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 14th, 2008, 12:21 PM   #2881
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
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?
Normal loading gauge, I'm sure: don't forget that although the Tube section can be whatever size the engineers want it to be, either side of it the trains still have to fit under existing bridges, gantries etc.

If the Chelney / Crossrail II takes over the Central Line then I guess it would be converted back, bear in mind it was originally mainline anyway (Great Eastern Railway), so clearances under bridges, tunnels etc isn't a problem, just platform heights.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 14th, 2008, 07:53 PM   #2882
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
If the Chelney / Crossrail II takes over the Central Line then I guess it would be converted back, bear in mind it was originally mainline anyway (Great Eastern Railway), so clearances under bridges, tunnels etc isn't a problem, just platform heights.
only the bit from the now dismantled junction north of Stratford (which is south of where Chelney would join the route anyway) and Epping/Newbury Park via Woodford, save any new bridges (I think it's only the M25 one that's tube gauge). Of course the conversion back to mainline gauge presumes Chelney would be mainline gauge, which isn't certain.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2008, 10:40 AM   #2883
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
only the bit from the now dismantled junction north of Stratford (which is south of where Chelney would join the route anyway) and Epping/Newbury Park via Woodford, save any new bridges (I think it's only the M25 one that's tube gauge). Of course the conversion back to mainline gauge presumes Chelney would be mainline gauge, which isn't certain.
The only bit of the Central Line's east end which isn't mainline loading gauge is Leytonstone - Newbury Park, and I was working on the assumption that the Central Line would continue to serve the Hainault Loop while Chelney would run to Epping (otherwise where would it terminate? Stratford?).

I'd rather see Chelney take over the Chingford branch or run up via Clapton to Stansted Airport anyway.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2008, 03:20 PM   #2884
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

I think you said north of Stratford was all mainline gauge, hence my pointing out that only most of it is. There's the problem for Chelney to Epping of the M25 bridge being tube height, not mainline height - not a huge problem as all that's needed is to sink the track a few extra feet.

Chelney shouldn't take over the Chingford branch - the direct city link would be lost from those stations, and instead there's West End via the Victoria, or West End via Chelney.

Shenfield would be the best, though Crossrail is taking it, Epping is reasonable, the Lea Valley has no real catchment area inside London and it would make Chelney a slow and annoying service, not worth bothering with, in NE London. The Lea Valley route via Tottenham Hale could only really be a branch service due to the stopping at lots of stations with little chance of lots of people using them would put people from further out off using it all the way and ridership would be too low for more than 4tph - change at Broxbourne/Cheshunt onto a fast train for them.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 21st, 2008, 12:49 PM   #2885
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

I guess it depends whether you envisage Chelney as a Crossrail-type service or more of a traditional Tube line. I prefer the former myself, I think all our investment should focus on developing an RER-type system.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 21st, 2008, 06:13 PM   #2886
mr_storms
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose/Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,321
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
I guess it depends whether you envisage Chelney as a Crossrail-type service or more of a traditional Tube line. I prefer the former myself, I think all our investment should focus on developing an RER-type system.
exactly. Current Chelney plans are looking much more like a traditional tube line than the RER-like CrossRail 1 (especially if it takes over all the district stops on the wimbledon). I would much rather it take a new alignment to take over the hounslow loop, which would get a lot better service and then relieve some (ok maybe only a bit) of stress on waterloo. Also doesnt make much sense for people to have to cross the thames south to waterloo, and then north again on a tube into the city (imo)
__________________
pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/whakojacko/
mr_storms no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 21st, 2008, 07:10 PM   #2887
CharlieP
Tax avoider
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 23,762
Likes (Received): 1980

