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 8th, 2009, 01:39 AM   #3261
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
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.
not at all, the line is facing eastwards, instead of curving onto the alignment of plumstead road, it would curve onto the alignment of the north kent line and surface.

Why does it need to be an interchange? why have 2 stations close to each other when you can have it all in one complex??? It makes much more sense, woolwich arsenal is located in the town centre, next to bus routes etc etc...
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 8th, 2009, 02:38 AM   #3262
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
not at all, the line is facing eastwards, instead of curving onto the alignment of plumstead road, it would curve onto the alignment of the north kent line and surface.
Have you any idea about railway geometry? The DLR, with it's ability to make steeper climbs might have been able to do (though you'd double the distance between King George V and Woolwich Arsenal to do so).

You'd also end it there with surfacing - good bye serving Thamesmead.

The curves would be insanely tight even for a sub-surface station - Woolwich Arsenal is further west than the tunnel portal in North Woolwich.

The time penalty for those tight curves and longer route would be nearly double that of Woolwich station. Instead of 1.7 minutes, we'd be talking 3 minutes more between Abbey Wood and Custom House for just that one stop.
Quote:
Why does it need to be an interchange? why have 2 stations close to each other when you can have it all in one complex??? It makes much more sense, woolwich arsenal is located in the town centre, next to bus routes etc etc...
Because the benefits of such an interchange outweigh the massive costs and negatives?

Bus routes can be extended far easier than tunnel rerouting. They'd be no real need to interchange off the DLR (might as well go in and either walk at Poplar, or get a bus to Custom House), and (unless you started at Plumstead) the NKL interchanges at Abbey Wood, with a better interchange than is real-world possible at Woolwich Arsenal.

Lancaster Gate and Paddington anyone? Although that one would be more useful than Woolwich Arsenal (though not really post-Crossrail). Cannon Street NR and Bank? London is full of stations close to others, with the interchanges made elsewhere, or not really needed.

The only justification for such a thing would be, just about, if the DLR was extended to Eltham. Then again a London City Airport station on Crossrail would be far cheaper and give better benefits - more areas served on top of the same functionality as swapping Woolwich for Woolwich Arsenal. OK, the time penalty becomes about the same, but it's more justified.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2009, 02:51 AM   #3263
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
Have you any idea about railway geometry? The DLR, with it's ability to make steeper climbs might have been able to do (though you'd double the distance between King George V and Woolwich Arsenal to do so).

You'd also end it there with surfacing - good bye serving Thamesmead.

The curves would be insanely tight even for a sub-surface station - Woolwich Arsenal is further west than the tunnel portal in North Woolwich.

The time penalty for those tight curves and longer route would be nearly double that of Woolwich station. Instead of 1.7 minutes, we'd be talking 3 minutes more between Abbey Wood and Custom House for just that one stop.Because the benefits of such an interchange outweigh the massive costs and negatives?
what are you talking about, this the crossrail alignment not the DLR alignment, for one it has the whole of the line from silvertown to north woolwch to decide when to duck under the thames, it doesn't have to follow the alignment of crossrail, it can run under the NK line, there is a park square just to the west of woolwich arsenal, so you wouldn't be building under buildings, and it doesn't even have to be cross platform, it can be under woolwich arsenal station and surface later...

Quote:
Bus routes can be extended far easier than tunnel rerouting. They'd be no real need to interchange off the DLR (might as well go in and either walk at Poplar, or get a bus to Custom House), and (unless you started at Plumstead) the NKL interchanges at Abbey Wood, with a better interchange than is real-world possible at Woolwich Arsenal.

Lancaster Gate and Paddington anyone? Although that one would be more useful than Woolwich Arsenal (though not really post-Crossrail). Cannon Street NR and Bank? London is full of stations close to others, with the interchanges made elsewhere, or not really needed.

The only justification for such a thing would be, just about, if the DLR was extended to Eltham. Then again a London City Airport station on Crossrail would be far cheaper and give better benefits - more areas served on top of the same functionality as swapping Woolwich for Woolwich Arsenal. OK, the time penalty becomes about the same, but it's more justified.
Your examples are totally different, canon street is a city station, on the same line as monument which is connected to bank, they are hardly the same...

Lancaster gate and paddington would make total sense as an interchange, lancaster gate is dead as a station and the central and paddington would benefit massively from curving to serve paddington

Woolwich Arsenal is a suburban station, not a city centre one, it is in the best interests to provide a hub in the town centre, rather than a town centre station and one slightly to the north in a housing estate... If someone wants woolwich they are gonna be stuck in the wrong part of town, whether it's 200m away or not, it's 200m further from the action! It misses the city airport branch of the DLR.

anyway sotonsi, we won't agree so lets drop it...
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2009, 03:34 AM   #3264
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
anyway sotonsi, we won't agree so lets drop it...
I'll give up trying to get my point across to you, but there might be some people who listen when talking about Woolwich Arsenal and how it isn't the centre of the universe (that was hyperbole and sarcasm, just so you know...) who still feel like it's a wasted interchange opportunity to have the station a bit further north.

