London Network

[LMS6202]

Now that TfL have control af the former silverlink lines why do they not consolidate them into the subsurface lines if the tube system? Same signals, same method of electrification, same rolling stock etc. Also juice up the Gospel Oak/Barking line for DC too. That way an alternative route would be available between Richmond and Barking supplementing the District line.

 

[Daniel]

It's an unnecessary cost. Why change the signals and electrification when the current system works fine.

 

[GB]

Now that TfL have control af the former silverlink lines why do they not consolidate them into the subsurface lines if the tube system? Same signals, same method of electrification, same rolling stock etc. Also juice up the Gospel Oak/Barking line for DC too. That way an alternative route would be available between Richmond and Barking supplementing the District line.

TfL may well operate the overground train services but they do not own or operate the infustructure. Im sure the various FOCs would be pretty peeved to see the lines transfered to LU style and im sure Network Rail would have something to say about that.

And as already said, the huge cost involved would bring little (or no) advantage.

 

[DavyCrocket]

Something like this was the original plan for PPP. The SSR lines were originally to be left out and handed over to Railtrack. This of course never took place and PPP is dead.

TfL don't actually run the Overground service (unlike LUL), they contract the work to DB Regio/MTR (operating as LOROL). TfL specify the service, staffing levels and fares and the revenue risk is shared.
This is the sort of model that should be followed elsewhere in the UK IMHO.....

Also the current LUL traction current arrangements (well at least for SSR) are planned to change to 750v at some point in the future, That's what S stock prefer.

 

[vitesse]

Davy is bang on the money there, it has infact gone the other way, the east london line has been renewed and resignalled to network rail standards rather than LU standards albeit there is a derogation (spelling) on some of the Railway Group Standards rules. Mainly to do with assistance protection and emergency protection due to the tunnel sections of the route and the introduction of a new signal type.

 

[LMS6202]

These are interest comments. Many thanks.

 

[bengley]

They should make the entire Metropolitan Line into London Overground. (Terminate at Baker Street) It's such a long distance line that it would be more suited to the faster trains.

 

[Ivo]

They should make the entire Metropolitan Line into London Overground. (Terminate at Baker Street) It's such a long distance line that it would be more suited to the faster trains.

But surely if you were to do this it would just make sense to hand the Met over to Chiltern, and divert Aylesbury trains to Baker Street (freeing up Marylebone platforms for Evergreen 3 in the process)?

 

[generalvegitable]

But surely if you were to do this it would just make sense to hand the Met over to Chiltern, and divert Aylesbury trains to Baker Street (freeing up Marylebone platforms for Evergreen 3 in the process)?

in theory that would be a rather good idea, but in practice you would get a fume build up in the tunnels between baker street and finchley road, unless you juiced up the Aylesbury line and used electric stock

 

[Ivo]

Y'know, I'm bored. I'm going to make a timetable for this. Not sure how Aylesbury commuters would take to having 'S'-stock trains, but hey. That's their problem.

...Actually, I'll be nice. They can have 'A'-stock instead. At least they get a lot of seats that way :roll:

Yes, it would be electrified using the LUL method.

 

[generalvegitable]

I think that they should at least have faster trains, with air con and maybe an FC compartment

 

[Ivo]

Some ideas that I am incorporating:

- Adding the prefix "London" to terminal platforms at Baker Street, thus renaming the station "London Baker Street"
- Extending the route to Milton Keynes Central, providing services between MK, Aylesbury, Amersham, Harrow and London
- Utilising the Croxley Rail-Link (serving Watford Stadium, not Watford West) and also the Abbey Line, doubling the entire stretch except for the turn into St Albans Abbey which would be closed and replaced with a new line to St Albans (City), with a new station called St Albans South replacing Abbey
- Closing the Met platforms at Finchley Road, preferring the proposed expansion of West Hampstead, and also reinstating the Neasden platforms

...Unrealistic, I know. But hey. It wouldn't actually cost that much - loose change compared to Crossrail. However, I will let Chiltern continue to run the Bubble to Princes Risborough. A service like the one I'm planning would probably overlook it and watch it fall into disrepair...

 

[Drsatan]

I think that they should at least have faster trains, with air con and maybe an FC compartment

The 165s/166s used on Aylesbury services are already air conditioned, although they don't contain a first class section.

I don't think Aylesbury commuters would take too kindly to using S-stock trains (which don't have toilets and in my opinion too few seats for what is already a long journey from Aldgate to Amersham).

Having said that, until the introduction of the A-stock in the early 1960s, LUL trains used to continue to Aylesbury. At Rickmansworth the LUL electric locomotive would be replaced by a steam locomotive for the journey to Aylesbury.

 

[Ivo]

Okay, it's finished. I've only done a basic Monday to Saturday timetable, totalling fourteen trains per hour passing through Harrow-on-the-Hill each way every hour. Uxbridge and Watford stoppers are reduced to 4tph, while the Croxley Rail Link sees 6tph (2tph run Chesham to St Albans and do not stop at Ascot Road or Watford Stadium). Aylesbury has 4tph, two of which run fast to London (calling only at Amersham, Rickmansworth and Harrow-on-the-Hill); these same two run to/from Milton Keynes Central via Quainton.

 

[bengley]

You reckon it would take half an hour to get from Aylesbury to Milton Keynes?

I dunno about that.

 

[jopsuk]

...Unrealistic, I know.

Not as unrealistic as my plan to guage-alter the subsruface lines throughout to allow installation of OHL and the use of mainline (378s say) stock, along with a full-ring Zone 9. TfL then take control of all fully-in zone services (with some alterations to existing services, with some stopping short of where they do now but with more onward connections that run fast to the TfL termini) and aim to single-stock all such metro routes.
Essentially, all commuter services heading outside of Zone 9 would run fast or semi-fast to the edge of the Zones (if they currently stop within them at all).

As well as the subsurface, wire up the South London metro lines, the ELL, the Watford DC, GOBLIN and the bits of the Chiltern and Great Western (plus their branches) within the zones*

Now that's unrealistic.

*would an Edinburgh-style overhead "bar" work for the Moorgate Northern City line and the ELL through the tunnel?

 

[LMS6202]

All this swapping Met for Chiltern does not address the fact that people from Amersham and points north need a connection to the City to work with through trains to Aldagte. In addition what happens to the other route from Aylesbury. Does that get juiced up as 4 rail too?

 

[Ivo]

The only real problem that I can see is that the Circle would be reduced to every four minutes. Well, the simple solution would be to introduce a new service from Hammersmith to Aldgate, keeping the intervals between trains down (and decreasing that at Hamm H&C further). The services to Baker Street run well enough at present, though they are probably too frequent in my view (one of the causes for running Uxbridge and Watford trains every fifteen minutes). Alternatively, you could run a different new line from West Hampstead or the like to Aldgate instead...

As for the Bubble, it can stay as a Bubble. It provides Chiltern with a tourist attraction. If it was to be electrified, I would still suggest that Chiltern keep it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not as unrealistic as my plan to guage-alter the subsruface lines throughout to allow installation of OHL and the use of mainline (378s say) stock, along with a full-ring Zone 9. TfL then take control of all fully-in zone services (with some alterations to existing services, with some stopping short of where they do now but with more onward connections that run fast to the TfL termini) and aim to single-stock all such metro routes.
Essentially, all commuter services heading outside of Zone 9 would run fast or semi-fast to the edge of the Zones (if they currently stop within them at all).

Um... hold on a sec, a full-ring Zone 9?! Let's have a looksie... [looks at L&SE Map]

East Tilbury? Laindon? Billericay? Ingatestone? Broxbourne? Bayford? Hatfield? St Albans? St Albans Abbey? Watford Junction? Chesham? Amersham? Beaconsfield? Slough? Wraysbury? Egham? Shepperton? Walton-on-Thames? Cobham & Stoke d'Abernon? Leatherhead? Merstham? Oxted? Sevenoaks? Otford? Longfield? Swanscombe?

[I made that up obviously. Mostly.]

 

[jon0844]

Hasn't there been talk of adjusting the boundary of Z6, such that Waltham Cross and Potters Bar might become part of (the edge of) Z6?

It makes sense for Potters Bar - you can use your Z6 Travelcard on the buses there (possibly Waltham Cross too?).

 

[Aictos]

This is something I've badgered FCC about with respect to Potters Bar and the answer has always been a resoundly no which is a pity as I would like to have seen Zone 9 with Welwyn Garden City, Hertford North and St Albans as the furthest you could go.

Pity though as it would be attractive to the majority of travellers as the bulk of the Inner Suburbans terminate at Hertford and Welwyn.

Still, if the majority of passengers show the demand for it then it might happen, over to you JM0844,

 

[jopsuk]

Um... hold on a sec, a full-ring Zone 9?! Let's have a looksie... [looks at L&SE Map]

East Tilbury? Laindon? Billericay? Ingatestone? Broxbourne? Bayford? Hatfield? St Albans? St Albans Abbey? Watford Junction? Chesham? Amersham? Beaconsfield? Slough? Wraysbury? Egham? Shepperton? Walton-on-Thames? Cobham & Stoke d'Abernon? Leatherhead? Merstham? Oxted? Sevenoaks? Otford? Longfield? Swanscombe?

[I made that up obviously. Mostly.]

Pretty much what I was thinking, yes.

 

[Daniel]

It makes sense for Potters Bar - you can use your Z6 Travelcard on the buses there (possibly Waltham Cross too?).

Yeah Waltham Cross bus station is classed as within the zones.

 

[jon0844]

Still, if the majority of passengers show the demand for it then it might happen, over to you JM0844,

I think the Z6-9 idea might suddenly 'work' if London Overground takes over the inner-suburban FCC services in the future.

I wonder if on the WA route, Hertford East could also become part of a London Overground service?

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yeah Waltham Cross bus station is classed as within the zones.

Any idea why this is? Isn't it somewhat confusing to have different boundaries for buses and trains/tubes?

 

[Daniel]

Any idea why this is? Isn't it somewhat confusing to have different boundaries for buses and trains/tubes?

Yes I think alot of people do find that confusing... I know the station is classed as not in the zones as it is outside of the M25. But then so is the bus station - it may have just been that it is a good location for a bus terminus - plus thats where the town is, anyway.

As to having different boundaries, I still find it odd that a travelcard for one zone can be used on buses in any zone... I never quite understood that. That said it might not even be the case any more, I'm not sure!

 

[jon0844]

At Potters Bar, the gates (at least used to) take your ticket when you return from a trip to London - even though you can use the Travelcard on the buses outside!

 

[philjo]

Another anomaly - Elstree & Borehamwood on the TL route is within zone 6. Potters Bar on the GN route is outside the zones. Elstree & Borehamwood station is the same distance from St Pancras Low Level as Potters Bar is from Kings Cross.

I did ask FCC a couple of years ago about making Potters Bar part of zone 6 once & they said that it was a matter for TfL - so I then contacted TfL. TfL told me they had no plans to change this & any proposed change would need to come as a request from either the Mayor or FCC!
So perhaps we need to all send a request to Boris!

 

[jopsuk]

The problems with my plan do include what to do about influence over TfL in the areas of the zones that would be outside of Greater London- TfL being under the control of the Mayor of London. I take it that there are delicate local arrangements with the councils in place where this is already the case? Affects the buses more.

 

[jon0844]

To simplify things (and Potters Bar and Waltham Cross are both right next to the M25 if you want to use that as a virtual boundary) then Boris/TfL should simply make these stations part of the zonal system.

In due course, extending out to make Z7-9 orbital, might also be a good move. That way Hertford North/WGC and Hertford East (for the north) could become part of London Overground, take Oyster - or its replacement - and make everyone happy. Well, besides any issues on fare changes!

I'm obviously speaking only of my part of town, but presumably there are similar examples around the whole of the capital.

 

[Ivo]

I would have said to just dump Zones G and W and incorporate them into the main Zonal area...

 

[Daniel]

I would have said to just dump Zones G and W and incorporate them into the main Zonal area...

G I won't talk about as I don't know much about it, but zone W is there specifically as it becomes the point at which revenue on that route is shared with the TOC's as tickets can be used on both the Overground and London Midland fast services.