daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old November 6th, 2014, 07:25 PM   #1481
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stravinsky View Post
London's network has been long biased towards buses.
Fortunately, things are set to improve (starting with Crossrail 1 & 2).
How do Crossrails help with reducing bus dependency? They function in entirely different ways.

And what is wrong with bus dependency? buses are an excellent intermediate mode between pedal/self power and heavy rail - flexible, high capacity, frequent, able to stop often, little infrastructure outlay. Other than pollution, which is being dealt with (though I note Paris is a much worse city as a whole), I cannot see what is wrong with having people use buses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stravinsky View Post
You're right, I meant to cross the central city.
A quick look at a journey planner, you can easily cross the City Centre N-S within half an hour.

Finsbury Park - Stockwell is 19 minutes.

Even an E-W journey across Central London (which is a longer journey) like Paddington - Aldgate East is 26 minutes (Baker Street - Liverpool Street about 19 - those flat junctions are time consuming).
Quote:
It's not the branding that makes the difference, it's the average distance between stations.
OK, so the Central line east of Liverpool Street, with very similar station spacing (OK, one more in the 4-5 miles between Liverpool Street and Stratford) to Crossrail, which apparently has RER spacing doesn't count if it is purely station spacing? It even reaches the edge of the urban area.

Likewise the station spacing in Central London, is the same with station-station times as the Central Line - all roughly a minute. Of course, longer trains (twice as long) and a shorter route mean 4 stops Bond St - Liverpool St inclusive, rather than 7. They might have added a Holborn stop, but costs intervened.

But it wasn't the Central Line I was thinking of. How about the 1868-built Thameslink route as an example? 5 stations in zone 1, three of which are crammed next to each other to distribute passengers in the centre well, the outside two a good 4 minutes away from that trio of stations.

And Crossrail 2's biggest failing is going to be not enough stations in the core. Unlike second-rate cities, London's core is too big and too popular to have a line with just one station inside the Inner Ring Road without it being a death trap.
Quote:
If Crossrail wasn't needed, they wouldn't be building it.
Indeed, but it's not about speed for crossing the centre - it's about capacity - adding 10% in zone 1. Speed is a bonus, but comes almost entirely from removing the need to change if on one of the outer London suburban railways and from providing a shorter, more direct link between places (Paddington/Farringdon to Oxford Street, for example)

The RER network was all about serving the outer sections of the urban area and relieving mainline termini by diverting suburban/metro services onto cross-city tunnels. This is something the tube was doing decades before. Paris had to build new tunnels as their station spacing was too small on the Metro, but London didn't as its station spacing, even in the centre, was far enough apart (because unlike Paris, London didn't treat underground railways has hide-the trams, but as hide-the-trains). London has to build new tunnels now as there's a need for capacity, not because Outer London was neglected.

---

As for trams - the key reasons why we don't love trams that much in London:
1) On-street networks won't be able to get a high enough frequency to provide a meaningful amount of extra capacity over existing buses, while at the same time reducing road capacity for buses, cycles, etc and costing lots of money to construct.
2) Off-street, heavy rail is typically needed to meet demand - Tramlink would have been heavy rail if it was being planned today, as would the DLR.

The DLR and Tramlink are light rail for small areas within the Capital - to compare to Berlin's city-wide buses-on-rails tram network is silly.

And the Overground needs masses of work (5-car is nowhere near enough, though is a start) to deal with the huge success it is - ridership is 'low' as it is suppressed by low capacity (short platforms, freight). It's some local lines that mostly avoid the centre - the equivalent in terms of function and network size would be something like Paris' trams, and there's a similar level of ridership on those.

---

And you haven't engaged with my point that Paris' bus ridership is low (it's not that low - about half of London's in number of passengers per year) because the network is sparse, leaving Parisians walking most short journeys.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 7th, 2014, 12:31 AM   #1482
TheMoses
Registered User
 
TheMoses's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London
Posts: 241
Likes (Received): 127

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stravinsky View Post
DLR's official statistics claim around 100 million passenger per year, and the Overground is around 130. Tramlink's at 30 million.

Just compare with cities of similar size, or even smaller, such as Berlin, whose tram network is four times the DLR and carries around half a billion annually.

London's network has been long biased towards buses.

Fortunately, things are set to improve (starting with Crossrail 1 & 2).
I can find no evidence at all that Berlin trams carry 500 million passengers annually.

Wikipedia says 171 million (admittedly from 2008 and the link to the source is broken): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpo...blic_transport (scroll about two thirds of the way down for passenger numbers for U-bahn, S-bahn, tram and bus).

Or this site I found by googling, which says 166.7 million per year: http://www.businesslocationcenter.de...reight-service

I don't know how reliable these are but 500 million seems unlikely. Probably about 170 million on a 192km network vs 100 million on a 34km network (DLR) or 130 million on an 86km network (London Overground).
TheMoses no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2014, 01:31 PM   #1483
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,886
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoses View Post
I don't know how reliable these are but 500 million seems unlikely. Probably about 170 million on a 192km network vs 100 million on a 34km network (DLR) or 130 million on an 86km network (London Overground).
Berlins trams carried 174,7 million passengers in 2013 according to the BVG.
__________________
Rippachtal.de

Last edited by flierfy; November 7th, 2014 at 01:44 PM.
flierfy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2014, 06:28 PM   #1484
437.001
Sister Greed U
 
437.001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: on the road (Spain)
Posts: 32,007
Likes (Received): 15435

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
The RER network was all about serving the outer sections of the urban area and relieving mainline termini by diverting suburban/metro services onto cross-city tunnels. This is something the tube was doing decades before. Paris had to build new tunnels as their station spacing was too small on the Metro, but London didn't as its station spacing, even in the centre, was far enough apart (because unlike Paris, London didn't treat underground railways has hide-the trams, but as hide-the-trains).
The trams had been long gone from Paris when the RER started.

Although I acknowledge your point about LU stations being more spaced that those of the Paris metro... in most cases (certainly not in places like Aldgate).

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
London has to build new tunnels now as there's a need for capacity, not because Outer London was neglected.
COUGH *South London* COUGH

I can't imagine how Gare de Lyon or Gare du Nord would be like nowadays, had the RER A, B and D not been built, though.
Oh and btw, the new extension of RER E is being built to relieve Saint Lazare station.
It's not as if some Paris termini didn't desperately need more capacity...

I agree on your point about Crossrail 2 having a weak point at Tottenham Court Road, it being the only fast link to the City...
Tottenham Court Road will easily be overcrowded if that happens.
__________________
&&& abcde PMR en Cat ImpTgn Cat2017
Everybody got a job to lose (A.E, Vision Thing, WEA, 1990)

Last edited by 437.001; November 7th, 2014 at 06:49 PM.
437.001 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2014, 06:38 PM   #1485
Stravinsky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,188
Likes (Received): 1147

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
How do Crossrails help with reducing bus dependency? They function in entirely different ways.

And what is wrong with bus dependency? buses are an excellent intermediate mode between pedal/self power and heavy rail - flexible, high capacity, frequent, able to stop often, little infrastructure outlay. Other than pollution, which is being dealt with (though I note Paris is a much worse city as a whole), I cannot see what is wrong with having people use buses.A quick look at a journey planner, you can easily cross the City Centre N-S within half an hour.
Bus jams happen too. Buses are slow, and LU has not been extended in the last 3 years, seriously lagging behind many European cities (not to consider Asian or South American ones).

I guess the fare policy is not conducive to increasing ridership on the Underground though.

And most Londoners carry on with overpriced monthly and yearly bus passes.

I remember it took me 2 hours at 1am, once, to get from Hampstead to Bayswater. Walking the distance would have been faster.
Stravinsky no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2014, 09:01 PM   #1486
FabriFlorence
Registered User
 
FabriFlorence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Firenze
Posts: 1,772
Likes (Received): 401

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stravinsky View Post
Bus jams happen too. Buses are slow, and LU has not been extended in the last 3 years, seriously lagging behind many European cities (not to consider Asian or South American ones).

I guess the fare policy is not conducive to increasing ridership on the Underground though.

And most Londoners carry on with overpriced monthly and yearly bus passes.

I remember it took me 2 hours at 1am, once, to get from Hampstead to Bayswater. Walking the distance would have been faster.
I completely agree. Although London has been greatly developing its public transport in the last years, nowadays the network of London is not yet as efficient as the networks of other big cities like Paris Berlin and Madrid.
FabriFlorence no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2014, 10:12 PM   #1487
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Quote:
Originally Posted by 437.001 View Post
The trams had been long gone from Paris when the RER started.
I was referring to how, functionally, the Paris Metro is underground trams rather than underground railways.
Quote:
Although I acknowledge your point about LU stations being more spaced that those of the Paris metro... in most cases (certainly not in places like Aldgate).
Aldgate? That's an odd example - the station isn't very close to either adjacent one (0.2 miles to Liverpool Street and 0.3 miles to Tower Hill). There are a few places in the core of the core where station distance is small to avoid overloading of one station, sure. Plus there's South Harrow to Northfields (though the track distance is a lot less than the street distance) out in zone 3.
Quote:
COUGH *South London* COUGH
I concede that point.
Quote:
I can't imagine how Gare de Lyon or Gare du Nord would be like nowadays, had the RER A, B and D not been built, though.
Oh and btw, the new extension of RER E is being built to relieve Saint Lazare station.
It's not as if some Paris termini didn't desperately need more capacity...
I never said otherwise - I said that London didn't need an RER network to serve Outer London as Outer London (well Outer North London) had had most suburban lines taken over by extended tube lines many years earlier. Paris didn't have that, and while it did need to relieve its termini, and some of it's metro lines (we built the Victoria and Jubilee for that), a key feature was serving Outer Paris.

South London, of course, having much better sited termini, and a choice thereof meaning that there was less of an issue with distributing passengers from the terminus and access to key areas. of course, takeovers of existing routes get uproars from those who'd use it, else some rationalisation and high frequencies would have happened already!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stravinsky View Post
Buses are slow,
Oh yes, but you bring up Paris as an example to copy, where they literally* move at walking speed instead.

*language geeks will note that I am using this word properly!
Quote:
and LU has not been extended in the last 3 years,
Indeed, and the three and half before that too. Terminal 5 station opened 27/03/08.
Quote:
seriously lagging behind many European cities (not to consider Asian or South American ones).
When you start in the lead, how can you lag behind?

A 15% increase (Crossrail, Thameslink) of the already large amount of capacity in zone 1 kicking in in 5 years, on top of capacity enhancements on the SSLs, Victoria, DLR and Jubilee with new/longer trains in recent years, plus the frequency boost on many lines - I don't London is needing to playing catch up on anything other than it's own population and economic growth on the European stage, and is doing fine on the world stage too, recently overtaking NYC to get back in the top spot in city rankings. It can continue to play with the big boys because it is well connected. In fact a constant gripe of our fellow Englishmen oop north is that London is too well connected.

It's also worth noting that there haven't been many short tube extensions of the sort that Paris, etc does: most have been big bang suddenly instead of Liverpool Street, the Central line reaches Epping 20km away sort (also Clapham to Morden, White City to West Ruislip, Finsbury Park to Cockfosters).

Looking forward, there's two approved ones (Croxley link, Battersea) that are short, but the one other one in the pipeline (Bakerloo) is a zone 1-zone 6 behemoth with 5 km of tunnelling, 4 new underground stations and then the takeover of a long length of existing railway.

Big long schemes done in one go (perhaps some bits opening early) seems to be the British way - Metrolink in Manchester has had lots of recent (last 10 years) extensions, all of which were long, save the Media City spur.

Last edited by sotonsi; November 7th, 2014 at 10:17 PM.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2014, 11:02 PM   #1488
437.001
Sister Greed U
 
437.001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: on the road (Spain)
Posts: 32,007
Likes (Received): 15435

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
I never said otherwise - I said that London didn't need an RER network to serve Outer London as Outer London (well Outer North London) had had most suburban lines taken over by extended tube lines many years earlier. Paris didn't have that, and while it did need to relieve its termini, and some of it's metro lines (we built the Victoria and Jubilee for that), a key feature was serving Outer Paris.
...as is the case of Crossrail, which will serve, Berkshire (including Reading), the south of Buckinghamshire, and Essex (and maybe soon Kent and Hertfordshire, if the Gravesend and Tring extensions went ahead). That's not very different from the Paris RER at all, and that would not replace the LU in that case, as the core of the benefitted passengers will relieve the LU, yes, but the main benefit for those passengers will not be that, but the fact of not needing to change to the Tube anymore to reach Central London.

Although the way each network (Paris, London) started in the beginning was different, they're getting more and more similar as the years go by.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
When you start in the lead, how can you lag behind?
By not investing enough for many years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
Big long schemes done in one go (perhaps some bits opening early) seems to be the British way
Maybe it's just that...
__________________
&&& abcde PMR en Cat ImpTgn Cat2017
Everybody got a job to lose (A.E, Vision Thing, WEA, 1990)

Stravinsky liked this post

Last edited by 437.001; November 7th, 2014 at 11:10 PM.
437.001 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2014, 11:58 PM   #1489
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Quote:
Originally Posted by 437.001 View Post
...as is the case of Crossrail, which will serve, Berkshire (including Reading), the south of Buckinghamshire, and Essex (and maybe soon Kent and Hertfordshire, if the Gravesend and Tring extensions went ahead). That's not very different from the Paris RER at all, and that would not replace the LU in that case, as the core of the benefitted passengers will relieve the LU, yes, but the main benefit for those passengers will not be that, but the fact of not needing to change to the Tube anymore to reach Central London.
Again you miss my point. Maybe I'm not being clear - it's not that Crossrail isn't RER-esque, but that London had RER-esque lines before Paris, having served Outer London in a big way with the tube (and Snow Hill tunnels) until WW1, then again in the 30s and afterwards, and as such didn't need an RER network built in the 70s, 80s or 90s.

RER was Parisian catch up, with London - not London lagging behind - and Paris still have a much more threadbare public transport network with lower rates of public transport take up.
Quote:
By not investing enough for many years.
You need to be overtaken to be behind, though. Yes, London has under-invested often, but when it does invest, it is from such a high base that the expansion keeps it at the top even at the end of a generation of neglect.

And the investment is needed, not to play catch up with other cities, but to meet rising demand caused by being ahead of competing cities on all fronts.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2014, 04:54 AM   #1490
437.001
Sister Greed U
 
437.001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: on the road (Spain)
Posts: 32,007
Likes (Received): 15435

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
Yes, London has under-invested often, but when it does invest, it is from such a high base that the expansion keeps it at the top even at the end of a generation of neglect.
Or does it? The Jubilee extension became overcrowded soon...
...and CX1 has been talked about for decades now. And CX2 (or the Chelney idea), too.
Not to talk about LU to South London, but that's for another thread...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
And the investment is needed, not to play catch up with other cities, [...]
That was understood, I was just toying with you a bit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
[...], but to meet rising demand caused by being ahead of competing cities on all fronts.
My point is, that Crossrail 1 will very likely be overcrowded from day one... maybe a couple of months, at most.
But it will, and very soon after it opens.
The repressed demand is rather big, I'm afraid, both at the GWR, and Essex/Kent ends (btw, I don't like that Abbey Wood thing one bit, better Gravesend)... and in between.

If I'm wrong, then I will wholeheartedly swallow my well-earned big OWNED, but I somehow suspect I won´t.
And if I don't, then there'd be a reason to believe that underinvestment led to what will maybe lead -saturation not being properly relieved.

Add CX2 and Thameslink to the salad, stir and... TCR, Euston/KX/Pancras, Angel and Farringdon closures assured.
Drain not draining. Jubilee not jubilating. Northern... black. Central less relieved than it should have.

Or maybe that's just me being pessimistic, dunno, but...
__________________
&&& abcde PMR en Cat ImpTgn Cat2017
Everybody got a job to lose (A.E, Vision Thing, WEA, 1990)

Last edited by 437.001; November 9th, 2014 at 05:07 AM.
437.001 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2014, 03:54 PM   #1491
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

So empty trains are a sign of a successful network?

The repressed demand in Paris is huge - 44% of journeys are done by foot, where in London it's half that. London's public transport network caters to many more journeys than Paris's as seen by the higher use of PT in London.

The JLE is full, Crossrail will be full - yes, but that isn't because London's transport network is rubbish - it's the opposite. London's transport network is good, spawning development that fills the available capacity as/just after it comes in. Plus because it is good, people use it, rather than walk or not travel.

I'd strongly argue that most of the 'repressed' demand for Crossrail is generated by the project, not repressed. As well as new development, there is going to be a lot of people who currently use other lines (Central, District, Piccadilly, LTS), but will use Crossrail when it opens (eg if they live halfway between West Ealing and Northfields, they'll head north rather than south for their train to the West End). It isn't repressed demand if the demand is being met by other solutions - it's transferred demand.

I'd be highly worried for London if it opens a massive project and it takes more than a couple of years before it itself needs some sort of upgrade/relief - we're either in deep economic do do and development isn't happening, or we're building pointless lines that are a waste of money and serve little purpose.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2014, 07:28 PM   #1492
SE9
South East Nine
 
SE9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 34,145
Likes (Received): 61545

Indeed. Crossrail will greatly relieve Southeastern, DLR and Jubilee services from SE London.

Currently, the majority of commuters heading from Kent/SE London to Canary Wharf area, the City and the West End (London's three major commercial districts) are funnelled through these nodes:

  • Kent/SE London → Southeastern or Bus → Lewisham/Greenwich/Woolwich Arsenal → DLR → Canary Wharf
  • Kent/SE London → Bus → North Greenwich → Underground → Canary Wharf/City/West End
  • Kent/SE London → Southeastern → London Bridge → Underground → Canary Wharf/City/West End

In a few years, there'll be the option of:
  • Kent/SE London → Southeastern or Bus → Abbey Wood/Woolwich → Crossrail → Canary Wharf/City/West End

That coupled with a completed Thameslink Programme will be happy days for this side of town.
__________________
-
SE9 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2014, 07:45 PM   #1493
437.001
Sister Greed U
 
437.001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: on the road (Spain)
Posts: 32,007
Likes (Received): 15435


Happy days would be Crossrail till Gravesend instead of Abbey Wood, plus CX2, plus the Bakerloo Line Extension.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
So empty trains are a sign of a successful network?
Overcrowded trains aren't exactly a sign of success, either, but rather a means of transport for livestock.

I won't deny that some parts of the network will always be strained, because London is London is London and there's no escape from that, but... do Londoners have to always travel like livestock?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
The JLE is full, Crossrail will be full - yes, but that isn't because London's transport network is rubbish - it's the opposite.
Did you ever see me write that it was rubbish? 'Fraid I didn't...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
I'd strongly argue that most of the 'repressed' demand for Crossrail is generated by the project, not repressed.
Time will tell...

Do you think that Crossrail can have any effect on the M25, btw?
__________________
&&& abcde PMR en Cat ImpTgn Cat2017
Everybody got a job to lose (A.E, Vision Thing, WEA, 1990)
437.001 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2014, 09:19 PM   #1494
SE9
South East Nine
 
SE9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 34,145
Likes (Received): 61545

Quote:
Originally Posted by 437.001 View Post
Happy days would be Crossrail till Gravesend instead of Abbey Wood, plus CX2, plus the Bakerloo Line Extension.
Crossrail and the Thameslink Programme completing around the same period is undeniably happy days for SE London/Kent commuters.

One of many examples: with Crossrail, the relief on the Lewisham branch of the DLR will be immense. Bear in mind that Lewisham-Canary Wharf-Bank is the busiest branch on the entire network, with Lewisham and Greenwich stations handling heavy commuter traffic connecting from Southeastern services bound for Canary Wharf. It'll now be more attractive and quicker for many to ditch the DLR for Crossrail, reducing stress on that DLR branch. Happy days.
__________________
-
SE9 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 10th, 2014, 04:22 PM   #1495
Stravinsky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,188
Likes (Received): 1147

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
A 15% increase (Crossrail, Thameslink) of the already large amount of capacity in zone 1 kicking in in 5 years, on top of capacity enhancements on the SSLs, Victoria, DLR and Jubilee with new/longer trains in recent years, plus the frequency boost on many lines - I don't London is needing to playing catch up on anything other than it's own population and economic growth on the European stage, and is doing fine on the world stage too, recently overtaking NYC to get back in the top spot in city rankings. It can continue to play with the big boys because it is well connected. In fact a constant gripe of our fellow Englishmen oop north is that London is too well connected.
This is indeed positive news, and I recognize it. I wrote that London lags behind, now, because it suffered from lack of public investement, in the past.

I expect its transport system to be of another kind of standard in about 10 years.

City rankings mean nothing here, I was strictly talking about transport.

I also guess this delay, compared to London's recent economic boom, is due to the complications in rolling out large public infrastructure projects.
__________________

streetscapeer liked this post
Stravinsky no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 10th, 2014, 05:18 PM   #1496
dimlys1994
Moderator
 
dimlys1994's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dniepropetrovsk
Posts: 16,348
Likes (Received): 26144

Network Rail released this Thameslink video:

__________________

SE9, GENIUS LOCI liked this post
dimlys1994 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2014, 08:08 AM   #1497
dimlys1994
Moderator
 
dimlys1994's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dniepropetrovsk
Posts: 16,348
Likes (Received): 26144

Capacity improvement works at Willesden Junction station:

dimlys1994 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2014, 04:26 PM   #1498
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1507

Quote:
Originally Posted by dimlys1994 View Post
Network Rail released this Thameslink video:

This video seems to indicate a plan to re-connect the Kings Cross lines with the City Widened via a new tunnel?

What about the old ones?

Will trains have to to cross lots of tracks at-grade for this new tunnel? It certainly seems that way from the video.
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 15th, 2014, 01:46 PM   #1499
starsailor82
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brussels
Posts: 83
Likes (Received): 15

With Crossrail coming and the planned expansions of the Overground, the London tube map as we know it, is up for some serious redesign.

Interesting blog article:

http://thecitygeek.tumblr.com/post/1...n-the-tube-map
__________________

437.001 liked this post
starsailor82 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 16th, 2014, 09:43 AM   #1500
dimlys1994
Moderator
 
dimlys1994's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dniepropetrovsk
Posts: 16,348
Likes (Received): 26144

From Flickr user unravelled, Crossrail portal at Royal Oak, towards Paddington station:


Crossrail Paddington by unravelled, on Flickr
dimlys1994 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
britain, london

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium