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 January 6th, 2009, 07:28 PM   #3241
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
Sorry didn't address this one

I guess the bays are on the 'up' so that if a train were departing from them, any London-bound passengers would easily be able to board the train (if it were on the down they'd have to cross over from the up). The conflicting movement thing isn't an issue really, as bay platforms cause a conflicting movement regardless... A reversing down train fouls the up line entering an up side bay, but by the same token if the bay were on the down side then the down line would be fouled as an up train departed (if that makes any sense!?). Swings and roundabouts!
i am slightly confused, out tower hill the bay platform is in the centre, so you don't have to cross any conflicting line to get to it, right? but at plumstead (just weeds now mind) and gillingham the bay platform is the outside platform rather than the centre one, so trains have to cross traffic to get to it?
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 6th, 2009, 08:24 PM   #3242
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 am slightly confused, out tower hill the bay platform is in the centre, so you don't have to cross any conflicting line to get to it, right? but at plumstead (just weeds now mind) and gillingham the bay platform is the outside platform rather than the centre one, so trains have to cross traffic to get to it?
Oh I get you... Traditionally bays were added as afterthoughts adjacent to the existing up or down, like Plaistow, Dagenham East and most NR bays. The more logical central bays are purpose built, and pretty much exclusively found on LU. Tower Hill and Mansion House were built on the site of an abandoned station and a former terminus respectively, so there was enough room, above ground examples like Golders Green and Putney Bridge were also both former termini, while Arnos Grove and White City were by design as they are crew relief points.

I guess the real difference is service frequency: having terminating trains fouling running lines doesn't really matter when you're running 2-4 tph on most mainline routes... But is a major operational probelm when you're running 20+ tph like most LU lines. Therefore, LU has generally opted for central bays, while NR are quite content with the traditional bay behind one of the existing platforms.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2009, 08:50 PM   #3243
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
Oh I get you... Traditionally bays were added as afterthoughts adjacent to the existing up or down, like Plaistow, Dagenham East and most NR bays. The more logical central bays are purpose built, and pretty much exclusively found on LU. Tower Hill and Mansion House were built on the site of an abandoned station and a former terminus respectively, so there was enough room, above ground examples like Golders Green and Putney Bridge were also both former termini, while Arnos Grove and White City were by design as they are crew relief points.

I guess the real difference is service frequency: having terminating trains fouling running lines doesn't really matter when you're running 2-4 tph on most mainline routes... But is a major operational probelm when you're running 20+ tph like most LU lines. Therefore, LU has generally opted for central bays, while NR are quite content with the traditional bay behind one of the existing platforms.
ahhh ok, i think it might be the reason north kent lines stop at strood in the
peaks, because of the fact that it would conflict with the very busy and frequent commuter trains that serve the chatham area, although it might also be to stop everyone crowding on empty trains at gillingham/chatham that are only 20 minutes longer via dartford than via the mainline...

another question does the central line east of leytonstone need to actually be split... i say this as if chelney is built it would take over one of these branches... would it not give too much capacity to both these branches, as the busiest station east of leytonstone is Gants hill with 5m entries/exits?

what do you make of the new "routemaster" concept and designs??

How much do you think NR stations are a lot busier than there entry and exit stats say?? baring in mind they only count travelcards sold @ the stations. I've always thought more people in London use travelcards than single tickets...

One thing that i have noticed with modern rail projects is that the forward thinking evident in the 60s-90 has gone... basically what i mean is, the victoria line, jubilee line, and original Channel tunnel rail link, seem to have been built with the expressed aim to integrate into the existing rail network, loads of cross platform interchanges, and with channel tunnel the rebuilding of Ashford...

However later projects such as Crossrail and HS1 have been about cost first and integration second. HS1 stuck ebsfleet station in the middle of nowhere and the less said about stratford regional/international the better. and crossrail does it's best not to interchange with lines, and London overground is quite laughable how many stations it misses. Why is it that integration of modes has taken a backwards step this millenium?

cheers tubeman
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2009, 01:08 AM   #3244
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

London Overground is hardly a new project, it is a rebranding of an existing railway line.

If there were cross-platform interchanges on Crossrail, then passengers would feel the need to use Crossrail for short journeys within Central London, which is not it's aim. Plus, Crossrails tunnels are larger and more capacious than existing infastructure, making it more difficult to integrate with existing tube lines when compared to the Victoria line, for example.
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2009, 02:05 AM   #3245
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
London Overground is hardly a new project, it is a rebranding of an existing railway line.

If there were cross-platform interchanges on Crossrail, then passengers would feel the need to use Crossrail for short journeys within Central London, which is not it's aim. Plus, Crossrails tunnels are larger and more capacious than existing infastructure, making it more difficult to integrate with existing tube lines when compared to the Victoria line, for example.
did i say cross platform interchanges with regards to crossrail?? NOPE i said interchanges full stop... it misses woolwich, doesn't interchange properly with the DLR on the isle of dogs, stops in no mans land in maidenhead etc etc...

and overground, they should build a proper camden interchange as previously discussed, as crossrail is being built, shoreditch high street must be, re site clapham high street, brixton?? come on it could be so much better...

The victoria interchanges with every line it crosses no matter how insignificant!!
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2009, 02:40 AM   #3246
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

It does interchange with the DLR on the Isle of Dogs - West India Quay will have a direct link.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2009, 01:12 PM   #3247
Jang0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 131
Likes (Received): 0

I agree with bigbossman on this one.

The designers of Crossrail appear to be afraid of designing proper interchanges because of overcrowding (Oxford Circus being the classic example). My view is that each poor interchange is an opportunity missed. London is already an eclectic mix of good and bad interchanges (most of the latter coming from disagreements based on the initial competition between the railway companies). We're clearly going to look back on some of the weird decisions taken in the future with some disappointment.

Here are a few of the strange decisions that I would welcome some light being shed on:

1) Oxford Circus - why couldn't this station be properly joined to Crossrail like TCR? Is this simply a cost saving? Is a proper interchange with the Victoria not thought worthwhile?

2) Farringdon - this seems to be a bit poor too, but I'll pass over this one

3) The Isle of Dogs branch - I agree with the branch, but I don't understand the station placements (apart from the main Isle of Dogs station). Given that Canning Town is the biggest local (LU / DLR / bus) interchange along that part of the Crossrail route, it seems a shame that this is not included. Maybe it's a tad too far north off the route, but a DLR link from Custom House is a poor substitute. You could argue that it'd be easier to change at Stratford, but in the event of an incident or engineering work this could prove to be quite disruptive. No City Airport station? Another opportunity missed?

One more non-Crossrail related oddity, but I do not understand the reasoning behind the new Stratford Regional / International branch of the DLR. Apparently LU have decided that it would be too expensive / disruptive to extend the Jubilee to Stratford International, so instead we build a new railway from Canning Town to Stratford International (which is surely more expensive), which I consider to be a poor substitute. What's the value in having 2 DLR branches to Stratford when the Jubilee also runs in a similar position? I would have thought extending the Jubilee would be a much more useful service which shouldn't even require too much disruption. The existing Jubilee platforms could be left as is, with only a subset of services extending to Stratford International. The ex-NLL south of Stratford could have been sold off to generate revenue and all that would have been required in addition would be a new junction from the Jubilee to the ex-NLL at Stratford. Instead we rebuild the whole line as DLR to Canning Town.

I wonder whether the DLR being as successful leads to the following thinking: "Let's fix it with the DLR". Why don't we instead have the thinking: "Let's fix it with the best option".
Jang0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2009, 03:19 PM   #3248
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jang0 View Post
1) Oxford Circus - why couldn't this station be properly joined to Crossrail like TCR? Is this simply a cost saving? Is a proper interchange with the Victoria not thought worthwhile?
It is completely a cost saving, as it would cost about £2billion to do. The problem is overcrowding at the southern end of the Victoria and Bakerloo platforms. To ease this, you'd have to widen them. This would involve changing the Victoria's alignment through the station, and also rebuilding at least that whole level, if not the whole, station. It's a complete non-starter.
Quote:
2) Farringdon - this seems to be a bit poor too, but I'll pass over this one
I can't see what's wrong with it, or how you could possibly improve it - it's rather clever having direct access to Thameslink only at Farringdon, to ease crowding on the Met, and having that access via Barbican (or indirect at Farringdon).
Quote:
3) The Isle of Dogs branch - I agree with the branch, but I don't understand the station placements (apart from the main Isle of Dogs station). Given that Canning Town is the biggest local (LU / DLR / bus) interchange along that part of the Crossrail route, it seems a shame that this is not included.
When the JLE was under planning, there was the via Leamouth option and the via North Greenwich option to either trackbed - the Custom House to North Woolwich bit, or the 2 spare tracks from Canning Town to Stratford. Not even the Leamouth alignment had a station at Canning Town for the Royal Docks route.

Canning Town is 1)too far north of the route, as you say - to have the manditory straight platforms, you'd have to have some very tight curves.
2)right next to the River Lea - the platforms would have to be rather deep and under it. Plain running tunnels are bad enough, station tunnels would be even worse!
3)quite pointless in some respects - the interchanges with the DLR and Jubilee aren't really needed, and it's a good idea to create a second hub at Custom House.
Quote:
No City Airport station? Another opportunity missed?
I'd say so, though does City Airport need another station yet?

Quote:
One more non-Crossrail related oddity, but I do not understand the reasoning behind the new Stratford Regional / International branch of the DLR. Apparently LU have decided that it would be too expensive / disruptive to extend the Jubilee to Stratford International,
Well, demolishing a newish concourse and having to take over far more land north of Stratford (Jubilee wouldn't like the corners as much as the DLR). It's far more expensive, given that you'd need to build a new concourse and a different route.
Quote:
so instead we build a new railway from Canning Town to Stratford International (which is surely more expensive), which I consider to be a poor substitute.
They are building about 500m of new railway - a bit at Stratford International, and a bit to segregate it from the NLL/Freight tracks at Stratford. Further south they are replacing track, which would have had to have been done anyway.
Quote:
What's the value in having 2 DLR branches to Stratford when the Jubilee also runs in a similar position?
better service from the Royal Docks? Better coverage of the corridor? Cheaper than extending the JLE? Higher frequencies in the Royal Docks? Redundancy if the Jubilee is closed (something you lament the lack of due to no Crossrail station at Canning Town)?
Quote:
I would have thought extending the Jubilee would be a much more useful service which shouldn't even require too much disruption. The existing Jubilee platforms could be left as is, with only a subset of services extending to Stratford International.
Oh, so what you are suggesting is crippling the terminal capacity of the JLE by having a flat junction to the South of Stratford, and then also not using the potential of the new line, by not having that many services use it.
Quote:
The ex-NLL south of Stratford could have been sold off to generate revenue and all that would have been required in addition would be a new junction from the Jubilee to the ex-NLL at Stratford.
Bear in mind that for quite a while the other pair of tracks would have been unprotected and no one seemed to want to build on them.
Quote:
Instead we rebuild the whole line as DLR to Canning Town.
yes - we can then increase frequency east of Canning Town - there's now two branches to feed. We can save people a change, we can serve people along that route better, because of intermediate stations.
Quote:
I wonder whether the DLR being as successful leads to the following thinking: "Let's fix it with the DLR". Why don't we instead have the thinking: "Let's fix it with the best option".
They are doing both (with the omission of a moving walkway between Stratford Regional and International). DLR is the best option. It gives far more benefits and doesn't cost that much.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2009, 04:50 PM   #3249
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
It does interchange with the DLR on the Isle of Dogs - West India Quay will have a direct link.
no they have now said it won't, and that only allows interchange from the stratford line, as all bank linr trains miss out WIQ
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2009, 04:58 PM   #3250
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

sotonsi, jubliee to stratford international could've been done by creating a fly over that took the jubilee line tracks onto the old NLL alignment, then through the station...

I personally (as i have mentioned previously) would've done a central line with HS1. the mainlien continues on its current alignment, but instead of digging a trench i would've curved the tracks into stratford regional to surface next to the fast GE lines for cross platform interchange, they woulda only needed to be 12 cars long for kent services, i personally do not see the need for an international station at stratford unless, it's for connection onto HS2 and that wont happen till schengen...

Also i hate the fact that it misses the jubilee i would've curved it south under north greenwich, then onto the south of Royal docks, surface by pontoon dock, interchange for LCA, then take over the north London, then @ woolwich arsenal there is ample space for additional platforms and quad track... as far as at least slade green...

Having said all that i would never have built crossrail, chelney 1st!!!!
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2009, 05:40 PM   #3251
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
another question does the central line east of leytonstone need to actually be split... i say this as if chelney is built it would take over one of these branches... would it not give too much capacity to both these branches, as the busiest station east of leytonstone is Gants hill with 5m entries/exits?
Quite possibly, but if, for example, Chelney took over the Epping route (Mainline loading gauge) and the Central Line became Woodford via Hainault (some segregation needed where the Central Line curves back onto Chelney north of Woodford, but probably the best option), then half the service could terminate at (for example) Newbury Park, or perhaps 1/3 Newbury Park, 1/3 Hainault, and 1/3 running through to Woodford. The more trains not running to the end of the line, the greater the frequencies where they're really needed in Central London.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
what do you make of the new "routemaster" concept and designs??
Generally all a bit pastichey and lame. I loved my RMs, formerly taking the 38 or 19 every day to get to work, but any modern imitation would be second best. The RMs had their faults: the open stages were basically potentially lethal, if useful. Loading and unloading were slow when they were busy, and they did not have enough capacity to cope during the peaks: you'd have to let bus after bus go by (often the Conductor giving the 2 dings to tell the driver to miss a busy stop despite there being seats to spare just to save time) before you could get on.

Bendies also have their faults: take up too much roadspace, poor ventilation, difficult to walk through when packed, too much fare evasion, but to their credit you can normally squeeze on the first one that turns up.

Personally, I'd design my own hybrid between the two...

- The length of an RM (not articulated)
- Double deck
- 2 stairwells
- Minimal seats downstairs (like 4 or 5)
- 2 wide sets of doors downstairs
- Pure seating upstairs
- Air con!!!

During the peak the 2 wide doorways and minimal seating downstairs will be like a bendy (pack in lots of standees), whereas off-peak most people can opt for the upstairs seating. RMs could only accommodate 5 standees, which was a real drawback in the peak. The 2 stairwells would speed up access / egress to the upper deck. The lower deck would be MIP accessible, the upper deck obviously not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
How much do you think NR stations are a lot busier than there entry and exit stats say?? baring in mind they only count travelcards sold @ the stations. I've always thought more people in London use travelcards than single tickets...
Some stations, very likely. The true commuter belt stations where people are generally travelling all the way in to a London terminus with ticket barriers would presumably get a good count from season ticket sales, but more central stations in grottier areas probably undercount hugely. When the stations north of Queen's park were transferred to LU November 2007 and barriers were installed, revenue (and apparent usership) increased massively. This is simply because the good folk of Stonebridge park and Harlesden hadn't been buying tickets for years provided they weren't travelling into Central London.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
One thing that i have noticed with modern rail projects is that the forward thinking evident in the 60s-90 has gone... basically what i mean is, the victoria line, jubilee line, and original Channel tunnel rail link, seem to have been built with the expressed aim to integrate into the existing rail network, loads of cross platform interchanges, and with channel tunnel the rebuilding of Ashford...

However later projects such as Crossrail and HS1 have been about cost first and integration second. HS1 stuck ebsfleet station in the middle of nowhere and the less said about stratford regional/international the better. and crossrail does it's best not to interchange with lines, and London overground is quite laughable how many stations it misses. Why is it that integration of modes has taken a backwards step this millenium?

cheers tubeman
Crossrail is an exception... It's not really intended to integrate in the manner that the Tube does, it's designed to draw traffic away from the Tube in Central London. Another considerdation is the length and spacing of platforms: these are going to be vast stations for 12-car fast mainline trains, not 6-8 car Tubes. Crossrail stations are often being positioned halfway between two existing Tube stops such as to interchange with both, otherwise it would have to stop more often or miss out interchanges with some other lines altogether.

I really think that presuming HS1 and Crossrail1 are being limited by financial considerations is wide of the mark, these are very expensive projects. Ebbsfleet is in the middle of nowhere for a good reason: it is the intended location of a whole new town (e.g. Milton keynes Central was once in the middle of nowhere too, and now serves a city of 1/4 million people!). LOROL is just a rebranding: the North London Line missed out the same potential interchanges too... because it's the same railway!
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2009, 05:59 PM   #3252
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
did i say cross platform interchanges with regards to crossrail?? NOPE i said interchanges full stop... it misses woolwich, doesn't interchange properly with the DLR on the isle of dogs, stops in no mans land in maidenhead etc etc...

and overground, they should build a proper camden interchange as previously discussed, as crossrail is being built, shoreditch high street must be, re site clapham high street, brixton?? come on it could be so much better...

The victoria interchanges with every line it crosses no matter how insignificant!!
But the Victoria Line was specifically designed and built from scratch to act as a relief line to the then grossly overcrowded Piccadilly and Northern Lines. The cross-platform interchanges were imperative for it to fulfil its function. Crossrail is designed to be a quick route into Central London from the Home Counties, not a handy link between Tube lines in Central London. Provided it has well-placed stations for the West End and City (which it does), it has fulfilled its function. It will stop people from pouring out of Liverpool Street and Paddington termini and cramming onto already packed Tubes, as commuters will be able to stay on their comfy Crossrail train from Shenfield or Maidenhead and step straight off in the heart of Oxford Street or City of London. Job done.

LOROL routes are victims of being built by various independent railway companies who were fiercely competing with each other: interchanges were the last thing on their minds, and more to the point the entire current LOROL network was built before the first Tube line was, so the Tubes could be accused of not interchanging properly with the mainlines, not vice versa. Camden Road was built over 50 years before Camden Town, for example... So blame Charles Yerkes!

All 'missed' interchanges are very expensive to put right, Brixton on the South London Line for example is a double-height viaduct crossing densly packed terraced houses (it's a viaduct over a viaduct)... adding platforms here would be a nightmare. Camden is a deep-level junction station versus a high-level junction station... 'moving' either is so expensive it's just prohibitive.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2009, 06:06 PM   #3253
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
I really think that presuming HS1 and Crossrail1 are being limited by financial considerations is wide of the mark, these are very expensive projects. Ebbsfleet is in the middle of nowhere for a good reason: it is the intended location of a whole new town (e.g. Milton keynes Central was once in the middle of nowhere too, and now serves a city of 1/4 million people!). LOROL is just a rebranding: the North London Line missed out the same potential interchanges too... because it's the same railway!
Ebbsfleet isn't really in the middle of nowhere, it's in the middle of moderately populated industrial north kent, my old uni housemate is from northfleet where ebbsfleet station actually is, and ebsfleet is about 150m southwest of northfleet station, it is stupid that they didn't divert the north kent line into ebbsfleet and fill in the gap (which is a car park) between northfleet town and ebbsfleet station with housing or even a footpath from the main road in northfleet to ebbsfleet station would be good, the only way to access it is through a long winded road... Northfleet is a horrible place (should be up north!!) and the railway line and the buffer of car parks keeps shiney new ebbsfleet awy
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2009, 06:09 PM   #3254
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
But the Victoria Line was specifically designed and built from scratch to act as a relief line to the then grossly overcrowded Piccadilly and Northern Lines. The cross-platform interchanges were imperative for it to fulfil its function. Crossrail is designed to be a quick route into Central London from the Home Counties, not a handy link between Tube lines in Central London. Provided it has well-placed stations for the West End and City (which it does), it has fulfilled its function. It will stop people from pouring out of Liverpool Street and Paddington termini and cramming onto already packed Tubes, as commuters will be able to stay on their comfy Crossrail train from Shenfield or Maidenhead and step straight off in the heart of Oxford Street or City of London. Job done.

LOROL routes are victims of being built by various independent railway companies who were fiercely competing with each other: interchanges were the last thing on their minds, and more to the point the entire current LOROL network was built before the first Tube line was, so the Tubes could be accused of not interchanging properly with the mainlines, not vice versa. Camden Road was built over 50 years before Camden Town, for example... So blame Charles Yerkes!

All 'missed' interchanges are very expensive to put right, Brixton on the South London Line for example is a double-height viaduct crossing densly packed terraced houses (it's a viaduct over a viaduct)... adding platforms here would be a nightmare. Camden is a deep-level junction station versus a high-level junction station... 'moving' either is so expensive it's just prohibitive.
but tubeman with crossrail i was talking about woolwich and isle of dogs, not cross platform interchanges in the centre... it's a joke how it doesn't serve woolwich properly, i know changing the alignment would've been a nightmare, but doesn't it show how obvious crossrail was, that there were only gone be 3 stations on the canary wharf branch.. there is ample space at woolwich arsenal station (car park/ ex goods yard) and missing it is missing a real south east london hub imho!

Also on Brixton despite the headache of building wouldn't it have huge benefits... and i also mentioned my camden idea a few pages back...

Last edited by bigbossman; January 7th, 2009 at 06:14 PM.
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2009, 06:13 PM   #3255
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

the two stair case concept is interesting, but do you think the NIMBYS who don't use the buses would stand for minimal seating downstairs, they afterall are the ones who think it's dangerous upstairs on a bus... personally if it's loading which is the issue, why not do as they do in the continent and have three door double deckers, and keep the bendy thing of being able to enter any door...
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2009, 09:00 PM   #3256
Jang0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 131
Likes (Received): 0

Hi sotonsi - thanks for your insights. I might just query you on a few more things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
Does City Airport need another station yet?
It might not need it, but without planning for it, it's never going to get one either - not even if it does need it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
Jubilee wouldn't like the corners as much as the DLR.
Even though part of the current alignment is NR? The only other corner is from the NR to the station, this IIRC is at a similar radius to the rest of the track?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
better service from the Royal Docks? Better coverage of the corridor? Cheaper than extending the JLE? Higher frequencies in the Royal Docks? Redundancy if the Jubilee is closed (something you lament the lack of due to no Crossrail station at Canning Town)?
Just how much is the projected ridership of this line? I agree some people will want to go to Stratford from either of those two branches, but there is already a means to get from Canning Town to Stratford, and wasn't the NLL a fairly underused line before? What would the standard use-case be - residents from Royal Docks to the Stratford shopping area? I can't see how it would greatly benefit any commuters once Crossrail opens. And don't give me any spiel about the Olympics, because I don't believe any investment this great is worth it for 2 weeks use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
Oh, so what you are suggesting is crippling the terminal capacity of the JLE by having a flat junction to the South of Stratford, and then also not using the potential of the new line, by not having that many services use it. Bear in mind that for quite a while the other pair of tracks would have been unprotected and no one seemed to want to build on them.yes - we can then increase frequency east of Canning Town - there's now two branches to feed. We can save people a change, we can serve people along that route better, because of intermediate stations.They are doing both (with the omission of a moving walkway between Stratford Regional and International). DLR is the best option. It gives far more benefits and doesn't cost that much.
I didn't actually say anything about a flat junction - a flyover is possible (and since this is included in the cost of the DLR Canning Town junction, I think perfectly feasible for the JLE). I would have thought it would actually increase the performance of the JLE since there is already a flat junction south of Stratford. You say you can save people a change (when using the DLR), but the reality is that people on the JLE will have to change. The only people it benefits are those in the Royal Docks area.

But anyway, what's done is done. Good or bad, we could argue and it wouldn't really matter. I suppose one thing is for sure, that the transport, both public and private in this area of London is going to be exceptional. Crossrail, Central, Jubilee, DLR, District, Overground, HS1 and decent roads. If only the same could be said about SE London (and I don't mean the thin sliver through which Crossrail will run). My local trains run every 30 mins, and I have very little choice. Bring on Tube to Lewisham / Southwark!
Jang0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2009, 09:03 PM   #3257
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
But anyway, what's done is done. Good or bad, we could argue and it wouldn't really matter. I suppose one thing is for sure, that the transport, both public and private in this area of London is going to be exceptional. Crossrail, Central, Jubilee, DLR, District, Overground, HS1 and decent roads. If only the same could be said about SE London (and I don't mean the thin sliver through which Crossrail will run). My local trains run every 30 mins, and I have very little choice. Bring on Tube to Lewisham / Southwark!
where do you live in south london, i can't think of any south east london stations with less than 4tph...
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2009, 11:15 PM   #3258
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
did i say cross platform interchanges with regards to crossrail?? NOPE i said interchanges full stop... it misses woolwich, doesn't interchange properly with the DLR on the isle of dogs, stops in no mans land in maidenhead etc etc...
The lack of interchange at Woolwich Arsenal is absurd. Is there a good reason for this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
and overground, they should build a proper camden interchange as previously discussed, as crossrail is being built, shoreditch high street must be, re site clapham high street, brixton?? come on it could be so much better...
Why did you put this in the same paragraph as the one mentioning contemporary projects such as Crossrail and HS1? That implies that you thought that the lack of interchanges on LO was a new thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi
It is completely a cost saving, as it would cost about £2billion to do. The problem is overcrowding at the southern end of the Victoria and Bakerloo platforms. To ease this, you'd have to widen them. This would involve changing the Victoria's alignment through the station, and also rebuilding at least that whole level, if not the whole, station. It's a complete non-starter.
Or alternatively, they could knock through the pylons seperating the platforms to provide more space.

Anyway, whenever i've been there in the evening peaks the Victoria/Bakerloo platforms are crowded, but nothing compare to the western end of the Central line platforms which often have a quene of human traffic. My solution would be to build a new westbound platform and use the existing one as a central hall, like the London Bridge on the Northern line. At the eastern end they could create a (long) passage to the Crossrail platforms at Tottenham Court Road.
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2009, 11:55 PM   #3259
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jang0 View Post
Even though part of the current alignment is NR? The only other corner is from the NR to the station, this IIRC is at a similar radius to the rest of the track?
And NR needs to crawl round the corners. DLR can do corners quicker.

Seeing as the HS1 plans would have been in existence when the JLE was being sorted, you would have thought that passive provision for an extension would have been provided if they thought it was a good idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
The lack of interchange at Woolwich Arsenal is absurd. Is there a good reason for this?
Yes - it would mean Crossrail is facing the wrong way and had gone round a rather tight corner - think about the alignment that the DLR takes...

Also why would you need an interchange there?

Of course, there's the lamentable lack of passive provision and planning for a station at London City Airport, which would give an interchange with that DLR branch. But I can't see any reason for a Woolwich Arsenal Crossrail station.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2009, 12:32 AM   #3260
Jang0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 131
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
where do you live in south london, i can't think of any south east london stations with less than 4tph...
Anywhere on the Catford Loop line only has 2tph - although with Thameslink programme, this will change. Waiting at Blackfriars late in the evening for the next train (when the previous one has been cancelled) isn't much fun. Makes me pine for a 4tph service, although a 24tph service wouldn't go amiss
Jang0 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 06:36 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