daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old September 26th, 2009, 03:23 AM   #3801
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

If you're going to put the South London line on the map you mays well stick Thameslink on it as well.
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 26th, 2009, 10:45 AM   #3802
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris.haynes View Post
I very much doubt it, not least because when the ELL Phase 2 happens the South London Line service will be no more (the ELL will replace it, freeing up some capacity into Victoria and London Bridge).

If you include the SLL on the map, it's difficult to know where to stop... There's plenty of NR routes which provide good interchange options and could be shown on the map, Waterloo to Richmond and Wimbledon being one, Paddington to Greenford another.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 6th, 2009, 10:13 PM   #3803
Coccodrillo
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7,200
Likes (Received): 768

London map is very clear except that it is sometimes difficult to understand where trains go. As example Wimbledon-Edgware Road, the Kensington Olymbia shuttle and one of the two central branches of the Northern Line should have a different name to ease understanding. And the DLR shoult have line numbers as now it is a mess. What do you think?
__________________
1.6.2016: Basistunnel!

für Güter die Bahn ~ pour vos marchandises le rail ~ chi dice merci dice ferrovia
Coccodrillo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2009, 08:19 PM   #3804
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coccodrillo View Post
London map is very clear except that it is sometimes difficult to understand where trains go. As example Wimbledon-Edgware Road, the Kensington Olymbia shuttle and one of the two central branches of the Northern Line should have a different name to ease understanding. And the DLR shoult have line numbers as now it is a mess. What do you think?
Yes, personally I think individual services should be separated out... maybe different shades of the parent line colour, for example the District Line is actually 5 different services off peak (Olympia - High St Kensington, Edgware Rd - Wimbledon, Upminster - Wimbledon, Upminster - Richmond, Ealing Broadway - Tower Hill).

It seems a bit arbitrary to differentiate between the Hammersmith & City, Circle and Metropolitan Lines when they all share the same tracks and yet all 5 District Line services get lumped together under one colour.

The DLR equally would benefit, as you note
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2009, 11:53 PM   #3805
poshbakerloo
***Alexxx***
 
poshbakerloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London, Manchester, Cheshire, Sheffield, Moscow
Posts: 5,094
Likes (Received): 292

I agree!!
__________________
"BEFORE WE MARRY...I HAVE A SECRET!"

I <3 London
poshbakerloo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2009, 11:30 AM   #3806
sweek
Registered User
 
sweek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London NW1
Posts: 1,636
Likes (Received): 1

I would just go for dark green and light green... one for all East-West services via the bottom of the Circle, one for services via the Western end of the Circle via HSK.
sweek no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2009, 11:00 PM   #3807
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

I personally think they should do away with the Olympia branch full stop. What is the point of it? If you wanted to get from the WLL to High Street Kensington or Earl's Court just change at West Brompton.

They should also try and segregate the Wimblewares from the main District route by remodelling the junction to the west of Earl's Court so NB Wimblewares cross underneath the main route. Then the Wimblewares can terminate at High Street Kensington and anyone who wants to go further takes the Circle.
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2009, 12:40 AM   #3808
streetquark
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 744
Likes (Received): 4



The junction should be remodelled but with Wimbledon getting both services any splitting into two colours would involve the branch having 2 lines (as per the Rayners Lane-Uxbridge).
streetquark no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2009, 03:27 AM   #3809
Accura4Matalan
Registered User
 
Accura4Matalan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Hinckley, UK
Posts: 13,607
Likes (Received): 1571

I used the Kensington-Olympia shuttle today. Found it very handy!
Accura4Matalan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2009, 03:54 AM   #3810
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

Well, that doesn't fit in with my 'SSL masterplan'...

It's supposed to reduce the complexity of the SSLs in particular, allowing them to run higher frequencies more reliably. Simplicity is why Paris, Tokyo and Moscow all manage to run 30tph+ on their lines reliably.

