In article
,
() wrote:

wrote:

In article ,
(solar penguin) wrote:

David Cantrell wrote:

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 06:02:31PM -0600,
wrote:

This would also appear to be because the Journey Planner thinks
there will still be a Circle Line service from king's Cross to
High St Kensington on 14 December! Bloody useless!

There will be. It'll just take a long time, going the wrong way
roudn the circle.

Or going via Hammersmith.

No effing use for users of the Wimbledon branch!

Not necessarily. The lifts give you step-free access to the Westbound
District platforms at Earl's Court.

Or how about Wimbledon, Waterloo, Waterloo East, London Bridge, St.
Pancras Low Level for a more imaginative step-free route...

That is ridiculous for a journey from King's Cross to the Wimbledon branch.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:

In article
,
() wrote:

wrote:

In article ,
(solar penguin) wrote:

David Cantrell wrote:

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 06:02:31PM -0600,
wrote:

This would also appear to be because the Journey Planner thinks
there will still be a Circle Line service from king's Cross to
High St Kensington on 14 December! Bloody useless!

There will be. It'll just take a long time, going the wrong way
roudn the circle.

Or going via Hammersmith.

No effing use for users of the Wimbledon branch!

Not necessarily. The lifts give you step-free access to the Westbound
District platforms at Earl's Court.

Or how about Wimbledon, Waterloo, Waterloo East, London Bridge, St.
Pancras Low Level for a more imaginative step-free route...

That is ridiculous for a journey from King's Cross to the Wimbledon branch.


Yes, I know. Hence the smileys.

(All right, all right, I only really posted it to take the mickey out
of that pompous idiot in the other thread who thinks that no-one
should ever be encouraged to use unusual routes that he personally
doesn't like.)

In article
,
() wrote:

wrote:

In article
,
() wrote:

wrote:

In article ,
(solar penguin) wrote:

David Cantrell wrote:

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 06:02:31PM -0600,
wrote:

This would also appear to be because the Journey Planner
thinks there will still be a Circle Line service from king's
Cross to High St Kensington on 14 December! Bloody useless!

There will be. It'll just take a long time, going the wrong
way roudn the circle.

Or going via Hammersmith.

No effing use for users of the Wimbledon branch!

Not necessarily. The lifts give you step-free access to the
Westbound District platforms at Earl's Court.

Or how about Wimbledon, Waterloo, Waterloo East, London Bridge, St.
Pancras Low Level for a more imaginative step-free route...


That is ridiculous for a journey from King's Cross to the
Wimbledon branch.

Yes, I know. Hence the smileys.

OIC. The trouble is that step free isn't the only issue in reality.
Walking distance elapsed is not irrelevant either.

(All right, all right, I only really posted it to take the mickey out
of that pompous idiot in the other thread who thinks that no-one
should ever be encouraged to use unusual routes that he personally
doesn't like.)

Was that in uk.railway? This thread started both there and in
uk.transport.london but we're only in the latter now.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:53:57 -0000, Basil Jet wrote:

The map in the leaflet has both the Thames and the Hammersmith & City
Line:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24772733@N05/4074872504/

Interesting, that shows both Hammersmith and Paddington as being one
station. Also, White City and Wood Lane are joined together like Bank
and Monument are.

Here's the map at KXSP:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjs/4089297930/

That's quite confusing - it looks like there are two seperate yellow
lines.

Why does it even show the line from Edgware Road to Victoria? It doesn't
show the lines you can change to at other stations, so why show the line you
can change to at Edgware Road?

Because it emphasises to people who are slightly familiar with the
system but haven't been to London for a while that a change is now
required (so they don't stand on the plaform forever waiting for a
Circle Line).

In article
,
(Mr Thant) wrote:

On 10 Nov, 16:54, "Paul Scott" wrote:
I think I've lost track of that aspect. Weren't there at one time
supposed to be some slight changes to the Met and District to
maintain numbers along the north and south sides of the common routes
as well?

The 2010 frequencies are on slide 15 onwards of this document:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...posed-Service-
Changes.pdf

I've now found time to read through that document. It takes the breath
away at how complacent it is about the negatives which barely get a
mention. Like the Underground service at Paddington now being on a
chronically overcrowded and narrow platform miles from the Lawn where main
line passengers might actually want to go.

