Forum readers may be interested in page 15 of the document at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/ ... Report.pdf
(The document can be accessed from http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-t ... /1438.aspx.)
It looks as though we can expect to see the first new trains running, albeit only testing, at the end of October, with trains in service in June 2010.
East London Line Extension - update on progress
-
biscuitman1978
- Posts: 1588
- Joined: 16 May 2006 20:14
- Location: Chislehurst; previously Sydenham
route for trains
Hi there
can anyone tell me will the new trains be running on the track at the rear of Devonshire Road in Forest Hill - I was looking to buy a flat there and was just wondering what the impact will be of having something like 20 trains an hour running along that piece of track
Thanks very much
T
can anyone tell me will the new trains be running on the track at the rear of Devonshire Road in Forest Hill - I was looking to buy a flat there and was just wondering what the impact will be of having something like 20 trains an hour running along that piece of track
Thanks very much
T
route for trains
Hi there
can anyone tell me will the new trains be running on the track at the rear of Devonshire Road in Forest Hill - I was looking to buy a flat there and was just wondering what the impact will be of having something like 20 trains an hour running along that piece of track
Thanks very much
T
can anyone tell me will the new trains be running on the track at the rear of Devonshire Road in Forest Hill - I was looking to buy a flat there and was just wondering what the impact will be of having something like 20 trains an hour running along that piece of track
Thanks very much
T
thanks for that
Would you recommend it around there?
Re: thanks for that
Oh yes, indeed!TRIX wrote:Would you recommend it around there?
DevRd is Forest Hill rather than Syd but I used to live just off there (Tyson Rd - the highest bit!). My mate has recently moved to DevRd, towards the Hob end more and track-side. He has a really nice place and loves it there.
Put it this way, I'd love to move back there (although not at the top as I was previously as the walk uphill knackered me out!).
Good luck.
Just saw this update on the East London Line on SE23.com if anyone is interested: http://londonreconnections.blogspot.com ... impse.html
Dan
Dan
For a more Sydenham centric version - i.e. with the arithmetic for travel time from here, not Canada Water 
- see this on the SydSoc web site. And also some more updates on other changes
http://www.sydenhamsociety.com/index.ph ... cle&id=323
- see this on the SydSoc web site. And also some more updates on other changeshttp://www.sydenhamsociety.com/index.ph ... cle&id=323
The central section (North of New Cross Gate) is likely to be open before May (probably in April). Our section will not see ELL trains until 23rd May when the Southern timetable is adjusted to allow spaces for the additional trains.
Just 121 days to go! http://timeanddate.com/s/1jcu
Just 121 days to go! http://timeanddate.com/s/1jcu
bensonby - it might be a 15% increase, and for most train journeys this would be obscene, however it's only a 10 minute journey now, and will only be 11.5 mins after the change - trains often make up or lose a couple of mins between 4 or 5 stops - why is this such a problem to you?
my answer, which is just a guess, would be that the London Overground/tube trains have a slower max speed between stations, than National Rail trains.
my answer, which is just a guess, would be that the London Overground/tube trains have a slower max speed between stations, than National Rail trains.
I'd like to know the last time a journey from Sydders to New Cross Gate took ten minutes...or just ran to time.
Assuming the service is to time you get the usual pantomime at Honor Oak Park/Brockley of those people stopping the doors closing by squeezing too many on etc. 5 times on Monday the driver had to ask those people not to block the doors!
As for the clearly unacceptable 90 second increase it might be a number of things. Capacity on the line (the slow line is now coping with 12tph rather than 6tph) or it could a 'pinch-point' at NCG as the ELL changes onto the new line to go up over the new bridge or that it is actually a more realistic assessment of journey-times.
Assuming the service is to time you get the usual pantomime at Honor Oak Park/Brockley of those people stopping the doors closing by squeezing too many on etc. 5 times on Monday the driver had to ask those people not to block the doors!
As for the clearly unacceptable 90 second increase it might be a number of things. Capacity on the line (the slow line is now coping with 12tph rather than 6tph) or it could a 'pinch-point' at NCG as the ELL changes onto the new line to go up over the new bridge or that it is actually a more realistic assessment of journey-times.