-Olympia branch is no more.
-Wimblewares become segregated from the District and run 24tph to High Street Kensington using the seven car Olympia shuttle platforms. Passengers heading from Wimbledon to Central London (and back) only have to cross the platform at Earl's Court.
-Hammersmith & City line is no more, the Bakerloo takes over the Hammersmith branch.
-Richmond branch is given solely to LOROL, a new station is built north of Gunnersbury on the NLL that links to Turnham Green via high speed walkways... The Piccadilly line now stops at Turnham Green giving much of the NLL quick access to Heathrow.
-District takes over the entire Uxbridge branch from the Piccadilly. The Piccadilly is branchless (except for Heathrow) and therefore can run more efficiently. There is also no longer a pointless section of track which the District and Piccadilly share, meaning no issues with interfacing ATO equipment. A stub continues to go to Ealing Broadway.
-Metropolitan terminates 12tph at Uxbridge. District terminates 12tph at Rayners Lane in a new segregated third platform. This could be built in the current car park south of the station.
-The other Metropolitan branch is 12tph and continues on the slow lines to Watford Junction. Chiltern takes over the Amersham branch. The patronage on the Amersham branch is not high enough to justify running a metro line through there, especially when it overcomplicates LU with it's dreaded track-sharing.
-Circle becomes 8tph, Baker Street-High Street Kensington is lowered to 8tph because of no Wimblewares, this section of line becomes less important because of Crossrail at Paddington and the increase in frequency on the Bakerloo and Central lines (because of infraco upgrades)
-Metropolitans run at 24tph from Harrow-on-the-hill to Aldgate. The spur from Liverpool Street to Aldgate East is no longer important and therefore used as sidings off peak because of Crossrail and the aforementioned increase in frequency on the Central.

All this eliminates 6 flat junctions on the SSL network...
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2009, 09:53 AM   #3811
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by Accura4Matalan View Post
I used the Kensington-Olympia shuttle today. Found it very handy!
Yes it's well patronised, the station has a wide catchment area and the District Line is the preferred route into Central London for residents (more convenient than WLL and changing at Clapham Jcn).

The interchange issue is a moot point really.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2009, 10:18 AM   #3812
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
They should also try and segregate the Wimblewares from the main District route by remodelling the junction to the west of Earl's Court so NB Wimblewares cross underneath the main route.
This is already the case! Warwick Road Junction is 'flying' already... It's the EB junction east of Earl's Court which is flat. To achieve segregation (which I agree with), the EB line ex-platform 2 needs to burrow under the line ex-platform 1. This would result in Wimbledon trains serving platforms 2 and 4 and the 'main' serving 1 and 3. It would be tricky digging out the flyunder between the existing tracks (for the duration of the works all trains would have to run over the northernmost EB road), but I guess not unachieveable.

This would allow complete segregation of the Wimbledon service; the current Edgware Road service could remain the same frequency-wise but be extended beyond to Barking via King's X, with the alternating 'City' trains instead terminating at High Street Ken.

This would then free up capacity in the central platforms 2 & 3 at Edgware Road to make the soon to be introduced T-cup line more achieveable (the current plan is for Wimblewares and T-cups to all reverse via the same 2 platforms... asking for trouble). I'd withdraw Hammersmith-Barkings and boost the Hammersmith service with a Hammersmith-Edgware Road shuttle. 14 tph reversing via 2 platforms should be easily achieveable with 'stepping back'; instead of each train dwelling whilst the driver saunters from one ond to the other / goes for a pee / makes a cuppa / chats to his mate, each driver 'steps back' onto a couple of trains behind such that trains depart almost as soon as they arrive; this happens at Elephant & Castle and Brixton.

I'd then extend the Ealings back to Upminster (i.e. alternating Richmond-Upminsters and Ealing-Upminsters) and run an Olympia - Tower Hill shuttle.

So;

Ealing-Upminster 7 tph
Richmond-Upminster 7tph
Olympia-Tower Hill 7tph
Wimbledon-High St Ken 7tph
Wimbledon-Barking via King's X 7tph
T Cup (Hammersmith-Edgware Rd via Circle Line) 7tph
Hammersmith-Edgware Rd shuttle 7tph

This simplifies movements at Earl's Court and restores the soon to be lost direct trains to Baker St / Kings X from stations like High St Ken, Notting Hill Gate and Bayswater.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2009, 10:47 AM   #3813
ajw373
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,249
Likes (Received): 48

Quote:
Originally Posted by Accura4Matalan View Post
I used the Kensington-Olympia shuttle today. Found it very handy!
It would be even more handy if it went somewhere other than Olympia!
ajw373 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2009, 08:13 PM   #3814
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
This is already the case! Warwick Road Junction is 'flying' already... It's the EB junction east of Earl's Court which is flat. To achieve segregation (which I agree with), the EB line ex-platform 2 needs to burrow under the line ex-platform 1. This would result in Wimbledon trains serving platforms 2 and 4 and the 'main' serving 1 and 3. It would be tricky digging out the flyunder between the existing tracks (for the duration of the works all trains would have to run over the northernmost EB road), but I guess not unachieveable.

This would allow complete segregation of the Wimbledon service; the current Edgware Road service could remain the same frequency-wise but be extended beyond to Barking via King's X, with the alternating 'City' trains instead terminating at High Street Ken.

This would then free up capacity in the central platforms 2 & 3 at Edgware Road to make the soon to be introduced T-cup line more achieveable (the current plan is for Wimblewares and T-cups to all reverse via the same 2 platforms... asking for trouble). I'd withdraw Hammersmith-Barkings and boost the Hammersmith service with a Hammersmith-Edgware Road shuttle. 14 tph reversing via 2 platforms should be easily achieveable with 'stepping back'; instead of each train dwelling whilst the driver saunters from one ond to the other / goes for a pee / makes a cuppa / chats to his mate, each driver 'steps back' onto a couple of trains behind such that trains depart almost as soon as they arrive; this happens at Elephant & Castle and Brixton.

I'd then extend the Ealings back to Upminster (i.e. alternating Richmond-Upminsters and Ealing-Upminsters) and run an Olympia - Tower Hill shuttle.

So;

Ealing-Upminster 7 tph
Richmond-Upminster 7tph
Olympia-Tower Hill 7tph
Wimbledon-High St Ken 7tph
Wimbledon-Barking via King's X 7tph
T Cup (Hammersmith-Edgware Rd via Circle Line) 7tph
Hammersmith-Edgware Rd shuttle 7tph

This simplifies movements at Earl's Court and restores the soon to be lost direct trains to Baker St / Kings X from stations like High St Ken, Notting Hill Gate and Bayswater.
Mine is:

Circle = 8tph

District
Rayners Lane - Barking = 10tph
Ealing Broadway - Upminster = 14tph

Metropolitan
Uxbridge - Aldgate = 12tph
Watford Junction - Aldgate = 12tph

Wimbleware
Wimbledon - High Street Kensington = 24tph

The main trunk routes Gloucester - Tower Hill and Baker Street - Aldgate run 32tph which is the same frequency as the proposed 't-cup' service. I think mine is superior purely because there are fewer flat junctions and simpler service patterns which results in a more reliable and frequent service. I really think passengers prefer this over direct services which are significantly less reliable, it's the same logic as splitting the Northern line. The only issue with mine is reversing 24tph at Aldgate may prove difficult, but it's certainly not beyond the realms of possibility with ATO and good organisation.
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2009, 11:43 PM   #3815
L2
King of Bali
 
L2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kuta Beach, Bali, Indonesia
Posts: 5,826
Likes (Received): 487

Pointless question for anybody to answer:

I tried doing a round trip to Upminster yesterday (Tube there, c2c express back), which went to plan until a few stops before the end where the driver announced due to a signal failure that the far tip of the line had been suspended.