Tubey - was any thought given to the Victoria line taking over the southern half of the Hainault loop? Walthamstow Central is only about 3 km from Leytonstone Junction.
__________________
This signature is socialist and un-American.
CharlieP no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 21st, 2008, 08:59 PM   #2888
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieP View Post
Tubey - was any thought given to the Victoria line taking over the southern half of the Hainault loop? Walthamstow Central is only about 3 km from Leytonstone Junction.
It was certainly suggested c.1990 in a document produced when Paul Channon was Transport Minister, but I guess now it, or even just an extension to provide an interchange with the Central Line, would be deemed undesirable for capacity reasons (i.e. it could only make the Victoria even busier, and likely significantly so).
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 21st, 2008, 09:42 PM   #2889
sarflonlad
Registered User
 
sarflonlad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,086
Likes (Received): 68

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_storms View Post
exactly. Current Chelney plans are looking much more like a traditional tube line than the RER-like CrossRail 1 (especially if it takes over all the district stops on the wimbledon). I would much rather it take a new alignment to take over the hounslow loop, which would get a lot better service and then relieve some (ok maybe only a bit) of stress on waterloo. Also doesnt make much sense for people to have to cross the thames south to waterloo, and then north again on a tube into the city (imo)
There is no reason Chelney can't take over some SWT services beyond Wimbledon.

The Hounslow loop does not have as many services as it could granted (but that's an SWT scheduling issue). However the demand on the line is no where near as great as say the Wimbledon/Surbiton Lines. The services here are far more complex (something SWT have managed well and helped them secure the East Midlands Train franchise which is also complex). Chelney would open up capacity on this route and relieve Waterloo and a lot the SW Rail network more so then the flippin Hounslow loop! Additionally it will relieve the Victoria line (a benefit for those on the Hounslow loop who interchange with it) and provide a distinctly missing SW-NE cross london path. Chelney is far more beneficial socially than Crossrail. It also stands to create more capacity on London's trains and tubes. But this is the era of Banks, the Service Sector and Airports and we have to go with what they want (and as we've seen the government has to pick up all there things they break too).

As for 'crossing thames south and then north again' - that's irrelevant - West London is west London not north/south. It makes very little difference psychologically speaking and indeed I know people in the North side of Richmond Borough who consider themselves from SW London.
sarflonlad no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 22nd, 2008, 03:08 AM   #2890
mr_storms
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose/Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,321
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarflonlad View Post
There is no reason Chelney can't take over some SWT services beyond Wimbledon.

The Hounslow loop does not have as many services as it could granted (but that's an SWT scheduling issue). However the demand on the line is no where near as great as say the Wimbledon/Surbiton Lines. The services here are far more complex (something SWT have managed well and helped them secure the East Midlands Train franchise which is also complex). Chelney would open up capacity on this route and relieve Waterloo and a lot the SW Rail network more so then the flippin Hounslow loop! Additionally it will relieve the Victoria line (a benefit for those on the Hounslow loop who interchange with it) and provide a distinctly missing SW-NE cross london path. Chelney is far more beneficial socially than Crossrail. It also stands to create more capacity on London's trains and tubes. But this is the era of Banks, the Service Sector and Airports and we have to go with what they want (and as we've seen the government has to pick up all there things they break too).

As for 'crossing thames south and then north again' - that's irrelevant - West London is west London not north/south. It makes very little difference psychologically speaking and indeed I know people in the North side of Richmond Borough who consider themselves from SW London.
fair enough, if they actually extend it past wimbledon (current plans say no). However it still seems like with all those stops, it wouldnt be all that faster to commuters than the current path to waterloo, where their commuter train probably wouldnt have more than 2 stops (about?), and then a shortish tube ride (obviously depends on destination).
Dont worry, im not debating the usefulness/ potential of the line, Im just trying to think about ways to making it better. I figure regardless of its routing west of chelsea, itll remove a lot of victoria line capacity simply by proving another option for commuters from victoria into the city.
__________________
pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/whakojacko/
mr_storms no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 22nd, 2008, 06:30 AM   #2891
jarbury
Resident Planner
 
jarbury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Auckland
Posts: 3,795
Likes (Received): 24

How about building it as 4 tracks and running an express/local mixture of services, much like the New York Subway?
__________________
All opinions are my own and not my employer's (or anyone else's).
jarbury no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 22nd, 2008, 12:44 PM   #2892
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
How about building it as 4 tracks and running an express/local mixture of services, much like the New York Subway?
There is merit to that idea, but it obviously bumps up the cost a lot. Both Crossrail and Chelney will pretty much have the minimum number of underground Central London stations anyway, so already would be pretty express-like, obviously the main lines that are tapped in to for the surface sections generally already are at least quadruple anyway, allowing fast and slow services.

I certainly think that both Crossrail and Chelney / Crossrail 2 (if it takes more of a Crossrail-type format) should offer fast and slow services... Someone from Shenfield is still going to take a 'fast' Liverpool St train and change onto the Tube to continue their journey if the alternative is an all stations Crossrail train, even if it does continue beyond Liverpool Street to The West End without a change, which would pretty much defeat the point.

The 'slow' Crossrail should simply combine the Heathrow Connect and Gidea Park services, overlaid with a Shenfield to Reading 'fast' service.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 22nd, 2008, 01:18 PM   #2893
sarflonlad
Registered User
 
sarflonlad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,086
Likes (Received): 68

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_storms View Post
fair enough, if they actually extend it past wimbledon (current plans say no). However it still seems like with all those stops, it wouldnt be all that faster to commuters than the current path to waterloo, where their commuter train probably wouldnt have more than 2 stops (about?), and then a shortish tube ride (obviously depends on destination).
Dont worry, im not debating the usefulness/ potential of the line, Im just trying to think about ways to making it better. I figure regardless of its routing west of chelsea, itll remove a lot of victoria line capacity simply by proving another option for commuters from victoria into the city.
If it does go ahead as a tube line (but surely it's go to be criminal building tube sized tunnels in the 21st century) - then maybe it could branch: Wimbledon/Hounslow. The SWT tracks are full of loops and do meet with the existing district line. So it could be done with relative ease.
sarflonlad no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 23rd, 2008, 01:31 PM   #2894
skydive
BANNED
 
skydive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 256
Likes (Received): 4

Tubeman, i got a question for you regarding London Under ground, and its about Airconditioning, how come we dont have them yet. When i am on the northern line and central line, i hear and feel the fan/blower working behing the seats, and i know tubes are heated during winter. So how come no airconditions yet, they would be great in summer.

Thanks
skydive no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 23rd, 2008, 04:58 PM   #2895
mr_storms
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose/Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,321
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by skydive View Post
Tubeman, i got a question for you regarding London Under ground, and its about Airconditioning, how come we dont have them yet. When i am on the northern line and central line, i hear and feel the fan/blower working behing the seats, and i know tubes are heated during winter. So how come no airconditions yet, they would be great in summer.

Thanks
The AC units have to expel heat somewhere, so here "somewhere" would be the tunnels/stations which are already plenty hot as is. I beleive the new S stock will have AC since there is better ventilation on the subsurface lines though...
__________________
pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/whakojacko/
mr_storms no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2008, 01:01 AM   #2896
jarbury
Resident Planner
 
jarbury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Auckland
Posts: 3,795
Likes (Received): 24

Other underground systems manage AC. I think the main issue is that the tunnels are very very small compared to other systems, which makes it way more difficult to dissipate the heat.
__________________
All opinions are my own and not my employer's (or anyone else's).
jarbury no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2008, 01:07 AM   #2897
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

there's also the problem of fitting the units into the trains.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2008, 01:11 AM   #2898
Acemcbuller
Lifelong Londoner
 
Acemcbuller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London
Posts: 204
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by skydive View Post
Tubeman, i got a question for you regarding London Under ground, and its about Airconditioning, how come we dont have them yet.
Previous discussion and articles: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...85084&page=130
Acemcbuller no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2008, 02:55 PM   #2899
skydive
BANNED
 
skydive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 256
Likes (Received): 4

cheers fella, much appreciated
skydive no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 26th, 2008, 12:58 AM   #2900
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

S Stock Mock-up unveiled
iampuking 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 08:35 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