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 27th, 2008, 10:25 AM   #3181
lightrail
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 205
Likes (Received): 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
tubeman, do you know if it is possible to extend the W & C from bank, i'm not saying it should, but is it actually possible, say to liverpool street?
I'm guessing not, given this diagramme of Bank/Monument Tube Station - looks like the Central Line gets in the way

lightrail no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 27th, 2008, 12:20 PM   #3182
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
I'm guessing not, given this diagramme of Bank/Monument Tube Station - looks like the Central Line gets in the way

Yes that probably is a consideration, which complicates matters.

The other issue is the length of the trains: it's pointless extending a line with no additional capacity... So if an extension entails platform lengthening at Bank and Waterloo as well as lowering the platforms at Bank to allow passage under the Central Line, you may as well just build a new line from scratch for all it would cost.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 27th, 2008, 02:38 PM   #3183
MelbourneCity
Registered User
 
MelbourneCity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,577
Likes (Received): 25

What if they were link the W&C with the DLR?
Obviously a new tunnel would have to be built, and probably new platforms.
__________________
Vires Acquirit Eundo

Melburnian in Sydney via Bendigo
MelbourneCity no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 27th, 2008, 03:17 PM   #3184
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Yes that probably is a consideration, which complicates matters.

The other issue is the length of the trains: it's pointless extending a line with no additional capacity... So if an extension entails platform lengthening at Bank and Waterloo as well as lowering the platforms at Bank to allow passage under the Central Line, you may as well just build a new line from scratch for all it would cost.
but there is capacity at the bank end as the line is essentially one way, waterloo > bank in the mornings, bank > waterloo in the evenings, so extending it from bank to liverpool street will just provide direct connection between two terminals.
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 27th, 2008, 03:34 PM   #3185
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

also tubeman, have they ever thought of linking victoria to waterloo. the millbank area is earily tubeless, especially with all those government agencies around there, i thought that it would be a priority...?

Also surely the northern and DLR platforms at "bank" are as much monument as they are bank, so maybe they should be called Bank monument like Kngs Cross St pancras, not the central platforms mind they are firmly bank

Last edited by bigbossman; December 27th, 2008 at 03:45 PM.
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 27th, 2008, 07:32 PM   #3186
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by MelbourneCity View Post
What if they were link the W&C with the DLR?
Obviously a new tunnel would have to be built, and probably new platforms.
The DLR is mainline loading gauge but the W&C Line Tube sized (and I believe smaller than standard at that), so unless the W&C Line tunnels are expanded to accommodate the DLR trains, or the entire DLR becomes Tube sized for the sake of one short stretch, it aint going to happen.

Nice idea in principle, though.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 27th, 2008, 07:47 PM   #3187
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
but there is capacity at the bank end as the line is essentially one way, waterloo > bank in the mornings, bank > waterloo in the evenings, so extending it from bank to liverpool street will just provide direct connection between two terminals.
Actually, I think you have something there...

In the morning peak northbound some people will stay on past Bank to Liverpool Street because it's closer to the office, but yes I guess there will be no more people using the line to get from Waterloo to The City than at present. On the southbound, only the most idle would take the Tube from Liverpool Street to Bank rather than walk... Although I would expect a lot of additional people to make the entire Liverpool Street to Waterloo journey via the W&C Line, as it would instantly become by far the most attractive option for this route, and so the trains might be full by the time they get to Bank. As you suggest this might not be a problem as such, as it's pretty much one-way northbound traffic on the line in the morning.

In the evening peak there might be complaints about trains coming in to Bank soutbound full, but again the same principle applies that having two City stations should simply just split the City traffic between them... the danger is attracting additional journies as the W&C would become a very attractive short-cut, but I don't know how new journies this might attract to the line.

The great advantage is adding value to the line off-peak, and therefore hopefully better using the capacity.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 27th, 2008, 07:59 PM   #3188
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
also tubeman, have they ever thought of linking victoria to waterloo. the millbank area is earily tubeless, especially with all those government agencies around there, i thought that it would be a priority...?

Also surely the northern and DLR platforms at "bank" are as much monument as they are bank, so maybe they should be called Bank monument like Kngs Cross St pancras, not the central platforms mind they are firmly bank
My 'pipedream' super-circle links the two termini without any intermediate stop. I should knock up a map, but in the mean time here's the stations:

Waterloo
Victoria
Knightsbridge
Lancaster Gate / Paddington
Baker Street
Euston
KXSP
Angel
Old Street
Liverpool Street
Fenchurch Street / Tower Hill
London Bridge
Waterloo (etc)

It interchanges with every line with as few stops as possible, serves all the biggest mainline termini, and would be combined with a withdrawal of the current Circle Line to simplify SSR operations. It would also serve as a very useful 'direct' express route from a to b, e.g. Victoria to The City (Tower Hill) in just 3 stops (currently 9).

Anyone got a spare £7 billion?

Regarding Bank / Monument yes you're again right... I like the idea of naming the Northern and DLR platforms 'Bank-Monument' to demonstrate they are equally close to the District and Central Lines, just as I think the distinction between Bank and Monument should be maintained to discourage people from thinking changing from the Central to the District Line is anything less than the 10 minute subterranean hike that it is.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 27th, 2008, 08:56 PM   #3189
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

i reckon the length of subterranean (??) subways is purely psychological, in that it feels like it's taking longer than it actually is. For example charing cross to trafalgar square is hardly a long treck above ground but below it feels like an eternity. To me a 3 minute hop on the tube one stop always feels longer than three minutes, maybe because we can see where we are going to above ground and we have familiar markers??

what do you think tubeman?
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 27th, 2008, 09:02 PM   #3190
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

I like your deep circle idea

i've always thought if there was a way of diverting the met off of the top of the cirle and rebulding praed street junction you would create ample capacity on the northern half SSN...

What i was thinking was divert the met onto the relief midland mainline tracks at wEst hampstead, then a short tunnel from just north of st pancras to faringdon where it could take over the abandoned thameslink platforms. i realise that the tunnel around belsize park reduces from 6 to 4 track, what i would do is divert either the EMT or Thameslink via the north London line around the tunnel, then if demand dictates interchange could be built at belsize park between the northern and met... this follows on from my Camden road idea in that the north london could run through "primrose hill" and short tunnel can take it to finchley road where it can take over the met tracks to west hampstead, then west hampstead can be rebuilt as a proper clapham junction esque interchange... just a random thought

The met then could be extended over one of the crossrail branches far cheaper....

for the southern half rebuild earls court junction so the wimblewares are separate and the terminate all hammersmiths at aldgate, build tunnel link to aldgate east, line facing south eastwards for another extension

what do you reckon tubeman?

Another question is on the best place to terminate lines, i've always thought that lines should only terminate at other lines or where it's not physically possible to go any further, and as we happen to be an island that means the sea. So branch Lines that end in the suburbs or a small town should be avoided... The way the lines all end at little stubs in north and west London is awful... Stanmore and Edgaware are extremely close, what would make more sense would be to extend the northern to edgware and divert the jubilee from canons park to edgware... same can be said of high barnet/Cockfosters/New Barnet. I don't know what you think about that

On chelney, why is it planned to surface at parsons green rather than fulham Broadway?? I know it's easier but for a little more work you add in fulham broadway and with all due respect to west brompton it allows you to divert all the wimblewares towards hammersmith adding capacity... i mean west brompton is walking distance from earls court and would still be on the NR network... there must be a reason for cutting out Fulham Broadway?

Also Hammersmith and city tunnel from wood lane, surface at turnham green take over richmond branch, then you can extend trains beyond ealing to heathrow... surely cheaper than crossrail

Another one i read somewhere that there were suggestions to move clapham junction to the otherside of falcon Road where the tracks are straighter... do you think this is possible/good idea?

Finally (no really for now anyway), is the DLR actually that slow becuase it takes no more than like 10-12 minutes to get from canary wharf to bank and thats going through 5 stations...?

Cheers tubeman, had time to compose my thoughts this christmas... merry belated christmas BTW!

Last edited by bigbossman; December 27th, 2008 at 09:21 PM.
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2008, 07:35 AM   #3191
MelbourneCity
Registered User
 
MelbourneCity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,577
Likes (Received): 25

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
The DLR is mainline loading gauge but the W&C Line Tube sized (and I believe smaller than standard at that), so unless the W&C Line tunnels are expanded to accommodate the DLR trains, or the entire DLR becomes Tube sized for the sake of one short stretch, it aint going to happen.

Nice idea in principle, though.
Loading gauge completely slipped my mind. Shame really!

I wonder if anything will come of the proposal to extend the DLR to Charing Cross.
__________________
Vires Acquirit Eundo

Melburnian in Sydney via Bendigo
MelbourneCity no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2008, 12:04 PM   #3192
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by MelbourneCity View Post
Loading gauge completely slipped my mind. Shame really!

I wonder if anything will come of the proposal to extend the DLR to Charing Cross.
I think so... one day... But as the presumably far cheaper Dagenham Dock extension has apparently had its plug pulled by TFL for now, I wouldn't like to predict when.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2008, 12:08 PM   #3193
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
i reckon the length of subterranean (??) subways is purely psychological, in that it feels like it's taking longer than it actually is. For example charing cross to trafalgar square is hardly a long treck above ground but below it feels like an eternity. To me a 3 minute hop on the tube one stop always feels longer than three minutes, maybe because we can see where we are going to above ground and we have familiar markers??

what do you think tubeman?
Of course... Something happens to our perception of time underground, be it waiting for a train, being stuck on a train between stations, interchanging between lines at stations like Bank and Charing Cross.

I remember how long the walk from the Pentonville Road / Thameslink entrance to KXSP to the Piccadilly Line feels, and yet at street level it just feels like crossing a road. It's bizarre. I think long subterranean tunnels make the distance look longer and without the 'target' in sight it's a similar effect to when you're trying to locate a street address for the first time (always feels like you're walking much further there than back).
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2008, 12:45 PM   #3194
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
I like your deep circle idea

i've always thought if there was a way of diverting the met off of the top of the cirle and rebulding praed street junction you would create ample capacity on the northern half SSN...

What i was thinking was divert the met onto the relief midland mainline tracks at wEst hampstead, then a short tunnel from just north of st pancras to faringdon where it could take over the abandoned thameslink platforms. i realise that the tunnel around belsize park reduces from 6 to 4 track, what i would do is divert either the EMT or Thameslink via the north London line around the tunnel, then if demand dictates interchange could be built at belsize park between the northern and met... this follows on from my Camden road idea in that the north london could run through "primrose hill" and short tunnel can take it to finchley road where it can take over the met tracks to west hampstead, then west hampstead can be rebuilt as a proper clapham junction esque interchange... just a random thought

The met then could be extended over one of the crossrail branches far cheaper....

for the southern half rebuild earls court junction so the wimblewares are separate and the terminate all hammersmiths at aldgate, build tunnel link to aldgate east, line facing south eastwards for another extension

what do you reckon tubeman?
That's another interesting idea, diverting the Met along the Midland mainline.

My idea for diverting the Met off the Circle is to have the Met enter a deep-level tunnel at Baker Street and head south-east to Tottenham Court Road. The diverted line would then run parallel with Crossrail between there and Farringdon, where it would rise to take over the soon to be abandoned Thameslink tunnels to Moorgate. The bulk of this construction could take place in conjunction with Crossrail (so cheaper), with cross-platform interchange at TCR and Farringdon. Moorgate, after Thameslink is withdrawn, has a ready-made 4 platform terminus. I don't think terminating there instead of Aldgate is any huge loss.

The perhaps better alternative is for the entire Met line to be converted to NR standards like the ELL is being, so instead of the above option, it becomes a branch of Crossrail from TCR. The Crossrail route between TCR and the junction at Whitechapel between the Stratford and Abbey Wood branches could be quadruple. The branch would therefore run out to Aylesbury rather than terminating at Amersham (pending electrification), which was pretty much one of the earlier plans for Crossrail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
Another question is on the best place to terminate lines, i've always thought that lines should only terminate at other lines or where it's not physically possible to go any further, and as we happen to be an island that means the sea. So branch Lines that end in the suburbs or a small town should be avoided... The way the lines all end at little stubs in north and west London is awful... Stanmore and Edgaware are extremely close, what would make more sense would be to extend the northern to edgware and divert the jubilee from canons park to edgware... same can be said of high barnet/Cockfosters/New Barnet. I don't know what you think about that
I'd disagree on that one, obviously urban areas require a much greater density of railways than rural areas do and so the way many of London's railways end around the fringes of the urban area makes perfect sense (e.g. Edgware, Stanmore, Cockfosters, Chingford, Epping, Chessington, Caterham etc). These lines continuing into the Green belt would simply lead to lots of railways passing through low-density rural areas with minimal patrons.

What I think is required is better interchange between these lines in the suburbs: they are great if you want to get to and from Central London, but pretty useless if you want to travel between suburbs, I guess Stanmore to Edgware is a great example: two town centres about 5 minutes bus ride apart, but realistically about an hour apart by train. Even where these lines do cross in the suburbs, they often don't interchange (e.g. Bakerloo / Met at Kenton / Northwick Park, Central / Picc at Park Royal). This is where hopefully a good 'Orbirail' / outer circle would come in, to draw the inter-suburban traffic away from central London.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
On chelney, why is it planned to surface at parsons green rather than fulham Broadway?? I know it's easier but for a little more work you add in fulham broadway and with all due respect to west brompton it allows you to divert all the wimblewares towards hammersmith adding capacity... i mean west brompton is walking distance from earls court and would still be on the NR network... there must be a reason for cutting out Fulham Broadway?
The logic is there's plenty of room at PG for an interchange station... Most traffic on the Wimbledon Branch is toward Edgware Road (NR from Wimbledon to Waterloo is a much quicker route to the City / West End), so removing this option entirely by running Crossrail 2 via Fulham Broadway and scrapping Earl's Court to Fulham Broadway would remove this option altogether. At least the District Line being truncated at a Parson's Green interchange with Crossrail 2 would allow an easy-ish onward journey between Wimbledon and Edgware Rd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
Also Hammersmith and city tunnel from wood lane, surface at turnham green take over richmond branch, then you can extend trains beyond ealing to heathrow... surely cheaper than crossrail
The original plan was for the Central Line to carry on in a straight line along Goldhawk / Bath Roads and surface at Turnham Green to take over the Richmond Branch. This has reared its head on many occasions, the most recent was combined with the Bakerloo being diverted via a short tunnel north of Queen's Park to Old Oak Common, from where it would surface and run to an interchange station at North Acton and take over the Ealing Broadway Branch, thus the Central would still have 2 western branches (Richmond and West Ruislip) and the Bakerloo would now serve Harrow & Wealdstone and Ealing Broadway. I liked this idea for several reasons: far better suburban interchanges, the 'wasted' capacity of most Bakerloo trains reversing at Queen's Park is utilised, and District Line operations are simplified.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
Another one i read somewhere that there were suggestions to move clapham junction to the otherside of falcon Road where the tracks are straighter... do you think this is possible/good idea?
Possible? Yes. Good idea? Can't really see the benefits. The 12 running lines through CJ would need to splay apart in order to have platforms inserted in between wherever the platforms are, if anything it makes sense having the platform on the tightest curves as at present as speed would be the most restricted here anyway (so the trains may as well stop).

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
Finally (no really for now anyway), is the DLR actually that slow becuase it takes no more than like 10-12 minutes to get from canary wharf to bank and thats going through 5 stations...?

Cheers tubeman, had time to compose my thoughts this christmas... merry belated christmas BTW!
The DLR accelerates and brakes pretty zippily and had a decent top speed: it certainly isn't 'slow', despite more frequent stops.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2008, 03:00 PM   #3195
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
That's another interesting idea, diverting the Met along the Midland mainline.

My idea for diverting the Met off the Circle is to have the Met enter a deep-level tunnel at Baker Street and head south-east to Tottenham Court Road. The diverted line would then run parallel with Crossrail between there and Farringdon, where it would rise to take over the soon to be abandoned Thameslink tunnels to Moorgate. The bulk of this construction could take place in conjunction with Crossrail (so cheaper), with cross-platform interchange at TCR and Farringdon. Moorgate, after Thameslink is withdrawn, has a ready-made 4 platform terminus. I don't think terminating there instead of Aldgate is any huge loss.

The perhaps better alternative is for the entire Met line to be converted to NR standards like the ELL is being, so instead of the above option, it becomes a branch of Crossrail from TCR. The Crossrail route between TCR and the junction at Whitechapel between the Stratford and Abbey Wood branches could be quadruple. The branch would therefore run out to Aylesbury rather than terminating at Amersham (pending electrification), which was pretty much one of the earlier plans for Crossrail.
How far away are the subsurface lines from mainline guage? they say chelney can't serve piccadilly circus if it is mainline, but i thought it could if it is S stock size, any thruth to this?

Is it alot more expensive to build quadruple bore than double bore? or because it is being done at the same time is it cheaper.... do you know if whitchapel is gonna have more than 2 platforms, surely 2 would be a mistake...?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
I'd disagree on that one, obviously urban areas require a much greater density of railways than rural areas do and so the way many of London's railways end around the fringes of the urban area makes perfect sense (e.g. Edgware, Stanmore, Cockfosters, Chingford, Epping, Chessington, Caterham etc). These lines continuing into the Green belt would simply lead to lots of railways passing through low-density rural areas with minimal patrons.

What I think is required is better interchange between these lines in the suburbs: they are great if you want to get to and from Central London, but pretty useless if you want to travel between suburbs, I guess Stanmore to Edgware is a great example: two town centres about 5 minutes bus ride apart, but realistically about an hour apart by train. Even where these lines do cross in the suburbs, they often don't interchange (e.g. Bakerloo / Met at Kenton / Northwick Park, Central / Picc at Park Royal). This is where hopefully a good 'Orbirail' / outer circle would come in, to draw the inter-suburban traffic away from central London.
I just look at the importance merging all the north kent lines has put on dartford, lots of people use the train for local journeys there... Wouldn't the creation of Surburban hubs at employment and retail centres aid taking a few cars of the roads...

-Edgware could divert to stanmore

-Jubilee could divert to edgware

-Cockfosters could run to new barnet,

-Chingford (epping) could extend to the central and take it over post loughton and run to stanstead...

-Chessington is apparently still "planned" to go to leatherhead,

-can't see anywhere to take the caterham line though,

The hayes line could curve back into bromley south as it's mostly fields between these two points

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
The logic is there's plenty of room at PG for an interchange station... Most traffic on the Wimbledon Branch is toward Edgware Road (NR from Wimbledon to Waterloo is a much quicker route to the City / West End), so removing this option entirely by running Crossrail 2 via Fulham Broadway and scrapping Earl's Court to Fulham Broadway would remove this option altogether. At least the District Line being truncated at a Parson's Green interchange with Crossrail 2 would allow an easy-ish onward journey between Wimbledon and Edgware Rd.
Wouldn't it be a waste of capacity through running the trains 3 stops past earls court to terminate??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
The original plan was for the Central Line to carry on in a straight line along Goldhawk / Bath Roads and surface at Turnham Green to take over the Richmond Branch. This has reared its head on many occasions, the most recent was combined with the Bakerloo being diverted via a short tunnel north of Queen's Park to Old Oak Common, from where it would surface and run to an interchange station at North Acton and take over the Ealing Broadway Branch, thus the Central would still have 2 western branches (Richmond and West Ruislip) and the Bakerloo would now serve Harrow & Wealdstone and Ealing Broadway. I liked this idea for several reasons: far better suburban interchanges, the 'wasted' capacity of most Bakerloo trains reversing at Queen's Park is utilised, and District Line operations are simplified.
Yeah my thinking is that they definately need to simplify lines, and use up all existing capacity (ie the bakerloo, charing cross branch), before building more lines

For example if you simplify the lines it west london it could go something like this, the central could drop EBDY and take over the piccs rayners lane branch and divert all trains to uxbridge from rayners lane and west ruislip... The bakerloo could curve into harrow on the hill and terminate at Rayners lane, The met could take over the Bakerloo from harrow and wealdstone to watford Junction and run the croxley link. I dunno just a thought to simplify

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Possible? Yes. Good idea? Can't really see the benefits. The 12 running lines through CJ would need to splay apart in order to have platforms inserted in between wherever the platforms are, if anything it makes sense having the platform on the tightest curves as at present as speed would be the most restricted here anyway (so the trains may as well stop).
i see

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
The DLR accelerates and brakes pretty zippily and had a decent top speed: it certainly isn't 'slow', despite more frequent stops.
I dunno why people complain that they are slow then...?

Last edited by bigbossman; December 28th, 2008 at 03:07 PM.
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2008, 11:33 PM   #3196
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

tubeman just a couple of observations on UK railway terminology

1. Interchange- wouldn't the american word Transfer make more sense (in the case of outerchanges), and be a more sound bite friendly word to use...

2. Platform- surely that is rather ambigious and should be platform face, or Track. i dunno where i heard or read it but i remember that our use of the term platform causes some confusion to tourists. It would also make alot more sense at stations like Golders Green.
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2008, 02:09 PM   #3197
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
How far away are the subsurface lines from mainline guage? they say chelney can't serve piccadilly circus if it is mainline, but i thought it could if it is S stock size, any thruth to this?
The loading gauge is the same, in places marginally larger as the north side of the Cicrle Line was originally built to GWR Broad gauge (7 foot) so the trains have even more clearance. I think Crossrail 2 not stopping at Piccadilly Circus while an LU Chelney would is simply to limit the number of stations, as I presume Crossrail 2 would be 12 cars you'd end up with platforms very close together.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
Is it alot more expensive to build quadruple bore than double bore? or because it is being done at the same time is it cheaper.... do you know if whitchapel is gonna have more than 2 platforms, surely 2 would be a mistake...?
It's more expensive, but certainly not twice as expensive so you could argue quadruple bore is better value for money than double. The most expensive part of underground railways are the stations, so building just an additional two tunnel bores at the same time would be far less than the price of a double bore Tube with stations.

I don't know what the arrangement will be at Whitechapel, I suspect at the very least there should be two westbound platforms so trains waiting for their 'turn' at the converging junction can wait in a platform and not in the tunnel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
I just look at the importance merging all the north kent lines has put on dartford, lots of people use the train for local journeys there... Wouldn't the creation of Surburban hubs at employment and retail centres aid taking a few cars of the roads...

-Edgware could divert to stanmore

-Jubilee could divert to edgware

-Cockfosters could run to new barnet,

-Chingford (epping) could extend to the central and take it over post loughton and run to stanstead...

-Chessington is apparently still "planned" to go to leatherhead,

-can't see anywhere to take the caterham line though,

The hayes line could curve back into bromley south as it's mostly fields between these two points
Yes I see your point, having suburban branches converging like they do at Dartford, Cheshunt, Feltham etc do increase the journey options out in the 'burbs. I guess the drawback is how this complicates service patterns, especially on the North Kent lines and Hounslow Loop where pan-handle shaped services overlap with 'through' trains.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
Wouldn't it be a waste of capacity through running the trains 3 stops past earls court to terminate??
Not really, as I would envisage a lot of interchange from Crossrail 2 onto the District Line toward Edgware Road, as I already noted the EDGRD service is more popular than the City service ex-Wimbledon.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2008, 02:25 PM   #3198
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 just a couple of observations on UK railway terminology

1. Interchange- wouldn't the american word Transfer make more sense (in the case of outerchanges), and be a more sound bite friendly word to use...

2. Platform- surely that is rather ambigious and should be platform face, or Track. i dunno where i heard or read it but i remember that our use of the term platform causes some confusion to tourists. It would also make alot more sense at stations like Golders Green.
1) Hmmm I'm not convinced... 'Inter' means between, so 'Interchange' makes perfect sense to me. The opposite of 'Outer' would be 'Intra'.

2) I don't see what's ambiguous. Originally many terminus platforms were numbered such that the entire platform (i.e. both faces) was the same number, which was obviously very confusing (i.e. 'Platform 1' could have referred to 2 different trains). This is no longer the case, with each platform face numbered.

It's just semantics really, Americans refer to 'tracks', Germans to 'gleis' (= Rail), French to 'quai' (= quay), Italians 'piattaforma' (= platform)... as long as the numbering is clear and unambiguous I don't see the problem!
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2008, 03:24 PM   #3199
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
1) Hmmm I'm not convinced... 'Inter' means between, so 'Interchange' makes perfect sense to me. The opposite of 'Outer' would be 'Intra'.

2) I don't see what's ambiguous. Originally many terminus platforms were numbered such that the entire platform (i.e. both faces) was the same number, which was obviously very confusing (i.e. 'Platform 1' could have referred to 2 different trains). This is no longer the case, with each platform face numbered.

It's just semantics really, Americans refer to 'tracks', Germans to 'gleis' (= Rail), French to 'quai' (= quay), Italians 'piattaforma' (= platform)... as long as the numbering is clear and unambiguous I don't see the problem!
tbf i only mentioned those because i liked the way they ring...
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2008, 02:20 AM   #3200
Justme
Gotta lite?
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester (Forecast: Rain)
Posts: 4,952
Likes (Received): 781

Hey Tubeman. Merry Xmas and all that. Any news on your updated rail book for London? :O) My fingers are itching to order...
__________________
I'm doing my bit to save bandwidth by deleting my signature
Justme 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 08:37 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