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 September 10th, 2008, 06:44 PM   #2861
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by jarbury View Post
Thanks for that Tubeman, I'm impressed! I guess it leads to another question, how come the Victoria Line has ATO whilst the newer Jubilee Line doesn't? (Or am I mistaken here?)
The Victoria Line was designed and built as ATO and self-contained from the off, whereas the 1979 Jubilee Line was actually just part of the Bakerloo Line (of 1930's vintage) with 3 stations added on to the southern end. As the infrastructure was mostly 1930's, and the stretch from Finchley Rd to Wembley Pk needed to retain inter-operability with the Metropolitan Line, I presume it was deemed too problematic to convert to ATO.

In the 1960's it was envisaged that manual operation would very soon be a thing of the past, so much so that the new trains of the time (e.g. C Stock) were built for ATO operation, the Selector / Reverser barrel still bears the 'Auto' option to this day, even though they have never run with ATO nearly 40 years later.

'Selector' barrel on right of C Stock console, with key inserted:

[IMG]http://i33.************/30vjdcj.jpg[/IMG]

The Jubilee Line is going ATO now though, testing is underway.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 10th, 2008, 09:19 PM   #2862
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

cheers for the answers tubeman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
I assume it's because BAA paid for the HEX branch and want their share of the profits of any competitor service to the HEX. Classic case of Private involvement in a traditonally public realm causing conflict and dare I say it profiteering.
i always look at this way if it ain't private in America then it really has no business in being private anywhere else, NYC owns all its airports, why the hell can't TFL own heathrow, surely it's a security issue as much as a integration, public service issue


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
With hindsight, yes... But I guess at the time it really did look like cars were the future and if the growth of the automobile at that time was extrapolated then it spelt the death knell for all but the fastest and most direct rail routes. Fortunately he was proven to have been too extreme and some routes have re-opened, but the fact remains that at that point in history some rationalisation was very much necessary... don't forget the wholesale closures coincided with a lot of investment in the remaining network, such as electrification.
yeah i understand some of the stupid little village stubs had to go, but why the cross country links which missed london completely out. hopefully they will be re-instated at some point. why couldn't they do as they did with the greenwich park line and divert some to create super interchanges like lewisham.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Bit unsure about this: the roundel is very much a part of the bus branding... and the red livery is pretty much non-negotiable I think. Any departure would be very unpopular. The individual company names are noticeable, but are limited to a certain % of coverage to maintain the predominantly red livery.
i think you misunderstood me, i meant keep the red buses, but with a tfl roundel replacing the comparate name, and maybe for diversity purposes each firm operating london bus routes could choose a trim colour for its skirting board, would give the semblence of deeper integration, which can never harm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Personally I think not, it seems like an enormous amount of money really. I think the capacity enhancements the same money could provide to the existing network would be of much more benefit.
so then tubeman the question is, if you had 16bn to spend on railways anywhere in britain based on 2008 prices, what would you spend it on doing? to go a little further withdraw the funding for thameslink 2000, and east london line and add that to the kitty (another 7bn), how would you spend it? (i'm not saying you wouldnt keep the ellx but you know, just as if there was a blank slate)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
I didn't know that this was proposed for the Waterloo redevelopment... that's interesting. That old chord would be useful for a Crossrail-type service hugging the Thames' south bank, and the bridge is certainly still intact so it's very much possible. I'd like to see it re-opened, but I guess the only problem is it would be potentially quite slow due to the bottlenecks in the Waterloo / London Bridge areas which might limit its usefulness.
i'll try and find out where are got this from, i think it was u thants website london connections, but i am under the impression that with the borough market viaduct, charing cross would have its own dedicated link, therefore i would divert those into waterloo, charing cross service could be run with extensions from waterloo, thus making waterloo a through station like london bridge, also if possible as waterloo east is 4 tracked and there is a chord to canon street maybe through trains to there. then maybe we could start rationalising rail routes into london

-on rationalisation, isn't it just simple logic, that each of the routes into london bridge, waterloo etc should get there own dedicated services, rather than some trains go to canon street some to charing cross etc, changing platforms at these stations isn't hardly hard, and it could mean peak services could be run better? just a thought

another couple of questions if you please, i seriously don't know where they come from.

with oyster and the proposed roll out of smart cards everywhere. surely it's time for an integrated national transport fare structure, ie that i can get on a bus in hastings, transfer to a train to london, and then use a london bus all with the touch of a button, the fairs could be charged as single's then some sort of formula could be introduce, whereby discounts are given for multi modal usage and then the fair is distributed to the transport bodies involved on a % basis, therefore, for my example say it costs 1.50 for a single bus journey in hastings, 27.60 for a single train journey to london, and 90 for a single bus fair, this could be re calculated as 13 quid (made up figure) and then distributed as 5% to the bus company who runs hastings, 3% to TFL, and 95% to south eastern, surely it would work, be financially viable encourage more public transport useage etc etc

you have currently got stupid situations where local bus companies havent got integrated fares with each other and its impossible to cross towns, dartford in kent has its west served exclusively by london buses, and east by commercial, there is not integrated way to cross which is awful.

is this what they have in mind?

why the hell is stratford international in no mans land? were there ever proposals to link it to regional as one station?

why didn't they have a loop which took local services off the HS! main line just before stratford, served it and then went back onto the mainline? all manner of possiblities wouldve been available, maybe diverting the east anglia intercities to st pancras, and the so called commuter trains from kent into a city terminus in liverpool street a basic swap, would free up even more land at stratford city and would make that station even more important and greater aided regen, thats just my opinion though

-the thameslink tunnels that go from kentish town to west hampstead how many track are they? and how close to belsize park tube do they run, enough to make an interchange if funds (and thats a gargantuan if) became available?

