, particularly when compared to the 17 minutes it takes non-stop on the fasts. 3min 20 secs! That's terrible. Modern metros should be able to run 30 tph or more. I've lived in both Paris and Munich - both cities can manage that frequency. This country is backward! Bear in mind that this would represent a cut in stopping train service on that line from 16 tph to 9 tph. If you introduced more Liverpool Street stoppers to make up the difference, you'd cut the time saving for the skippers even further. Another alternative along these lines is a skip-stop service, where half the trains skip half the stops, and half skip the other half. This does actually let you get trains from one end of the line to the other faster, although not a lot faster in practice, i believe. There isn't a capacity issue, as although the frequency at each station is halved, the trains which call are each serving half the number of stations. It does double the average waiting time for a train, but at 18 tph, that's from 3:20 to 6:40, which is still a reasonable turn-up-and-go frequency. It doesn't really help you run trains beyond Shenfield, though. tom -- Robert |
Crossrail NOT making connections
On Dec 4, 8:24*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote Maybe - but when I lived there a significant number of long distance trains had their penultimate stop at Shenfield. And then there were a whole bunch more that stopped every station to Harold Wood then fast to Stratford. With the increase in longer distance commuting there's no longer room on the Fast Lines for Harold Wood and Brentwood commuters, so peak trains on the Fast Lines are non-stop from Liverpool Street or Stratford to Shenfield or beyond. This means that Brentwood and Harold Wood commuters have to take a stopping train on the Slow Lines (some run fast Ilford to Stratford), but it also eliminates peak trains crossing between Fast and Slow Lines west of Shenfield. The main change I seem to remember is in the off-peak, when the stoppers got extended from Gidea Park to Shenfield all day instead of just the peaks, so Brentwood and Harold Wood got more frequent services but longer journey times. They used to be served by trains from Southend (or Southminster) which then did Romford and Stratford or Romford, Ilford and Stratford. I am pretty sure that they used the slow lines though. The peak services from Brentwood and Harold Wood were more stopping than the off-peak, but I think generally non-stop from Ilford to Stratford and quite similar to now, when the peak is the only time that the all stations start from Gidea Park. In operational terms running Crossrail exclusively on the Slow Lines as far as Shenfield * makes sense. Some should probably turn back at Gidea Park, and there's a case for running more trains on this branch in the high peak, at the expense of Abbey Wood trains, so that non-Crossrail stopping trains between Shenfield and Liverpool Street (Main) can be eliminated. Peter |
Crossrail NOT making connections
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Andrew Heenan wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote... So how were you able to determine that Shenfield was such a bad terminus? That's the bit i can't work out. Well, I've explained about 15 times, including in the post you replied to, but I'm happy to try again. No, you haven't explained it once. You still don't here. Read the question again: how can you judge Shenfield to be the wrong terminus, when you can't judge any other option? I happen to believe that planning multi-billion pound investments of taxpayers money (plus about 0.005% added by 'business') should be based on positive reasons, rather than convenience. But there's gaping hole in the list of reasons for Crossrail *to* go there. Other than convenience. If we use the word 'feasibility' rather than 'convenience', does that make things any clearer? And even the convenience arguments are flawed. Crossrail does not *have* to be an all-stopper; that was a preference of Ken's, who wanted Crossrail to be a 'supa tube' for London; Thank God he did, because his support was key in getting the thing accepted, and that's why he got his way. But he's not the only political opportunist, and I can see poweful arguments for some trains that stop at all central stations, but go fast (or faster, at least) at the ends; Heathrow is one obvious example, Cambridge would be another. Oxford another. You're right, Crossrail doesn't have to be an all-stopper. But what it does have to be is completely, or almost completely, segregated from non-Crossrail lines. Without that, it becomes a recipe for monstrous performance pollution between railways on different sides of London - for instance, if it shared tracks with services on the Great Eastern and West Coast routes, then problems at Milton Keynes could end up disrupting services in Chelmsford. This would be a really bad idea. In practice, this means that Crossrail gets to take over one pair of tracks on one or two routes on each side of the core tunnel. Those could be fast or slow pairs, making it an express or stopping service. It could be one of each, even on the same route. But any more than that, and the core tunnel won't be able to supply enough trains to provide an adequate service on its own. That means that if we want a service along the GEML and the tunnel to Abbey Wood, then on the GEML, Crossrail can take over either the fast or the slow lines, but not both, and it can't share both with Liverpool Street