A reduction of 2 trains out of 8 is 25% reduction in trains (33% reduction off peak).
Although approximately 33% of passengers currently use the Jubilee Line, this does not mean they will all stop going to London Bridge because of ELL. Some certainly will, but I would guess that they will split according to which train comes first. Assuming equally spaced trains this would mean that 43% of the 33% (14% of current numbers) will continue to use London Bridge services and the reduction on LB services would be 19% of existing passenger numbers. This is less than the reduction in trains and would therefore create overcrowding unless more carriages are added to LB service in 2010. All this assumes that there will not be an increase in passenger numbers, but this is not the expected trend especially considering TfLs estimate of 45% suppressed demand on our line (people wanting to use the trains but not able to due to existing overcrowding).
I am aware that these numbers are not easy to follow, but I have spent some time working with them and I am convinced that are issues that need to be addressed.
Underground Overground (wombling free etc)
-
Jo Christie-Smith
- Posts: 5
- Joined: 3 Jan 2007 11:49
- Location: Crystal Palace Park Road
I agree with Nasroc - why can't the East London Line lead to an improvement in services, rather than having to be a 'trade off'?
South East London has been the poor relation in terms of transport for years and the line to London Bridge is the very reason why many of us moved here! The ELL line will make it easier for some city workers and those going to Canary Wharf but what about those of us who still need to get to London Bridge?
PLUS, amazed to hear this morning on the radio about an increase in rolling stock and the lengthening of peak time trains from 8 to 10 or 12 carriages - at exactly the same time when we are being told we need to make do with short 4 carriage trains all day on the ELL!! And they're built for maximum passengers standing!
Perhaps it was just my naivety in believing that this was finally our turn for some transport investment but it does seem to me that we are getting a cheap, watered down version of what one might assume from the much trumpeted headline that 'the tube is coming to Sydenham'!
South East London has been the poor relation in terms of transport for years and the line to London Bridge is the very reason why many of us moved here! The ELL line will make it easier for some city workers and those going to Canary Wharf but what about those of us who still need to get to London Bridge?
PLUS, amazed to hear this morning on the radio about an increase in rolling stock and the lengthening of peak time trains from 8 to 10 or 12 carriages - at exactly the same time when we are being told we need to make do with short 4 carriage trains all day on the ELL!! And they're built for maximum passengers standing!
Perhaps it was just my naivety in believing that this was finally our turn for some transport investment but it does seem to me that we are getting a cheap, watered down version of what one might assume from the much trumpeted headline that 'the tube is coming to Sydenham'!
-
castiron73
- Posts: 132
- Joined: 24 Oct 2006 10:05
- Location: Sydenham Thorpes
Overcrowding isn't a problem on the way in to London Bridge at the moment, unless there are cancellations. (Although those in Brockley or HOP often have to squeeze on).
But the return from London Brdge in the evening rush hour is always horrendous, because obviously every commuter is getting on at the same place at the same sort of time. I worry that this crush will be even worse with a reduced number of services.
Also, Thameslink seems to have been resurrected, with plans to build a new viaduct through Borough Market to Charing Cross, increasing the number of through lines at LB from six to nine and improving direct services to Charing Cross, Waterloo East, the City, Kings Cross and beyond. Is this not supposed to have an impact on the routes people will take? Funding is an issue, but I keep reading that LB is expected to be remodelled by 2009.
But the return from London Brdge in the evening rush hour is always horrendous, because obviously every commuter is getting on at the same place at the same sort of time. I worry that this crush will be even worse with a reduced number of services.
Also, Thameslink seems to have been resurrected, with plans to build a new viaduct through Borough Market to Charing Cross, increasing the number of through lines at LB from six to nine and improving direct services to Charing Cross, Waterloo East, the City, Kings Cross and beyond. Is this not supposed to have an impact on the routes people will take? Funding is an issue, but I keep reading that LB is expected to be remodelled by 2009.
michael wrote:A reduction of 2 trains out of 8 is 25% reduction in trains (33% reduction off peak).
I said 20% didn't I?!I thought the figure nasaroc posted earlier were for TfLs model of what % of people would use ELL, not for the % that use the Jubilee line at present?
Although I take your point that for a certain % of people it'll be swings and roundabouts as to which is the best route so they'll take the first available NR/ELL train and use it as a turn-up-and-travel service. If TfL's figures are genuine switching figures they should take that into consideration.
There ar lots of other factors to consider, such as crowding (if the NR trains are busier this will push people onto ELL and vice-versa so to a certain degree it should be self-regulating in so far as people have choice), and the best place to interchange onto the Jubilee if that's what people are doing (travelling Westbound it's likely to be quieter getting on an CW than LB), whether people have rail season tickets or travelcards, comfort on the respective trains, relative reliability etc.
Anyway I'm hoping TfL have put substantially more effort into their modelling than I have and hopefully they'll be able to provide some clearer answers.
I'd much prefer a 'cake and eat it' scenario where we could keep the existing level of NR service and get the ELL service.
Assuming that there is a finite capcity on the line and than 16 trains an hour aren't possible, then you've also got to consider people further down the line - 8 ELL trains an hour sounds a lot, but when the line splits at Crystal Palace then 4 trains an hour suddenly doesn't sound like much at all.
My suspicions are, given the capacity issues at LB, that NR would quite like to take the opportunity to offload some of their customers onto the ELL...
Alas I can't make it tonight but would be very interested to hear the details tomorrow.
Of course, another issue to consider is that if the maths are wrong and the LB trains become more crowded, given that Southern will have scrapped services in order to make way for ELL, do you think there is ever a possibility for those scrapped services to come back? I think not - it is easy to take away but more difficult to reinstate, especially where more than one commissioning body is concerned.
Peter Field from TfL last night agreed there was no justification for Network Rail to reduce our off-peak services. There are not capacity issues and he would not be saying this if he did not believe demand was there. He was very clear that TfL does not support a reduction in off-peak services to London Bridge.Weeble wrote: If TfL's figures are genuine switching figures they should take that into consideration.
....
Anyway I'm hoping TfL have put substantially more effort into their modelling than I have and hopefully they'll be able to provide some clearer answers.
....
Assuming that there is a finite capacity on the line and than 16 trains an hour aren't possible,...
TfL modeling is currently not good enough, or if it is, it does not answer all the questions. They are still trying to work out how so many people can change trains an Canada Water and at present have no plans to increase from the single escalator connecting each platform in each direction. This is just one example of why it is important for us, as rail users, to raise these issues rather than relying on the predictions of TfL or Mystic Meg.
Finally, 20 trains per hour could run on the existing line. Congestion is an issue at LB and between Norwood and Croydon. But why should we lose part of our existing service to central London when it is such a vital connection for us? No point telling us to work in Canary Wharf or Croydon, the majority of jobs in Greater London will remain in the centre of London. We are not asking for more trains to LB, as raymondus points out that is very difficult to achieve, but don't take away the services we have already got!
Last edited by michael on 16 Mar 2007 08:40, edited 1 time in total.
Raymondus,
20 trains per hour is a figure Peter and others have provided on previous occasions. This is not a concession, just a statement of fact regarding signaling capabilities on our stretch of line. Nobody expects that we will have 20 trains per hour given the other demands on the tracks around Norwood and London Bridge, but nobody is arguing that our line could not cope with 16 trains per hours, the only question is what do do with them at either end.
Adding more trains to the ELL would be far easier in the future, assuming demand is there. There are plans in phase 2 to add more trains in the central section by building a new line from Surrey Quays to Clapham via Surrey Canal Road and Peckham. Personally I would like to see them use the loop line via Crystal Palace rather than building a new line, it is cost effective and would give us back the loop line. Either way this will bring 16 trains per hour to the central section of the ELL (8 from Sydenham, 4 from New Cross, and 4 from Clapham). However, I can see the arguments in favour of linking Peckham to the East London Line.
But I am getting distracted, for the moment the key to a good service is to keep our existing services to London Bridge (and Victoria if possible).
20 trains per hour is a figure Peter and others have provided on previous occasions. This is not a concession, just a statement of fact regarding signaling capabilities on our stretch of line. Nobody expects that we will have 20 trains per hour given the other demands on the tracks around Norwood and London Bridge, but nobody is arguing that our line could not cope with 16 trains per hours, the only question is what do do with them at either end.
Adding more trains to the ELL would be far easier in the future, assuming demand is there. There are plans in phase 2 to add more trains in the central section by building a new line from Surrey Quays to Clapham via Surrey Canal Road and Peckham. Personally I would like to see them use the loop line via Crystal Palace rather than building a new line, it is cost effective and would give us back the loop line. Either way this will bring 16 trains per hour to the central section of the ELL (8 from Sydenham, 4 from New Cross, and 4 from Clapham). However, I can see the arguments in favour of linking Peckham to the East London Line.
But I am getting distracted, for the moment the key to a good service is to keep our existing services to London Bridge (and Victoria if possible).
The contract to build the ELLX was awarded in May 2005 so when it opens in June 2010 it will have taken 5 years to build a couple of new stations and upgrade a few miles of track. By comparison have a look at what the French have achieved in 5 years – they have built 300 miles of new high speed line between Paris and Strasbourg. And they have also built a record breaking train to run on it, so that they can ferry people about at an average speed of 200 mph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wtgv04.xml
Any chance of getting SNCF to run our railways?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wtgv04.xml
Any chance of getting SNCF to run our railways?
It was more of a comparison of what you can get done in 5 years. You could compare it to our high speed link to the channel tunnel. Both start in crowded capital cities and go across country, but that line is several times longer and in 5 years they’ve built something that is the envy of the world. Time taken to build our link from London to the tunnel is measured in decades not years and will deliver nothing that the French haven’t had for a long time.