West London Line - what recession?
 

After a spell on the NLL sampling a 378 yesterday, I headed towards home via
Willesden Junction and the West London Line.

(Incidentally, I was very impressed with the Gospel Oak - where I boarded -
'Overground effect'. Bright, well staffed, clean, felt safe etc. A far cry
from the Gospel Oak I remember of yore - closed booking office, dirty,
broken down Bubble Cars on the GOBLIN etc).

Willesden - Clapham was a 313, being the 'new trains' we are expecting
shortly in Brighton. 3-NOL? Having started pretty well loaded, we were
overwhelmed by the Westfield crowd at Shepherds Bush. Predominantly
well-heeled looking young couples, returning with lots of boutique-style
bags to Battersea, Wandsworth and the nicer bits of Surrey, I imagine. Not
sure what to make of this, really. On the one hand, it's clear Westfield
must have a significant public transport penetration. Much better than the
public transport disaster which is Lakeside. On the other hand, you can't
shop in two places at the same time, so somewhere else must be hurting
badly. Oxford Street, perhaps - and *yet again* much of central London
surface transport was seriously disrupted by a march. But the tourists
should keep zone 1 shopping in good health, so it must be the high streets
feeling the pain.

Real crush loading on leaving Olympia. The real surprise, for me, was
Imperial Wharf. I expected very little patronage, the parallel being some of
the stations on the DLR extensions in the early days. In fact, in my
carriage alone, I reckon about 30 alighted. As we pulled into Clapham, a
sizeable throng were waiting to board, albeit swelled by the Chelsea
football crowd. Not the quiet backwater I remember from a decade or more
ago.

I imagine, as Christmas shopping ramps up, there will be people unable to
board at Shepherds Bush. Does this happen already? God forbid that IKEA open
a place at/near Westfield, and pax try to struggle on with self-assembly
wardrobes etc........

Chris

West London Line - what recession?
 

Chris Read wrote:

After a spell on the NLL sampling a 378 yesterday, I headed towards
home via Willesden Junction and the West London Line.

Willesden - Clapham was a 313, being the 'new trains' we are
expecting shortly in Brighton. 3-NOL? Having started pretty well
loaded, we were overwhelmed by the Westfield crowd at Shepherds Bush.
[...] Real crush loading on leaving Olympia. The real surprise, for
me, was Imperial Wharf. I expected very little patronage, the
parallel being some of the stations on the DLR extensions in the
early days. In fact, in my carriage alone, I reckon about 30
alighted. As we pulled into Clapham, a sizeable throng were waiting
to board, albeit swelled by the Chelsea football crowd. Not the quiet
backwater I remember from a decade or more ago.

Yes, it's phenomenal, isn't it. Your experience matches mine, posted
here a couple of weeks back.

Someone should be congratulated for recognising there was going to be a
good demand for this service, and then chastised for so severely
underestimating it.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683850.html
(159 004 at Reading, 7 Jun 1995)

West London Line - what recession?
 

Paul Corfield wrote:

You could argue that the planning requirements are therefore working.
There were substantial investment obligations placed on Westfield and
these are helping to bring people to the area without using their
cars. I don't know how bad the road traffic is in the area but I have
not read any "nightmare" headlines other than not very long after
Westfield opened when I think the West Cross route got jammed up.
This often happens as people go for the first "look see" visit.

The road network of the area is a solid jam when Westfield closes. IMO the
jam should be kept inside the car parks so it doesn't bother anyone else.
Since the capacity of the road network is known, allowing cars out of
Westfield too quickly seems pointless and avoidable.

West London Line - what recession?
 

Basil Jet wrote on 25 October
2009 14:52:03 ...
Paul Corfield wrote:
You could argue that the planning requirements are therefore working.
There were substantial investment obligations placed on Westfield and
these are helping to bring people to the area without using their
cars. I don't know how bad the road traffic is in the area but I have
not read any "nightmare" headlines other than not very long after
Westfield opened when I think the West Cross route got jammed up.
This often happens as people go for the first "look see" visit.

The road network of the area is a solid jam when Westfield closes. IMO the
jam should be kept inside the car parks so it doesn't bother anyone else.
Since the capacity of the road network is known, allowing cars out of
Westfield too quickly seems pointless and avoidable.

One of the problems for local residents is Westfield visitors parking
(legally or otherwise) in their streets, denying space to residents and
their visitors. This must also contribute to the jams at closing time.
If you limit the exit flow from the car parks, that will only
encourage more drivers to park in the surrounding roads.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

West London Line - what recession?
 