Ended up bailing out at a lovely place called Elm Park after hearing there would be delays getting into the station at Hornchurch.. and had a lovely long and 'scenic' tube ride back to London.

So my question is.. did I miss anything by not seeing that last bit to Upminster? Should I be craving a journey out there?

Oh, and the LU train drivers are really good at announcing things about delays etc. I'm used to sitting between stations for five minutes, or short-terminating due to trackwork (it's happened once!), and hearing no announcement back where I live in Australia.
__________________
L2 comes between L1 and L3
L2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2009, 01:29 PM   #3816
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by L2 View Post
Pointless question for anybody to answer:

I tried doing a round trip to Upminster yesterday (Tube there, c2c express back), which went to plan until a few stops before the end where the driver announced due to a signal failure that the far tip of the line had been suspended.

Ended up bailing out at a lovely place called Elm Park after hearing there would be delays getting into the station at Hornchurch.. and had a lovely long and 'scenic' tube ride back to London.

So my question is.. did I miss anything by not seeing that last bit to Upminster? Should I be craving a journey out there?

Oh, and the LU train drivers are really good at announcing things about delays etc. I'm used to sitting between stations for five minutes, or short-terminating due to trackwork (it's happened once!), and hearing no announcement back where I live in Australia.
Not much... Upminster is far more genteel than the stretch out to Elm Park though. It looks and feels like a reasonably affluent small town, which contrasts to the slum you passed through all the way from Barking to Elm Park (the Becontree Estate).

I'm glad you were impressed with the driver's public address... It's a major focus currently with LU drivers. They are now supposed to make a PA within 30 seconds of any delay between stations (90 in stations) and every minute thereafter. Many are toeing the line, but some stubborn buggers still resist.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2009, 01:35 PM   #3817
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
Mine is:

Circle = 8tph

District
Rayners Lane - Barking = 10tph
Ealing Broadway - Upminster = 14tph

Metropolitan
Uxbridge - Aldgate = 12tph
Watford Junction - Aldgate = 12tph

Wimbleware
Wimbledon - High Street Kensington = 24tph

The main trunk routes Gloucester - Tower Hill and Baker Street - Aldgate run 32tph which is the same frequency as the proposed 't-cup' service. I think mine is superior purely because there are fewer flat junctions and simpler service patterns which results in a more reliable and frequent service. I really think passengers prefer this over direct services which are significantly less reliable, it's the same logic as splitting the Northern line. The only issue with mine is reversing 24tph at Aldgate may prove difficult, but it's certainly not beyond the realms of possibility with ATO and good organisation.
I think customers in Richmond, Hammersmith H&C, Amersham and Olympia might have a thing or two to say about your 'superior' proposal! Where are their trains?!

You're also halving services to NHG , Bayswater and Paddington Praed St and not tackling the Circle Line operating problem of no terminus.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2009, 10:40 PM   #3818
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
I think customers in Richmond, Hammersmith H&C, Amersham and Olympia might have a thing or two to say about your 'superior' proposal! Where are their trains?!
Richmond would be given solely to LO. Hammersmith branch becomes a branch of the Bakerloo line and the Bakerloo line is cut off from Willesden Junction leaving the DC lines to run Watford-Willesden Junction and then onto the NLL and beyond. Olympia, as i've already said, is useless in the grand scheme of things. Amersham is given to Chiltern, it's patronage is not big enough for a metro service, which is what LU is. I don't agree with this conservative principle that LU should remain an archaic institution with lines with ridiculous amounts of unused branches solely for the purpose of tradition; if branches are not necessary and overall sacrifice the reliability and efficiency of the network then ditch them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
You're also halving services to NHG , Bayswater and Paddington Praed St
This is the long term. Post 2017 Crossrail will be running from Paddington, which will take a large proportion of passengers from Praed Street. Currently passengers at Praed Street only have the unreliable dot matrix screens to inform them of when the next train arrives, and half the chances it is a District line train that terminates at the next station! Bayswater station is only a few hundred metres from Queensway on the Central line which whips you into Central London faster than the Circle could ever dream of. Overall, halfing the frequency on a tiny section of the Circle is a moot point when you consider the overall benefits of reducing the mess at Earls Court and Edgware Road.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
and not tackling the Circle Line operating problem of no terminus.
I think the biggest operating problem of the Circle line is the fact that it has numerous flat junctions and track sharing, combined with the unreliable LU infastructure and trains. Circle lines seem to have no issues operating in other countries where none of these problems exist.
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2009, 01:56 AM   #3819
streetquark
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 744
Likes (Received): 4