trains. That just would not work in practice. So, if you want to run stopping services on the GEML, you *can't* also run fast services. You could run fast services instead, but not as well. Now, you could indeed do that - and there was a competing proposal called Superlink which never quite got off the ground, but would have run to Cambridge, Ipswich and Southend in the east, with stops only at Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf inside London. There's certainly a case to be made for this - although there might be more tunnelling (there was in that plan), there's less construction in built-up areas, and because fares are higher, more revenue to pay for it. But it seems that you want a service that does everything - fast trains, slow trains, a panoply of branches, all presumably sharing with other services. That just is not feasible. tom -- I'm angry, but not Milk and Cheese angry. -- Mike Froggatt |
Crossrail NOT making connections
Andrew Heenan wrote:
And even the convenience arguments are flawed. Crossrail does not *have* to be an all-stopper; No, but it's the only rational choice. The longer the overall journey, the less the benefit from avoiding a change of trains. It makes sense to use the cross-London lines for services it will benefit most - roughly, those for which the slowness of an all-stations service is outweighed by the time saving from not having to change. In addition, we know that reductions in journey times just increase the distances people will travel, after a few years to adapt, change jobs, move house etc. A commuter line ought to be encouraging people to live closer to work, not farther away, in the interest of avoiding unnecessary energy use. Colin McKenzie -- 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. |
Crossrail NOT making connections
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message Tom Anderson wrote: On Wed, 3 Dec 2008, 1506 wrote: On Dec 3, 10:02 am, Mr Thant wrote: On 3 Dec, 17:46, 1506 wrote: I didn't think there were too many left in NYC. I can only recall one short section in Manhattan. Do the other Boroughs have many Els left? Brooklyn is chockablock with them, and I think most of the Subway network in Queen's is elevated. (also, I'd question whether you can build a true El with brick viaducts, given the lack of space underneath them) Point taken, although I wonder what options were available in the 1860s? Piles of compacted commoners. Like the Chiswick flyover you mean? Must be a good bridge (Kipling) -- Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” |
Crossrail NOT making connections
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:48:12 on Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Graeme Wall remarked: Don't know if it still exists in the current economic situation, but there used to be a lot of traffic between high tech firms in the Thames Valley and places like Marconi at Chelmsford. I think the main demise is that "places like Marconi" have almost ceased to exist in Chelmsford! So what does it do now to justify it's existance? Though its new life as a dormitory began in a small way in the 1950s, it is only now beginning to get big. -- Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” |
Crossrail NOT making connections
In message
Martin Edwards wrote: Graeme Wall wrote: In message Tom Anderson wrote: On Wed, 3 Dec 2008, 1506 wrote: On Dec 3, 10:02 am, Mr Thant wrote: On 3 Dec, 17:46, 1506 wrote: I didn't think there were too many left in NYC. I can only recall one short section in Manhattan. Do the other Boroughs have many Els left? Brooklyn is chockablock with them, and I think most of the Subway network in Queen's is elevated. (also, I'd question whether you can build a true El with brick viaducts, given the lack of space underneath them) Point taken, although I wonder what options were available in the 1860s? Piles of compacted commoners. Like the Chiswick flyover you mean? Must be a good bridge (Kipling) It's made of cake??? -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
Crossrail NOT making connections
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
If you want another modern example, how about BART? Outside the city centres it is elevated apart from sections in the central median of freeways. I've thought of another American city with an elevated transit line, San Diego. The Green Line Trolley is elevated for much of its length alongside highway 8, including 2 or 3 stations. |
Crossrail NOT making connections
In message , at 00:10:58 on Fri, 5 Dec
2008, Mr G remarked: I've thought of another American city with an elevated transit line The North-South Marta line in Atlanta has several elevated sections, at either end if I recall correctly. -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail NOT making connections
Andrew Heenan wrote:
"Graeme Wall" wrote ... As it happens, up till today, no one has offered one single argument FOR Shenfield, other than operational convenience. I've suggested more than once that that is simply not an adequate way to do it; it's that kind of approach that gets rail enthusiasts a bad name. It's very simple, Crossrail trains will take over the slow line services which currently run to Shenfield. By an amazing coincidence Shenfield has the facilities to allow the trains to terminate and return to London. So have Margate, Uckfield and Blackpool, I think. Uckfield is electrified? |
Crossrail NOT making connections
