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 October 31st, 2008, 08:29 AM   #2941
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

Does this train have a "flat" wheel as you were describing earlier? It sounds like it, especially towards the end...

iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 31st, 2008, 10:16 AM   #2942
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
Does this train have a "flat" wheel as you were describing earlier? It sounds like it, especially towards the end...

Yes, sounds like there are 'flats' on that car... The clip is also a good ilustration of the weird whining / moaning noise mostly heard on the Victoria Line due to railhead corrugation. It is fairly unusual to get 'flats' on Victoria Line trains simply because they run almost exclusively underground (and shouldn't be going fast enough within Northumberland Park Depot to get them from the usual manner of skidding on ice / rain / leaves). I suspect that flats in this case would have been causes by 'Brakes hanging on', i.e. the brake blocks didn't release properly on one axle as the train pulled away from a station, causing the wheels to be dragged without turning and wearing a flat edge. Often when older trains (including 67 Stock) are just pulling away from a station, there's a loud dragging / belching / vibrating for about a second, this is due to brake blocks not releasing quickly enough. Hopefully you know the noise I'm talking about?
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 31st, 2008, 12:04 PM   #2943
coit
Registered User
 
coit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 20
Likes (Received): 1

Why don't they put a rail grinder through it?
coit no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 31st, 2008, 01:11 PM   #2944
Jang0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 131
Likes (Received): 0

Hi Tubeman,

I've got another question about that (many times aforementioned) Bakerloo extension south to wherever.

It strikes me that if TfL and Southwark Council and Network Rail were to have a little chat, the Bakerloo could be extended to Hayes for considerably less than the several billion they are claiming.

Note first, that this route might miss out on a few tricks (like not going to Camberwell and that Hayes doesn't really need to be converted to tube) but bear with me.

1) Apparently tube tunnels already head off down Walworth road. Walworth road is physically very near Aylesbury estate (couple of hundred metres maybe). The Aylesbury is about to be completely razed to the ground and rebuilt in the next 15 years. Has anyone discussed with Southwark Council how this land could effectively be used for London's benefit without impacting their scheme? My plan would be that in the process of digging up the estate, they stick a great big concrete cut-and-cover tunnel in. Would be a lot cheaper than boring underneath.

2) At the other side of the estate, Burgess Park is situated and you could take any route through the park (cut-and-cover) although the straightest might be best to minimise damage to the park. But considering this park is in need of redevelopment anyway, this might not be such a bad thing.

3) Head towards Peckham. All the way into Peckham the old Grand Surrey Canal alignment could be used. I would envisage this again being cut-and-cover underneath the park they've now created, but technically this could be surface level. Even the bridges are in place.

4) At Peckham you would need 500m (that's a guess) to get underneath Peckham towards the Peckham Rye / Nunhead line. This would be the most difficult engineering challenge on the line as the line would need to get from sub-ground to elevated in a relatively short distance.

5) Nunhead used to be 4-track and so did all the track from Peckham Rye towards it, therefore, I would think that there would be space (looking at Google Maps) to reinstate the 4-track in this section and keep the tube separate from the NR line. The Bakerloo would then take over the Nunhead-Lewisham track. I'm not sure what impact this would have on freight services, but it would be a great use of an under-used alignment which would have an obvious interchange at Brockley with the ELL.

6) New Platforms at Lewisham looks easy enough. They would be to the West of the existing Hayes / Hither Green ones, so that the Hither Green trains can continue to call at Lewisham. The track would then be 4-track down to the junction north of Ladywell and from there on in, the whole of the rest of the line down to Hayes would be a simple NR -> LU conversion.

In summary:
New Stations - Aylesbury (maybe some others in the gaps between the other stations)
Station rebuilds - Peckham Rye NR interchange, Nunhead, Brockley, Lewisham
Bored tunnel sections - Walworth -> Aylesbury (500m tops) and Peckham (500m)
Cut-and-cover sections - Aylesbury -> Peckham

What do you think?

Do you think the Council would ever chat with TfL about the Aylesbury? It's a large piece of land in inner London - personally I don't think Southwark should be allowed to just build what they want there without consideration of the greater London good.

Jango
Jang0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 31st, 2008, 03:12 PM   #2945
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by coit View Post
Why don't they put a rail grinder through it?
They do, but I understand the Victoria Line railheads corrugate much quicker than other lines due to their dryness combined with high speeds.

Rainwater / humid air introduced into tunnels by trains on lines with overground sections assists with wheel / rail lubrication and prevents corrugation and broken rails, however minute the amounts might be in the deeper recesses of these lines.

That's the explanation I've heard, anyway!
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 31st, 2008, 03:22 PM   #2946
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jang0 View Post
Hi Tubeman,

I've got another question about that (many times aforementioned) Bakerloo extension south to wherever.

It strikes me that if TfL and Southwark Council and Network Rail were to have a little chat, the Bakerloo could be extended to Hayes for considerably less than the several billion they are claiming.

Note first, that this route might miss out on a few tricks (like not going to Camberwell and that Hayes doesn't really need to be converted to tube) but bear with me.

1) Apparently tube tunnels already head off down Walworth road. Walworth road is physically very near Aylesbury estate (couple of hundred metres maybe). The Aylesbury is about to be completely razed to the ground and rebuilt in the next 15 years. Has anyone discussed with Southwark Council how this land could effectively be used for London's benefit without impacting their scheme? My plan would be that in the process of digging up the estate, they stick a great big concrete cut-and-cover tunnel in. Would be a lot cheaper than boring underneath.

2) At the other side of the estate, Burgess Park is situated and you could take any route through the park (cut-and-cover) although the straightest might be best to minimise damage to the park. But considering this park is in need of redevelopment anyway, this might not be such a bad thing.

3) Head towards Peckham. All the way into Peckham the old Grand Surrey Canal alignment could be used. I would envisage this again being cut-and-cover underneath the park they've now created, but technically this could be surface level. Even the bridges are in place.

4) At Peckham you would need 500m (that's a guess) to get underneath Peckham towards the Peckham Rye / Nunhead line. This would be the most difficult engineering challenge on the line as the line would need to get from sub-ground to elevated in a relatively short distance.

5) Nunhead used to be 4-track and so did all the track from Peckham Rye towards it, therefore, I would think that there would be space (looking at Google Maps) to reinstate the 4-track in this section and keep the tube separate from the NR line. The Bakerloo would then take over the Nunhead-Lewisham track. I'm not sure what impact this would have on freight services, but it would be a great use of an under-used alignment which would have an obvious interchange at Brockley with the ELL.

6) New Platforms at Lewisham looks easy enough. They would be to the West of the existing Hayes / Hither Green ones, so that the Hither Green trains can continue to call at Lewisham. The track would then be 4-track down to the junction north of Ladywell and from there on in, the whole of the rest of the line down to Hayes would be a simple NR -> LU conversion.

In summary:
New Stations - Aylesbury (maybe some others in the gaps between the other stations)
Station rebuilds - Peckham Rye NR interchange, Nunhead, Brockley, Lewisham
Bored tunnel sections - Walworth -> Aylesbury (500m tops) and Peckham (500m)
Cut-and-cover sections - Aylesbury -> Peckham

What do you think?

Do you think the Council would ever chat with TfL about the Aylesbury? It's a large piece of land in inner London - personally I don't think Southwark should be allowed to just build what they want there without consideration of the greater London good.

Jango
Hi Jango, and welcome to SSC!

It's a very intriguing and novel suggestion... To add to it I'd suggest that cleared land ex-Aylesbury Estate could also be turned over to a new depot allowing closure of the cramped London Road (prime real estate in SE1 / Zone 1), the depot could be rafted over exactly like the new White City depot on the Central Line has been for Westfield.

The main issue for me as you rightly note is that the line would 'miss' Camberwell, which I think would be a big loss, but if the choice is either this suggestion or nothing at all, it certainly wouldn't hurt.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 31st, 2008, 06:39 PM   #2947
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Surely Camberwell could be served by reopening the station on the Blackfriars line there? They'd need to be on all 4 tracks (so Sevenoaks/Orpington and Kent House/Sutton loop services can all stop there, rather than having the longer distance ones stopping)?
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2008, 12:00 PM   #2948
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
Surely Camberwell could be served by reopening the station on the Blackfriars line there? They'd need to be on all 4 tracks (so Sevenoaks/Orpington and Kent House/Sutton loop services can all stop there, rather than having the longer distance ones stopping)?
There is that, most certainly... It seems a bit arbitrary to have kept Loughborough Junction whilst closing Camberwell and Walworth Road stations, I think with the ease of bus access along the Walworth Road to the tube at Elephant & Castle, Walworth Road would not be realistic to re-open, but there is a strong case for Camberwell to re-open. This would allow Jango's 'cheap' (and more direct) Bakerloo extension toward Peckham, with the ability to provide numerous ventilation shafts allowing the Bakerloo to be significantly cooler.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2008, 09:20 PM   #2949
zfreeman
Registered User
 
zfreeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cork City, formally SY,UK/LDN,UK and CT,SA
Posts: 739
Likes (Received): 1

Hey tubeman,

Hope you enjoyed India?

I also thought the initail work pointed in the direction of Camberwell given that appeared on the pre-war tube map......

However given that Camberwell could be served by a regular overground rail service that has connections to the tube netweork then why not build through the area but allow for future growth by sticking the tunnels in a big box which would allow platforms etc to be built at a later date.

Another question about camberwell originally the area supported four rail stations
Loughborough Junction,Denmark Hill both of which i understand are on the ouskirts of the area.
Camberwell Gate and Camberwell New Road both were located closer to the Green and closer to the shopping area. Given that the line serving both these former stations is still in operation would it not be easier and cheaper to build a new station on this rail route. Saving money to be used on extending the bakerloo line to through Peckham, Camberwell would then be linked through to both Peckham and Elephant by buses, and the proposed CRT.
zfreeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2008, 01:26 AM   #2950
Jang0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 131
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by zfreeman View Post
Hey tubeman,

Hope you enjoyed India?

I also thought the initail work pointed in the direction of Camberwell given that appeared on the pre-war tube map......

However given that Camberwell could be served by a regular overground rail service that has connections to the tube netweork then why not build through the area but allow for future growth by sticking the tunnels in a big box which would allow platforms etc to be built at a later date.

Another question about camberwell originally the area supported four rail stations
Loughborough Junction,Denmark Hill both of which i understand are on the ouskirts of the area.
Camberwell Gate and Camberwell New Road both were located closer to the Green and closer to the shopping area. Given that the line serving both these former stations is still in operation would it not be easier and cheaper to build a new station on this rail route. Saving money to be used on extending the bakerloo line to through Peckham, Camberwell would then be linked through to both Peckham and Elephant by buses, and the proposed CRT.
I think that the CRT is largely superceded by my proposed Bakerloo suggestions, and besides, I need to think about this some more, but I suspect my policy would be to reject any tram proposals within zone 1. It's liable to be overcrowded as soon as it opens. Zone 1 should be for metro-type services - i.e. Tube.
Jang0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2008, 01:01 AM   #2951
zfreeman
Registered User
 
zfreeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cork City, formally SY,UK/LDN,UK and CT,SA
Posts: 739
Likes (Received): 1

True.

But any transport measure made within Zone 1 will more than likely be overcrowded from the outset.

Anything that provides additional routes through the area will be a good thing, IF it has a dedicated right of way.

Personally, I'd prefer going the whole hog and banning cars within the Zone UNLESS they were carrying more than one person, or registered taxi's, but that would never happen you just have to look at the chaos caused when they block off one or two streets for the bike thing that they do as part of a car free day.
zfreeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2008, 09:42 AM   #2952
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by zfreeman View Post
Hey tubeman,

Hope you enjoyed India?

I also thought the initail work pointed in the direction of Camberwell given that appeared on the pre-war tube map......

However given that Camberwell could be served by a regular overground rail service that has connections to the tube netweork then why not build through the area but allow for future growth by sticking the tunnels in a big box which would allow platforms etc to be built at a later date.

Another question about camberwell originally the area supported four rail stations
Loughborough Junction,Denmark Hill both of which i understand are on the ouskirts of the area.
Camberwell Gate and Camberwell New Road both were located closer to the Green and closer to the shopping area. Given that the line serving both these former stations is still in operation would it not be easier and cheaper to build a new station on this rail route. Saving money to be used on extending the bakerloo line to through Peckham, Camberwell would then be linked through to both Peckham and Elephant by buses, and the proposed CRT.
Hi

India was great thanks, check out the link to my photos in my sig

The over-run tunnels at Elephant & Castle actually point in 2 different directions: the original tunnels point east under New Kent Road and the current tunnels point south toward Camberwell, but the latter obliterate the former.

The two stations between Elephant & Castle and Loughborough Junction suffered the same fate of a lot of London's inner-city mainline stations, proving uncompetitive with electric trams combined with staff shortage during WW1 leading to closure... However once the trams went passengers were left with just buses.

It would be far cheaper to re-open either station than to provide a new one at a different location simply because the viaduct already has the necessary spaces to accommodate platforms at these locations (and I guess the infrastructure of stairwells etc is pretty much intact). As I said, Camberwell is a winner but Walworth Road probably not so due to proximity to Camberwell and Elephant & Castle and the parallel Walworth Road and its buses.

A Bakerloo extension would be much more than just serving Camberwell, and if Camberwell can be served by a re-opened mainline station then a Bakerloo extension could take Jango's more direct route to Peckham, which is I assume a bigger priority.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2008, 01:55 PM   #2953
Jang0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 131
Likes (Received): 0

There are a couple of problems with my route that haven't been picked up on yet.

One of those is duplicity of route. Currently we have NR trains from Catford -> Nunhead -> Elephant & Castle using the Catford Loop line up to Blackfriars.

If the Bakerloo is extended to Hayes, then you get a service which runs from Catford (Bridge) -> Nunhead -> Elephant & Castle! Albeit, via Lewisham which would be incredibly useful.

Another problem is the CRT, which I've mentioned previously. If the CRT was to go ahead, then the Bakerloo won't. A metro-style Bakerloo extension is what is required in Zone 1, not a low-capacity tram system. The trams should definitely be used out in semi-suburban London (Lewisham, Brent Cross, Wimbledon) to replace heavy bus routes. To me, the CRT sounds like a half-baked measure aimed to solve the problem of the overcrowding on the Northern line. The French would build RER; we British prefer to skirt the issue.

But the final thing, which I fear would drive the final nail in my route's coffin, is that Southwark Council will proceed with their Aylesbury scheme without any thought for the greater London good. Their precocious schemes to remove cars from Elephant & Castle for the sake of their local pedestrians is merely an example of how blinkered they are to London as a whole. What we need is action now before it's too late.
Jang0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2008, 11:42 PM   #2954
jarbury
Resident Planner
 
jarbury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Auckland
Posts: 3,795
Likes (Received): 24

I'm not quite sure what the rationale is for keeping trams/light-rail out of inner London. I mean surely along routes that have far too many buses (like Oxford Street for example) a tram line would be great due to its significantly higher capacity.
__________________
All opinions are my own and not my employer's (or anyone else's).
jarbury no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 4th, 2008, 07:28 PM   #2955
Jang0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 131
Likes (Received): 0

I'm happy to disagree on this point. I need to work out in my own mind what value trams/light-rail should have in inner London.

I take your point that Oxford Street may be a good place to have trams. Clearly, the buses are more useful than the Tube in that scenario. Now I have to think about why and how that should be extrapolated to less obvious areas.
Jang0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 4th, 2008, 08:26 PM   #2956
ajw373
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,249
Likes (Received): 48

Quote:
Originally Posted by jarbury View Post
I'm not quite sure what the rationale is for keeping trams/light-rail out of inner London. I mean surely along routes that have far too many buses (like Oxford Street for example) a tram line would be great due to its significantly higher capacity.
The problem is all those buses are not there to just serve Oxford street, they quite clearly spread out into the suburbs at various points along the route. So to convert Oxford street to trams you would have to do either every route that goes down Oxford Street (which would not be viable) have have interchange points where people could join buses to get them where they are going, which isn't viable either.

As for the tube the only line that follows Oxford street is the central line. For short trips down Oxford street it isn't useful, due to costs times etc. So the people who use the Central line are people who have come or are going to points beyond Oxford street or those who have changed from other lines. The only buses that follow the central line for any distance are the 390 and 94. The 390 isn't overly busy, but the 94 is Often packed by Bond Street station, with many passengers getting off the route on the part that parallels the Central line (ie Oxford Circus to Shepherds bus).

Oh I know this is off topic but a page or two back there is a debate about artic buses vs double deckers. In particular reasons why people might choose to ride an artic over a decker on routes where both operate. The common theory is they want to evade the fares, but my experiance is maybe they want to get there faster as the deckers are much slower to load and unload so the artic gets there faster, provided it isn't being blocked by a slow loading DD.

Like everything the artics have a place. Londoners should accept that with a growing population that more artics are needed and the luxury of a seat might have to be given up by far greater standing space. Due to saftey reasons standing isn't allowed on the top deck of a DD, so in that regards the artic has far greater carrying capacity.
ajw373 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2008, 07:54 PM   #2957
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Hi tubeman just a point about DLR to woolwich that i have just noticed out of curiosity is this

it takes

-34 minutes roughly to get from woolwich arsenal to charing cross

-31 minutes to get from woolwich arsenal to canon street

via south eastern

-it is eastimated that it will take 27 minutes to get to bank on the DLR

the DLR has the advantages of being integrated with TFL fares, more frequent, and it takes u into the heart of the city, and one of LU's biggest interchange stations.

Based on all this do you not think this extension is gonna be REALLY REALLY overcrowded within weeks of it opening.

the station has nearly 3 million passengers with 6-8 trains an hour all going to different destinations via different routes. imagine what being on the tube map is gonna do.
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2008, 08:20 PM   #2958
Jang0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 131
Likes (Received): 0

to be honest, i can't really see the justification behind that DLR extension... not considering that Crossrail will soon be there too and it should be a much better service than the DLR.
Jang0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2008, 08:34 PM   #2959
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jang0 View Post
to be honest, i can't really see the justification behind that DLR extension... not considering that Crossrail will soon be there too and it should be a much better service than the DLR.
crossrail was never planned to stop at woolwich which was alwasy stupid, the original plan was for the jubliee line to follow the crossrail alignment from north greenwich, the only difference being that it would serve woolwich arsenal station, and run along the disused track bed to thamesmead.

There was also a plan in the late nineties to extend the north london line to the north kent line west of woolwich via either a flat or flying junction, with trains running from dartford to stratford, according to the source i got this from it had a positive cost benefit ratio, but ultimately didn't get the go ahead. The reason why the DLR was chosen is because it was the cheapest and it was already being extended to LCA anyway, so it obviously made sense.

Crossrail was never initially intended to serve woolwich or canary wharf it was only added for funding reasons, although they'll tell you it is important to the service (yeah right!). The station at woolwich was only added a few years ago due to local protest, and the fact that it runs just past the town centre. The station isn't even in the town centre it is to the north of it, in the woolwich arsenal redevelopment area and will not be integrated properly with local transport (a big theme with crossrail).

This is why DLR was chosen.
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2008, 08:38 PM   #2960
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

another question tubeman i have just seen a map which has a crossrail alignment running from the isle of dogs station to charlton via north greenwich, then by the looks taking over the north kent line to places beyond, surely this is a million times better than the alignment they chose.

Obviously, it would leave the north kent line from greenwich nowhere to go, except maybe terminating at the old bay platform in charlton or even curving round into the blackheath tunnel then back to central london via lewisham. It ceases to amaze that they always choose the worst idea. The question is do you think this wouldve been a better idea?
bigbossman 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