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 14th, 2007, 02:16 AM   #2021
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

Re: Ground south of the river, why not dig deep underneath the waterlogged gravel like in the St Petersburg metro (St Petersburg is built on a swamp apparently)

And I have a question about Bank station, i've noticed that when you change to the DLR there is nowhere to "touch out" of the tube network and onto the DLR? How does it work?!
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 14th, 2007, 03:36 AM   #2022
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

tubeman accordng to maps i've seen, there is a link between the WCML and NLL at willesden junction and it all faces the right way. therefore it looks possible to divert trains up the goblin
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2007, 11:00 AM   #2023
Martin S
Registered User
 
Martin S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 10,235
Likes (Received): 3156

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
Thanks a bunch for the information Do you work in tunnelling, you seem to know a helluva lot more than your average layman.

I work in (mainly) railway civil engineering. I have not had much to do with tunnels but I just have a general interest in the subject.
__________________
Martin S no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2007, 11:13 AM   #2024
Martin S
Registered User
 
Martin S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 10,235
Likes (Received): 3156

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
Re: Ground south of the river, why not dig deep underneath the waterlogged gravel like in the St Petersburg metro (St Petersburg is built on a swamp apparently)
I did some work on the Waterloo and City in the early 90s. There were a lot of problems with water ingress both in the Waterloo depot and in the sections of brick-lined tunnel at the Waterloo end. All of this due to being built in marshy ground.

Modern tunnelling methods do allow tunnels to be built through waterlogged ground and some tunnel boring machines (like those used to build the French end of the Channel Tunnel) resemble submarines.

I am not sure of what strata you find under the waterlogged gravel - I assume it would be London Clay but going too deep might risk penetrating the chalk which contains water at artesian pressure.

There is also the practical problem that the deeper a station is, the longer it takes to access and, therefore, the less convenient it is (one reason why much of the New York Subway is built near the surface in cut and cover).

Apparently, the poor ground conditions south of the Thames are only one reason why the tube is not as extensive there. The pattern of land ownership in South London was different than in the north (being largely owned by church authorities) and it was easier to build surface railways in that part of the city. Consequently, the need for tube lines was not as great. Also, of course much of South London was developed at a later date than North London and so the need to demolish extensive areas of housing and other buildings did not arise.
__________________
Martin S no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2007, 01:39 PM   #2025
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
As I have already mentioned, running a circular service poses operational problems (no terminus to recoup lost time) so if the circle is going to be broken anywhere, then I'd say Clapham Jcn is ideal due to the sheer variety of destinations available from there. It is of far more use to have an Orbirail running into a terminus at Clapham Jcn than it is so have a 'perfect' complete circle which merrily misses the main lines out of Waterloo and Victoria and passes right under them with no interchange.
it's also, given the number of branches and so on, completely pointless. The overlapping services pattern works fine and would be almost perfect, other than Haggerston (and Hoxton) -Caledonian Road/Camden journeys. Don't forget that orbital journeys that go more than a third of the way round (well 2 radians) are slower. Things like lower frequencies account for changes. I ask you, if you want to defend Orbirail, to give me one journey that wouldn't be quicker through Central London that you can't get with the planned services. This was one of the problems with the Broad Street service to Richmond - it was a slow way round.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
A few proposals have persisted: Aldwych to Waterloo, Elephant & Castle to Camberwell, Shepherd's Bush (Central) to Turnham Green (thence to Richmond). The Victoria Line was supposed to continue under the A23 to Croydon. South London has always been a bit of a no-no due to the ground: it's waterlogged gravel largely and therefore a ****** to bore through.
don't forget the perennial Fleet Street tube (now proposed again as DLR). Many Edwardian plans along there - the GNBP, Central and MDR all had plans along it, as did other companies, eg the Hammersmith, City and NE London railway and Piccadilly, City and NE railway (one of the Morgan tubes). This line was roughly (in most cases - the MDR being the main exception) Hammersmith (or Hammersmith and Shepherds Bush, or a loop serving both) - Olympia - High Street Kensington - Knightsbridge - Piccadilly Circus - Charing Cross - Aldwych - Ludgate Circus - Cannon Street/Bank - eastwards to various places.

This idea was, in part, revived post war - both line D and line F used the Charing Cross-Cannon Street alignment, and went onwards to Fenchurch Street. line D was a tube line that started at Victoria (or London Airport, or an Uxbridge road tube, or taking over a district/piccadilly branch) and then went out to East London somewhere (Tottenham, IIRC). Line F was an early Crossrail - Berkhampsted (via a new curve at Kenton), High Wycombe and Aylesbury via a new tunnel starting near Finchely Road via Marylebone, Marble Arch, Green Park, the Fleet Street route (but without a stop at Aldwych, which line D had), and then SE London. This transformed into the tube gauge Fleet line, which was to go to Addiscombe (and one guesses Hayes as well) via Lewisham.
Quote:
The DLR is only really effective as a local feeder line onto the Tube and NR network: I doubt anyone would seriously change onto it in SE London to travel into the City.
indeed
Quote:
Hayes is planned to be delivered in 2025: but don't hold me to this!
what's the route between Elephant & Castle and Lewisham, especially now that the Bricklayers Arms branch has been built upon?

I can imagine a big fuss from the people along that line, as they lose their direct service to the city, and get far more stops, and again, the tiny train annoyance. Not that they will be able to stop it... Still, the Hayes line people were worried that they would be connected to ELLX or the DLR - either short trains that took them nowhere, or a slow train. the best tube route for Hayes is the Fleet Street alignment, though a simple tunnel under Lewisham and an underground station there will solve the bottleneck problem there nicely.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2007, 03:09 PM   #2026
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

Can't the Hayes people be arsed to make a (probabaly convenient) change at Lewisham?
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2007, 03:57 PM   #2027
Justme
Gotta lite?
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester (Forecast: Rain)
Posts: 4,952
Likes (Received): 781

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
It's being channelled back into the TFL pot which in turn is funding things like LOROL, so it is... The whole object of the exercise was to increase funding to public transport through the CC. As it looks like a dead cert that TFL will assume control of Metronet, then the Tube will be a direct beneficiary of CC money.
Do you think that the National Rail (i.e. commuter and suburban services) would be cheaper once moving to the London Overground, and Oyster cards become available?

I mean, a 12km (7mile) journey on these commuter services cost between £4 (Saver deal whatever that means) and £6.30 as standard price. This is amazingly high. A similar Oyster tube fare (off peak) is £2, either half, or a third of the price.
__________________
I'm doing my bit to save bandwidth by deleting my signature
Justme no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2007, 04:28 PM   #2028
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
Can't the Hayes people be arsed to make a (probabaly convenient) change at Lewisham?
well again, it's taking away what they already have - direct trains to Cannon Street (city) and Charing Cross (OK, the Bakerloo wouldn't do that, but ELL would have done). The change at Lewisham wouldn't be that convenient - it'll have to involve stairs/lifts - the best interchange would be if it took over the ex-Victoria tracks, and had a cross platform interchange at Nunhead. Even without that, it wouldn't be a bad change, but it'll be like the change at Tottenham Hale or Walthamstow Central. It'll be worse than Euston DCs being scrapped in favour of a Bakerloo extension, as there's no fast trains serving the severed destination. However, as TfL have a habit of not listening to the people who are prospective passengers for a new transport corridor (see WLT and their attempts to push it through, regardless of all three boroughs that it goes through being elected on an anti-tram ticket and voting, even the formerly pro-tram people, against it. The reason why it was shelved is because Crossrail needs the money that would have been spend on it.) these points about generating inconvience are completely moot. As Tubeman (who as the person in charge of the bit of tube that this extension comes from) has demonstrated, when he said "Well to be blunt if they don't like it in Northwood what are they going to do about it? Walk?" TfL have a monopoly, and can impose things on people. It's a case of "we have an idea, you're not going to like it, but you'll have to put up with it - you'll thank us eventually"

Then again, thinking about it, it's probably going to be easier to change at Elephant onto the northern, though isn't the Northern rather crowded there, especially north of London Bridge (though I guess the proposed split should help that)?

The whole thing is having to change, when you didn't before - they have direct services to stations that are walking distance from a large amount of Central London - Cannon Street and Charing Cross, and will lose one of them, gaining areas that they already had, or that were a short bus journey away, plus some better interchanges for going to suburbs to the N and W and also outside London to the N and W. The previous takeovers of NR lines have tended to be OK, other than adding in a few more stops (and in the most part, NR services continued afterwards for some time, decreased slowly) between your station and a place near enough to your terminus (Ally Pally on the Northern Heights is the only real exception, AFAICS, as it would have only gone to Moorgate, but then again, there was the mainline not far away to Kings Cross, so only 3 stations would have been inconvenienced).

Last edited by sotonsi; November 14th, 2007 at 04:30 PM. Reason: inserting context
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2007, 05:09 PM   #2029
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justme View Post
I mean, a 12km (7mile) journey on these commuter services cost between £4 (Saver deal whatever that means) and £6.30 as standard price. This is amazingly high.A similar Oyster tube fare (off peak) is £2, either half, or a third of the price.
is this Hatch End to Euston? I get 5.70 for a Saver/Cheap Day return, and £4 for an Open single, which can be used at peak (and is thus about the same as Oyster). With a railcard (£20 for a year of 1/3rd off peak discounts on all NR - with some restrictions - and on z1-6 One Day Travelcards), it's 3.82 for the cheaper ticket, thus a 18p saving over Oyster for a return journey. If you were taking a bus from Euston, or making more than two journeys by tube, then it's worth having the railcard for £4.60 all-zone travelcards.

As for it being amazingly high - welcome to England - the high price is either as a congestion charge as the line is too busy, or as the lines not making enough profit.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2007, 06:03 PM   #2030
Songoten2554
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Miami Florida
Posts: 1,063
Likes (Received): 87

hey tubeman and everybody here lets celebraite because Eurostar has opened in St Pancras International open your champange bottles so how do you feel about this anybody

i know those stupid strikes are happening but man eurostar really outdid them

Ebbitsfleet International will open in a few days away and Stratford International in 2010 also Southeastern Domestic High Speed Rail Service in December 2009

East midlands trains will run on platform 1 thru 4 i believe maybe the midlands should be electrified thru out as well

pretty cool man i hope that the united states can learn from other countries and such like britain
Songoten2554 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2007, 08:35 PM   #2031
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
Re: Ground south of the river, why not dig deep underneath the waterlogged gravel like in the St Petersburg metro (St Petersburg is built on a swamp apparently)

And I have a question about Bank station, i've noticed that when you change to the DLR there is nowhere to "touch out" of the tube network and onto the DLR? How does it work?!
Surely you touch out at DLR stations?
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2007, 08:41 PM   #2032
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
tubeman accordng to maps i've seen, there is a link between the WCML and NLL at willesden junction and it all faces the right way. therefore it looks possible to divert trains up the goblin
There is, but then there is no direct way of getting off the GOBLIN onto the GER mainline out of Liverpool Street, which carries a lot of freight into London from ports like Harwich, and the curve onto the Lea valley Line points south toward Stratford and thence back toward Liverpool St, which is a useless route for cross-London freight.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2007, 08:47 PM   #2033
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin S View Post
I did some work on the Waterloo and City in the early 90s. There were a lot of problems with water ingress both in the Waterloo depot and in the sections of brick-lined tunnel at the Waterloo end. All of this due to being built in marshy ground.

Modern tunnelling methods do allow tunnels to be built through waterlogged ground and some tunnel boring machines (like those used to build the French end of the Channel Tunnel) resemble submarines.

I am not sure of what strata you find under the waterlogged gravel - I assume it would be London Clay but going too deep might risk penetrating the chalk which contains water at artesian pressure.

There is also the practical problem that the deeper a station is, the longer it takes to access and, therefore, the less convenient it is (one reason why much of the New York Subway is built near the surface in cut and cover).

Apparently, the poor ground conditions south of the Thames are only one reason why the tube is not as extensive there. The pattern of land ownership in South London was different than in the north (being largely owned by church authorities) and it was easier to build surface railways in that part of the city. Consequently, the need for tube lines was not as great. Also, of course much of South London was developed at a later date than North London and so the need to demolish extensive areas of housing and other buildings did not arise.
Another fact is that because of London's position in the southeastern corner of Britain companies like the GWR, LNWR, GNR and GER could focus on long-distance traffic radiating west and north from London whilst the long-distance traffic for the LSWR, LBSCR, SER and LCDR was limited to coastal cities and towns like Portsmouth, Brighton and Dover so there was more emphasis on developing London suburban traffic to generate revenue. On the mainlines like the GNR and LNWR lots of London stations were an inconvenience with slow trains getting in the way of trains to The Midlands, The North and Scotland so not much of a suburban service was ever provided.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2007, 09:01 PM   #2034
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
what's the route between Elephant & Castle and Lewisham, especially now that the Bricklayers Arms branch has been built upon?

I can imagine a big fuss from the people along that line, as they lose their direct service to the city, and get far more stops, and again, the tiny train annoyance. Not that they will be able to stop it... Still, the Hayes line people were worried that they would be connected to ELLX or the DLR - either short trains that took them nowhere, or a slow train. the best tube route for Hayes is the Fleet Street alignment, though a simple tunnel under Lewisham and an underground station there will solve the bottleneck problem there nicely.
I think Hayes is silly as a Bakerloo destination: As you rightly say customers will have to trade in their comfortable Networkers into the heart of the city for cramped Tube trains twisting and turning along the 101 (or 119 by then) year old tunnels under the West End.

I'm all for a southern Bakerloo extension for many reasons, but I think it should reach Lewisham then surface at the closest available location for a new depot (I'm thinking Hither Green) and that's it.

The route proposed at present is Elephant - Camberwell - Peckham Rye - Nunhead - Brockley - Lewisham then taking over the Hayes branch.

Personally I'd add a station at Walworth between Elephant and Camberwell and have the bores surface at Hither Green for a terminus and depot (the railway triangle immediately south of Hither Green would be ideal).

The Bakerloo is always going to be hot, slow, and twisty and while I think it prudent to extend it south from Elephant to serve some deprived and Tube-less areas, it would be silly to take over a network rail line used to comfortable trains and services direct to The City.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2007, 09:02 PM   #2035
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
Can't the Hayes people be arsed to make a (probabaly convenient) change at Lewisham?
Whatever it is it will be much less convenient than a comfortable train all the way to Cannon Street or London Bridge with no changes.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2007, 09:21 PM   #2036
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by Songoten2554 View Post
hey tubeman and everybody here lets celebraite because Eurostar has opened in St Pancras International open your champange bottles so how do you feel about this anybody

i know those stupid strikes are happening but man eurostar really outdid them

Ebbitsfleet International will open in a few days away and Stratford International in 2010 also Southeastern Domestic High Speed Rail Service in December 2009

East midlands trains will run on platform 1 thru 4 i believe maybe the midlands should be electrified thru out as well

pretty cool man i hope that the united states can learn from other countries and such like britain
Thanks... Looking forward to my trip to Brussels in 4 weeks.

I think that any hopes of ever running trains from Scotland or Newcastle to the Continent are futile, but I definitely think the relatively underused Midland mainline could be used to link the likes of Leeds, Sheffield and the East Midlands with a direct service to Paris / Brussels and ditto the WCML with services to Birmingham and Manchester.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2007, 09:25 PM   #2037
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Whatever it is it will be much less convenient than a comfortable train all the way to Cannon Street or London Bridge with no changes.
i'd rather more frequent trains, than more convenient trains there is no harm in changing trains at an interchange

also i'd assume most people from hayes up to clock house would likely get a seat, and the rest would just switch to other surface rail lines in the local area if they wanted convenience.

i think if your gonna run it to hither green, might as well extend it to bromley north down that spur, people wont be losing services they would infact be gaining services, would that not be a good idea?
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2007, 09:31 PM   #2038
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
There is, but then there is no direct way of getting off the GOBLIN onto the GER mainline out of Liverpool Street, which carries a lot of freight into London from ports like Harwich, and the curve onto the Lea valley Line points south toward Stratford and thence back toward Liverpool St, which is a useless route for cross-London freight.
surely it wouldn't be too hard to constuct a curve around wanstead park area, then problem solved.

at lot of these problems could be fixed with remodelled junctions i swear, or am i just compeletly off the point here?
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2007, 11:38 PM   #2039
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
i'd rather more frequent trains, than more convenient trains there is no harm in changing trains at an interchange

also i'd assume most people from hayes up to clock house would likely get a seat, and the rest would just switch to other surface rail lines in the local area if they wanted convenience.

i think if your gonna run it to hither green, might as well extend it to bromley north down that spur, people wont be losing services they would infact be gaining services, would that not be a good idea?
Bromley North is far preferable to Hayes in my opinion: it currently has a shit shuttle service so being the end of the Bakerloo Line would add value as opposed to detracting from it.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2007, 11:47 PM   #2040
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
surely it wouldn't be too hard to constuct a curve around wanstead park area, then problem solved.

at lot of these problems could be fixed with remodelled junctions i swear, or am i just compeletly off the point here?
Yes and no... Your diversion of freight ex-WCML at Willesden Jcn and thence via Gospel Oak is still using the NLL between those stations, so although it removes freights from the Camden Rd - Stratford section (which has dedicated freight roads as far as Dalston anyway) you're not helping the overall capacity of the NLL.

GOBLIN doesn't have a curve allowing up freight ex-ECML to access the eastbound direction (up freight ex-ECML can access the eastbound NLL via the Canonbury Curve), so to take all freight off the Camden Rd to Stratford section quite a few new curves would need to be built and you'd still have it all travelling between Willesden and Gospel Oak (more freight in fact, with just 2 roads).
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
london, railways, tube

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 06:37 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