The branching and lines out west of Earl's Court is a complicated issue, I'm not sure you can improve much that way unless you bring in an extra line (e.g. extend the H&C to take over one of the branches, or build Chelney and make it head west from Parson's Green). Both the District and Piccadilly split into 2 branches, with each having one branch sharing with another line. In the case of the Picc, it needs either to shed the Uxbridge branch, transfer the Heathrow branch to another line for its sole use (there isn't one), or share the Heathrow branch with another line (again, there isn't one). This would mean more trains to Heathrow of course.

The District doesn't need more trains to either branch. It shares Richmond LO NLL and the Ealing Bdy branch with the central, itself a split branch. Richmond has NR services to Waterloo, but taking away the District service is an inconvenience, and you wouldn't be able to add it to the NLL as this has a limit on the number of trains it can take which is probably at maximum now.

Then there's the problem of Bakerloo splitting: Paddington-Queens Park etc. would get it's service drastically cut to accommodate Hammersmith trains. This is in spite of the desire for users of the DC line to take the Bakerloo to the West End.

If the Bakerloo were to be cut back to Willesden Junction it still wouldn't help the DC service much - it would have to be cut back to Queens Park for that. Euston itself needs extra capacity which puts a question mark over the DC services beyond Primrose hill, and if the Bakerloo services get fully extended further out it would be better to find a different destination for the Watford services. I think the reason for LO taking over the DC services including the 4 tph down to Clapham Junction is partly to do with this. But this leaves a problem: what to do with the suburban stations east of Queens Park? NLL services to Willesden Junction cover this but they're low frequency.

How about the DC lines splitting into different destinations but not the WCML into Euston? One branch would be the existing WLL service, one branch the NLL via Primrose Hill. Another would head off at Harlesden to Richmond, possibly turning off at South Acton for Acton Town and Northfields (but is the capacity there along the NLL or at Richmond even if in addition to Northfields?) and the remainder services could go along the NLL to West Hampstead. These could either be linked through to the MML, especially Thameslink or to Chiltern for Marylebone. If the link is a costly option maybe simply continue down to meet the NLL at Camden Road. Ideally a link between Maiden Lane/York Way and Primrose Hill via Camden Town and another west of Queen's Park to east of Willesden Junction would mean high frequency LO services along the DC lines between Primrose Hill and Queen's Park and Bakerloo services west of Queen's Park, with DC services joining at Willesden and Harlesden. I'd also like to see high frequency services along the WLL with 4-tracking and a deviation through Earl's Court, so the Olympia line can be shut.