-you know how tesco and sainsburys (but curiously not asda) have loyalty card schemes, do you know if this has ever been consider for oyster card aka for every £30 you spend on pay as you go, you get £3 free (non redeemable) or something along those lines, wouldn't this ecourage people to get oysters and give reward to those people who don't upload season tickets but still use oyster regularly?

-what is the case for regeneration, i can't remember where but i went past an estate and spray painted was gentrification is social clensing, it's always stuck with me, when they are aiming to regenerate hackney and woolwich with the respective transport schemes are they basically hoping rich people will move to these areas displace enough poor people to balance the statistics out, or are they hoping that the lines bring serious sustainable growth to these areas?

-on the DLR extension to woolwich i am worried that the line will be the biggest victim of its success, never has a TFL branded railway penetrated so far into the badlands of the deep south east (my manor) and judging by the fact people sit on the 422 for an hour and a bit just to get to north greenwich coz it has tube, the dlr may become saturated within weeks of opening, as much as they have no doubt thought this through, they thought the victoria line through planned it for 15-20 years to go as far as bloody croydon, and they still didn't invisage the monster which they only half created?

on a related point i don't think an extension to croydon would add much patronage, brixton with 25 million+ entries and exits is mis leading, considering there are loads of very frequent feeder buses running from streatham and croydon up to brixton, i think the passengers would just be balanced out down to maybe norbury and people from further south would be stupid if not to use east croydon with its 15 minute service to central, 1 it would bring the tube to londons 3rd cbd properly, 2 would be a truely double ended line as people would actually get the line in huge numbers towards croydon, anyways i digress, basically do you think its exaggerations that it can't be extended south, based on what i've said?

wow i think that's it, as i was typing new things kept popping in, cheers in advance for your answers
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2008, 09:56 PM   #2863
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
M41 (now A3220) - the A41(M) was the Tring Bypass (and planned to be the Berrygrove (M1 junction 5)-Tring Motorway). The two are completely unrelated, other than they were both motorways in the London area, had '41' in their number and now aren't motorways. They definitely weren't part of the same route. M41 might have become M14 when Ringway 1 was finished (to give M14 for ringway 1, M15 for ringway 2 and M16 for ringway 3) - M41 is either a typo, the first free number in the M4x group or just a deliberately temporary number in case (as was the case) the North Cross route wasn't built.
LOL thanks for correcting me, roads aren't my strongpoint... I think once upon a time the Westway was definitely the A40(M) and the West Cross Route was the A41(M)... They definitely used to be blue and officially motorways in the A to Z, but are now orange and just A roads therefore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
which will be fun at Watford High Street, where they would share platforms, though isn't isn't S stock going to have less of a gap with tube height trains.
Indeed, but I guess commuters in that neck of the woods are used to it anyway, with Bakerloo and LOROL trains already sharing platforms between Kensal Green and Harrow & Wealdstone. Begs the question however that if / when the LOROL service north of Queen's Park is suspended entirely in favour of the Bakerloo Line whether all the platforms will be lowered (or the track raised). This really would make Watford High Street unique in this area by being served by Surface and Tube stock.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
boo Bromley North is the way to go!
I agree, the Bakerloo taking over the Hayes Branch would worsen not improve services along the branch in my opinion by removing direct trains to The City and swapping air conditioned roomy EMUs for stuffy Tube stock. Maximum train lengths would be shorter too, but at least the upside would be better frequencies. On the other hand Bromley North would have a better service as it currently operates in isolation with no through trains beyond Grove Park to my knowledge... there's also tons of railway land between Grove Park and Hither Green for a Bakerloo Depot if the extension went to Bromley North.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
Many of them happily, while not being safeguarded, have mostly avoided being built on. However most of the routes were rightly closed (others, mostly as they were duplicates or had been slowly run down as the big 4 company that run it used to run the rival company in that area (see the GW line to Dudley - the biggest place in the UK without a train service)). Quite a few closed railway lines (be it Beeching, or before, or after) have been used for road links, and more recently, cycle paths. Annoyingly the direct route from London to Oxford has been built on and also now requires a viaduct over the M40.
Bit unsure which Oxford route you mean, the GWR line from Didcot is very much intact, and the abandoned line from Princes Risborough via Thame probably was a far inferior alternative to the Didcot route in terms of engineering and therefore speed.

I think you're very lucky to find any useful routes which haven't been at least partly built upon: the 'Varsity Line' from Oxford to Cambridge cannot be easily re-opened throughout due to development at Sandy and the direct line from Spalding to Boston is now a road to name two off the top of my head.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2008, 12:27 AM   #2864
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
cheers for the answers tubeman
Hey, that's what I'm for!

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
i always look at this way if it ain't private in America then it really has no business in being private anywhere else, NYC owns all its airports, why the hell can't TFL own heathrow, surely it's a security issue as much as a integration, public service issue
I guess the BAA London monopoly has at last been addressed... I don't have the same reservations about air travel being in private hands as I do rail / bus... I don't know if Heathrow being operated by TFL would be of that much benefit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
yeah i understand some of the stupid little village stubs had to go, but why the cross country links which missed london completely out. hopefully they will be re-instated at some point. why couldn't they do as they did with the greenwich park line and divert some to create super interchanges like lewisham.
To be honest a lot of the cross-country links which did go (e.g. the aforementioned 'Varsity Line') weren't very effective in linking cities simply because there were so many intermediate stations and no quadruple track to allow fast trains. I dread to think how long Oxford - Cambridge took along that route... 2 hours? 3? There was also a lot of duplication, such as the proliferation of Cross-Pennine routes. I think cross-country services are pretty reasonable to be honest, the only thing where Beeching went too far was cutting off some pretty large towns from the rail network like Louth, Ripon, Wetherby, Tavistock, Gosport, Ebbw Vale, Dunstable (etc)... And also leaving quite large tracts of the country with no rail links like East Lincolnshire.