On 25 Oct, 14:35, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 14:08:47 -0000, "Chris Read"

wrote:
Willesden - Clapham was a 313, being the 'new trains' we are expecting
shortly in Brighton. 3-NOL? Having started pretty well loaded, we were
overwhelmed by the Westfield crowd at Shepherds Bush. Predominantly
well-heeled looking young couples, returning with lots of boutique-style
bags to Battersea, Wandsworth and the nicer bits of Surrey, I imagine. Not
sure what to make of this, really. On the one hand, it's clear Westfield
must have a significant public transport penetration.

You could argue that the planning requirements are therefore working.
There were substantial investment obligations placed on Westfield and
these are helping to bring people to the area without using their cars.
I don't know how bad the road traffic is in the area but I have not read
any "nightmare" headlines other than not very long after Westfield
opened when I think the West Cross route got jammed up. *This often
happens as people go for the first "look see" visit.

I still wonder if the effect of Westfield is overestimated and the
effect of the interchange to the Central Line is underestimated. When
I've been there, it's only ever been for the latter, and it makes the
WLL hugely more useful as part of a transport network.

West London Line - what recession?
 

Paul Corfield wrote:

If you want to see the horror effect of IKEA on public transport try to
get on the 192 bus from Tottenham Hale. It can only use little midibuses
and must rank as one of the most overcrowded routes I know. If only
Angel Road Station was to the south of the North Circular road and
actually had trains stop at it - it would provide very easy access to
IKEA and the huge Tescos at Edmonton. I suspect similar IKEA horrors are
inflicted on Tramlink in south London.

Yes, flat pack boxed are quite common on the trams, though I've not seen
it cause too much trouble (does anyone go to buy furniture at 9am?). I
once saw a mattress from a double bed onboard, which must have taken
some doing.

What it does need is a good walking route from the trams to Ikea, and
also across the main road near Waddon Marsh.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Oct 25, 10:35*am, Paul Corfield wrote:
Don't know about people being left behind but surely there is sufficient
track / signalling capacity that if LOROL wanted to run extras then they
could do so at weekends? * I suspect the Southern service is the more
critical one given it was already very popular *before* Westfield opened
and now it offers a direct service to a much wider catchment area.

Keep in mind that Kensington Olympia's former up loop can easily be
restored to add additional passing/recess capabilities on the up side
of the WLL. If trains to and from Shepherd's Bush begin to non-stop
Kenny O in favour of West Brompton, this may be very useful when
pathing the service.

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Oct 25, 7:08*am, "Chris Read" wrote:
After a spell on the NLL sampling a 378 yesterday, I headed towards home via
Willesden Junction and the West London Line.

(Incidentally, I was very impressed with the Gospel Oak - *where I boarded -
'Overground effect'. Bright, well staffed, clean, felt safe etc. A far cry
from the Gospel Oak I remember of yore - closed booking office, dirty,
broken down Bubble Cars on the GOBLIN etc).

Willesden - Clapham was a 313, being the 'new trains' we are expecting
shortly in Brighton. 3-NOL? Having started pretty well loaded, we were
overwhelmed by the Westfield crowd at Shepherds Bush. Predominantly
well-heeled looking young couples, returning with lots of boutique-style
bags to Battersea, Wandsworth and the nicer bits of Surrey, I imagine. Not
sure what to make of this, really. On the one hand, it's clear Westfield
must have a significant public transport penetration. Much better than the
public transport disaster which is Lakeside. On the other hand, you can't
shop in two places at the same time, so somewhere else must be hurting
badly. Oxford Street, perhaps - and *yet again* much of central London
surface transport was seriously disrupted by a march. But the tourists
should keep zone 1 shopping in good health, so it must be the high streets
feeling the pain.

Real crush loading on leaving Olympia. The real surprise, for me, was
Imperial Wharf. I expected very little patronage, the parallel being some of
the stations on the DLR extensions in the early days. In fact, in my
carriage alone, I reckon about 30 alighted. As we pulled into Clapham, a
sizeable throng were waiting to board, albeit swelled by the Chelsea
football crowd. Not the quiet backwater I remember from a decade or more
ago.

I imagine, as Christmas shopping ramps up, there will be people unable to
board at Shepherds Bush. Does this happen already? God forbid that IKEA open
a place at/near Westfield, and pax try to struggle on with self-assembly
wardrobes etc........