Without radical new construction and keeping the existing Circle (including the Hammersmith & Circle service) it's not easy to have a proper sub-surface system (or high-frequency LO). If I could get rid of the Circle/H&C and add one new route section in the west it would be a new link between Baker Street and just north of St. Pancras to join up with the 3rd pair of MML tracks, heading off north of Kentish Town and take over the Gospel Oak-Barking line where it would join up with the existing District. Wimbleware services could then run high frequency to HSK and those going beyond would share with trains from Hammersmith a full service to Barking via Gospel Oak. In the east I'd head the Met off south of Aldgate station, swinging round past tower Hill and possibly Canon Street facing south-west, curving under the Thames to face London Bridge and continue south-eastwards (OK maybe practical problems with this one). The District would also have the Upminster line all to itself and trains from Barking would get to King's X and Baker Street etc.
streetquark no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2009, 11:32 AM   #3820
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
Richmond would be given solely to LO.
You're kidding right? That'd go down like a bag of cold sick with the good folk of Richmond, Kew, and Chiswick. The Richmond branch is very well patronised with big commuter populations living in Chiswick and Kew, the Chiswick Park business park opposite Gunnersbury station, and tourist traffic for Kew Gardens. It might be bearable if there was an interchange where the LOROL and District / Piccadilly lines cross but as there isn't all commuter traffic would have to go via mainline from Richmond to Waterloo or up to Willesden Junction and change. Not good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
Hammersmith branch becomes a branch of the Bakerloo line
This makes more sense... But you have to bear in mind that the service patterns I described were working with what we've got now (barring the single new diveunder east of Earl's Court), same signalling, same junctions, etc. Of course anyone can concoct a 'what if' wish list if money were no object, but as it is a major object for TfL right now, it's a moot point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
and the Bakerloo line is cut off from Willesden Junction leaving the DC lines to run Watford-Willesden Junction and then onto the NLL and beyond.
This is counterintuitive for two reasons: firstly, if one service wins over the other on the DC lines it should be the Bakerloo because the longer trains offer more capacity. Secondly, your proposal removes direct trains to Central London from all stations north of Willesden Junction. i.e. It makes a poor service even poorer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
Olympia, as i've already said, is useless in the grand scheme of things.
As I've already said, it's not. It's got a large catchment area, is well patronised by commuters, serves as a useful interchange, and is heaving with exhibition traffic when there's something on at Olympia (which is pretty often).

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
Amersham is given to Chiltern, it's patronage is not big enough for a metro service, which is what LU is.
I agree that the Met should not run beyond the Watford Branch, but your point about Metro services is an odd one; Amersham doesn't have a metro-style service from LU... I think it's 4 tph. Therefore LU does not give Amersham a metro service, it's much more a commuter service.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
I don't agree with this conservative principle that LU should remain an archaic institution with lines with ridiculous amounts of unused branches solely for the purpose of tradition; if branches are not necessary and overall sacrifice the reliability and efficiency of the network then ditch them.
You're making LU sound like a museum. I'm sorry, but you're simply proposing reducing patronage and disadvantaging customers which is insane. One of the only good bits of logic (Bakerloo to Hammersmith) involves adding a branch to an existing line, which goes against your principles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
This is the long term. Post 2017 Crossrail will be running from Paddington, which will take a large proportion of passengers from Praed Street. Currently passengers at Praed Street only have the unreliable dot matrix screens to inform them of when the next train arrives, and half the chances it is a District line train that terminates at the next station! Bayswater station is only a few hundred metres from Queensway on the Central line which whips you into Central London faster than the Circle could ever dream of. Overall, halfing the frequency on a tiny section of the Circle is a moot point when you consider the overall benefits of reducing the mess at Earls Court and Edgware Road.
Has it not occurred that people using the District / Circle line from NHG, Bayswater and Paddington do so because they're trying to get to the destinations offered (e.g. Euston Square, King's Cross St Pancras etc)? If they wanted Oxford Street, they already would use the Central or Bakerloo Lines. Adding Crossrail doesn't change that.

I'm all for rationalising the SSR flat junctions wherever possible, but your slash n' burn approach doesn't help anyone. What's the point of an efficient system if it only has half the customers?

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
I think the biggest operating problem of the Circle line is the fact that it has numerous flat junctions and track sharing, combined with the unreliable LU infastructure and trains. Circle lines seem to have no issues operating in other countries where none of these problems exist.
...Because in general other Circle Lines didn't evolve like ours did!
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
london, railways, tube

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium