Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2009 12:36:27 GMT
Anyone think that at 4 carriages and 4 trains per hour on each branch, it's rather likley that the ELL is going to be full to capacity from day 1?
Current Southern Mainline services are 8 cars long and are rammed. I accept that they tend to start a little further south, but I have the impression that the ELL might feel like a small fish in a big pond; out of it's depth!
|
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Feb 8, 2009 12:50:36 GMT
From Sydenham northwards there's going to be 10 trains an hour* and from Surrey Quays 14 trains an hour*. The Southern services to London Bridge will still run, so it's all new capacity. I don't think there's any reason to panic.
(* 6 trains per hour will start at Crystal Palace in the peaks)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2009 13:19:04 GMT
I was under the impression that some Southern services that start at West Croydon would be scrapped.
Also, can the current 4 line (2xfast and 2xslow) handle the proposed extra trains? I mean by 2015, Thameslink services will be utilising the fast lines a lot more. The semi fast services which stop at Norwood Junction, Forest Hill and New Cross Gate before LB will have to either compete with the slow services or the fast direct services.
I have noticed just south of New Cross Gate that a new set of rails are being laid. Anyone know how far south this is expected to be extended? But I doubt much further. There's only space enough between the current two platforms orientation for the current rails at the southern stations to Norwood Junction.
I feel I'm missing a piece of the jigsaw.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2009 13:52:34 GMT
As part of Thameslink they will be taking over current trains although this is not set.
As for the track its not going that futher south is more of extra capitcity before hitting the slow lines on the Brighton Main Line.
Just remember the new timetable accomidating ELLX services isn't set yet. (In fact the new southEastern timetable for dec isn't yet set) so There is some time before they confirm for sure what they are going to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Feb 8, 2009 14:33:08 GMT
I was under the impression that some Southern services that start at West Croydon would be scrapped. A quick look at the South London RUS* says the service on the slow lines is changing from 8 tph London Bridge to 6 tph London Bridge + 10 tph East London Line. So that's 8*8=64 to 6*8+10*4=88 carriages per hour. Due to the congestion at London Bridge, the fast and slow lines each only currently get about 8 tph each, so there's a lot of spare track capacity. The ELL obviously doesn't go anywhere near London Bridge, so its extra slow line trains are no problem. The Thameslink Programme will provide a segregated route all the way through London Bridge, which means many more fast line trains can be run. Just about all fast line services will be Thameslinks. They extend as far as the connection to the southbound slow line, which is only slightly south of New Cross Gate. (* the South London RUS recommendations are exactly that, but it's as good a source as any) |
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Feb 9, 2009 0:23:20 GMT
I think the current pattern will be re-organised so the West Croydon terminators begin elsewhere.
However some of the Thameslink plans seem to show some uncertainty re a few of the services south of London Bridge including slow Sydenhams (4tph) going through to Thameslink but I'm not sure where they will terminate. Perhaps adding Thameslink to the Southern and ELL trains will be a bit too much choice for that line?
ELL services will definitely be popular from day one, right through to Dalston.
|
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Feb 9, 2009 0:58:36 GMT
The South London RUS has has only one Southern service on the slow lines in 2015 - the 2 tph all stops Victoria-Crystal Palace-London Bridge service. The rest of the slow line service is the 4 tph to Thameslink and 10 tph to the ELL. The starting point of each of these services is immaterial to the RUS.
All fast line services becomes Thameslinks, with the exception of 2 tph from Uckfield, which are diesel.
|
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Feb 9, 2009 1:39:27 GMT
10tph from the fast lines terminate at London Bridge if the RUS recommendations come into play (and 10 from the slow lines - 2tph Victoria via Crystal Palace and 8tph via Peckham). These are
2tph Uckfield (first stop East Croydon) - previously mentioned
1tph Epsom+1tph Guildford via Norwood Junction, West Croydon, Sutton
2tph Coastway services (first stop Three Bridges)
2tph Tattenham Corner (first stop Norwood Junction
2tph Caterham (first stop East Croydon)
The ELL will be like the NLL - mostly used for short hops and feeders for tube links to Central London. South of Surrey Quays - Dalston journeys is definitely not the point of the line, nor will it be that popular. South of New Cross Gate will have at least 95% of people leaving at or before Whitechapel (and 90% only as far north as Canada Water before Crossrail opens). Likewise Shoreditch HS northwards will have at least 95% of people leaving before Surrey Quays. I really wouldn't be surprised if people at Hoxton and Haggerston go both ways for Central London either, once the link to Highbury opens. The line being a Cross London transport corridor in it's own right, rather than pretty much just a feeder/local line will eventually happen, but Goblin and NLL still are just feeding the interchange stations, and providing local journeys. The project south of Surrey Quays seems to be more about relieving London Bridge of trains that don't exist yet (and the two SLL ones that do) and making local journeys better than anything, though the easier access to the JLE is a nice bonus.
|
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Feb 9, 2009 2:21:26 GMT
Trains via Peckham Rye/South Bermondsey don't use the slow lines in the sense we've been talking about here.
But you're right about the fast lines - I wasn't reading the diagrams properly.
|
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Feb 9, 2009 18:50:22 GMT
I'm assuming all this referes to peak services. So Sydenham-NXG will have
10tph ELL
2tph LB
4tph Thameslink
As cetacean mentioned I was wondering why the Thameslink services aren't restricted to the fast lines, keeping the whole thing a lot simpler and avoiding potential delays at crossings (aside from the diesel Uckfield)? IIRC the Tonbridge/Reigate services and Tattenham/Caterham routes make up 4tph during the peaks which could be 'Thameslinked', leaving a simpler 6tph into London Bridge + 10tph ELL on the slow lines.
There also seems to be potential for a 4tph Blackfriars-Wimbledon-Sutton-London Bridge.
Yes the NLL and ELL will serve as connecting routes but will also provides useful point to point links for a lot of people. I just hope the Jubilee can soak up the increased custom at Canada Water.
|
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Feb 9, 2009 20:19:33 GMT
The RUS gives a rationale for most of its thinking. They think providing the Sydenham Metro stops with service onto Thameslink is worth the extra conflicts.
Anyway, I've had a proper look at the RUS and worked out the total frequencies at each point:
- South of New Cross Gate you have 16 tph on the slow lines, plus 20 tph on the fast lines.
- At New Cross Gate, the ELL trains disappear, leaving 6 tph slow and 20 tph on the fast lines
The configuration of the planned Bermondsey dive under is such that the fast lines lead to Thameslink and the slow lines lead to the terminus platforms at LB. Therefore some reshuffling has to occur between NXG and the dive under:
- 4 tph switch from slow to fast and head for Thameslink
- 10 tph switch from fast to slow and terminate at London Bridge
- 10 tph stay on the fast lines to Thameslink
- 2 tph stay on the slow lines to LB
The 4 tph crossing one way potentially conflict with the 10 tph switching the other, but it shouldn't be a massive deal.
At this point there are 14 tph heading for Thameslink and 12 tph terminating at London Bridge. The Thameslink trains are joined by 4 more tph from New Cross and 6 from Elephant Castle to give 24 tph through Blackfriars. Meanwhile, the terminus platforms at LB are shared by 8tph coming up from South Bermondsey (20 tph total).
|
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Feb 9, 2009 23:48:00 GMT
Fair enough, there must be other reasons at play. I just thought they would aim for simple confined routes as much as possible considering of all the money being spent and work being done to avoid crossing moves around London Bridge. They do make the point that nothing is set in stone though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2009 22:23:53 GMT
South of New Cross Gate will have at least 95% of people leaving at or before Whitechapel (and 90% only as far north as Canada Water before Crossrail opens). Likewise Shoreditch HS northwards will have at least 95% of people leaving before Surrey Quays. I disagree with this, Shoreditch HS is a 5 minute walk from Liverpool St and will be popular with City workers living in the south - a far easier journey than negotiating London Bridge and the Northern line. Whitechapel will also feed the city to some extent, even before Crossrail. I agree that Canada water will be the main interchanging point from the south, but I think your 90% is extreme. |
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on May 15, 2009 23:16:30 GMT
I disagree with this, Shoreditch HS is a 5 minute walk from Liverpool St and will be popular with City workers living in the south - a far easier journey than negotiating London Bridge and the Northern line. Whitechapel will also feed the city to some extent, even before Crossrail. I agree that Canada water will be the main interchanging point from the south, but I think your 90% is extreme. Wow, three month old post. OK, I used some hyperbole. However I don't think Shoreditch High Street would be used that much for the city - why have a long walk (unless you work at Liverpool Street station) from Shoreditch, when you could have it from London Bridge. Bank is only about a ten minute walk, isn't it? If you walk at a pace that gets you from Shoreditch to the useful end of Liverpool Street station in 5 minutes, then Bank is ten minutes from there as well, but a longer train journey - Forest Hill to Finsbury Circus would be quickest by the northern line, and Forest Hill-Shoreditch would have to be under 10 minutes quicker than Forest Hill-London Bridge to beat it and a walk at the speeds you assume - and if they don't like the walk, they'd change at Whitechapel or London Bridge anyway. Anyway, the major reason for ELLX south of New Cross is to provide Docklands access for those areas. One would also guess that most aren't really stockbroker places, so would probably work in the West End or Docklands, which is a Canada Water change pre-Crossrail. Ok, 90% is extreme for Canada Water changes (more like 75%?), but less than 5% really is going to be the case for south of New Cross Gate going to north of Whitechapel. But that's fine, as it works the other way round - 95% of those from north of Whitechapel would leave before Surrey Quays (ie changing at Whitechapel, Shadwell and Canada Water). This is exactly the same as things like the Central line - no one really goes through central London from one side to the other on it - you don't get many Ealing-Stratford journeys. What you get is Stratford-Bond Street and Ealing-St Pauls journeys. There's an overlap, which why you run it both sides. The problem with the ELLX is that because it's "orbital" (really it's tangental) people think that it's designed for end to end journeys: it's not - that is my main argument - it's primarily a feeder service for interchanges into London. As an aside seeing as Shoreditch High Street will be zone 1, the advantage of it is gone, and likewise the line as an orbital route. I wrote my last post before that, this change will increase my being right about the nature of the line. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2009 0:46:27 GMT
From the route POV, putting Shoreditch HS in zone 1 seems illogical, but its map location puts it there IMO. It's further west than Aldgate and further South than Old Street; it's 300m from the City boundary and across the road from the congestion zone.
Sure, maybe it was a political sop to the TOCs, and I don't like it anymore than anyone else, but geographically it seems more than justifiable.
|
|
|
|
Post by hipipol on May 27, 2009 11:25:10 GMT
For anyone heading into the Bank, changing at Whitchapel will bring little benefit - H&C line only gets you to Moorgate - tyou've still got a fair stroll - however, there are a number of buses that stop on Norton Folgate - just to the south of the new station which are rarely as packed as those heading up from London Bridge so I see a greater number of City workers using Shoreditch
It also remains to be seen the effect of TfLs changes to the circle and H&C lines - H&C seem to be promised two more trains per hour - hmmmm, I see a bottleneck at the Hammersmith end.....
|
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on May 27, 2009 12:55:23 GMT
you have the district at Whitechapel as well. Twice the frequency of the H&C and goes to both Monument (walk underground to Bank) and Cannon Street (even closer to Bank).
|
|
|
|
Post by twa on Jun 1, 2009 12:02:05 GMT
For anyone going to Bank they will change to the DLR at Shadwell, as previously mentioned this will attract all people working in or around the city as it gets rid of the London Bridge change onto the Northern Line which takes 10 - 15 minutes after 8.00 am
|
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Jun 1, 2009 13:12:33 GMT
Shadwell isn't a good interchange, and the DLR will be overcrowded going into Bank - Whitechapel would be better for the discerning customer, though both routes would still be challenged by London Bridge and then walk/bus (you'd really have to be a muppet to do London Bridge to Bank on the northern line and then exit the tube network - you'd walk quite a distance anyway, it's no faster than by foot if those times you give are correct and you'd have to pay), or London Bridge-change-Cannon Street-walk. Once Thameslink 2015 comes into play, the London Bridge approaches will be a lot faster, and, other than West Croydon and Crystal Palace, the ELLX stations to the south would have Thameslink services, thus giving a change onto the District at Blackfriars, giving City and West End access fairly quickly (via the District), and without riding very crowded tube/DLR trains. Anyway, my point was that the vast majority of people wouldn't ride further north than Whitechapel - all you are doing is moving that a stop further south.
I just cannot see any time benefits to ELLX to the South, especially in the long term - it gives some change benefits (more choice of interchanges and shorter interchanges) and better access to Docklands and East London (via the District, Jubilee and DLR) from South London. It also enables Thameslink to go ahead, ironically a scheme that would exacerbate the problem of it's uselessless for getting to Central London - it's simply for local connections and access to Docklands, especially in the long term as things like Thameslink and Chelney remove usefulness of the line.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Jun 1, 2009 14:27:21 GMT
The role of the ELL as a corridor has changed a lot over time. When built it provided an alternative terminal for city bound trains from the south east; Liverpool Street. Now its been curtailed and re-routed to make a dodgey orbital link it will never quite have the same attractiveness to those people other than local journeys
So many people have commented it would have been better to dive down after whitechapel and somehow join to the northern city at or near moorgate.
|
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Jun 1, 2009 14:57:01 GMT
I liked the idea of a Whitechapel-Bethnal Green link that existed a long time ago - it would have meant Cambridge Heath and London Fields were ELL only, however it would have been useful for freight (then again, the Hither Green-Blackheath and NKL near Westcombe Park to the NLL at Canning Town would have been a better link).
Northern City diversion to Liverpool Street then through to Shoreditch and south would have been good for passengers, especially if the Northern Heights went ahead, giving more metro routes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2009 20:47:50 GMT
it's simply for local connections and access to Docklands Having lived in Croydon and now living in Docklands, I can say this will make a huge difference to lots of people. Look at the number of people who get off at London Bridge on slow trains, jump onto the Jub to head east to Canary Wharf. Now there will be a choice of either interchanging at Canada Water for 1 hot a sweaty stop to Canary Wharf or several hot and sweaty stops from London Bridge. The impact in the evnong commute is more profound as fewer people are will be on for the as many stops. Anyone travelled around Dalston or Hackney. The improvements there will be massive too! Then you add in the SLL. Now you've got several services that will be a big step in reducing congestion on the roads in zone two south of the river and in Hackney. Something that a lot of people who use buses will be very glad of. Oh, I forgot to mention local improvements in air quality. It's maybe not as good at opening up new journeys as a new underground line, but at less than 1/3 of the cost of the Jub extension and serving a much longer diatnce, it doesn't seem too costly to me either. |
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Jun 2, 2009 0:24:18 GMT
it's simply for local connections and access to Docklands Having lived in Croydon and now living in Docklands, I can say this will make a huge difference to lots of people. Look at the number of people who get off at London Bridge on slow trains, jump onto the Jub to head east to Canary Wharf. Now there will be a choice of either interchanging at Canada Water for 1 hot a sweaty stop to Canary Wharf or several hot and sweaty stops from London Bridge. The impact in the evnong commute is more profound as fewer people are will be on for the as many stops. As I said "access to Docklands".It will open less than 25 years after the Broad Street route closed for lack of demand - are things really going to be so much better now, is demand really so much higher, even though the line misses the city entirely now? Trains were really frequent until the 1920s, when, like with Camberwell and Walworth, the trams, buses and trolleys overtook, due to serving better locations, like penetrating the city fully. When Ken had his pledge of "put Hackney underground", people were thinking Chelney, not ELLX.How does it reduce congestion - it provides new links though the people of Clapham and Denmark Hill are annoyed at the loss of trains to Victoria/London Bridge. Depends where they want to go - if they want the City, then ELLX doesn't help them, if they want Clapham Junction, then it's still hard to see how demand would be reduced so much, so as to allow a decrease in frequency, especially from Clapham High Street and eastwards, where ELLX will take a longer route to CJ. People from Clapham High Street/Wandsworth Road area might bus it to Victoria, given their zone 1 service (ignoring Shoreditch HS) is to be dropped. Either that or ride the tube at some of it's most congested bits.How? Unless it gets a load of people out of cars on the woeful south London road network (and even a really bad journey involving changing at Battersea Park would be better than driving, so I doubt it), or those awful diesel buses (far more polluting than petrol cars for all but CO2, which isn't really a concern wrt air quality, only greenhouse effect) become so empty that Boris can cut them and not have further outcry about his transport policiesIt's an insane amount for a couple of miles of reopened railway line plus a mile and a bit of viaduct, mostly over railway lands, 4 outside stations and some paintwork and trains - the JLE was horrendously expensive - 7 massive underground stations and 4 new river crossings, on top of several miles of new tunnel and a couple of miles of reopened railway, plus 3 open air stations. To cost the equivalent of about 2 flagship design stations, a brand new tunnel under the Thames, 2 miles of underground tube, a mile of reopened railway and an outside station is absurd given what it is. It does open up new journeys, however whether they are very popular ones remains to be seen. It's a good scheme, but it's not a great one. It's far too over-hyped. Local journeys, Docklands access and helping London Bridge cope with Thameslink works/failing to have enough terminal platforms afterwards - that's the sole scope for this scheme, especially south of the river. It also, in South London, adds another terminus into the equation, thus keeping the South London Metro network still awful with the need to serve several termini from each of several lines. ELLX to Crystal Palace makes sense, as does providing a service to Clapham Junction from the SLL. However West Croydon doesn't really make much sense - just divert the Crystal Palace-London Bridge via Sydenham service and extend the Norwood Junction-Thameslink service too if need be - that way you have 12 car trains doing it, if there is a need... There's also the additional problem of having 4-car trains taking paths on a 12-car route - yuck! |
|