This is good to hear. It is a pity IMHO that the West London lines
has to carry such a mix of local, transit, intercity, and freight
traffic. From what I have read, there is little room for more
traffic.

West London Line - what recession?
 

"E27002" wrote

This is good to hear. It is a pity IMHO that the West London lines
has to carry such a mix of local, transit, intercity, and freight
traffic. From what I have read, there is little room for more
traffic.

No intercity traffic any more. But LO will get a big increase in capacity
when it goes to 4tph of 4 coach trains.

Peter
(old enough to have travelled on the train to Clapham Junction when the
service was 2 trains per day, steam-hauled, on the Motorail to Fishguard,
and more recently Deltic-hauled from Bromley South).

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Oct 25, 7:40*pm, E27002 wrote:

*It is a pity IMHO that the West London lines
has to carry such a mix of local, transit, intercity, and freight
traffic. *From what I have read, there is little room for more
traffic.

In its present form, yes, although increasing linespeed, replacing the
three-aspect signals with 4-aspect, reinstating the southbound loop at
Olympia (as has already been mentioned), relaying the points at
Olympia to allow higher-speed entry and exit to the loop (and ensuring
any new loop is also so fitted) and extending the AC electrification
to Shepherd's Bush (so that time need not be wasted stopped at North
Pole to do the changeover) could all help to increase capacity.

BTW, there are now no InterCity (or similar) trains on the line
following the December 2008 timetable change when the Cross Country
services to Brighton were withdrawn.

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 14:52:03 -0000, "Basil Jet"
wrote:

The road network of the area is a solid jam when Westfield closes. IMO the
jam should be kept inside the car parks so it doesn't bother anyone else.
Since the capacity of the road network is known, allowing cars out of
Westfield too quickly seems pointless and avoidable.


I understand where you are coming from, but the carbon monoxide levels
in the Westfield car park would not be at all pleasant.

;-)

West London Line - what recession?
 

On 25 Oct, 19:40, TheOneKEA wrote:

Keep in mind that Kensington Olympia's former up loop can easily be
restored to add additional passing/recess capabilities on the up side
of the WLL. If trains to and from Shepherd's Bush begin to non-stop
Kenny O in favour of West Brompton, this may be very useful when
pathing the service.

Possible maybe, but it doesn't look easy to me. You'd have to
demolish the new platform and re-build the old one. What would you do
with the Southbound service while you were doing that? The present
service couldn't be handled in both directions on just one platform as
it used to be. I'm not certain, but I don't think the full width of
the old platform is still available at the North end (can anybody
confirm this, or otherwise?), so the length of the platform might be
limited.

Given that regular inter-city services, and empty stock Eurostars, are
no more I doubt that you'd want to non-stop Kensington Olympia; there
are still a fair number of events held there, and during some of them
the station gets quite busy.

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Oct 25, 7:06*pm, Stephen Furley wrote:
Possible maybe, but it doesn't look easy to me. *You'd have to
demolish the new platform and re-build the old one. *What would you do
with the Southbound service while you were doing that? *The present
service couldn't be handled in both directions on just one platform as
it used to be. *I'm not certain, but I don't think the full width of
the old platform is still available at the North end (can anybody
confirm this, or otherwise?), so the length of the platform might be
limited.

The full platform length is still available, and all three lines
through Kenny O are bidirectional, with crossovers to match. IMHO it
should be relatively simple to use the single down platform for
services that call at Kenny O, with the remainder calling at West
Brompton for onward travel via District Line or buses.


Given that regular inter-city services, and empty stock Eurostars, are
no more I doubt that you'd want to non-stop Kensington Olympia; there
are still a fair number of events held there, and during some of them
the station gets quite busy.

True, but that traffic is cyclic and predictable - patronage at
Westfield is less predictable, and the interchange with LU is much
better at West Brompton than it is at Kenny O.

West London Line - what recession?
 

Bruce writes:
The road network of the area is a solid jam when Westfield closes. IMO the
jam should be kept inside the car parks so it doesn't bother anyone else.
Since the capacity of the road network is known, allowing cars out of
Westfield too quickly seems pointless and avoidable.

I understand where you are coming from, but the carbon monoxide levels
in the Westfield car park would not be at all pleasant.

So the problem would be self-correcting!

-Miles

--
Acquaintance, n. A person whom we know well enough to borrow from, but not
well enough to lend to.

West London Line - what recession?
 