The need to change at Edgware Road is dismissed in a few words: "Circle
line customers who travel through Edgware Road will need to change trains
(small in number)". So no consideration at all of mobility issues, for
example.

And there is the outright lie about Paddington: "Customers travelling east
from Paddington will no longer face the dilemma over whether to use the
H&C line or District and Circle line station –all trains beyond Edgware
Road will depart from the H&C line station, with a more frequent service".
The total eastbound frequency from Paddington will be cut.

Does anyone challenge this nonsense?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:16:16 -0600, rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(David of Broadway) wrote:

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:24:19 +0000, Basil Jet wrote:

wrote:

That won't be possible after 13 December. There will be no
guaranteed step-free route from Earl's Court to King's Cross.

Yes there will - the Circles will all terminate alongside the
Barkingbound platform, and the Wimblewares will all terminate
alongside the Hammersmithbound platform. (Or was it the other way
around?)

Is that guaranteed? If trains arrive out of sequence (e.g., a
Wimbleware was running late at Earl's Court so a Circle snuck ahead of
it into High St Kensington), will the second Circle really wait for the
first one to depart (thereby holding up the trains behind it as well)
rather than simply taking the available track? And then the two
back-to-back Wimblewares would have a similar problem.

(It pretty much has to be guaranteed if people who can't climb stairs
are expected to rely on it.)

New York has two two-track terminals laid out like Edgware Rd: Brighton
Beach on the B and 57 St/7 Av on the Q. In both cases, cross-platform
transfers are available (guaranteed!) at the previous stop; regular
riders who need to transfer know not to wait until the terminal.

Wimbleware to Kings Cross pax have of course got exactly that guarantee
at Paddington (and stations from High St) now but will lose it from
December. That is precisely my gripe.

I have no gripe with your gripe.

I wonder why a different service pattern wasn't used, specifically to
avoid this problem. For instance: H&C operates from Hammersmith to
Edgware Rd (with one lap around the circle) and Wimbleware (Wimbleking?)
is extended to Whitechapel/Barking; the Circle is eliminated entirely.
That maintains most existing one-seat rides that make sense, and the new
two-seat rides (Gloucester Road and vicinity to Baker Street and
vicinity, Royal Oak and beyond to Aldgate East and beyond) all have easy
transfers. Edgware Road also doesn't end up with two terminating
services. Only the west end of the H&C loses out, but I don't know if
the planned doubling of frequencies was a deliberate design goal or a
side effect of the service plan chosen.

So - am I missing something?
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA

David of Broadway wrote on 13 November
2009 00:38:44 ...

I wonder why a different service pattern wasn't used, specifically to
avoid this problem. For instance: H&C operates from Hammersmith to
Edgware Rd (with one lap around the circle) and Wimbleware (Wimbleking?)
is extended to Whitechapel/Barking; the Circle is eliminated entirely.
That maintains most existing one-seat rides that make sense, and the new
two-seat rides (Gloucester Road and vicinity to Baker Street and
vicinity, Royal Oak and beyond to Aldgate East and beyond) all have easy
transfers. Edgware Road also doesn't end up with two terminating
services. Only the west end of the H&C loses out, but I don't know if
the planned doubling of frequencies was a deliberate design goal or a
side effect of the service plan chosen.

So - am I missing something?

Yes, you've lost the increased frequency between Hammersmith and
Paddington, which I believe was one of the requirements of the new
timetable in order to meet increased demand on that section.

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

In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

David of Broadway wrote on 13
November 2009 00:38:44 ...

I wonder why a different service pattern wasn't used,
specifically to avoid this problem. For instance: H&C operates
from Hammersmith to Edgware Rd (with one lap around the circle)
and Wimbleware (Wimbleking?) is extended to Whitechapel/Barking;
the Circle is eliminated entirely. That maintains most existing
one-seat rides that make sense, and the new two-seat rides
(Gloucester Road and vicinity to Baker Street and vicinity, Royal
Oak and beyond to Aldgate East and beyond) all have easy
transfers. Edgware Road also doesn't end up with two terminating
services. Only the west end of the H&C loses out, but I don't
know if the planned doubling of frequencies was a deliberate
design goal or a side effect of the service plan chosen.

