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 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
> C, though, and if those are at capacity, it doesn't relieve the
> bottleneck. It depends on the details of the network, i suppose.
>
> I think you alluded to platforms on the South London line at Loughborough
> Junction (interchanging with the Holborn aka Thameslink line) and Brixton
> (interchanging with the Chatham main line). Would those add capacity? I'll
> assume that people can come from Batterclapstock, ie on the SLL west of
> Brixton, from Peckham, ie along the SLL west of Loughborough Junction,
^^^ I presume you mean *east* of Loogabarooga Juntion, for that is
where Peckham is.
I understand the Batterclapstock amalgam you have created, but the
reality is somewhat more complex -
- Clapham has the Northern line + SLL
- Clapham Junction - which is really in Battersea - is on the main
lines to Waterloo and Victoria
- also in Battersea, the almost adjacent Queenstown Rd and Battersea
Park stations are on the main lines to Waterloo and Victoria
respectively, albeit with less frequent services (plus Battersea Park
is on the SLL - though courtesy of platform lengthening on the other
lines this looks like it will be no longer)
- Stockwell has the Northern line + Victoria line
> from the southern part of the Chatham, or the southern part of the
> Thameslink route, and want to go to one of Victoria, Blackfriars etc or
> London Bridge. Looking at the possible combinations:
>
> Batterclapstock -> Victoria: no, wrong way
> Batterclapstock -> Blackfriars: no, take a radial line into town + change
From Clapham / Stockwell one could go by tube to the Elephant & Castle
then change for a train to Blackfriars, but I wouldn't recommend it -
however the 45 or 63 bus from E&C to Blackfriars would be a good
route.
> Batterclapstock -> London Bridge: no, direct train already
Yes, from Clapham - and yes from Battersea Park via the SLL, but not
in the future (see above).
No, from Clapham Jn (unless you include the long way round half-hourly
service via the Crystal Palace that takes 37 mins) - but CJ to London
Bridge can be done via Waterloo, either by Jubilee line or by mainline
train from Waterloo East.
Yes, from Stockwell - Northern line.
> Peckham -> Victoria: no, direct train already
> Peckham -> Blackfriars: no, go via London Bridge / Cannon Street (?)
Err... how about - go direct from Peckham Rye to Blackfriars (service
starts at Sevenoaks).
> Peckham -> London Bridge: no, wrong way
> Chatham -> Victoria: no, direct train already
> Chatham -> Blackfriars: no, change at Herne Hill
> Chatham -> London Bridge: maybe
> Thameslink -> Victoria: no, change at Herne Hill
> Thameslink -> Blackfriars: no, direct train already
> Thameslink -> London Bridge: no, change at Elephant or Blackfriars
Yes, change from Thameslink at Tulse Hill and take train to London
Bridge.
>
> The only journey that gets improved is Chatham -> London Bridge: if you're
> south of Penge, you can get a direct train or a good change (at Shortlands
> or Penge). If you're north of there, you either backtrack to Penge, or do
> a double change via Herne and Tulse Hills, both of which are a bit
> awkward. Being able to change at Brixton onto an SLL train would make life
> easier, even though the SLL route to London Bridge is a bit roundabout.
> This would take people off the Tulse Hill or New Cross Gate lines into
> London Bridge, and put them on the SLL. Possibly a minor win, i'm not
> sure.
If you are considering a journey from the Chatham main line to London
Bridge via Loughborough Jn, that would still mean a change at Herne
Hill too. Plus, the SLL service look like it is getting kicked out of
London Bridge to make way for Thameslink 2000. The ELLX phase 2 will
likely be coming to the SLL however.
Also, passengers wanting London Bridge from the vicinity of Kent House
can go from nearby Clock House; from the vicinity of Penge East they
can go from Penge West; from the vicinity of West Dulwich they can go
from North Dulwich; and from Sydenham Hill they could go from the
nearbyish Gipsy Hill station.
>
> 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.
>
> tom
>
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!).
When the ELLX phase 2 comes, interchange at Loughborough Jn would
offer some further possibilities, but again they are largely available
elsewhere.
In addition constructing platforms on the SLL at Loughborough Jn would
be *very* expensive - it is on a viaduct at this point. From a train
it might look easy, but take a look from the street and you'll see
that it ain't. If there was to be platforms anywhere along the SLL,
then Brixton would take preference - but again the line is high up on
a viaduct here. As I put forward in another thread, perhaps rebuilding
East Brixton station on the SLL might be the best bet - it's a far
easier location than either Brixton or Loughborough Jn, and whilst
hardly ideal for interchange purposes, and would serve the locality of
Loughborough Jn as well.
Don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of connecting the dots and
creating interchanges - like so many others I also look out of train
windows and see the missed potential, and the SLL flying over
Loughborough Jn is a particularly easy one to spot. However, a cold
hard look at the benefits arguably reveals that perhaps it isn't quite
the magic wand solution that it might at first seem.