Paul Corfield wrote:

If you want to see the horror effect of IKEA on public transport try to
get on the 192 bus from Tottenham Hale. It can only use little midibuses
and must rank as one of the most overcrowded routes I know. If only
Angel Road Station was to the south of the North Circular road and
actually had trains stop at it - it would provide very easy access to
IKEA and the huge Tescos at Edmonton. I suspect similar IKEA horrors are
inflicted on Tramlink in south London.

Many moons ago, the entrance to Angel Road *was* on the south side of
the viaduct, and even had a Ticket Office, and it had a half hourly
service between Liverpool Street and Hertford East.

Then they widened the North Circular Road (which, to be fair, was
needed), relocated the entrance to the arse end of nowhere (well beyond
the country end of the platforms) and reduced the service to one train
per hour.

And now it's even worse, with the station being served by just a handful
of trains a day to and from Stratford at peak times.

And they call that progress...I expect the official excuse is that there
isn't enough capacity for a half hourly stopping service plus the outer
suburban services as it's a two track railway.

Cheers,

Barry

West London Line - what recession?
 

Stephen Furley wrote:
On 25 Oct, 19:40, TheOneKEA wrote:

Keep in mind that Kensington Olympia's former up loop can easily be
restored to add additional passing/recess capabilities on the up
side of the WLL. If trains to and from Shepherd's Bush begin to
non-stop Kenny O in favour of West Brompton, this may be very
useful when pathing the service.

Possible maybe, but it doesn't look easy to me. You'd have to
demolish the new platform and re-build the old one. What would you
do with the Southbound service while you were doing that?

Use the current platform while rebuilding the old platform to modern
standards over the necessary length, say 8 coaches?
A temporary, moveable flat bridge would be needed to access the currently
in use platform. Demolish half the current platform (you'd to retain a four
coach lengh for the current service) and provide the new running line in
front of the renewed old platform, as a short platform loop off the through
line. Then demolish the remaining current platform and extend the loop to
whatever length you want to allow for increase line speeds on entry/exit.

Alternatively, having completely rebuilt the old platform, demolish the
current platform and provide the full length loop in a 'big bang' closure of
a few weeks.

I also suspect that if they were to do it now, the weekday timetable could
be worked with one platform. Once the LO service frequency is doubled that
will probably no longer be possible.

Paul S

West London Line - what recession?
 

"The Gardener" wrote in message

On Oct 25, 7:40 pm, E27002 wrote:

It is a pity IMHO that the West London lines
has to carry such a mix of local, transit, intercity, and freight
traffic. From what I have read, there is little room for more
traffic.

In its present form, yes, although increasing linespeed, replacing the
three-aspect signals with 4-aspect, reinstating the southbound loop at
Olympia (as has already been mentioned), relaying the points at
Olympia to allow higher-speed entry and exit to the loop (and ensuring
any new loop is also so fitted) and extending the AC electrification
to Shepherd's Bush (so that time need not be wasted stopped at North
Pole to do the changeover) could all help to increase capacity.

BTW, there are now no InterCity (or similar) trains on the line
following the December 2008 timetable change when the Cross Country
services to Brighton were withdrawn.

And Eurostars no longer use the line to access their former (North Pole)
depot.

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 02:08:47PM -0000, Chris Read wrote:

I imagine, as Christmas shopping ramps up, there will be people unable to
board at Shepherds Bush. Does this happen already?

Yes.

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "topless karaoke murders"

Planckton: n, the smallest possible living thing

West London Line - what recession?
 

"Paul Scott" wrote

Use the current platform while rebuilding the old platform to modern
standards over the necessary length, say 8 coaches?
A temporary, moveable flat bridge would be needed to access the currently
in use platform. Demolish half the current platform (you'd to retain a
four
coach lengh for the current service) and provide the new running line in
front of the renewed old platform, as a short platform loop off the
through
line. Then demolish the remaining current platform and extend the loop to
whatever length you want to allow for increase line speeds on entry/exit.

Alternatively, having completely rebuilt the old platform, demolish the
current platform and provide the full length loop in a 'big bang' closure
of
a few weeks.

I also suspect that if they were to do it now, the weekday timetable could
be worked with one platform. Once the LO service frequency is doubled that
will probably no longer be possible.

It could be done, but sounds disruptive and/or expensive. But what's the
point? There's no need for passenger trains to be able to overtake each
other on the WLL. There is occasionally a need to recess a freight to match
a path on the next stage of its journey. In many cases this can be done at
Willesden/Wembley, or between Culvert Road and Latchmere Junctions (even
when ELLX gets to Clapham Junction). The existing through line at Kensington
Olympia can be used in both directions. If more flexibility is needed the
pointwork at each end of Kensington Olympia could be relaid to reduce
conflicts between up and down train (at present a southbound train using the
through line conflicts with a northbound train at, IIRC, both ends of the
station). Or a new goods loop could be provided south of the station.

Peter

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Oct 26, 8:07*am, "Peter Masson" wrote:
It could be done, but sounds disruptive and/or expensive. But what's the
point? There's no need for passenger trains to be able to overtake each
other on the WLL. There is occasionally a need to recess a freight to match
a path on the next stage of its journey. In many cases this can be done at
Willesden/Wembley, or between Culvert Road and Latchmere Junctions (even
when ELLX gets to Clapham Junction). The existing through line at Kensington
Olympia can be used in both directions.

True, but keep in mind that the narrow platforms at Shepherd's Bush
will eventually become a problem if the Westfield development
eventually reaches full utilization. IMHO there will eventually be a
need to substantially increase the local service on the WLL to better
serve Shepherd's Bush, and the restoration of the up loop at Kenny O
will make it substantially easier to path a frequent local passenger
service. Also keep in mind the clientele at Imperial Wharf station -
the people living near that station are likely to have an interest in
the higher-end shops at Westfield, and that will add a lot of local
traffic too.

There is also the fact that the WLL is still a good cross-London link
between the former Southern Region and the former Western and London
Midland (:P) Regions. Just because there's no XC link right now
doesn't mean that a new service, serving Shepherd's Bush, won't be
eventually restored.

If more flexibility is needed the pointwork at each end of Kensington Olympia
could be relaid to reduce conflicts between up and down train (at present a
southbound train using the through line conflicts with a northbound train at,
IIRC, both ends of the station). Or a new goods loop could be provided south
of the station.

You would need to add two additional crossovers on the inside of the
platform loop turnouts to accomplish that, and IMHO that would be
almost as good as restoring the up loop.

West London Line - what recession?
 

Paul Corfield wrote:

If you want to see the horror effect of IKEA on public transport try to
get on the 192 bus from Tottenham Hale. It can only use little midibuses
and must rank as one of the most overcrowded routes I know. If only
Angel Road Station was to the south of the North Circular road and
actually had trains stop at it - it would provide very easy access to
IKEA and the huge Tescos at Edmonton. I suspect similar IKEA horrors are
inflicted on Tramlink in south London.

Perhaps TfL might, in that case, consider recasting the routes around
that area rather than whining about it? While I'm more in favour of
TfL style regulation than a free-for-all, I can't see Stagecoach
showing that kind of "can't be bothered" attitude in the provinces.

Neil

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

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:09:06 -0700 (PDT), TheOneKEA
wrote:

There is also the fact that the WLL is still a good cross-London link
between the former Southern Region and the former Western and London
Midland (:P) Regions. Just because there's no XC link right now
doesn't mean that a new service, serving Shepherd's Bush, won't be
eventually restored.

Even now, the link from MKC to Clapham Jn and beyond is *very* heavily
used. While there would be an issue with making the LO service 8
cars, the Southern one could easily be made so given a few units, had
the short-sighted decision to build a 4-car platform at Imperial Wharf
not been made.

That said, given that said service is mainly about linking the WCML to
the SWML, it could I suppose be extended to 8 then not stop at
Imperial Wharf. How long is the platform at Shepherd's Bush?

I suppose Platform 17 at Clapham is also short, but if that was a
problem it could terminate there and use 2 or a reinstated 1 instead.
Or is 16 long enough, if a crossover was to be installed?

Neil

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

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Oct 26, 9:17*pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:09:06 -0700 (PDT), TheOneKEA

wrote:
There is also the fact that the WLL is still a good cross-London link
between the former Southern Region and the former Western and London
Midland (:P) Regions. Just because there's no XC link right now
doesn't mean that a new service, serving Shepherd's Bush, won't be
eventually restored.

Even now, the link from MKC to Clapham Jn and beyond is *very* heavily
used. *While there would be an issue with making the LO service 8
cars, the Southern one could easily be made so given a few units, had
the short-sighted decision to build a 4-car platform at Imperial Wharf
not been made.

The real issue is platforms 16 and 17 at CLJ. SDO can't be used with
the sort of loadings these trains experience, but straightening and
lengthening the platforms won't happen any time soon.

That said, given that said service is mainly about linking the WCML to
the SWML, it could I suppose be extended to 8 then not stop at
Imperial Wharf. * How long is the platform at Shepherd's Bush?

4! Same at West Brompton. I think the assumption has been made that
CLJ 16 and 17 will never be sorted out, so why bother when LOROL will
be a 4-car max railway forever more?

I suppose Platform 17 at Clapham is also short, but if that was a
problem it could terminate there and use 2 or a reinstated 1 instead.
Or is 16 long enough, if a crossover was to be installed?

Cross-Clapham traffic is heavy and interchange facilities on those
platforms are grossly inadequate. If the infrastructure is ever
modified to allow 8-car trains, it could then be sensible to run them
south of East Croydon once again.

In the short term I would prefer 2 tph of ECR-WFJ rather than 1 of ECR-
MKC, although the benefits would be greater if VT bothered to stop
more than 1 tph at WFJ.

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:37:16 -0700 (PDT), EE507
wrote:

In the short term I would prefer 2 tph of ECR-WFJ rather than 1 of ECR-
MKC, although the benefits would be greater if VT bothered to stop
more than 1 tph at WFJ.

I'd agree, but *only* if the timetable was set up for good connections
with LM services in both directions, which they traditionally haven't
been.

But is there room for 2tph even if there are units for it?

Neil

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

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:37:16 -0700 (PDT), EE507 wrote:

That said, given that said service is mainly about linking the WCML to
the SWML, it could I suppose be extended to 8 then not stop at
Imperial Wharf. * How long is the platform at Shepherd's Bush?

4! Same at West Brompton. I think the assumption has been made that
CLJ 16 and 17 will never be sorted out, so why bother when LOROL will
be a 4-car max railway forever more?

LOROL doesn't use 16/17 at CLJ...

I don't think building 4-car platforms was that big a mistake,
provided passive provision was made for extension to 8-car. Willesden
Junction (HL) is another limiting factor. Better to have 4-car
stations that get built than 8-car stations that don't because they're
too expensive. Once the service is running and demand is proven,
there's more of a case for extending to 8-car.

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:30:24 +0000, Paul Corfield wrote:

If you want to see the horror effect of IKEA on public transport try to
get on the 192 bus from Tottenham Hale. It can only use little midibuses
and must rank as one of the most overcrowded routes I know.

Perhaps TfL might, in that case, consider recasting the routes around
that area rather than whining about it? While I'm more in favour of
TfL style regulation than a free-for-all, I can't see Stagecoach
showing that kind of "can't be bothered" attitude in the provinces.

Where did I say TfL was whining? I made a comment about the reality of
overcrowding. I don't believe I have yet absorbed the corporate
consciousness of the whole of TfL nor do I consider that I was whining.
Believe me I can whine with the best of them and you'd know it if I was.
Thankfully I don't have to use the 192 very often but that's no respite
for those who do.

The 192 was only re-tendered about a year ago and there was no frequency
enhancement so I assume it is considered adequate.

If you listen to the last 30 mins or so of the webcast of the GLA
Transport Committee meeting last week you will see Mr Hendy very
carefully explain that there is no money for bus service expansion and
that cuts at the margin of many routes are due over the next few years.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but surely if the route is overflowing
with passengers then there is no need for any subsidy?

Or are London bus fares really so low that even a fully-loaded bus
does not cover its own running costs?

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:54:37 +0000, asdf wrote:


Perhaps I'm missing something, but surely if the route is overflowing
with passengers then there is no need for any subsidy?

Or are London bus fares really so low that even a fully-loaded bus does
not cover its own running costs?


London's public transport system always seems to be far too expensive to
get more people off the roads and onto buses and trains.


--
Beware of sneezing pigs

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:09:06 -0700 (PDT), TheOneKEA wrote:

True, but keep in mind that the narrow platforms at Shepherd's Bush
will eventually become a problem if the Westfield development
eventually reaches full utilization. IMHO there will eventually be a
need to substantially increase the local service on the WLL to better
serve Shepherd's Bush, and the restoration of the up loop at Kenny O
will make it substantially easier to path a frequent local passenger
service.

I fail to see how this would make anything easier. You can get the
same number of tph through Kenny O in its current configuration as you
can through West Brompton, Shepherds Bush, etc. Modifying Kenny O
would not increase line capacity.