Whichever journies were potentially worsened by removal of the most direct route (e.g. the line from Carlisle to Edinburgh), I think this has been balanced by improved journey times through electrification and removal of some intermediate stations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
i think you misunderstood me, i meant keep the red buses, but with a tfl roundel replacing the comparate name, and maybe for diversity purposes each firm operating london bus routes could choose a trim colour for its skirting board, would give the semblence of deeper integration, which can never harm
I don't really notice the individual company branding to be honest, but that being said I don't see why it needs to be displayed at all, as it's not as if bus users choose a particular route because of which company runs it. The information is irrelevant, so I would welcome it being entirely removed. I do like the fact that TFL force adherence to a corporate image despite deregulation however, just look at how in other cities all you see is 'First' this and 'Stagecoach' that plastered all over the buses with garish liveries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
so then tubeman the question is, if you had 16bn to spend on railways anywhere in britain based on 2008 prices, what would you spend it on doing? to go a little further withdraw the funding for thameslink 2000, and east london line and add that to the kitty (another 7bn), how would you spend it? (i'm not saying you wouldnt keep the ellx but you know, just as if there was a blank slate)
Hmmm I think, boringly, just work on the major bottlenecks via junction re-modelling, flyovers, diveunders, quadrupling etc. I'd also like to see electrification of the GWR and Midland main lines, although I appreciate the former will only make it as far as Exeter courtesy of the seaside section between Dawlish and Teignmouth. Some modest re-openings of lines and stations, and investment in freight handling facilities to take traffic off the roads. All that would probably come to £16bn.

If I had any left over I'd upgrade the ECML to TGV-type speeds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
i'll try and find out where are got this from, i think it was u thants website london connections, but i am under the impression that with the borough market viaduct, charing cross would have its own dedicated link, therefore i would divert those into waterloo, charing cross service could be run with extensions from waterloo, thus making waterloo a through station like london bridge, also if possible as waterloo east is 4 tracked and there is a chord to canon street maybe through trains to there. then maybe we could start rationalising rail routes into london
That raises the prospect of SWT services into Cannon Street, which would basically negate the point of the Waterloo & City Line and perhaps allow it to be closed. The Waterloo-Waterloo East chord could be reinstated as quadruple, allowing half the services into Waterloo to continue round to London Bridge and allow the corridor to essentially mirror RER C hugging the left bank of the Seine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
-on rationalisation, isn't it just simple logic, that each of the routes into london bridge, waterloo etc should get there own dedicated services, rather than some trains go to canon street some to charing cross etc, changing platforms at these stations isn't hardly hard, and it could mean peak services could be run better? just a thought
I guess commuters would complain if they lost their direct West End or City trains depending on how it's split... But I'm all for simplification where (for example) all Caterham trains go to Victoria, all Hayes trains to Charing X etc... they could be represented as separate 'lines' on the map then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
another couple of questions if you please, i seriously don't know where they come from.

with oyster and the proposed roll out of smart cards everywhere. surely it's time for an integrated national transport fare structure, ie that i can get on a bus in hastings, transfer to a train to london, and then use a london bus all with the touch of a button, the fairs could be charged as single's then some sort of formula could be introduce, whereby discounts are given for multi modal usage and then the fair is distributed to the transport bodies involved on a % basis, therefore, for my example say it costs 1.50 for a single bus journey in hastings, 27.60 for a single train journey to london, and 90 for a single bus fair, this could be re calculated as 13 quid (made up figure) and then distributed as 5% to the bus company who runs hastings, 3% to TFL, and 95% to south eastern, surely it would work, be financially viable encourage more public transport useage etc etc

you have currently got stupid situations where local bus companies havent got integrated fares with each other and its impossible to cross towns, dartford in kent has its west served exclusively by london buses, and east by commercial, there is not integrated way to cross which is awful.

is this what they have in mind?
I'm sure someone somewhere has decided its desirable, but achieveing it when we're talking about so many different private firms would be very difficult.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
why the hell is stratford international in no mans land? were there ever proposals to link it to regional as one station?

why didn't they have a loop which took local services off the HS! main line just before stratford, served it and then went back onto the mainline? all manner of possiblities wouldve been available, maybe diverting the east anglia intercities to st pancras, and the so called commuter trains from kent into a city terminus in liverpool street a basic swap, would free up even more land at stratford city and would make that station even more important and greater aided regen, thats just my opinion though
I like that idea: not bothering with Stratford International at all and just having loops passing though new platforms in Stratford Regional. I guess the station is where it is because any further south and there wasn't a long enough strip of land to accommodate the station along its west-east axis. A subterranean station directly below Stratford Regional I guess would have been an option, but as passing loops were required to allow express trains then it would have been a major bit of subterranean construction: it was obviously deemed preferable to just dig a great big trench in the nearest bit of wasteland, which was a couple of hundred yards to the north. Once the northern ticket hall and link between it and the international station is built, it won't be that far really.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
-the thameslink tunnels that go from kentish town to west hampstead how many track are they? and how close to belsize park tube do they run, enough to make an interchange if funds (and thats a gargantuan if) became available?
4 track, but it widens to 6 either side of the Belsize Tunnels. The line passes very close to Belsize Park, but is so deep building an interchange would be very expensive indeed. There used to be stations named Haverstock Hill and Finchley Road on the Midland route either end of the Belsize tunnels, but neither were really walkable to Belsize Park tube.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
-you know how tesco and sainsburys (but curiously not asda) have loyalty card schemes, do you know if this has ever been consider for oyster card aka for every £30 you spend on pay as you go, you get £3 free (non redeemable) or something along those lines, wouldn't this ecourage people to get oysters and give reward to those people who don't upload season tickets but still use oyster regularly?
Nice idea in principle, but the supermarkets have loyalty schemes out of stiff competition. LU has the advantage of being a monopoly so any such scheme would hit revenue without any appreciable benefit as people are going to use us regardless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
-what is the case for regeneration, i can't remember where but i went past an estate and spray painted was gentrification is social clensing, it's always stuck with me, when they are aiming to regenerate hackney and woolwich with the respective transport schemes are they basically hoping rich people will move to these areas displace enough poor people to balance the statistics out, or are they hoping that the lines bring serious sustainable growth to these areas?
Bit of both I guess. Right to buy is now beyond the means of almost all Council tenants, so I reckon even in gentrifying areas council property will now remain so... The thing is that any ex-council flats now in private hands will appreciate hugely in value and become desirable to young childless professionals, who in turn generate demand for different types of retail, etc. Formerly cheap private flats would become dearer too and attract more genteel residents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
-on the DLR extension to woolwich i am worried that the line will be the biggest victim of its success, never has a TFL branded railway penetrated so far into the badlands of the deep south east (my manor) and judging by the fact people sit on the 422 for an hour and a bit just to get to north greenwich coz it has tube, the dlr may become saturated within weeks of opening, as much as they have no doubt thought this through, they thought the victoria line through planned it for 15-20 years to go as far as bloody croydon, and they still didn't invisage the monster which they only half created?
I'd have thought demand wouldn't be that huge, as Woolwich already has perfectly adequate rail links into The City and West End which are far faster than the DLR would be. There also wouldn't be direct DLR trains to Canary Wharf from there, so I think it would be more of a local and feeder service than an effective trunk route into London.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
on a related point i don't think an extension to croydon would add much patronage, brixton with 25 million+ entries and exits is mis leading, considering there are loads of very frequent feeder buses running from streatham and croydon up to brixton, i think the passengers would just be balanced out down to maybe norbury and people from further south would be stupid if not to use east croydon with its 15 minute service to central, 1 it would bring the tube to londons 3rd cbd properly, 2 would be a truely double ended line as people would actually get the line in huge numbers towards croydon, anyways i digress, basically do you think its exaggerations that it can't be extended south, based on what i've said?

wow i think that's it, as i was typing new things kept popping in, cheers in advance for your answers

It's true that a lot of existing Victoria Line customers take the bus from Streatham, Norbury, etc to Brixton and so extending the line wouldn't create extra journies from these people, just transfer them from bus to tube. It would undoubtedly also generate new journies though however, and sadly there would probably be very many people stupid enough to take the Tube from Croydon into London rather than the existing excellent rail links purely due to the kudos of using the Tube.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2008, 01:17 AM   #2865
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
LOL thanks for correcting me, roads aren't my strongpoint... I think once upon a time the Westway was definitely the A40(M) and the West Cross Route was the A41(M)... They definitely used to be blue and officially motorways in the A to Z, but are now orange and just A roads therefore.
you did it again - the West Cross route was the M41!
Quote:
I agree, the Bakerloo taking over the Hayes Branch would worsen not improve services along the branch in my opinion by removing direct trains to The City and swapping air conditioned roomy EMUs for stuffy Tube stock. Maximum train lengths would be shorter too, but at least the upside would be better frequencies. On the other hand Bromley North would have a better service as it currently operates in isolation with no through trains beyond Grove Park to my knowledge... there's also tons of railway land between Grove Park and Hither Green for a Bakerloo Depot if the extension went to Bromley North.
indeed- I totally agree with all those points. You have the power to persuade, I don't!

Quote:
Bit unsure which Oxford route you mean, the GWR line from Didcot is very much intact, and the abandoned line from Princes Risborough via Thame probably was a far inferior alternative to the Didcot route in terms of engineering and therefore speed.
the latter. I meant distance-wise. The current plan is via a new chord at Bicester, which is rather a long way round anyway. The demand is there for a second Oxford-London route now. I guess HS2 will sort it out (Javelin style region services to Oxford)
Quote:
To be honest a lot of the cross-country links which did go (e.g. the aforementioned 'Varsity Line') weren't very effective in linking cities simply because there were so many intermediate stations and no quadruple track to allow fast trains. I dread to think how long Oxford - Cambridge took along that route... 2 hours? 3? There was also a lot of duplication, such as the proliferation of Cross-Pennine routes. I think cross-country services are pretty reasonable to be honest, the only thing where Beeching went too far was cutting off some pretty large towns from the rail network like Louth, Ripon, Wetherby, Tavistock, Gosport, Ebbw Vale, Dunstable (etc)... And also leaving quite large tracts of the country with no rail links like East Lincolnshire.
and getting rid of profitable duplicates (many of them were silly) - the GCML, the Snow Hill-Wolverhampton Low Level line, etc. You missed Corby and Dudley (though was Corby later?) -the largest 2 towns with no rail service - well for a short while longer for Corby (Dudley borough has a couple of stations, but the town doesn't).
Quote:
That raises the prospect of SWT services into Cannon Street, which would basically negate the point of the Waterloo & City Line and perhaps allow it to be closed. The Waterloo-Waterloo East chord could be reinstated as quadruple, allowing half the services into Waterloo to continue round to London Bridge and allow the corridor to essentially mirror RER C hugging the left bank of the Seine.
the problems are - Borough Market Viaduct taking Charing Cross and Waterloo trains for non-Cannon Street trains and the problem of crossing the Thameslink tracks to get to Cannon Street (and the reversing time and space there). It would have to be underground (I reckon a cross between the '49 plan's lines F and G - Waterloo, Blackfriars on the south bank, Cannon Street/Bank, Fenchurch Street, Hither Green - though perhaps with a station at Canada Water/Rotherhithe and definitely with one at Lewisham). Sadly cost becomes a problem.
Quote:
I guess commuters would complain if they lost their direct West End or City trains depending on how it's split... But I'm all for simplification where (for example) all Caterham trains go to Victoria, all Hayes trains to Charing X etc... they could be represented as separate 'lines' on the map then.
if you could get the connections and changes OK, and frequencies decent, you could do it without annoying the commuters (the problem is more in the Central section). Sadly it would need more reversing sidings, more capacity at Victoria and London Bridge and better signalling to have that.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2008, 11:39 AM   #2866
Capzilla
robkaper.nl
 
Capzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,896

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Nice idea in principle, but the supermarkets have loyalty schemes out of stiff competition. LU has the advantage of being a monopoly so any such scheme would hit revenue without any appreciable benefit as people are going to use us regardless.
Slight oversight on your part here because LU does have a loyalty scheme doing just that: the travelcard. And the related Oyster 24-hour cap, which is absolutely brilliant because you get the travelcard's maximum fare without the commitment! It's one of the reasons I got my Oyster card, actually.

Also, bigbossman talked about getting people to use Oyster instead of paper tickets, but that encouragement is also already in place because Oyster fares are significantly lower for most (if not all) journeys.
__________________
Rob Kaper
Capzilla no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2008, 03:27 PM   #2867
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
the problems are - Borough Market Viaduct taking Charing Cross and Waterloo trains for non-Cannon Street trains and the problem of crossing the Thameslink tracks to get to Cannon Street (and the reversing time and space there). It would have to be underground (I reckon a cross between the '49 plan's lines F and G - Waterloo, Blackfriars on the south bank, Cannon Street/Bank, Fenchurch Street, Hither Green - though perhaps with a station at Canada Water/Rotherhithe and definitely with one at Lewisham). Sadly cost becomes a problem.if you could get the connections and changes OK, and frequencies decent, you could do it without annoying the commuters (the problem is more in the Central section). Sadly it would need more reversing sidings, more capacity at Victoria and London Bridge and better signalling to have that.
then you build a flyover, or don't run trains through to canon street, there would still be more than enough terminal platforms at waterloo, no need for tunnels
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2008, 08:28 PM   #2868
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

once again cheers tubeman, i keep churning them out, in bursts like walcott

-do you think they should put oyster card readers at interchange stations like oxford circus, so they can calculate exactly how many people use the station, something basic at the top or bottom of the escalator, u just press it down, so no barriers. it'd be interesting to see the actual figures

-do you have any details about the new works programme, i was browsing through the internet and stumbled upon a claim, that the northern was planned to be extended from kennington to streatham via BR tracks, do you know if this was true, and are there any other little known extensions/lines that have been proposed or planned post war??

-if chelney is ever built and even if it isn't, i think the way tramlink doesn't interact with the northern line, is at wimbledon and the wimbledon loop is so crap should be altered... basically. tramlink takes over the wimbledon loop to merton south runs along the road, interchanges with morden, then runs through morden hall park and rejoins the main route, allows it to interchange with morden. then they could divert the wimbledon loop (and maybe one day chelney) down the tramlink route and via short tunnel (no more than 100m) into morden, cross platform interchange with the northern, through the depot and back to the loop, simple and it makes the area a more attractive transport proposal, what do you think?

why did they build that harvestock tunnel with 4 tracks when there are 6 either side, or was it 6 tracked after?

-do you think the east london line extension couldve and shouldve been better? i personally think they should have concentrated on making it a full orbital service, by dropping the new cross and gate branches, run all the trains round the loop and spent the rest of the money improving and creating interchanges, and building extra tracking and links to divert freight, i can't believe how man important town centres and lines it misses!

-where can i find out details of the busiest stations on the LU, i know its on wiki and tfl website but is there a ranking list, also u know if they publish the busiest bus routes?

cheers again tubeman
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2008, 03:50 AM   #2869
invincible
Lurker
 
invincible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,804
Likes (Received): 523

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
-do you think they should put oyster card readers at interchange stations like oxford circus, so they can calculate exactly how many people use the station, something basic at the top or bottom of the escalator, u just press it down, so no barriers. it'd be interesting to see the actual figures
From experience here, you can put the readers in place but you'll get no meaningful data out of it because no one will scan their ticket if it makes no difference to the cost of their trip and if there's no physical barrier.

For example, you're meant to validate your ticket every time you step on a tram or enter a railway station but with time and zone based ticketing, people only bother on the first trip of their journey or to open the ticket gates.