It just seems to be quite a common tactic for train companies to make their lateness figures look better by "padding" the timetable. Yes, an extra 90 seconds isn't a great deal in the grand scheme of things - but is that 15% increase in journey time going to be multiplied across the entire line? Which, iin my opinion, would represent a significant increase in journey times from people travelling to London from, say, Croydon.JRobinson wrote:bensonby - it might be a 15% increase, and for most train journeys this would be obscene, however it's only a 10 minute journey now, and will only be 11.5 mins after the change - trains often make up or lose a couple of mins between 4 or 5 stops - why is this such a problem to you?
my answer, which is just a guess, would be that the London Overground/tube trains have a slower max speed between stations, than National Rail trains.
and also in the 70s...
BR were running about 13,000 to 14,000 timetabled trains per day. At BR's peak it was up to 16,000 per day.
Now it is up to 24,000 timetabled train moves per day.
So, yes it does take longer to traverse these sections, and that is because space has to be built into the timetable to allow for trains to cross paths - where there would have been less potential for conflict before.
<edited to correct 26,000 to 24,000>
Now it is up to 24,000 timetabled train moves per day.
So, yes it does take longer to traverse these sections, and that is because space has to be built into the timetable to allow for trains to cross paths - where there would have been less potential for conflict before.
<edited to correct 26,000 to 24,000>
-
LivesNearby
- Posts: 47
- Joined: 21 Feb 2008 11:44
- Location: Forest Hill
The real answer is going to be very boring and technical, so here goes.
The station to station times are calculated by taking the technical average performance of the train (i.e. the time it takes to start, run up to line speed, obey all track line speeds and brake to stop at the next station with the maximum number of people on the train). To that time needs to be added the dwell time, which is the time taken for passengers to board and alight.
Each different type of train has different speed/acceleration/braking/dwell time characteristics.
The person constructing the train timetable takes all the above times for each section of line. He then needs to ensure that each train complies with the Rules of the Plan (which are available on the Network Rail website). Effectively, there is the line's headway (the number of minutes between consecutive trains, which is determine by the line's signalling (and the performance of each train)).
Whilst this does not apply to Sydenham the timetable has to comply with the Rules of the Plan's junction conflict rules to ensure that a train is not delayed by another train crossing in its path. There is normally a 3 minute allowance for that, but that varies with each location.
The slam-door trains tended to be quicker for stopping trains because of the number of doors per coach and because there was no interlock between the door lock and the power controller. Also since passengers closed the doors themselves the guard knew that the train was ready to depart when all the doors were shut. Obviously the guard (or in this case the driver) has to wait to ensure that there are no further passengers to alight.
The 'padding' that you referred to is normally a couple of minutes only approaching the last station for that train. It is there so that a train can be late arriving according to the Working Timetable but on time according to the Public Timetable.
On a congested railway the timetabler might also have to put in padding at the approach to junctions or stations because the platform is occupied or there is a conflicting movement at a junction. However, in a congested railway there is a limit to the amount of padding you can use otherwise you delay the following trains meaning that eventually you have to reduce the service.
So ultimately DaveT is correct. If you run more trains and you do not increase the track capacity then you end up running slower trains.
The station to station times are calculated by taking the technical average performance of the train (i.e. the time it takes to start, run up to line speed, obey all track line speeds and brake to stop at the next station with the maximum number of people on the train). To that time needs to be added the dwell time, which is the time taken for passengers to board and alight.
Each different type of train has different speed/acceleration/braking/dwell time characteristics.
The person constructing the train timetable takes all the above times for each section of line. He then needs to ensure that each train complies with the Rules of the Plan (which are available on the Network Rail website). Effectively, there is the line's headway (the number of minutes between consecutive trains, which is determine by the line's signalling (and the performance of each train)).
Whilst this does not apply to Sydenham the timetable has to comply with the Rules of the Plan's junction conflict rules to ensure that a train is not delayed by another train crossing in its path. There is normally a 3 minute allowance for that, but that varies with each location.
The slam-door trains tended to be quicker for stopping trains because of the number of doors per coach and because there was no interlock between the door lock and the power controller. Also since passengers closed the doors themselves the guard knew that the train was ready to depart when all the doors were shut. Obviously the guard (or in this case the driver) has to wait to ensure that there are no further passengers to alight.
The 'padding' that you referred to is normally a couple of minutes only approaching the last station for that train. It is there so that a train can be late arriving according to the Working Timetable but on time according to the Public Timetable.
On a congested railway the timetabler might also have to put in padding at the approach to junctions or stations because the platform is occupied or there is a conflicting movement at a junction. However, in a congested railway there is a limit to the amount of padding you can use otherwise you delay the following trains meaning that eventually you have to reduce the service.
So ultimately DaveT is correct. If you run more trains and you do not increase the track capacity then you end up running slower trains.