Also, if the headway on the WLL is (say) 3 minutes, I doubt passengers
on Kenny O stoppers would appreciate sitting there for 6 minutes while
another train overtakes.

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:30:24 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

If you listen to the last 30 mins or so of the webcast of the GLA
Transport Committee meeting last week you will see Mr Hendy very
carefully explain that there is no money for bus service expansion and
that cuts at the margin of many routes are due over the next few years.
If there is any improvement to services it will be at the cost of a cut
to something else. While I do not disagree with your basic point - a
double deck route (the 349 would do) sent over part of the 192 route
would do the trick - it simply isn't going to happen in the current
climate.

Yet if loadings are high enough that demand could be being suppressed,
might this not actually be a profitable move? (That's why I compared
with commercial services in the regions).

Neil

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

West London Line - what recession?
 

"Paul Corfield" wrote:

While I am sure that you could notionally allocate a level of revenue to
a route and then set it against the tendered cost of operation I am not
sure what it would tell you.

Is one of the problems here that TfL wish to run most routes for 19 hours a
day, usually at a (say) 15 minute frequency until end of service?

Using the example of our IKEA bus, this might generate a notional profit if
operated from 8am to 7pm Mon-Sat, and 10 am to 4pm on Sunday. But then going
on to run a bus every fifteen minutes from 7pm until midnight, largely
carrying fresh air, tips it back to a loss. I appreciate this is overly
simplistic, as each route has multiple traffic objectives, but if TfL are
looking for cost cuts, I propose that the frequency of some non-core routes
after the evening peak would be a good place to start.

I believe, as a youth*, the 248 used to convey friends and I from Upminster
to Romford at a circa 30 minute evening frequency. I don't think anyone
found this especially constricting. I see the 248 is now, sure enough, every
15 minutes until after midnight.

Despite protestations (elsewhere in this
thread) that London bus fares are high all the evidence points to the
opposite.

Two weeks ago I used a commercial service to travel approximately eight
miles in East Sussex, off peak. £4.00 single. On a fairly full bus, I was
the only fare paying passenger. Anyone who says London bus fares are high
has clearly never travelled outside London or the less developed world.

Chris
* In the days when the 248 was run (badly) under tender by a Nottingham
outfit.

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:03:47 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

I think you are missing the way routes are procured in London. There is
no concept of "profits" at route level.

In which case TfL are missing a trick, given that there will be route
improvements which can be carried out at either zero overall cost or
at a profit to TfL overall.

This sounds like one such example.

Though London bus fares do seem too low to me - £1.50 would seem more
than reasonable for an Oyster single (if you consider this rather than
the non-Oyster "penalty" as the normal single), when compared with
other parts of the country.

Neil

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

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:04:36 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

See my response about the tendering regime and "profitability" just
higher up in the overall thread of posts.

Yep, and replied to it. If TfL don't consider income on a given route
*at all*, they are seriously missing a trick and things are costing
them more than they need to as a result (and similarly they are
missing out on changes that could actually be profitable and thus
improve TfL's financial situation).

I'm not saying it would be sensible to go down the deregulation and
pure-profit route, but if something can be changed that is both
beneficial to the passenger and is revenue-neutral or profitable to
TfL overall, it seems ludicrous that it can't be done due to the way
things are accounted - or worse that it might never be identified in
the first place because the figures aren't added up.

Neil

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

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:36:20 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

I don't doubt there may be some genuine opportunities to trim services
but if it goes too far you will deter people from the public transport
system full stop. That is not a sensible policy if it dumps people into
cars.

This is true, but serious overcrowding also has the same effect, at a
time of day when it is rather more of a problem.

Neil

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

West London Line - what recession?
 

"Paul Corfield" wrote:

My main comment here is "hands off decent evening bus frequencies". The
problem with taking an axe to things like this is that you remove an
important incentive for people to make trips on public transport. If
you can only get in to town but not back again in a convenient way why
would you make the outward trip on public transport?

Any cuts will hurt, so it's a question of what hurts least.

As it happens, I would rather retain existing service levels, London-wide
(barring a few extreme examples of low use), and bridge the budget gap
through cutting back concessions for the elderly, teenagers and those on
benefits. Allowing pensioners who live in £500k houses, with £100k plus in
the bank, totally free travel, whilst charging full rate to a supermarket
worker on £6 an hour, is an interesting take on social justice. But there is
no political will to challenge the status quo here.

Chris

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Oct 26, 5:04*pm, Eyebee wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:54:37 +0000, asdf wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing something, but surely if the route is overflowing
with passengers then there is no need for any subsidy?

Or are London bus fares really so low that even a fully-loaded bus does
not cover its own running costs?

London's public transport system always seems to be far too expensive to
get more people off the roads and onto buses and trains.

Compared with other urban transit systems that I utilize, London's
fares seem unreal. Journeys cost many times their equivalent in say
Atlanta, Louisville, or Los Angeles.

London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making London
and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:07:45 -0700 (PDT), E27002
wrote:

Compared with other urban transit systems that I utilize, London's
fares seem unreal. Journeys cost many times their equivalent in say
Atlanta, Louisville, or Los Angeles.

But ignoring the "penalty" cash fares, they compare very favourably
with the rest of the UK.

London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making London
and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.

I'm not sure that those making such decisions for big business care
about the price of using buses and trains, as such people will tend to
use chauffeur-driven car services instead (or at the very least
taxis).

Neil

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

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Oct 27, 3:14*pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:07:45 -0700 (PDT), E27002
wrote:

Compared with other urban transit systems that I utilize, London's
fares seem unreal. *Journeys cost many times their equivalent in say
Atlanta, Louisville, or Los Angeles.

But ignoring the "penalty" cash fares, they compare very favourably
with the rest of the UK.

But, they are high compared with competing international business
centers. And, for that matter tourist destinations.

When I have worked in Edinburgh, the monthly, all routes, bus pass has
seemed reasonable. Although it has been several years since I have
had that pleasure.

London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making London
and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.

I'm not sure that those making such decisions for big business care
about the price of using buses and trains, as such people will tend to
use chauffeur-driven car services instead (or at the very least
taxis).

It certainly affects employees. I would think that employee
accommodation and transportation costs would at least be a
consideration. London scores badly on both.

West London Line - what recession?
 

"E27002" wrote:

London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making London
and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.

Really? People won't do business here because a bus fare costs about half
the price of a small coffee in Starbucks?

When we have people hiding in trucks at Dover, trying to escape the UK, as
opposed to hiding in trucks at Calais trying to get in, I'll accept that
we're no longer a good place to do business.

Chris

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Oct 27, 3:37*pm, "Chris Read" wrote:
"E27002" wrote:
London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making London
and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.

Really? People won't do business here because a bus fare costs about half
the price of a small coffee in Starbucks?

When we have people hiding in trucks at Dover, trying to escape the UK, as
opposed to hiding in trucks at Calais trying to get in, I'll accept that
we're no longer a good place to do business.

When I choose an IT contract there are certain cost that I take into
account, the rate, the cost of temporary accommodation, food and
transportation costs. I then factor in issues like safety and the
local environment.

London tends to be less attractive than Edinburgh, Los Angeles, or
Omaha. But, you needn't be concerned; you have plenty of folks
waiting in trucks at Calais. I am sure they will be able to install
and maintain software at your companies, financial institutions, etc.

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Oct 26, 11:44*pm, asdf wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:37:16 -0700 (PDT), EE507 wrote:
That said, given that said service is mainly about linking the WCML to
the SWML, it could I suppose be extended to 8 then not stop at
Imperial Wharf. * How long is the platform at Shepherd's Bush?

4! Same at West Brompton. I think the assumption has been made that
CLJ 16 and 17 will never be sorted out, so why bother when LOROL will
be a 4-car max railway forever more?

LOROL doesn't use 16/17 at CLJ...

LOROL will be a 4-car railway. CLJ 16 and 17, served by SN, won't be
sorted out any time soon [1]. So all trains will be 4-car max for the
foreseeable and there is consequently no need for platforms of longer
than 4 coaches anywhere on the WLL.

I don't think building 4-car platforms was that big a mistake,
provided passive provision was made for extension to 8-car.

That hasn't happened.

Willesden
Junction (HL) is another limiting factor. Better to have 4-car
stations that get built than 8-car stations that don't because they're
too expensive. Once the service is running and demand is proven,
there's more of a case for extending to 8-car.

Have you seen peak loadings on the WLL? There is already a case for 8-
car trains, but the best we can hope for is a combined peak frequency
of 6 tph (all 4-car by 2012). Trains are so busy that LOROL's have
been designed for maximising standing crush loads.

[1] LOROL *does* use CLJ 17 on Sundays when there is engineering work
affecting access to 2.