"John Rowland" wrote in message ... Andrew Heenan wrote: "Graeme Wall" wrote ... As it happens, up till today, no one has offered one single argument FOR Shenfield, other than operational convenience. I've suggested more than once that that is simply not an adequate way to do it; it's that kind of approach that gets rail enthusiasts a bad name. It's very simple, Crossrail trains will take over the slow line services which currently run to Shenfield. By an amazing coincidence Shenfield has the facilities to allow the trains to terminate and return to London. So have Margate, Uckfield and Blackpool, I think. Uckfield is electrified? and Blackpool? Peter |
Crossrail NOT making connections
"Peter Masson" wrote in message ... "John Rowland" wrote in message ... Andrew Heenan wrote: "Graeme Wall" wrote ... As it happens, up till today, no one has offered one single argument FOR Shenfield, other than operational convenience. I've suggested more than once that that is simply not an adequate way to do it; it's that kind of approach that gets rail enthusiasts a bad name. It's very simple, Crossrail trains will take over the slow line services which currently run to Shenfield. By an amazing coincidence Shenfield has the facilities to allow the trains to terminate and return to London. So have Margate, Uckfield and Blackpool, I think. Uckfield is electrified? and Blackpool? and now they're not planned to go beyond Abbey Wood they won't have 3rd rail capability, so won't get very far towards Margate. Peter |
Crossrail NOT making connections
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 00:10:58 on Fri, 5 Dec 2008, Mr G remarked: I've thought of another American city with an elevated transit line The North-South Marta line in Atlanta has several elevated sections, at either end if I recall correctly. ....and I meant to mention the aptly named Sky Train in Vancouver. So there are a lot, really! |
Crossrail NOT making connections
|
Crossrail NOT making connections
|
Crossrail NOT making connections
|
Crossrail NOT making connections
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008, wrote:
In article , (Roland Perry) wrote: And where is the obvious place "past Shenfield"? Colchester is the nearest that makes sense. Chelmsford! Somewhere upthread, it was asserted that the place had to be a junction - Shenfield and Colchester are, Chelmsford isn't. Not that this is necessarily a correct assertion. tom -- Better to die on your feet than live on your knees. -- Emiliano Zapata |
Crossrail NOT making connections
On Dec 6, 7:27*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008, wrote: In article , (Roland Perry) wrote: And where is the obvious place "past Shenfield"? Colchester is the nearest that makes sense. Chelmsford! Somewhere upthread, it was asserted that the place had to be a junction - Shenfield and Colchester are, Chelmsford isn't. Not that this is necessarily a correct assertion. I thought it was more that it hasn't got the facilities. |
Crossrail NOT making connections
|
Crossrail NOT making connections
|
Crossrail NOT making connections
On 7 Dec, 19:25, wrote:
But if the location fits otherwise it could have the facilities added. They're completely rebuilding Maidenhead, Shenfield and West Drayton to act as termini, so the "lack of facilities" argument doesn't actually wash. It's the most sensible operationally, which in this case is all stations to Shenfield. That said, I've decided all Crossrail trains will terminate at Stratford. The people of Essex can go to their rooms and think about what they've done. U |
Crossrail NOT making connections
|
Crossrail NOT making connections
|
Crossrail NOT making connections
On Dec 7, 8:31*pm, Mr Thant
wrote: On 7 Dec, 19:25, wrote: But if the location fits otherwise it could have the facilities added. They're completely rebuilding Maidenhead, Shenfield and West Drayton to act as termini, so the "lack of facilities" argument doesn't actually wash. It's the most sensible operationally, which in this case is all stations to Shenfield. That said, I've decided all Crossrail trains will terminate at Stratford. The people of Essex can go to their rooms and think about what they've done. U I've got no problem at all with terminating at Shenfield, where Crossrail simply replaces existing services and links local stations with a station where several longer distance services stop. It's Maidenhead I have the problem with, whatever the excuses. If extending to Reading puts the whole project at risk, they might as well just terminate everything at Paddington and save on duplicating services to reach Reading. (It's not just Twyford and the Henley branch, it's the need to have something to change to at Maidenhead if you get on at any of the local stations.) |
Crossrail NOT making connections
|
Crossrail NOT making connections
In article , (Peter
Campbell Smith) wrote: I spent a while shuttling between various industrial sites around Paris and the RER really is a boon for that: in London it would have been train-tube- train, but in Paris it was typically one quick change at Chatelet. wrote in : Chatelet is so spread out that the idea of "one quick change" is a bit implausible. The RER platforms are close together; in one direction it's cross-platform for a N-S to E-W change (line A to B/D) and in the other it's at the next platform. But by 'quick change' I was really meaning that the frequency on the RER is such that you rarely have to wait long for a train. But I agree that if you need to change to the Metro it's a bit of a hike, and as for Gare du Nord ... Peter -- Peter Campbell Smith ~ London ~ pjcs00 (a) gmail.com |