There is also a project underway to integrate the ticketing system across the state across all modes (suburban and long distance rail, trams, local buses, long distance coach services) and a multitude of operators but that hasn't been going well at all - the system was meant to have been rolled out two years ago but at the moment it's still in closed testing. That said, it's probably easier to expand the existing Oyster system than to introduce a monolithic integrated system. Or perhaps an approach similar to Japan's might work better where smartcard ticketing systems are all compatible with each other and work in different cities.
invincible no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2008, 12:49 PM   #2870
jarbury
Resident Planner
 
jarbury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Auckland
Posts: 3,795
Likes (Received): 24

Yeah if you want to work out how many people use a station, just get people to count them on a few average days and go from there.
__________________
All opinions are my own and not my employer's (or anyone else's).
jarbury no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2008, 01:42 PM   #2871
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
you did it again - the West Cross route was the M41!
LOL as I said, roads aren't my strongpoint!

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
the latter. I meant distance-wise. The current plan is via a new chord at Bicester, which is rather a long way round anyway. The demand is there for a second Oxford-London route now. I guess HS2 will sort it out (Javelin style region services to Oxford)
Ah I didn't know about this proposal... I can't see it being very competitive against the Paddington-Oxford service however. Although the original Great Central route via Thame was certainly the most direct, I think the superior speeds achieved on the GWR mainline compensate for the more circuitous route. In terms of linking towns, the only significant new linkage provided by the chord is High Wycombe and Oxford. Even if Chiltern lay on significantly cheaper fares for the London-Oxford route to tempt rail passengers off FGW, they're competing against an intensive and cheap coach service, so people concerned with economy over speed would probably always opt for the bus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
getting rid of profitable duplicates (many of them were silly) - the GCML, the Snow Hill-Wolverhampton Low Level line, etc. You missed Corby and Dudley (though was Corby later?) -the largest 2 towns with no rail service - well for a short while longer for Corby (Dudley borough has a couple of stations, but the town doesn't).
The trouble with the GC was it didn't exclusivley serve any towns of great importance: Rugby, Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield all already had perfectly adequate rail links... The entire Rugby - Aylesbury stretch remains rural and relatively sparsely populated... The only settlement even close to a town 'cut off' by the GC's closure was Brackley, I can understand why it was deemed surplus to requirements.

I don't really count Corby because it has had a station much more recently than the Beeching era (re-opened 1987-1990), and besides the station is in the process of being rebuilt for a second time. Dudley may not have a central railway station anymore, but it's difficult to argue it's cut off from the railway network like Louth, Ripon, etc are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
the problems are - Borough Market Viaduct taking Charing Cross and Waterloo trains for non-Cannon Street trains and the problem of crossing the Thameslink tracks to get to Cannon Street (and the reversing time and space there).
I'm pretty certain the new 'Thameslink' viaduct crosses the Charing Cross viaduct and hugs the southern side through to London Bridge, removing any conflicting movements of a potential Waterloo - Cannon Street service. U Thant would hopefully be able to confirm.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2008, 01:49 PM   #2872
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capzilla View Post
Slight oversight on your part here because LU does have a loyalty scheme doing just that: the travelcard. And the related Oyster 24-hour cap, which is absolutely brilliant because you get the travelcard's maximum fare without the commitment! It's one of the reasons I got my Oyster card, actually.

Also, bigbossman talked about getting people to use Oyster instead of paper tickets, but that encouragement is also already in place because Oyster fares are significantly lower for most (if not all) journeys.
It's not exactly 'loyalty' though, if someone knew they were going to make 10 single journies in a day in the days of paper tickets, they'd quite rightly buy a travelcard... You'd have to have been pretty thick to do otherwise!

Oyster just does the same: notices when someone has made enough single journies to warrant charging for a travelcard instead... To keep charging for each single journey would be pretty unfair and extortionate, and would obviously discourage Oyster use.

Regarding your second point, yes there is a concerted effort to make paper tickets really unattractive by cranking up their cost (£4 single now I think?!), quite why anyone would buy one now I don't know!
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2008, 02:44 PM   #2873
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
once again cheers tubeman, i keep churning them out, in bursts like walcott

-do you think they should put oyster card readers at interchange stations like oxford circus, so they can calculate exactly how many people use the station, something basic at the top or bottom of the escalator, u just press it down, so no barriers. it'd be interesting to see the actual figures
Wouldn't work, for the reasons that invincible says.

I guess it can all be calculated from Oyster data anyway: every journey will have its entry and exit point recorded, so I guess a very powerful computer could crunch all the data and work out passenger flows through interchanges. The only flaw is if there are two equally good ways of getting from a to b (e.g. Charing Cross to Waterloo or Baker Street to Paddington), or if people are actively avoiding the 'best' route on a given day due to suspension or disruption.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
-do you have any details about the new works programme, i was browsing through the internet and stumbled upon a claim, that the northern was planned to be extended from kennington to streatham via BR tracks, do you know if this was true, and are there any other little known extensions/lines that have been proposed or planned post war??
Only what I know off the top of my head really... The Kennington - Streatham over BR is new to me.

The Northern Line has the most unrealised works from that era: Construction beyond Edgware was started and abandoned to Bushey Heath, Elstree South and Brockley Hill... That's why platforms 2 and 3 at Edgware continue into short stubs of tunnel north of the station before ending unceremoniously. There was also a huge depot planned for between Bushey Heath and Elstree South, all the trainsheds were built but never saw any track (this was to replace Golders Green Depot). In addition to this new construction, there was a lot of unrealised conversion works of BR lines: Mill Hill East is just a stub of the LNER branch to Edgware, which was in the process of being doubled and electrified when works were abandoned... This formerly single track branchline was to be diverted into the Northern Line Edgware station via a chord which is effectively still in situ in the form of the southern fan of Edgware stabling sidings.

