Predict popularity of East London Railway

mid-May 2010: quite similar to old ELL both peak and off-peak (probably a bit less)
September 2010: full (with nearly no standing room) in peaks, relatively free off-peak (but noticeably busier than ELL was)
early December 2010: overcrowded in the peaks, seriously loaded off-peak
September 2011: major overcrowding in the peaks, nealy full off-peak
September 2012: NLL-like overcrowding in the peaks, full off-peak

I think TfL will introduce 2-3 additional services/hour by the end of 2011, and line capacity will be maxed out by the end of 2012.
There will be knock-on effects on Victoria line (some relief for central section) and Jubilee line (severe persistent overcrowding between Canada Water and Canary Wharf).

I also think that there will be some capacity enhancement programme in 2013 - probably extending trains to 6 cars and may be pedestrian crossing to Canary Wharf from Rotherhithe peninsula.

And finally, I can imagine New Cross branch being closed to redirect 4 tph to the rest of the branches.

Now we will compare our predictions for years ;D

That's just an excuse not to spend the money. An overcrowded station is better than no station at all.

Stock capacity, presumably. Yesno?

Signalling capacity is a lot more than you think.

It been a while since I've seen any higher level stuff for the ELL, even given that there isn't the same braking rate on the ELL redidivus, I can't off-hand think of a reason why the central section can't have trains every 3 minutes.

Unit length is/will be shorter than trains passing on the central section of Thameslink (where ATO/Moving block is at best a fudge to squeeze everything that little bit closer together) resulting in comparatively shorter block section clearance times - when compared to Thameslink. There's an awful lot more signals on the ELL redidivus too!

How does that work?

Very simple: train is crush-loaded with passengers from Clapham Junction, Wandsworth Road, Clapham High Street, and Brixton - and passengers from Denmark Hill or Peckham would not be able to get it.

This is similar to current situation at Bethnal Green, Mile End, or St John's Wood at peak hours - one has to skip 3-5 trains just to be able to squeeze in.

I believe this is also the reason why ELR will terminate at West Croydon and not in Sutton.

I doubt that - most people will use ELR to get to the City (through Shoreditch) and to Canary Wharf (through Canada Water), so I don't see many reasons for passengers from Clapham Junction to alight at Brixton. If they will be going to Victoria, they already have multiple (much more convenient) options.

Having four termini at one end and only one at the other is asking for trouble, as the frequency is limited to the capability of Dalston. Most TfL lines are much better balanced, with the same number of termini at each end, although the Northern and Met have short workings at Kennington and Baker Sreet (effectively branches of zero length) The District is a special case as most of the western branches are shared with others service, as is also the case on the H&C and Circle, so they do end up balanced:

Ealing shared (as far as ealing Common) with Piccy
Richmond shared with LO
Wimbledon (main and Wimbleware)
Edgware Rd (Wimbleware and Circle)
Hammersmith (H&C and Circle)
Barking (H&C and Ealing)
Upminster (Wimbledon and Richmond)

I would guess Crystal Palace would go first, as connection via Norwood Junction would be possible. New Cross connects the entire SER network to the ELL, and is likely to be very popular. (Although, even without NX, cross-river connections would still be available at Woolwich, Greenwich and Lewisham)

How many will use it to get to the city? If they are on SWT then staying on to Waterloo and getting the W&C line would be much quicker. People from South Central will change at Clapham for the Northern which will take them right into the city quicker than LO would.

My argument still remains. You point out Bethnal Green as a station that is too crowded for passengers to alight, yet would you argue that it shouldn't have been built because of this? An overcrowded station is better than no station at all, in fact, people should expect lines to be overcrowded, it's often the only way urban rail transport makes any money.

The reason why this station probably will never be built is because no-one can be arsed to pay for it. Using the "it'll be too overcrowded" excuse is just a cop out.

While I agree having a station at Brixton would give the line much more patronage, I still think the line as is envisaged will be advantageous for all living in South London. I now live south of the river and while no where near a SLL station, I say that is a big problem travelling east to west in this part of town. In that sense it will open new corridors. The current service that run from LB to Victoria would have to be lost once LB is remodelled with insufficient terminating platforms, so good that an alternative service has been developed ahead of that service final journey.

Just coming back to the Brixton issue. I really don't think it's a matter of fear of lack of patronage. I think it's the problem of overloading the Vic Line. It already gets very full in rush before arriving at Victoria and adding an interchange at Brixton will only make the situation worse. While money probably plays a role too, it doesn't make sense to improve service for some to the detriment of the same number of people.

To the ELL, I think the southern section is going to be at crush level very quickly. Having lived at Norwood Juntion before now and having frequented the stopping services into London Bridge I can honestly say they were often full by Forest Hill. These trains make for a good contrast as they originate from West Croydon. Now those trains are 8 carriage in length. Trains that are half the length, even if to a different destination will get full. While the OG services will be more frequent than those run by Southern, there will still be a few critical services in both the AM and PM rush where patronage far outstips capacity from day 1 in my opinion. But I guess it will all depend on how the timetable into London Bridge is designed to marry with OG services.

One last pointer. I would imagine a lot of commuters from south of the river will be looking to use the OG services to get to Canary Wharf. The success of the ELL may depend on the ability to board a Jubilee train at Canada Water as opposed to London Bridge. If only Tube Lines had of completed the upgrade in time, as was defined in their scope! For once a British public body in the form of TfL had developed a holistic plan only to be scuppered by in Mr Brown's sentiment, a more efficient body.

I also wouldn't be surprised if the New Cross branch is cut as soon as they can get away with it, as it would benefit the rest of the ELR. New Cross doesn't serve all that much of the Southeastern network, even semi-fasts skip it, requiring a change at Lewisham, and those on trains from Tonbridge or Hastings and the like are unlikely to come off at London Bridge and go back out to make an orbital journey, and for those whose journeys originate at New Cross, it's not far to New Cross Gate.

I stand corrected over the need for New Cross for reversing, but I still feel that the Southeastern interchange isn't as great as it could be, considering the amount of trains that pass through, so unless they pull the same trick as at Greenhithe to draw in more people it seems a bit of a waste, however, that is not TfL's fault.

Just because TfL have decided to stop using the name(s), there is no reason why we can't use ELL/WLL/NLL and DC lines (and even GOB although that's not a favourite of mine) as short hand. Of course, there will also be SLL once phase 3 of the ELLX opens

What TfL wants to call the line is up to them, but if people think of something by another title and use that it is entirely up to them. It would be daft to use (H&I)DJ-NX/WC/CP in a forum post, so ELL it will continue to be for me and others I'm sure! Let TfL sue us for using a name they don't approve of ;-)

Reminds me of when the First Capital Connect franchise was created out of the Thameslink and Great Northern services. They issued a decree that the Thameslink name was not to be used, but that policy didn't last long.