Crossrail NOT making connections
|
Crossrail NOT making connections
|
Crossrail NOT making connections
"Roland Perry" wrote :
But if the location fits otherwise it could have the facilities added. Adding sidings (and perhaps extra platforms) on top of a viaduct in a busy town centre is quite a daunting task. Especially at Christmas. |
Crossrail NOT making connections
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008, Mr Thant wrote:
That said, I've decided all Crossrail trains will terminate at Stratford. The people of Essex can go to their rooms and think about what they've done. Actually, that would probably suit the people of Essex quite well, since almost all of them live beyond Shenfield, and thus have to change to get onto Crossrail anyway - having it start at Stratford means they'll be more likely to get a seat. It would be less good for the people of the part of east London that many Londoners erroneously refer to as Essex, of course. tom -- Taking care of business |
Crossrail NOT making connections
On Dec 8, 11:47*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008, Mr Thant wrote: That said, I've decided all Crossrail trains will terminate at Stratford. The people of Essex can go to their rooms and think about what they've done. Actually, that would probably suit the people of Essex quite well, since almost all of them live beyond Shenfield, and thus have to change to get onto Crossrail anyway - having it start at Stratford means they'll be more likely to get a seat. It would be less good for the people of the part of east London that many Londoners erroneously refer to as Essex, of course. Brentwood is the first station in Essex on that line, as I recall. |
Crossrail NOT making connections
In message
, at 03:59:56 on Mon, 8 Dec 2008, MIG remarked: It would be less good for the people of the part of east London that many Londoners erroneously refer to as Essex, of course. Brentwood is the first station in Essex on that line, as I recall. Within the current administrative county of Essex, yes. -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail NOT making connections
On Dec 8, 12:35*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 03:59:56 on Mon, 8 Dec 2008, MIG remarked: It would be less good for the people of the part of east London that many Londoners erroneously refer to as Essex, of course. Brentwood is the first station in Essex on that line, as I recall. Within the current administrative county of Essex, yes. There have only ever been administrative boundaries. I've never understood why past administrative boundaries are deemed to have more significance than current ones and somehow represent eg the "real" Essex. |
Crossrail NOT making connections
In message
, at 04:44:26 on Mon, 8 Dec 2008, MIG remarked: It would be less good for the people of the part of east London that many Londoners erroneously refer to as Essex, of course. Brentwood is the first station in Essex on that line, as I recall. Within the current administrative county of Essex, yes. There have only ever been administrative boundaries. There are postal boundaries too. I've never understood why past administrative boundaries are deemed to have more significance than current ones and somehow represent eg the "real" Essex. Because many people grew up when (eg) Ilford was fully "in Essex", and continue to refer to it as Essex because of its postal address. The borough council, for example, publish the address of: Town Hall, 128-142 High Road, Ilford, Essex, IG1 1DD -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail NOT making connections
On Dec 8, 1:00*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 04:44:26 on Mon, 8 Dec 2008, MIG remarked: It would be less good for the people of the part of east London that many Londoners erroneously refer to as Essex, of course. Brentwood is the first station in Essex on that line, as I recall. Within the current administrative county of Essex, yes. There have only ever been administrative boundaries. There are postal boundaries too. Ah true, and there are telephone codes, but they are there purely for operational convenience of service providers and also change. They are based on things like the number of delivery points and capacity of exchanges. I've never understood why past administrative boundaries are deemed to have more significance than current ones and somehow represent eg the "real" Essex. Because many people grew up when (eg) Ilford was fully "in Essex", and continue to refer to it as Essex because of its postal address. The borough council, for example, publish the address of: Town Hall, 128-142 High Road, Ilford, Essex, IG1 1DD Yes, but it's still the address of the London Borough of Redbridge. I don't think the Royal Mail includes county names in addresses any more. They use Post Towns (which every village has, and don't imply that the village is actually in that town). A postal address is structured data about delivery points, not a description of where a place really is. There is a strange situation in Surrey I think in that some of their administrative offices are not in the region that they administer (ie Kingston). |
Crossrail NOT making connections
On 8 Dec, 11:47, Tom Anderson wrote:
It would be less good for the people of the part of east London that many Londoners erroneously refer to as Essex, of course. There's nothing erroneous about the River Lea. U |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk