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 December 4th, 2008, 07:41 AM   #3101
lightrail
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 205
Likes (Received): 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
another quick one, how do tube trains and national rail stock share the same lines, running third rail and fourth rail??
On the shared tracks, there is a "dummy" fourth rail in the centre of the track. This rail is grounded to the running rails.

Tube trains pick up power from the 700v DC third rail and discharge to the fourth rail, which transfers the discharge to the running rail.

Network Rail trains pick up power from the 700v DC third rail and discharge to the running rails.
lightrail no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 4th, 2008, 11:54 AM   #3102
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
Tubeman, had an interesting trip to oxford this week travelling on the great western main line, which tbf is damn fast and for all it's documented faults thought had a nice service, oxford-london in under an hour. But they have to electrify it, the place i stayed in was right by the station and the noise those damn deisel trains made at 5 in the morning is horrendous, do you know why this line was never fully electrified, at least to reading, oxford or bristol??

commuted to waterloo today, and the amount of people changing trains at london bridge just get to waterloo is amazing, more than stayed on to charng cross, i think at least re opening the chord to waterloo is a must for through services, even if it means cutting through the concourse... do you know what platform it would come cut through? it looked like around platform 4-5 to me.

cheers tubeman
I'm not too sure about why the GWR mainline missed out on electrification... Obviously cost for one... It's really 3 main lines in one with the route splitting at Reading, Didcot and Swindon to serve Oxford / Birmingham, Wales, and SW England... the total mileage must be pretty huge (certainly far more than London to Scotland for example).

I always assumed too that the sea-front section between Dawlish and Teignmouth would pose problems for 25Kv AC as waves often crash right over trains during stormy weather, but others have disputed this elsewhere... If this was an issue then the SW mainline would never be electrified beyond Exeter so trains to Plymouth and Penzance would have to remain diesel. I also recall that the Severn Tunnel isn't big enough to accommodate OLE, if this too is the case then that rules out trains to Wales being electric... Only really leaving services to Exteter, Bristol and Oxford / Birmingham.

I certainly agree that for a start the line to Birmingham via Oxford should be electrified, as should the SW England mainline to at least Bedwyn (where the 'slow' trains terminate), and the line to Bristol... This should halve the amount of diesel traction in and out of Paddington. I guess though that it's deemed a waste if a line is electrified only for at best half the trains running along it to be electric?

Regarding re-connecting Waterloo and Waterloo East, I'm all for it as I've mentioned elsewhere... It would create something similar to RER C which runs along the left bank of The Seine. It would become a lot more practicable once the 'Thameslink 2000' works provide quadrupling between London Bridge and Metropolitan Junction... The only drawback is the disruption to Waterloo concourse, I guess your estimate of the link being in the vicinity of platforms 4/5 is about right.

I'd keep Charing Cross though, the bridge in situ is only wide enough for double track (but never carried more than single), and I think there would be a lot of protests by Southeastern customers if they lost their direct trains into the 'West End'.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2008, 11:55 AM   #3103
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightrail View Post
On the shared tracks, there is a "dummy" fourth rail in the centre of the track. This rail is grounded to the running rails.

Tube trains pick up power from the 700v DC third rail and discharge to the fourth rail, which transfers the discharge to the running rail.

Network Rail trains pick up power from the 700v DC third rail and discharge to the running rails.
Correct
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2008, 02:43 PM   #3104
elfabyanos
Dracuna Macoides
 
elfabyanos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brighton
Posts: 1,814
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
no i disagree i went from london bridge to waterloo, basically alot of people who were on cannon street trains on london bridge terminators hop over to platfrom 6 to the very frequent trains into charing cross. the train was packed out for one stop then it emptied more or less at waterloo. I'd prefer all the charing cross service be diverted into waterloo and take over one of the pairs of tracks out of waterloo. i don't think charing cross is all that personally and most passengers get on at waterloo east and london bridge.
I used to commute from Sevenoaks to Charing Cross. A lot of the people getting off at Waterloo are going to offices on the south bank. Also, they are taking Southwark tube now that CX isn't on the jubilee. The majority of passengers continue to CX. IT wouldn't make any sense to divert any CX trains away, as most are not taking suburban lines out of Waterloo main.
elfabyanos no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2008, 09:54 PM   #3105
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by elfabyanos View Post
I used to commute from Sevenoaks to Charing Cross. A lot of the people getting off at Waterloo are going to offices on the south bank. Also, they are taking Southwark tube now that CX isn't on the jubilee. The majority of passengers continue to CX. IT wouldn't make any sense to divert any CX trains away, as most are not taking suburban lines out of Waterloo main.
That's a bit one-sided: Southeastern customers have the benefit of stations slapbang in The City (Cannon St), in The West End (Charing Cross), the South Bank (Waterloo East) and of course London Bridge.

Having an RER C-style route hugging the south bank of The Thames would be of greater benefit to SWT customers allowing them to continue on to London Bridge, or use the currently little used west curve into Cannon Street... Currently all they have is Waterloo.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2008, 11:59 PM   #3106
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

heres another question, i know you talked about how the tube uses stepping back?? at stations so trains can get out quicker, is that a reason which limits capacity at mainline stations around London. PEople say long distance trains rely on a longer wait in main terminals however on my trip to oxford the train platform was announced 3 minutes before departure and the train was full within that 3 minutes.

-Basically do you reckon they could increase capacity with turnarounds like this,

and

-ideally what would you say the amount of platforms and roads into each mainline station in london really needs to operate an effecient and effective service??

Hope my questions aren't too weird, cheers tubeman
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2008, 02:35 AM   #3107
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
I'm not too sure about why the GWR mainline missed out on electrification... Obviously cost for one... It's really 3 main lines in one with the route splitting at Reading, Didcot and Swindon to serve Oxford / Birmingham, Wales, and SW England... the total mileage must be pretty huge (certainly far more than London to Scotland for example).
London-Penzance is the same distance as London-Newcastle. And you have the S Wales branch of the GWML from Reading and then off that the Bath and Temple Meads branch from Swindon and the Oxford and Banbury branch from Didcot. There is a fairly active desire, to electrify to Swansea, with Bristol Temple Meads via Bath and Banbury via Oxford (and maybe Bedwyn) electrified as well. This leaves the SW and Hereford services unelectrified (there are no services to Birmingham, which, once built, took the GC/GW joint via High Wycombe for most of it's history, though Stratford-London trains went via Oxford until fairly recently, and there were Cross Country trains every once in a while extended from Reading to Paddington until Operation Princess came along)
Quote:
I always assumed too that the sea-front section between Dawlish and Teignmouth would pose problems for 25Kv AC as waves often crash right over trains during stormy weather, but others have disputed this elsewhere...
I guess you could build a protective thing around it.
Quote:
If this was an issue then the SW mainline would never be electrified beyond Exeter so trains to Plymouth and Penzance would have to remain diesel.
and as few trains terminate at Exeter, you end up with Bedwyn and Bristol Temple Meads, as the rather long stretch of electrification, for just a few services a day isn't worth it).
Quote:
I also recall that the Severn Tunnel isn't big enough to accommodate OLE, if this too is the case then that rules out trains to Wales being electric...
the latest NR business case for electrification definitely doesn't rule it out, but supports electrification to Swansea as it has a good business case.
Quote:
Only really leaving services to Exteter, Bristol and Oxford / Birmingham.
except Birmingham services go to Marylebone, and very much went via High Wycombe most of the time. Exeter is electrifying for no real reason as most trains (both XC and GW) go on to Torbay, Plymouth and Cornwall - it's also quite a long way (Exeter being about 90 miles away from Reading and 75 from Bristol). Just Bristol and Oxford gives an very reasonable rate of return, though adding Swansea increases that Cost-Benefit ratio to something really rather good.
Quote:
I certainly agree that for a start the line to Birmingham via Oxford should be electrified,
with Banbury-Birmingham being pointless without the Chiltern line being electrified? The Chiltern Main Line gives an awful rate of return - Cross Country is worse (CBR of less than 0.2), but a Cost-Benefit Ratio of less than 1 is definitely going to mean it doesn't happen until something changes (you'd want at least 2.5, preferably 3 for a rail project to be built).
Quote:
as should the SW England mainline to at least Bedwyn (where the 'slow' trains terminate), and the line to Bristol... This should halve the amount of diesel traction in and out of Paddington. I guess though that it's deemed a waste if a line is electrified only for at best half the trains running along it to be electric?
to an extent, it is considered a waste - hence Swansea being far better than Cardiff (both have 1tph to London, though Cardiff also gets the Swansea ones). Bedwyn being fairly cheap is perhaps justifiable: I haven't read the report for a while, so forget whether it's worth it - I think it's only worth it if doing much of the rest of the GW. IIRC it's a hinderance, but the CBR of Maidenhead-Swansea/Banbury/Bristol is good enough to still be viable with Bedwyn tacked on
Quote:
Regarding re-connecting Waterloo and Waterloo East, I'm all for it as I've mentioned elsewhere... It would create something similar to RER C which runs along the left bank of The Seine. It would become a lot more practicable once the 'Thameslink 2000' works provide quadrupling between London Bridge and Metropolitan Junction...
you'd still be diverting trains from Charing Cross - an excellently sited terminus.
Quote:
The only drawback is the disruption to Waterloo concourse, I guess your estimate of the link being in the vicinity of platforms 4/5 is about right.
and the fact that the scheme wouldn't work without lots of awful features or lots of money?
Quote:
I'd keep Charing Cross though, the bridge in situ is only wide enough for double track (but never carried more than single), and I think there would be a lot of protests by Southeastern customers if they lost their direct trains into the 'West End'.
There'd be protests if half of those West End trains are removed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Having an RER C-style route hugging the south bank of The Thames would be of greater benefit to SWT customers allowing them to continue on to London Bridge, or use the currently little used west curve into Cannon Street... Currently all they have is Waterloo.
The West Curve - how would you get there? Cross the Charing Cross and Thameslink tracks on the flat? You'd also do some serious damage to the capacity of Cannon Street from the SE network - I guess reinstating the West Curve (which all but goes under Thameslink) would enable more than 20tph to be reversed there again (I think with the West Curve it's something like 25tph), however that's from both directions, unless you (having built a viaduct over the 4 tracks via Borough Market) have Cannon Street functioning like it originally did, having trains reverse there en-route to Charing Cross.

I guess it could work, have the Waterloo link carrying 20 to 24tph to the Charing Cross line, taking two of the 4 tracks between Metropolitan Junction, and the junction where the link joins in, and then going over a new viaduct (starting further back that Met Junction) to carry the lines over the Charing Cross and Thameslink tracks and onto the West Curve, reversing at Cannon Street and then doing SE suburban routes. You are talking about the cost of Borough Market viaduct, at least, which wasn't that cheap. It wouldn't be that reliable either, due to all sorts of conflicts in the Waterloo area, and the London Bridge area, and most of all, the Cannon Street area (stepping back a given requirement, longish dwell time making the route unattractive for through journeys).

Waterloo East is probably rather popular for SErn customers, as well as jobs on the South Bank, because it gives the best access to the Jubilee line - London Bridge is definitely annoying enough to change twice - once at London Bridge NR, once at Waterloo East/Southwark.

Last edited by sotonsi; December 5th, 2008 at 02:52 AM. Reason: some clarification and further proof reading
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2008, 10:32 AM   #3108
elfabyanos
Dracuna Macoides
 
elfabyanos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brighton
Posts: 1,814
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
That's a bit one-sided: Southeastern customers have the benefit of stations slapbang in The City (Cannon St), in The West End (Charing Cross), the South Bank (Waterloo East) and of course London Bridge.
Yes it is, but my point was responding to Bigbossman's perception of passenger movement on the Charing Cross line. It would of benefit to many, but IMO would also be of disbenefit to more. It would complicate the diagrams immensely.
elfabyanos no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2008, 10:34 AM   #3109
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by elfabyanos View Post
Yes it is, but my point was responding to Bigbossman's perception of passenger movement on the Charing Cross line. It would of benefit to many, but IMO would also be of disbenefit to more. It would complicate the diagrams immensely.
i disagree, maybe from sevenoaks more people use charing cross, but from the woolwich line and bexleyheath line both which i'd say are busier alot of people seem to get off at waterloo
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2008, 03:45 PM   #3110
sotavento
Registered user
 
sotavento's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,433
Likes (Received): 325

Tubeman ... wasn't the non electrification on GWR due to them having abundant fast diesel power at their disposal ??? It seems to still be the main argument against electrifying that particular route.

Another thing ... about the 2 routes out of birmingham to the south (in the general direction of London)

The one to Stratford-upom-avon could be extended to bypass the route by Banbury>oxford/high.wycombe and connect to the Aylesbury branch ... or even bypassing Aylesbury altogether just follow the A41 to merge with the the WCML north of Watford Junction ... does it seem viable to do such an upgrade/reinstatement of that particular railroad over there ???

The route Birmingham-Banbury itself seems to be missing half of its previous 4 tracks ... is that correct ??? or is that just a large road that follows alongside it for miles and miles ??? as far as I can see the embankment/cuttings are protected even in urban areas.

both seem like prime candidates to upgrading up to high-speed corridors ... and electrification turnng both of them into huge comuter/urban routes in suburban Birmingham London and a couple of places in between.
__________________
"O País perdeu a inteligência e a consciência moral. Ninguém se respeita nem crê na honestidade dos homens públicos. O povo está na miséria. Os serviços públicos vão abandonados. A mocidade arrasta-se das mesas das secretarias para as mesas dos cafés. A ruína económica cresce o comércio definha, a indústria enfraquece. O salário diminui. O Estado é considerado um ladrão e tratado como um inimigo.
Neste salve-se quem puder a burguesia proprietária de casas explora o aluguel. A agiotagem explora o juro…"”
— Eça
sotavento no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2008, 08:10 PM   #3111
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
heres another question, i know you talked about how the tube uses stepping back?? at stations so trains can get out quicker, is that a reason which limits capacity at mainline stations around London. PEople say long distance trains rely on a longer wait in main terminals however on my trip to oxford the train platform was announced 3 minutes before departure and the train was full within that 3 minutes.

-Basically do you reckon they could increase capacity with turnarounds like this,

and

-ideally what would you say the amount of platforms and roads into each mainline station in london really needs to operate an effecient and effective service??

Hope my questions aren't too weird, cheers tubeman
I think the main factor with longer-distance trains is restocking buffets, cleaning, etc... Although we attempt to litter-pick at a station like Elephant & Castle Bakerloo, sometimes a train can be stationary for literally seconds before going back out the other way so leaves with the newspapers etc it came in with... This is a necessary evil to keep the trains running at 22tph. I doubt this would be deemed acceptable on a longer-distance service.

I don't know if it's a huge problem in the mainline termini to be honest, they seem to be well provided for in terms of platforms, except Fenchurch St which has to get by with 4 for a pretty intensive service, but then again these are all relatively short-range suburban services with no refreshments so seem to be pushed straight in and out quickly.

I'm not aware of any dire shortage of roads or platforms really... London Bridge can be quite a sluggish approach, but Waterloo, Paddington, Victoria, King's Cross, St Pancras, Euston (etc) all seem to cope pretty well with what they've got.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2008, 08:22 PM   #3112
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotavento View Post
Tubeman ... wasn't the non electrification on GWR due to them having abundant fast diesel power at their disposal ??? It seems to still be the main argument against electrifying that particular route.

Another thing ... about the 2 routes out of birmingham to the south (in the general direction of London)

The one to Stratford-upom-avon could be extended to bypass the route by Banbury>oxford/high.wycombe and connect to the Aylesbury branch ... or even bypassing Aylesbury altogether just follow the A41 to merge with the the WCML north of Watford Junction ... does it seem viable to do such an upgrade/reinstatement of that particular railroad over there ???

The route Birmingham-Banbury itself seems to be missing half of its previous 4 tracks ... is that correct ??? or is that just a large road that follows alongside it for miles and miles ??? as far as I can see the embankment/cuttings are protected even in urban areas.

both seem like prime candidates to upgrading up to high-speed corridors ... and electrification turnng both of them into huge comuter/urban routes in suburban Birmingham London and a couple of places in between.
The IC125's still in use on the GWR and Midland mainlines used to run out of King's Cross too... so I don't know if availability fo fast disel trains hindered electrification of the GWR, otherwise the same would have been the case for the East Coast mainline.

I think the Birmingham - Didcot route it a bit too circuitous to be a valid trunk route to and from London, the West Coast mainline via the Tring gap is much more direct... taking it further west via Stratford Upon Avon would be even less direct.

I just had a look at the Banbury - Birmingham section on Google earth, and while there is quadruple track for a distance north of Banbury, judging by the bridges and embankments it never has been more than double track for most of its length.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2008, 08:51 PM   #3113
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
I think the Birmingham - Didcot route it a bit too circuitous to be a valid trunk route to and from London, the West Coast mainline via the Tring gap is much more direct... taking it further west via Stratford Upon Avon would be even less direct.
Though the Chiltern ML doesn't go through Stratford, and takes a route very close to the most direct route (which, IIRC, would go through the sort of Chesham and Aylesbury area, rather than High Wycombe). Of course, via Reading is massively off-route, worse than via Rugby and Northampton.

There's this illusion that Oxford is miles off the line between London and Birmingham, and Northampton is closer to it - that's not true. It's caused by stuff like Watford Gap causing the M1 and WCML (which also goes through a gap in the Chilterns) to head further East than the line. IIRC the shortest route for London-Birmingham centre-centre by primary routes and motorways is A40-A413-A41-M40-M42-A34. The M40-A40 is shorter than M40-A41 as well.
Quote:
I just had a look at the Banbury - Birmingham section on Google earth, and while there is quadruple track for a distance north of Banbury, judging by the bridges and embankments it never has been more than double track for most of its length.
The northern end was quadruple track (from Moor Street to Solihul IIRC), but that was all.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 8th, 2008, 02:57 PM   #3114
elfabyanos
Dracuna Macoides
 
elfabyanos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brighton
Posts: 1,814
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
i disagree, maybe from sevenoaks more people use charing cross, but from the woolwich line and bexleyheath line both which i'd say are busier alot of people seem to get off at waterloo
Yeah they do but my point was how many of them then go on to take mainline trains out of waterloo? If there were through trains I still think a lot of the current traffic would be getting off at waterloo. It would generate new useful journeys though that is true.
elfabyanos no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 8th, 2008, 11:19 PM   #3115
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by elfabyanos View Post
Yeah they do but my point was how many of them then go on to take mainline trains out of waterloo? If there were through trains I still think a lot of the current traffic would be getting off at waterloo. It would generate new useful journeys though that is true.
how many people wanted to go from canning town to neasden before the jublee extension...
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2008, 04:11 AM   #3116
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Bigbossman - how many want to now?

The GWML inside isn't in a good position for stations - OK, there's Ealing Broadway, however the Great Western didn't care that much about the villages between Paddington and Slough. The Village Centres are on the Uxbridge Road and the Great West Road - the GWML splits the difference. The Housing doesn't really go near the GWML, as when the housing was built, along the GWML

There is only one reason to use the GWML, just one (given that the Bakerloo south of Paddington isn't crowded anymore, since the Jubilee opened, allowing more trains to go to Paddington). That is Heathrow. Maidenhead (if cost was a problem, why not stop at Slough, where the stoppers used to terminate, before the Heathrow route opened - you wouldn't need to build reversing facilities, as they are already there and you save on electrifying 5 miles of track) is to try and absorb some trains, though isn't really a good location - better than Taplow, Twyford or Burnham, of course, but far worse than Reading or Slough.

The really stupid thing was to try twice to see if Kingston/Richmond was viable, and to ignore completely the Hounslow proposals.

I'm surprised taking over the Watford DC lines from Stonebridge Park north wasn't thought of - simple 2 track railway over railway lands, station at Willesden Junction if you want, rebuild of Stonebridge Park to give cross-platform. Bakerloo ends at depot, Euston services terminate at Willesden Junction. High Wycombe wasn't really investigated either (via the Birmingham direct line - could have stations at North Acton, Greenford, South Ruislip, West Ruislip, Denham, Denham Golf Club, Gerrards Cross, Seer Green and Beaconsfield - most of those just need platform lengthening).

Richmond via the NLL and a junction was dropped in favour of a tunnel (without a stop at Turnham Green). Likewise the Dudding Hill Link option for Aylesbury (a bit silly, as direct trains to both West End and City via the Met) was replaced with a tunnel. Both branches were rejected because of the tunnel (and unpopularity).

Though there are some decent options for a few more trains (with 4 to Hounslow, plus 4 Hex, you still have 6tph terminating), Paddington is really a silly option unless Crossrail 2 is built. The Waterloo lines (via Victoria) option is far more needed for congestion relief and all that - the problem is that it didn't get the access to Heathrow - the GWML did.

Beyond Heathrow, HEx have plans to have OHLE to Staines, so dual voltage trains wouldn't be needed. If you did have them, then I think more-local destinations, Weybridge for instance would fit the Crossrail ethos better than skipping-stop services to Guildford and Reading.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2008, 02:33 PM   #3117
elfabyanos
Dracuna Macoides
 
elfabyanos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brighton
Posts: 1,814
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
how many people wanted to go from canning town to neasden before the jublee extension...
Quote:
Originally Posted by me immediately before
It would generate new useful journeys though that is true.
I'm not saying it won't be useful to some people, but you have based this on your perception of seeing people alight at Waterloo East. I am telling you that you cannot infer from that that it would be of benefit to most of those people to have direct service into the Waterloo south west mainlines.

I don't think you realise what it is that I'm saying.

Of course it would generate new journey opportunities, but it would not be a free lunch, reinstating the link would require more than just reinstating the link and all I'm trying to point out to you is that you have over-simplified the issue based on your perceptions of being on a train at a certain time once.
elfabyanos no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2008, 09:40 PM   #3118
hoosier
Registered User
 
hoosier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 2,451
Likes (Received): 63

Tubeman- do you support the proposal(s) to build dedicated HSR lines connecting all of the major cities of Scotland, Wales, and England?
__________________
R.I.P. Moke- my best bud
hoosier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2008, 10:33 PM   #3119
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier View Post
Tubeman- do you support the proposal(s) to build dedicated HSR lines connecting all of the major cities of Scotland, Wales, and England?
I support them insofar I wouldn't complain if they were built, but I question their necessity / benefit vs the cost. I think as much can be achieved with upgrades of existing lines and junction remodellings.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2008, 04:08 AM   #3120
sotavento
Registered user
 
sotavento's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,433
Likes (Received): 325

Anyone sees a "london south overground" network as a solution as something viable in the near future???

Something like the urban networks in the southern part of london becaming themselves a part of the urban network with "metro stile" services and frequencies???

With the creation of the "regional" Eurostars on HS1 and some "upgrades" to the major intercity/rapid corridors in the south (london-gatwich-brighton , london southampton, etc) could it be viable in the short term???
__________________
"O País perdeu a inteligência e a consciência moral. Ninguém se respeita nem crê na honestidade dos homens públicos. O povo está na miséria. Os serviços públicos vão abandonados. A mocidade arrasta-se das mesas das secretarias para as mesas dos cafés. A ruína económica cresce o comércio definha, a indústria enfraquece. O salário diminui. O Estado é considerado um ladrão e tratado como um inimigo.
Neste salve-se quem puder a burguesia proprietária de casas explora o aluguel. A agiotagem explora o juro…"”
— Eça
sotavento 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 08:36 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