So - am I missing something?

Yes, you've lost the increased frequency between Hammersmith and
Paddington, which I believe was one of the requirements of the new
timetable in order to meet increased demand on that section.

Yes, the LU document refers to increased demand due to the Westfield
shopping centre at Shepherd's Bush.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Richard J. wrote:
David of Broadway wrote on 13 November
2009 00:38:44 ...

I wonder why a different service pattern wasn't used, specifically to
avoid this problem. For instance: H&C operates from Hammersmith to
Edgware Rd (with one lap around the circle) and Wimbleware
(Wimbleking?) is extended to Whitechapel/Barking; the Circle is
eliminated entirely. That maintains most existing one-seat rides
that make sense, and the new two-seat rides (Gloucester Road and
vicinity to Baker Street and vicinity, Royal Oak and beyond to
Aldgate East and beyond) all have easy transfers. Edgware Road also
doesn't end up with two terminating services. Only the west end of
the H&C loses out, but I don't know if the planned doubling of
frequencies was a deliberate design goal or a side effect of the
service plan chosen. So - am I missing something?

Yes, you've lost the increased frequency between Hammersmith and
Paddington, which I believe was one of the requirements of the new
timetable in order to meet increased demand on that section.

But if you take David's plan and extend the Edgware Road terminators back to
Hammersmith (i.e. Hamm - KX - Vic - Edg Road - Hammersmith, running in both
directions) then you have the same frequencies on every stretch of track as
LUL's plan here
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...ce-Changes.pdf ,
in the morning peak, the off-peak and the 2018 plan. Everyone who currently
has a one-train service either keeps it or requires a same-platform change.
Some people who currently require a same platform change or even a harder
change would acquire through services. And Westfield would get alternating
services to the north and south sides of the circle, although the south side
services would be fairly indirect, but if you're carrying something heavy it
would be appreciated, and expecting a line called "The Circle" to be direct
may be asking a bit much anyway

BTW, the yellow line would still be called the Circle , but it would acquire
a kink I can't quite imagine at Edgware Road and a single yellow arm to
Hammersmith. The pink line would need a new name and would run from Barking
to Wimbledon via Edgware Road.

IMO this is a lot better than LU's plan... maybe internal politics between
the District Line management and the Circle & Hammersmith management
prevented thinking this far outside the box (or outside the circle).

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

Basil Jet wrote on 13 November
2009 03:21:14 ...
Richard J. wrote:
David of Broadway wrote on 13 November
2009 00:38:44 ...

I wonder why a different service pattern wasn't used, specifically to
avoid this problem. For instance: H&C operates from Hammersmith to
Edgware Rd (with one lap around the circle) and Wimbleware
(Wimbleking?) is extended to Whitechapel/Barking; the Circle is
eliminated entirely. That maintains most existing one-seat rides
that make sense, and the new two-seat rides (Gloucester Road and
vicinity to Baker Street and vicinity, Royal Oak and beyond to
Aldgate East and beyond) all have easy transfers. Edgware Road also
doesn't end up with two terminating services. Only the west end of
the H&C loses out, but I don't know if the planned doubling of
frequencies was a deliberate design goal or a side effect of the
service plan chosen. So - am I missing something?

Yes, you've lost the increased frequency between Hammersmith and
Paddington, which I believe was one of the requirements of the new
timetable in order to meet increased demand on that section.

But if you take David's plan and extend the Edgware Road terminators back to
Hammersmith (i.e. Hamm - KX - Vic - Edg Road - Hammersmith, running in both
directions) then you have ...

.... confusion! Since your "extension" is actually a reversal, you
effectively have (a) a Hammersmith - Edgware Road shuttle, (b)
Hammersmith - KX - Vic - Edgware Road in both directions. You now have
two services terminating at Edgware Road, which is what David's plan was
trying to avoid. In addition, both David's plan and yours pollute the
reliability of the Wimbleware service by extending it over another three
flat junctions. Back to the drawing board!

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