Friday Reads – 6 April 2018

12 comments

1. Thanks. The “London’s ‘S-Bahn’ network” is a bit odd – the Old Street trains via Essex Road are physically larger than those on the Gospel Oak to Barking route, but missing from the map…

2. @Briantist

   Yes, it seems a bit inconsistent to include, in addition to all TfL-controlled NR services, just part of just one franchised operation (TSGN). But where do you stop?

   It just shows what an unhappy compromise the Thameslink network is , with trains optimised for the core operation running all the way to the Sussex coast and the Fens, with predictable complaints from the unhappy passengers having to use them for those distances.

   Had it concentrated on shorter distances, like Crossrail did, such compromises wouldn’t have been necessary. Water under the bridge now, but if a link had been built at West Hampstead instead of the Canal Tunnels, Met services could have been diverted through the Thameslink core (still via Kings Cross and Farringdon, be it noted) releasing capacity for more Circle/H&C trains.. Likewise, south of the river, a plethora of inner suburban destinations were possible instead of Brighton.

3. @ Briantist – the author himself accepted it’s a compromise. He did actually set out to create a map in that style covering all suburban services in Gtr London but was beaten by the sheer complexity. I do like the basic design – it’s clever and shows the N-S / E-W nature of Thameslink / Crossrail very well.

4. WW
   He did actually set out to create a map in that style covering all suburban services in Gtr London but was beaten by the sheer complexity
   Well, how abourt simply taking the map that used to be called: “london Connections” & deleting the “Tube” lines?
   This one, in fact
   That would be a very good approximation to an London S-Bahn map, surely?

   In fact, I wonder if any of our regulars who has acces to easy Mapping/CAD tools could run us one up?

5. Greg: Err, not really. There are two aspects to any rail map. One is the question of which lines and stations are included on it – in that respect, of course, your suggestion is spot on.

   But the other one is the more “artistic” side of how it is laid out. How much distortion of the geographical reality is appropriate to make a map that is good to look at and easy to use. This is of course much more subjective – about the only common ground among observers is that Harry Beck did a wonderful job, and everyone ever since has been struggling to get up to his level. (But nowadays we generally aim to get a lot more stuff on).

   It is the artistic/aesthetic side which the cited article is addressing. The good impression which this particular mapmaker has made relates mainly to that aspect. But he more or less admits in his own comments, that such a good-looking map would be a really big ask if everything were to be included.

6. @WW and others – the problem with London is size. Other conurbations with S bahns (Wien, Berlin, Zuerich, Copenhagen, Bern, Muenchen*) are a fraction of the size of London and, I suspect, have very much smaller commuter hinterlands. Only Paris is comparable, and noticeably, they use a different descriptor for their RER. Size matters because it influences functionality. A simplistic difference between inners and outers doesn’t match the reality in London, where – especially in the last two or three decades – we have seen intra-conurbation movements clearly distinguishable from middle-distance commutes (eg Horsham/S Albans/Woking and distinct again from long -distance commutes (eg Brighton/Cambridge/Peterborough etc). The nice S-Bahn/tram distinction doesn’t work; the hierarchy is triplicated, not doubled.

   TLK’s bad luck is that it serves all three markets, despite their having very different requirements in terms of seating/loos/frequency/pricing etc. No excuse, I know, it was never intended like that. I have the original NSE version of that map – we were very clear that we were providing an RER, not an S Bahn; it was an overlay to the then existing pattern of inners/outers; the aim was to put all (or nearly all the major Roseland settlements within one interchange of each other. Of course, commuting habits have changed and the “Christmas tree” effect has seriously undermined the clarity of the original TLK+CR concept – in my book, that would have led to a rethink from first principles..

   BTW, anent the map itself, I really don’t believe that the Overground circle (or indeed any ofthe Overground) fulfils a similar function to the longer distance reach of the TLK/CR network – the Overground is very close to being a typical S Bahn (and has many similarities with eg the Wien S Bahn.

   * I exclude the Rhein-Ruhr S Bahn from all this. That conurbation is polycentric and quite different to most comparators.

7. “the Rhein-Ruhr …………… conurbation is polycentric and quite different to most comparators.”

   Maybe a good model for what is needed in the North of England?

8. @Timbeau

   Perhaps, but the Ruhr region is one of the most densely populated regions of germany.

   The same cannot be said of the North of England (for now at least)

9. @timbeau – I don’t know so much about taking the “North” as a whole, but SBahns don’t have to have that sort of scale of coverage (think Bern or Basel). The “North” contains a number of smaller networks that could readily form the basis for an SBahn. For example, the rail network in Teesside has a number of urban branches, all of which – conveniently – have a 20-25/50-55 minute run time from a convenient hub at, say, Middlesbrough. Manchester and Merseyside are, of course, almost there; the heavy woollen district is another obvious candidate, with a choice of hubs (or as the Swiss would say, nodes). Interconurbation movements (eg Newcastle-Leeds or Carlisle-Manchester) is much more like the RX services operated in Germany and Switzerland, and although these are seriously underdeveloped in my view, they have a lot more characteristics in common, commercially, operationally and in terms of customer handling, with IC than they do with S Bahn services, One of the principal (and principle) difficulties, reflecting their OPS origins, is to disentangle them from the local stopping services on the same routes.

10. Indeed, the problem with trying to improve services on a polycentric area like that is that improving links between the biggest hubs would be at the expense of smaller ones. More non-stop services from Manchester to Leeds could damage the local economies of Huddersfield, Bradford, Halifax etc. And if you instead run limited stop, what then happens to Dewsbury, Batley todmorden etc. And so on down the list.

11. Good though it might be to Fix the North, we should perhaps leave the detailed work to Northern Reconnections and return to our own Moutons.

12. Timbeau …
    well re-quadrupling a lot of the ex-LNW Manchetser – Leeds route would be a start & the extra tracks through Piccadilly-Oxford Rd ( just “paused”/cancelled by you-know-whom!) And re-opening Woodhead and … oh dear, um, err ….

    Malcom
    Your putative link to “Northern Reconnections” is a blank – Is this deliberate? [Yes.] Are you 6 days late? [Yes.] “I thonk we should be told” (etc)

    Continued, P. 94.

    [Greg: when going against a moderatorial recommendation (even a mild one such as this), a claim that you did not notice the recommendation is easier to sustain if you avoid making explicit reference to it in the same comment. Malcolm]

Comments are closed.