The 200m distance between the stations, isn't that shorter than the 'interchange' between Thameslink and the Victoria line at the Kings Cross St Pancras complex? Isn't it as short as many of the 'outerchanges' created for Westfield? To turn bigbossman's "long walk" argument around, surely the people in the housing estate, along the river and in Thamesmead West would rather not travel those 200m to Woolwich Arsenal?

I'll give bigbossman the north bank descent - it is true that you could just build a longer tunnel (£££). However this kills any chance of a LCA station (which as I have explained would be far cheaper, and give more benefits and render pretty much the entire case for Woolwich Arsenal over Woolwich for a Crossrail station bunk), which might be useful one day to serve the airport, or Silvertown (which is regenerating well, thanks to the DLR) or a development replacing the Airport.

From other posts and data from the case for Woolwich Crossrail station, it seems like Woolwich is going to be a feeder station for that area, along with Abbey Wood (replacing part of the North Greenwich and Woolwich Arsenal bus transfer traffic). Surely for this traffic it doesn't matter where it really is? For the local people, it's primarily a line for taking people quickly to Docklands and Central London - being a bit further away from the town centre 'action' wouldn't matter as much - it's not really for people wanting Woolwich town centre - I'm sure there'd be a few, but they aren't that hindered by the station site. Anyway Woolwich station would still be really close to the action: just on the edge, just like Woolwich Arsenal, just a less prime edge. Still, this argument justifies Woolwich Arsenal Crossrail more than the interchange argument, though that isn't saying much as they are both rather weak.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2009, 02:49 PM   #3265
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
Ebbsfleet isn't really in the middle of nowhere, it's in the middle of moderately populated industrial north kent
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman
HS1 stuck ebsfleet station in the middle of nowhere
make your mind up matey!
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2009, 03:03 PM   #3266
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 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...
I guess the IOD route needs to be kept as cheap as possible, so sticking to the former NLL between Custom House and North Woolwich as much as possible achieves this. That being said, I think using this alignment for Crossrail is a bit daft anyway: the Connaught Tunnel under the Royal Docks has steep gradients and tight curves on approach... I'd be surpised if Crossrail trains would be able to get above 30mph anywhere between Custom House and the tunnel mouth at North Woolwich.

Although it would have avoided the Royal Docks, having the alignment surface on the Greenwich Peninsula and join the North Kent Line at Charlton, perhaps with a new station in the Angerstein Wharf area to regenerate, would have given Woolwich a Crossrail service and provided a much faster / more direct route.

I'm not arguing that Brixton on the South London Line wouldn't have benefits, but I guess they'll probably commence the ELL Phase 2 service first and then assess if there is a cost-benefit to the stop being built. I guess either very lightweight platforms could be fixed to the viaduct by buttress / bracket type steelwork, or alternatively they'd need to be supported on very tall pillars down to street level. It wouldn't be easy, either way.

The South London Line (future LOROL route) viaduct crossing the lower-level viaduct with Brixton NR station on it:

image hosted on flickr
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2009, 03:12 PM   #3267
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
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...
Sorry I should have made it clearer, you would be able to enter at either door on my hybrid bus. Obviously everyone filing past the driver slows things down too much, you'd just need more revenue staff.

As for your other point, I don't think people who don't want to go upstairs because of perceived 'danger' should be able to influence the design of buses when it's a choice between an extra 20 passengers per bus or not.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2009, 03:18 PM   #3268
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
The lack of interchange at Woolwich Arsenal is absurd. Is there a good reason for this?
Because Crossrail will take over the abandoned North London Line route between Custom House and North Woolwich, where it will enter a tunnel under the Thames. By virtue of passing through North Woolwich, it misses Woolwich proper. The only alternative is for Crossrail to enter a tunnel under the Thames further west. But I suspect finding the room in Woolwich town centre for the southern portals and junction with the existing NR route would be difficult, and this option would be dearer.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2009, 03:21 PM   #3269
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
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.
It should be straightforward enough though, we're effectively just talking about re-opening Silvertown station surely? All that needs to be safeguarded is space enough for the two plaforms on either side of the route.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2009, 03:22 PM   #3270
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
where do you live in south london, i can't think of any south east london stations with less than 4tph...
I'd assume Bromley North / Sundridge Park?
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2009, 06:24 PM   #3271
sweek
Registered User
 
sweek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London NW1
Posts: 1,636
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Sorry I should have made it clearer, you would be able to enter at either door on my hybrid bus. Obviously everyone filing past the driver slows things down too much, you'd just need more revenue staff.

As for your other point, I don't think people who don't want to go upstairs because of perceived 'danger' should be able to influence the design of buses when it's a choice between an extra 20 passengers per bus or not.
How about Berlin-style tri-axis double decker buses?
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_CfHnD8TwLas/Rx...sCityDD_10.jpg
http://images.google.co.uk/images?rl...-8&sa=N&tab=wi

Two stairways, a good number of seats, a lot of standing room downstairs. You could even have the front stairway to go up and the back stairway to go down, entrance only through the front entrance. I think they'd be a good bendy bus alternative.
sweek no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2009, 07:30 PM   #3272
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
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.
Do you know why there isn't a station at London City Airport instead of Custom House? I suppose they wanted to have interchange with both DLR branches, but i'd have thought that serving a an airport was far more important than that.
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2009, 07:49 PM   #3273
ajw373
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,249
Likes (Received): 48

Quote:
Originally Posted by sweek View Post
How about Berlin-style tri-axis double decker buses?
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_CfHnD8TwLas/Rx...sCityDD_10.jpg
http://images.google.co.uk/images?rl...-8&sa=N&tab=wi

Two stairways, a good number of seats, a lot of standing room downstairs. You could even have the front stairway to go up and the back stairway to go down, entrance only through the front entrance. I think they'd be a good bendy bus alternative.
The wheelbase and rear overhand is too long to be used most central London routes and these are the ones that need higher capacity buses.
ajw373 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2009, 09:06 PM   #3274
sweek
Registered User
 
sweek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London NW1
Posts: 1,636
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajw373 View Post
The wheelbase and rear overhand is too long to be used most central London routes and these are the ones that need higher capacity buses.
I don't think so... I believe there are already tourist buses that are tri-axis. Also, most busy bus routes really don't have any tight turns along their route. I can't think of a single one along the 29, for example.
sweek no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2009, 12:41 AM   #3275
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
Because Crossrail will take over the abandoned North London Line route between Custom House and North Woolwich, where it will enter a tunnel under the Thames. By virtue of passing through North Woolwich, it misses Woolwich proper. The only alternative is for Crossrail to enter a tunnel under the Thames further west. But I suspect finding the room in Woolwich town centre for the southern portals and junction with the existing NR route would be difficult, and this option would be dearer.
surely the fact that general gordon square is to west of the station, should allow portals to be constructed there... hypothetically of course...
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2009, 12:42 AM   #3276
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
make your mind up matey!
lol i think (digs a nice big hole) when i said middle of nowhere (digs deeper), i meant in terms of the existing rail network, not in terms of populace...
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2009, 12:45 AM   #3277
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 I should have made it clearer, you would be able to enter at either door on my hybrid bus. Obviously everyone filing past the driver slows things down too much, you'd just need more revenue staff.

As for your other point, I don't think people who don't want to go upstairs because of perceived 'danger' should be able to influence the design of buses when it's a choice between an extra 20 passengers per bus or not.
i agree, but they are the ones who demanded a new routemaster... i seriously don't understand why we just don't let people get on any door on double deckers, or evenjust stick a third set of doors in...
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2009, 10:10 AM   #3278
ajw373
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,249
Likes (Received): 48

Quote:
Originally Posted by sweek View Post
I don't think so... I believe there are already tourist buses that are tri-axis. Also, most busy bus routes really don't have any tight turns along their route. I can't think of a single one along the 29, for example.
My words were MOST central London routes, not all. On the wheelbase issue you are most correct any London route with a bendie could accept a long wheelbase vehicle, indeed some London routes operate long wheelbase DD's already.

It is the rear overhang of the buses you posted that I think would kill them running in London. The tourist buses that are tri-axle don't have such a large overhang. To make the overhang less you need to either shorten the overall length a little or make them long wheelbase dual axle, which is what they are planning on doing.
ajw373 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2009, 11:05 AM   #3279
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajw373 View Post
The wheelbase and rear overhand is too long to be used most central London routes and these are the ones that need higher capacity buses.
Sadly I agree: quite a few bendy routes negotiate tight corners... The 38 has a few... I don't think these tri-axle DD's would be able to handle them.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2009, 11:13 AM   #3280
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
surely the fact that general gordon square is to west of the station, should allow portals to be constructed there... hypothetically of course...
I guess the route could be built as a continuation of Connaught Tunnel under the Royal Docks, as it's pointing south-east here... I dread to think how difficult it would be in engineering terms to do that though (build a new route off an existing tunnel with several millions of tons of water above)... The Connaught Tunnel is so shallow that ships passing between the Victoria and Albert Docks used to graze the tunnel lining with their hulls (hence the protracted closure and strengthening in the 1990's).

The alternative is to have Crossrail pass through the tunnel, rise, provide for a LCA stop, then quickly sink back into tunnel again and swing south to Woolwich, which would end up with a bizarre (and now doubt slow) route zig-zagging and rising and falling in quick succession.

I'f we're determined to serve Woolwich, I prefer my alignment along Greenwich Peninsula to Charlton: quicker, neater, cheaper.
Tubeman 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 02:04 PM.


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