|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Tom AndersonTom Anderson Date: Jan 21, 2008 09:08
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, MIG wrote:
> New stations and better interchanges on existing lines could provide a
> lot of new person-routes, both north and south of the Thames, at much
> less cost than new lines.
I think the original suggestion was about capacity, not routes. Building
more stations on existing lines can't increase capacity.
There are probably cheaper options than extending the Bakerloo, though.
tom
--
Taking care of business
|
| |
|
| | 35 Comments |
|
|
Author: MIGMIG Date: Jan 21, 2008 15:36
On Jan 21, 5:08 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, MIG wrote:
>> New stations and better interchanges on existing lines could provide a
>> lot of new person-routes, both north and south of the Thames, at much
>> less cost than new lines.
>
> I think the original suggestion was about capacity, not routes. Building
> more stations on existing lines can't increase capacity.
>
> There are probably cheaper options than extending the Bakerloo, though.
I can't work out a formula, but it seems to me that if people could
travel more directly to where they wanted to go, spending less time on
the transport networks and travelling a shorter distance, it actually
would increase capacity. Interchanges could make that possible.
|
| |
|
| | 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Tom AndersonTom Anderson Date: Jan 22, 2008 09:07
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, MIG wrote:
> On Jan 21, 5:08 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, MIG wrote:
>>> New stations and better interchanges on existing lines could provide a
>>> lot of new person-routes, both north and south of the Thames, at much
>>> less cost than new lines.
>>
>> I think the original suggestion was about capacity, not routes. Building
>> more stations on existing lines can't increase capacity.
>>
>> There are probably cheaper options than extending the Bakerloo, though.
>
> I can't work out a formula, but it seems to me that if people could
> travel more directly to where they wanted to go, spending less time on
> the transport networks and travelling a shorter distance, it actually
> would increase capacity. Interchanges could make that possible.
|
| Show full article (3.37Kb) |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: MIGMIG Date: Jan 22, 2008 09:27
On Jan 22, 5:07 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, MIG wrote:
>> On Jan 21, 5:08 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, MIG wrote:
>>>> New stations and better interchanges on existing lines could provide a
>>>> lot of new person-routes, both north and south of the Thames, at much
>>>> less cost than new lines.
>
>>> I think the original suggestion was about capacity, not routes. Building
>>> more stations on existing lines can't increase capacity.
>
>>> There are probably cheaper options than extending the Bakerloo, though.
>
>> I can't work out a formula, but it seems to me that if people could
>> travel more directly to where they wanted to go, spending less time on
>> the transport networks and travelling a shorter distance, it actually
>> would increase capacity. Interchanges could make that possible.
>
> To a point. If people are making a journey using lines A, B and C, and you
> add an interchange between A and C, it relieves B. It doesn't relieve A or ...
|
| Show full article (4.06Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Peter MassonPeter Masson Date: Jan 22, 2008 10:32
"MIG" doreenbird.co.uk> wrote>
> To sum up, i think building those platforms would be a good idea, to add
> flexibility and resiliency to the network, and to serve local users
> better, but i don't think they're going to deliver extra capacity.
>
I once had a commute from Swanley to South Bermondsey, and the connection at
Peckham Rye worked well enough. From Chatham itself to London Bridge the
best route is the direct train, or backtracking from Cannon Street if the
fast doesn't stop at LB, although it's a bit slow via Dartford off peak.
From intermediate stations I would take the tube Elephant.
For your other example of Lewisham to Herne Hill I would take a bus from
Denmark Hill, or change at Peckham Rye and walk from North Dulwich.
Loughborough Junction must have been quite a hive of activity when it had
six platforms (2 on the Herne Hill line, two on the Denmark Hill spur - the
remains are still extant, although they haven't been used for at least 90
years - and two on the spur towards Brixton. One of the bronze commuters is
silently waiting on the remains of the Catford Loop platform at Brixton).
|
| Show full article (2.19Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Mizter TMizter T Date: Jan 22, 2008 11:05
Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, MIG wrote:
>
>> On Jan 21, 5:08pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, MIG wrote:
>>>> New stations and better interchanges on existing lines could...
|
| Show full article (6.79Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Tom AndersonTom Anderson Date: Jan 22, 2008 17:19
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Mizter T wrote:
> Tom Anderson wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, MIG wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 21, 5:08pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, MIG wrote:
>>>>> New stations and better interchanges...
|
| Show full article (6.79Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: MIGMIG Date: Jan 23, 2008 02:26
>
>>> To sum up, i think building those platforms would be a good idea, to add
>>> flexibility and resiliency to the network, and to serve local users
>>> better, but i don't think they're going to deliver extra capacity.
>
>> As MIG has already stated, your analysis purely looks at journeys into
>> central London and ignores other journeys. However, even when one
>> considers many of these other possible journeys, the case isn't
>> amazingly strong - many such journeys can be achieved using a change
>> elsewhere, or by using a bus for a bit of the journey (try me!).
>
> Agreed. I was just trying to be even-handed!
>
This all makes for an excellent board game, and I can see that some of
the costs of the stations might be more than they appear at a glance,
but this started from a discussion of new lines and a suggestion that
new stations could increase journey possibilities much more cheaply
than new lines.
|
| Show full article (1.65Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Tom AndersonTom Anderson Date: Jan 23, 2008 06:40
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, MIG wrote:
>
>
>>>> To sum up, i think building those platforms would be a good idea, to add
>>>> flexibility and resiliency to the network, and to serve local users
>>>> better...
|
| Show full article (1.61Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: unrealpolitikunrealpolitik Date: Jan 23, 2008 07:40
On 23 Jan, 14:40, Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, MIG wrote:
>>
>
>>>>> To sum up, i think building those platforms would be a good idea, to add
>>>>> flexibility and resiliency to the network, and to serve local users
>>>>> better, but i don't think they're going to deliver extra capacity.
>
>>>> As MIG has already stated, your analysis purely looks at journeys into
>>>> central London and ignores other journeys. However, even when one
>>>> considers many of these other possible journeys, the case isn't
>>>> amazingly strong - many such journeys can be achieved using a change
>>>> elsewhere, or by using a bus for a bit of the journey (try me!).
>
>>> Agreed. I was just trying to be even-handed!
>
>> This all makes for an excellent board game, and I can see that some of
>> the costs of the stations might be more than they appear at a glance,
>> but this started from a discussion of new lines and a suggestion that
>> new stations could increase journey possibilities much more cheaply ...
|
| Show full article (2.00Kb) |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