In addition you probably know about the Northern Heights lines (also LNER), which were also in the process of being electrified when abandoned, this was a line from Finsbury Park to East Finchley via Stroud Green, Crouch End and Highgate High Level with a branch from Highgate to Cranley Gardens, Muswell Hill and Alexandra Palace. At the southern end new platforms were being built at Finsbury Park and new ramps to carry these trains down onto the Great Northern & City line to Moorgate, all these works were tantalisingly close and all but finished before post-WW2 austerity killed them all off. Even more tantalisingly the Highgate - Finsbury Park section saw Northern Line trains trundling over its metals up until 1970, as this was the stock transfer route onto the GN&C line (although the trains were hauled by battery locos as the current rails had been lifted by then).

More ambitiously, works had commenced on an 'express' Northern Line below the current one at the outbreak of WW2, with the platform tunnels below Clapham Common having been used as an air raid shelter and later to house Caribbean immigrants from the Windrush era (hence nearby Brixton becoming London's first Caribbean neighbourhood). The only other physical vestige of this scheme to my knowledge is the space for passing loops around Brent Cross station.

The Central Line fared better, with almost all of its 'New works' completed, the only omission was the failure to build the proposed extension beyond West Ruislip to Denham.

Two other postwar proposals which came to naught were the extension of the Aldwych Branch to Waterloo, and the Bakerloo beyond Elephant & Castle to Camberwell. The latter got as far as some tunnel construction at Elephant & Castle, with the original 1906 over-run tunnels being diverted southward from the original east-pointing alignment. Camberwell station even began to appear on Tube maps of the day, and even some enamel line maps and platform indicators in the 1950's.

There have been numerous other proposals since WW2, obviously 2 have come to fruition (Victoria and Jubilee Lines), but many more have not. Some of my favourite ones are Central Line from Shepherd's Bush to Turnham Green thence over the Richmond Branch, Bakerloo from Queen's Park to North Acton thence into Ealing Broadway over the Central Line (there two went hand in hand, proposed circa 1990 along with the Chelney and Bakerloo from Elephant & Castle to the then abandoned Bricklayer's Arms goods line to Lewisham / Hayes).

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
-if chelney is ever built and even if it isn't, i think the way tramlink doesn't interact with the northern line, is at wimbledon and the wimbledon loop is so crap should be altered... basically. tramlink takes over the wimbledon loop to merton south runs along the road, interchanges with morden, then runs through morden hall park and rejoins the main route, allows it to interchange with morden. then they could divert the wimbledon loop (and maybe one day chelney) down the tramlink route and via short tunnel (no more than 100m) into morden, cross platform interchange with the northern, through the depot and back to the loop, simple and it makes the area a more attractive transport proposal, what do you think?
Great idea. The Thameslink Wimbledon Loop is a crap service, I'd like to see the whole section from Streatham to Sutton via Wimbledon converted to Tramlink, with a couple of street-running diversions (e.g. to serve Tooting Broadway, and Morden as you describe). While I'm generally loathe to support turning 'real' rail into tram / light rail, it is undeniable that for some poorly-served suburban lines is the way forward, the Wimbledon - West Croydon Line is a perfect example: far better frequencies, more stations... as long as interchange with 'real' rail is good then it's preferable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
why did they build that harvestock tunnel with 4 tracks when there are 6 either side, or was it 6 tracked after?
The entire Midland main line was built as a 4 track initially, which was unusually long-sighted as all other main lines began as double track and had additional tracks added with time. I guess when the freight roads were added to the Midland line, it was not deemed worth the expense to add another pair of tracks under Haverstock Hill. Doesn't pose any great issues operationally today, although it may have done when train movements were at their peak.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
-do you think the east london line extension couldve and shouldve been better? i personally think they should have concentrated on making it a full orbital service, by dropping the new cross and gate branches, run all the trains round the loop and spent the rest of the money improving and creating interchanges, and building extra tracking and links to divert freight, i can't believe how man important town centres and lines it misses!
I agree... I'm a big fan of 'Orbirail', I'd rather have seen this being the cut & thrust of the ELLX, with just the West Croydon service superimposed. New Cross remaining as a little stub is utterly pointless, but if it could be extended down to Bromley North then it is worth retaining.

It has to be borne in mind that the ELLX will be pretty useless to people in Croydon, Forest Hill, Brockley etc... and a downright nuisance if as a consequence they lose direct London Bridge trains or that service is reduced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
-where can i find out details of the busiest stations on the LU, i know its on wiki and tfl website but is there a ranking list, also u know if they publish the busiest bus routes?

cheers again tubeman
Pass, sorry! Someone at TFL must know.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2008, 06:00 PM   #2874
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
I'm pretty certain the new 'Thameslink' viaduct crosses the Charing Cross viaduct and hugs the southern side through to London Bridge, removing any conflicting movements of a potential Waterloo - Cannon Street service. U Thant would hopefully be able to confirm.
the new viaduct is to the south of the existing one, however it will be for Charing Cross trains, with the old one being for Thameslink.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2008, 06:14 PM   #2875
mr_storms
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose/Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,321
Likes (Received): 4

will the dlr ever be finished with construction?

Seriously, theres at least 3 (4?) active projects on it (triple cars bank-lewishman, woolwhich extension, poplar flyover, and have they started stratford intl yet?). Seems to be extremely disruptive.

You know of other dlr extensions being considered? I know people have though about extending the bank branch west (charing's cross), which seems useful but expensive, and also proposed the extension towards gallions reach, which seems cheaper but less useful, and leaves beckton in an awkward position (although LU/tfl doesnt appear to have anything against awkward 1 station branches)

Edit: Tubie you betrayed to the bakerloo?!? (gasp)
__________________
pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/whakojacko/

Last edited by mr_storms; September 13th, 2008 at 06:22 PM.
mr_storms no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2008, 07:39 PM   #2876
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
I agree... I'm a big fan of 'Orbirail', I'd rather have seen this being the cut & thrust of the ELLX, with just the West Croydon service superimposed. New Cross remaining as a little stub is utterly pointless, but if it could be extended down to Bromley North then it is worth retaining.

It has to be borne in mind that the ELLX will be pretty useless to people in Croydon, Forest Hill, Brockley etc... and a downright nuisance if as a consequence they lose direct London Bridge trains or that service is reduced
I disagree with an 'Orbirail' having experimented with races from one suburb to another between 1/4 and 1/3 of the way round London and going into zone 1 was at least as good as (usually better) timewise, and changewise for those journeys as using the NLL - even when waits were factored in. There's no point in a circular service and the operational problems would be large - like with the circle line now.

However I do agree with a series of interchanging tangental services: Clapham Junction/New Cross-Highbury, Stratford-Clapham Junction/Richmond (if only because there isn't anywhere in the West Hampstead area to turn these trains) forming a rough circle. To that extent, I like the planned overground set up, other than the going to West Croydon (I'd bear Crystal Palace). New Cross is simply a short turn that happens to give another interchange (with the Eastern sector). I'm struggling to think of decent reasons why it's worth allowing the ELL to get past Highbury. It's simply Hoxton and Haggerston-Camden traffic that would be served by it.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2008, 08:23 PM   #2877
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
the new viaduct is to the south of the existing one, however it will be for Charing Cross trains, with the old one being for Thameslink.
Thanks for clarifying, I just got it into my head that the FCC / Thameslink would use the new viaduct, so I assumed it would be carried over at high level and then descend on the south side.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2008, 08:28 PM   #2878
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_storms View Post
will the dlr ever be finished with construction?

Seriously, theres at least 3 (4?) active projects on it (triple cars bank-lewishman, woolwhich extension, poplar flyover, and have they started stratford intl yet?). Seems to be extremely disruptive.

You know of other dlr extensions being considered? I know people have though about extending the bank branch west (charing's cross), which seems useful but expensive, and also proposed the extension towards gallions reach, which seems cheaper but less useful, and leaves beckton in an awkward position (although LU/tfl doesnt appear to have anything against awkward 1 station branches)

Edit: Tubie you betrayed to the bakerloo?!? (gasp)
It certainly feels like the DLR will never stop growing...

Woolwich Arsenal opens 2009, Stratford International is under construction and due to open 2010, and the next big project which is pretty much a dead cert is Dagenham Dock, which is expected circa 2017.

Beyond this and the murmurings about a Bank - Charing Cross extension I don't know of anything else.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2008, 08:43 PM   #2879
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
I disagree with an 'Orbirail' having experimented with races from one suburb to another between 1/4 and 1/3 of the way round London and going into zone 1 was at least as good as (usually better) timewise, and changewise for those journeys as using the NLL - even when waits were factored in. There's no point in a circular service and the operational problems would be large - like with the circle line now.

However I do agree with a series of interchanging tangental services: Clapham Junction/New Cross-Highbury, Stratford-Clapham Junction/Richmond (if only because there isn't anywhere in the West Hampstead area to turn these trains) forming a rough circle. To that extent, I like the planned overground set up, other than the going to West Croydon (I'd bear Crystal Palace). New Cross is simply a short turn that happens to give another interchange (with the Eastern sector). I'm struggling to think of decent reasons why it's worth allowing the ELL to get past Highbury. It's simply Hoxton and Haggerston-Camden traffic that would be served by it.
I don't really want to see a circular Orbirail for the operational reasons you note, but I'd like to see a Clapham Junction to Clapham Junction service overlaid with a Stratford to Highbury & Islington service (both making one lap of the Orbirail circle), if you catch my drift. LOROL is shaping up to be ridiculously complex with lots of overlapping services and one or two changes to get from a to b.

I'd like to see just the four:

Clapham Jcn to Clapham Jcn via entire Orbirail (4tph)
Highbury & Islington to Stratford via entire Orbirail (4tph)
Richmond to Barking via Gospel Oak (4tph)
Queen's Park to West Croydon via Camden Road & ELL (4tph)

The latter would be combined with the Bakerloo extending to Watford Jcn

Bollocks to the New Cross and Crystal Palace stubs of the ELLX, waste of train paths... The above 4 simple services cover the entire LOROL network.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2008, 10:52 PM   #2880
mr_storms
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose/Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,321
Likes (Received): 4

I guess I have another question. What will be the loading gauge of crossrail? If Chelney takes up the north central branch, wont those stations have to be modified even if they do end up using normal loading gauge. And what about crossrail 1? I know there will be some running alongside with Paddington services in the west, but if theyre going to build huge new tubes through London they might as well make them usable with larger gauge trains. And will the further electrification of the GWML mean they might add some electric commuter services or electrify some of the shorter commuter branches?
__________________
pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/whakojacko/
mr_storms 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 06:35 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