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 April 7th, 2009, 12:56 PM   #3501
The Sage
I want my LBT
 
The Sage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,552
Likes (Received): 1

Here's one.

Tomorrow I will be going to from King's X to Heathrow on the first Piccadilly line tube. The journey starts at 5:39 but ends at 6.36. According to the information I eventually managed to dredge up from the awful TfL website, it would seem that oyster peak fares start being charged from 6.30 AM. So, for this journey, would I be charged the peak or off-peak oyster fare?

Any advice appreciated, thanks!
The Sage no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 7th, 2009, 01:15 PM   #3502
sweek
Registered User
 
sweek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London NW1
Posts: 1,636
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Sage View Post
Here's one.

Tomorrow I will be going to from King's X to Heathrow on the first Piccadilly line tube. The journey starts at 5:39 but ends at 6.36. According to the information I eventually managed to dredge up from the awful TfL website, it would seem that oyster peak fares start being charged from 6.30 AM. So, for this journey, would I be charged the peak or off-peak oyster fare?

Any advice appreciated, thanks!
Off-peak as it's based on the touch-in time, and the TfL site has won loads of awards and I personally think it's a really good website. Compare it to the MTA one.
sweek no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 7th, 2009, 01:35 PM   #3503
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
I'd be surprised if there was that much of a distance differential between the two, I guess the WCML deviates a bit to the east of the 'crow flies' line to reach Rugby, the original GCR main line is a 'better fit' north of Aylesbury but through utilising the Tring Gap the WCML has a much straighter, flatter route than the Met / Chiltern route up and over the Chilterns.
although the WCML has a really awful route south of Harrow - very indirect. Hills are not a problem for HSL, so there's no point in using the Tring Gap (where there's no real space for more tracks)
Quote:
The 'crow flies' line very much depends on where in London you're drawing it to. I lay a ruler across a map yesterday between the centre of Birmingham and London City and it went straight through Watford (WCML), Tring (WCML), Buckingham (GCR) and a few miles west of MK (WCML)... As I said the WCML then deviates a bit to the east of this line through Rugby before the Birmingham spur branches off, but this allows Coventry to be served.
I did Euston and New Street. IIRC I worked out that the WCML was 10 miles longer than a Chiltern ML/M40 corridor route between the two stations (and Chiltern/M40 is less direct than via Aylesbury and Leamington). You are going to diverge off the direct route, though from Princes Risborough, the Chiltern/M40 route is shorter. The only decent way for a new line to go out of London is the rarely used tracks via Greenford, so the Tring gap is definitely out unless you want a big tunnel. The best way into Birmingham is the GW route, with it's 2 spare track beds, so you are going to hit Birmingham's urban area around Solihull as well. This makes the Chiltern/M40 corridor the best existing corridor. It's still more direct to go via Amersham and Aylesbury between West Ruislip and Solihull, but then it's kind of a mess north of there (GC to Woodford Halse, cross-country to Leamington-ish, I guess), and the time difference with the M40 route is tiny - after all 10 miles at 186mph is just over 3 minutes.

Coventry needs to be served by HSL from London like I need a stab in the eye - it's too close (that goes for Oxford and Milton Keynes as well) and too much just out of the way. The time savings over the distance compared to a 125mph line are just too small to be worth the extra time penalty from further up. That's no to say that there cannot be spurs from the HSL, and/or more and faster trains (got by less stops?) to those destinations. Coventry and Milton Keynes, providing a connection to the Trent Valley line is made on HS2, will get first dibs on the ~6tph spare paths on the WCML south of where HS2 merges. Not to mention the emptier Birmingham WCML trains.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 7th, 2009, 03:11 PM   #3504
fishcatdogbird
* I BELIEVE YOU WINONA *
 
fishcatdogbird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne 3/4 London 1/4
Posts: 474
Likes (Received): 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by sweek View Post
Off-peak as it's based on the touch-in time, and the TfL site has won loads of awards and I personally think it's a really good website. Compare it to the MTA one.
Agree TFL is an awesome site, love it!
fishcatdogbird no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 7th, 2009, 03:27 PM   #3505
The Sage
I want my LBT
 
The Sage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,552
Likes (Received): 1

Ok, for those of you who love the TfL site, try to find on there without going mental;

Hard Mode: Peak and off-peak times of Oyster travel.
Super Hard Mode: The oyster fare for a trip from zone 1 to 6.
Impossible Mode: The answer to my fares question.

over 9000 bonus points if you can do it without having to download any bleeding PDFs.

TfL site can be helpful but what it needs is one page that gives you all the oyster card facts/FAQs which it doesn't have. You wouldn't have thought my queries would be that uncommon at all.

Anyway thanks for your answer!
The Sage no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 7th, 2009, 05:48 PM   #3506
sweek
Registered User
 
sweek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London NW1
Posts: 1,636
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Sage View Post
Ok, for those of you who love the TfL site, try to find on there without going mental;

Hard Mode: Peak and off-peak times of Oyster travel.
Super Hard Mode: The oyster fare for a trip from zone 1 to 6.
Impossible Mode: The answer to my fares question.

over 9000 bonus points if you can do it without having to download any bleeding PDFs.

TfL site can be helpful but what it needs is one page that gives you all the oyster card facts/FAQs which it doesn't have. You wouldn't have thought my queries would be that uncommon at all.

Anyway thanks for your answer!
Go to tfl.gov.uk
Click Tickets > Single fare finder
Fill in a station in zone 1, one in zone 6, see result.
When you do that, it says:
Peak: Monday to Friday from 0630 to 0930 and from 1600 to 1900
Off-peak: At all other times including public holidays.

Then under notes it comes with a long explanation. If you follow these rules you'll never pay more than necessary. I do admit that the fact that TfL only actually looks at the touching in time (so you can travel during 'peak hours' for the off-peak fare if you touch in beforehand) isn't mentioned. It might be more of a technical limitation than them actually not wanting to charge someone who makes a journey from 06.25 till 08.00 the peak fare.
sweek no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 7th, 2009, 05:53 PM   #3507
The Sage
I want my LBT
 
The Sage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,552
Likes (Received): 1

Ah, missed the fare finder bit! Anyway, the important thing is, if you're right i'll save a whole £1.60, which could make all the difference...
The Sage no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 8th, 2009, 04:38 PM   #3508
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
although the WCML has a really awful route south of Harrow - very indirect. Hills are not a problem for HSL, so there's no point in using the Tring Gap (where there's no real space for more tracks)
That's a bit of a silly thing to say. Of course hills are a 'problem' to HSR or any other type of railway; hills equal tunnels, cuttings, viaducts and embankments, more for HSR than 'normal' rail because tight curves cannot be built... They all add to the cost of the project.

Utilising the existing 'Gap towns' in the ring of hills around London for transport arteries is as old as the Romans and makes perfect sense: it minimises tunnelling and other earthworks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
I did Euston and New Street. IIRC I worked out that the WCML was 10 miles longer than a Chiltern ML/M40 corridor route between the two stations (and Chiltern/M40 is less direct than via Aylesbury and Leamington). You are going to diverge off the direct route, though from Princes Risborough, the Chiltern/M40 route is shorter. The only decent way for a new line to go out of London is the rarely used tracks via Greenford, so the Tring gap is definitely out unless you want a big tunnel.
But why are you proposing using the Chiltern route at all? It meanders up and over the Chiltern Hills and therefore isn't suitable for HSR. The best route for HSR is the straightest line between points a and b; the straightest route between London and Birmingham fortuitously passes through one of the best 'gaps' north of London (Tring), which unsurprisingly therefore the London & Birmingham Railway utilised 170 years ago (and the Grand Union canal before that).

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
The best way into Birmingham is the GW route, with it's 2 spare track beds, so you are going to hit Birmingham's urban area around Solihull as well.
Why? Although nice and straight Old Oak Common to West Ruislip, once this line climbs up into the Chilterns it begins meandering about and so is not suitable for HSR. You defeat your Solihull assertion below re: Coventry... Why does it matter where the route enters Birmingham unless you're suggesting the HSR trains should be stopping in a suburb like Solihull (and then if at an insignificant suburb like Solihull, why not a city like Coventry?).

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
This makes the Chiltern/M40 corridor the best existing corridor. It's still more direct to go via Amersham and Aylesbury between West Ruislip and Solihull, but then it's kind of a mess north of there (GC to Woodford Halse, cross-country to Leamington-ish, I guess), and the time difference with the M40 route is tiny - after all 10 miles at 186mph is just over 3 minutes.
Amersham isn't even on the same line as West Ruislip... You're not making much sense!

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
Coventry needs to be served by HSL from London like I need a stab in the eye - it's too close (that goes for Oxford and Milton Keynes as well) and too much just out of the way.
But Solihull does?! I don't think Coventry necessarily needs to be served by London-Birmingham HSR either, I was merely pointing out that at least the current WCML does serve Coventry, which is a major city in its own right.

I certainly think one intermediate stop at MK is justified, even if not for all trains (e.g. Ashford on HS1).

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
The time savings over the distance compared to a 125mph line are just too small to be worth the extra time penalty from further up. That's no to say that there cannot be spurs from the HSL, and/or more and faster trains (got by less stops?) to those destinations. Coventry and Milton Keynes, providing a connection to the Trent Valley line is made on HS2, will get first dibs on the ~6tph spare paths on the WCML south of where HS2 merges. Not to mention the emptier Birmingham WCML trains.
Well precisely so why do we need a new alignment at all? Something like £10bn has just been spent on the WCML and journey times have improved... By upgrading track and tackling bottlenecks on existing HSR routes we can save ourselves the great expense of building routes from scratch.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2009, 04:24 PM   #3509
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
That's a bit of a silly thing to say. Of course hills are a 'problem' to HSR or any other type of railway; hills equal tunnels, cuttings, viaducts and embankments, more for HSR than 'normal' rail because tight curves cannot be built... They all add to the cost of the project.
Note that, firstly, the only route that has tunnels while crossing the Chilterns is the Tring Gap route (at Kings Langley); secondly, HSL can do hills better than conventional rail; and, thirdly, the Tring Gap route is just as twisty - Berko was really slow before the upgrades.
Quote:
Utilising the existing 'Gap towns' in the ring of hills around London for transport arteries is as old as the Romans and makes perfect sense: it minimises tunnelling and other earthworks.
Yes, and Princes Risborough and Wendover are also 'Gap Towns'. Utilising the exisiting empty corridors out of London and Birmingham (both of which were part of the GW direct route) also minimises long tunnels under the urban areas, or defeating the whole point of HS2 by not relieving capacity on the WCML at all. Taking a route that costs less is rather an old tradition too.
Quote:
But why are you proposing using the Chiltern route at all? It meanders up and over the Chiltern Hills and therefore isn't suitable for HSR. The best route for HSR is the straightest line between points a and b; the straightest route between London and Birmingham fortuitously passes through one of the best 'gaps' north of London (Tring), which unsurprisingly therefore the London & Birmingham Railway utilised 170 years ago (and the Grand Union canal before that).
So how to cross those hills that form a ring around Birmingham? Watford Gap? Way too far east!

Because you are wedded to 18th and 19th century technology, ignorant of the main factors of why build HS2 in the first place, you are wedded to this Tring idea. You also ignore the twisty route it takes (massively so south of Watford), and the problem of there being lots of houses in the way in Berko to have a fast alignment (125mph was just about doable with tilt).

There are two non-stupid routes out of London (ie not costing billions) - one is the Lea Valley, the other is the old GW Birmingham Direct alignment. There are two non-stupid routes into Birmingham - the old GW Birmingham Direct alignment and the route to Derby/Leicester. I'm just using the two that point in the right direction. Because of this, a London-Birmingham straight line is rather mute anyway, it's a Solihul-West Ruislip straight line that is needed. Tring Gap is far to north for that (and south of a line going through the Lea Valley)
Quote:
Why? Although nice and straight Old Oak Common to West Ruislip, once this line climbs up into the Chilterns it begins meandering about and so is not suitable for HSR. You defeat your Solihull assertion below re: Coventry... Why does it matter where the route enters Birmingham unless you're suggesting the HSR trains should be stopping in a suburb like Solihull (and then if at an insignificant suburb like Solihull, why not a city like Coventry?).
Where did I say anything about serving Solihul station - it's a direct empty corridor into the centre of Birmingham, without having to spend billions. Also Solihul is hardly an insignificant suburb - it's not much smaller than Coventry. It's like saying that the stars aren't bright at the moment (daytime), simply because they are out shone by the sun. Birmingham's vast size dwarfs Solihul, and makes it look smaller than it is.

I said:"The best way into Birmingham is the GW route, with it's 2 spare track beds, so you are going to hit Birmingham's urban area around Solihull as well." You effectively called me stupid, rather than suggesting another route. You decided that I was talking about a station, which I didn't mention, yet you ignore the point about the disused track bed entirely and didn't even bother to suggest a better route into Birmingham. Play the ball I'm giving you, not some other one.
Quote:
Amersham isn't even on the same line as West Ruislip... You're not making much sense!
We're talking about a new-build HSL, why the hell does it have to follow existing lines? Stop moving the goalposts. Amersham is on the straighter line between West Ruislip and Solihul, take the A413 route up to just south of Stoke Mandeville (using Wendover gap, which isn't that bad) and then go south of Aylesbury and strike out to Bicester (to get through the hills, rather than GC route to Woodford Halse and then a new route to Leamington, though that would be shorter, but hillier). This avoids High Wycombe, and the curvy bit around Saunderton. You may need a tunnel near Amersham, mostly for appeasement of NIMBYs, but it would be no longer than Kings Langely tunnels on the Tring Gap.
Quote:
But Solihull does?! I don't think Coventry necessarily needs to be served by London-Birmingham HSR either, I was merely pointing out that at least the current WCML does serve Coventry, which is a major city in its own right.
I've dealt with this putting words in my mouth about a station at Solihul. I've also dealt with the stupid suggestion of serving Coventry on the main line (out the way, stations too close. I haven't mentioned the problem of getting the line through the city, nor that the Birmingham-Coventry line is not going to be able to carry future growth and Birmingham-London trains, even if 4-tracked) and how it will benefit lots from HS2 even if it doesn't get any HS trains.
Quote:
I certainly think one intermediate stop at MK is justified, even if not for all trains (e.g. Ashford on HS1).
Ashford is partially an accident of history (phase 1 of HS1 was to bypass the slow bit of the SER between Cheriton and Ashford), and is far more on the route between London and the Chunnel than MK is on the sensible route between London and Birmingham. It's worth pointing out that no HS1 trains will stop there, other than the Javelins that branch off the HSL there. IIRC there's one Ashford a day at the moment, just because there are no Javelins yet.

London-Birmingham is going to be less than an hour on HS2, the TGV equivalent is Paris-Lille (~1h). IIRC, all these trains run non-stop. There are a few trains to other northern cities (Lens, Arras, etc) using TGV Nord, and it's these that stop at the one stop on the HSL, Haute-Picardie. It's simply the case that any intermediate stop at MK will add billions to the price tag (not just due to the big problems of getting into Birmingham and London's city centres, but also in having to use the Tring Gap, and the extra miles of going off the route).
Quote:
Well precisely so why do we need a new alignment at all? Something like £10bn has just been spent on the WCML and journey times have improved... By upgrading track and tackling bottlenecks on existing HSR routes we can save ourselves the great expense of building routes from scratch.
Never were we discussing "should we build HS2?" we were discussing what was the best route for HS2, should it be built. Anyway, that £10billion (actually the cost was £15 billion), given when it was started, would have funded a 186mph line to the edge of Manchester/Acton Bridge Junction and some modest improvements up to Glasgow, giving the about the same time benefit for Scotland as the 125mph all the way gave, with the addition of huge benefits for Birmingham, Manchester/Liverpool-London/Birmingham times and capacity. We cannot upgrade track on the WCML further due to signalling rules. The bottlenecks are exactly the bits you seem to want to reuse - south of Tring (especially thanks to the Berko curve being so tight) and west of Coventry. To a lesser extent, the whole WCML south of Rugby is a bottleneck. To rectify this, the best plan is another route, which may as well be High Speed, as it costs not much more. This is the logic behind HS2 - it's simply a WCML bypass of the area south of Rugby, and between Coventry and Birmingham - upgrading the bottleneck of the line (made worse by the recent upgrade - there's now less capacity!) by providing more CAPACITY. HS2 has very little to do with lowering journey times, though that is a nice add-on for little cost.

It really is worth pointing out that the current 'upgrade' strategy of the last 15-20 years is really rather costly - thanks to traffic management (roads), compensation due to closures (rail) and so on, it tends to work out cheaper to just build the same mileage of 3 lane (each way) motorway/two track HSL than widen the existing one to 4 lane (each way) or upgrade the existing railway to the highest possible speed (125mph) without redoing all the signalling to be in-cab and banning slower trains (non-electric, freight, commuter/stopping services) from the fast/only tracks. When the M1 was getting rather congested between London and Catthorpe, what the plan was was to extend the M40 to Birmingham (the, shorter, via Oxford route to Birmingham was a plan since the 60s - via Rugby was only because we were cash-strapped in the late 50s and wanted to have the M1 serve the whole north, not knowing whether we could build much more motorway). HS2 is effectively the railway equivalent.

In summary, the Tring gap is an inferior route proposed for an HSL to Birmingham as:
1)it fails to use the disused rail corridors that mean easy work to get through the urban areas at either end.
2)it fails to understand the problem, instead either dumps the traffic onto the bit you are trying to bypass or shoots itself in the foot by needing nice long tunnels under London, or rather a lot of demolition to 8 track the route between Tring and London (especially given that Herts CC would force Central Government to complete their long term plan to extend the DC lines to Berko/Tring).
3)it's no more flat/straight than the other 'gap' routes through the Chilterns and is the only one with a long tunnel, something that you didn't want.
4)it ignores the superior nature of HSL when it comes to hills - they can go steeper than conventional rail, due to the power involved. Ideally, of course, flatter is better, so it's a toss up between cost and flatness. Tring would cost way too much, Wendover is better, even Princes Risborough is better.
5)it ignores the problem of having to close the WCML for many weekends in order to widen the large cuttings near Tring, etc, in order to use the Tring Gap.
6)it makes Heathrow rather hard to serve.

Last edited by sotonsi; April 11th, 2009 at 04:33 PM. Reason: minor proof reading misses
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2009, 05:58 PM   #3510
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

I can't be arsed with this, anyone else got a question?

There is a recurring theme with you of picking arguments in pretty much every thread you participate in, including previously in this one.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2009, 08:55 PM   #3511
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
I can't be arsed with this, anyone else got a question?
It wasn't my initial question, and does this mean I can't "Ask the Tubeman" as he holds a petty grudge against me, for daring to question his correctness?
Quote:
There is a recurring theme with you of picking arguments in pretty much every thread you participate in, including previously in this one.
You started this one! I disagreed with you on your ideal HS2 route, and there was a bit of back and forth, then you went ape, making up a lot of crap trying to make me look like a fool and then I replied to that and then you posted the post I'm quoting. Perhaps next time I'd just ignore a complete misrepresentation of what I said, designed to make me look like an idiot. I mean, it should be really obvious that it was not what I said, but someone trying to make me look rubbish as they know that they are wrong, but cannot admit it.

Just because the thread is called "Ask the Tubeman" doesn't mean that you are always right, doesn't mean that other people aren't allowed to chip in their answers and corrections.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2009, 12:39 AM   #3512
Cherguevara
Registered User
 
Cherguevara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,887
Likes (Received): 3547

The thread didn't change into ask the Tubeman about something he knows very little to catch him out when I wasn't looking did it?
Cherguevara no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2009, 11:43 AM   #3513
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
It wasn't my initial question, and does this mean I can't "Ask the Tubeman" as he holds a petty grudge against me, for daring to question his correctness?You started this one! I disagreed with you on your ideal HS2 route, and there was a bit of back and forth, then you went ape, making up a lot of crap trying to make me look like a fool and then I replied to that and then you posted the post I'm quoting. Perhaps next time I'd just ignore a complete misrepresentation of what I said, designed to make me look like an idiot. I mean, it should be really obvious that it was not what I said, but someone trying to make me look rubbish as they know that they are wrong, but cannot admit it.

Just because the thread is called "Ask the Tubeman" doesn't mean that you are always right, doesn't mean that other people aren't allowed to chip in their answers and corrections.
Shush
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2009, 11:48 AM   #3514
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherguevara View Post
The thread didn't change into ask the Tubeman about something he knows very little to catch him out when I wasn't looking did it?
He just likes arguing. Should probably get out more.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2009, 05:30 PM   #3515
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherguevara View Post
The thread didn't change into ask the Tubeman about something he knows very little to catch him out when I wasn't looking did it?
I didn't ask the question (read the thread, for crying out loud - it's only about 12 posts ago), I would never have asked it, as it would have been moot, given that all the plans have a Heathrow spur and it's the second priority of the line to serve Heathrow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
He just likes arguing. Should probably get out more.
I don't like arguing (I also don't like uninformed responses, especially passed off as authoritative), but I also don't like being slandered, talked down and bullied (you treatment of me is approaching the b-word).

Again, it is you that is starting all this. You seem to love trying to make out that I'm the aggressor, that I'm stupid and I think I deserve a right to respond to these unprovoked attacks - that is what I am doing here. If you don't want a fight, don't pick one. You are giving the impression that you want to keep this up with your snide and cocky remarks, baiting me.

This is over when you stop being an arrogant prick wanting to pick a fight. I will respond to any slurs against me and only then (unless you actually address my points and reasoning). You slander my social life, but you post on here at twice the rate I do. Hypocrite.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2009, 06:59 PM   #3516
DanielFigFoz
Registered User
 
DanielFigFoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 4,436
Likes (Received): 898

Ok i've got a question, I know that the Discrit line can't go to Heathrow, because in between Hounslow West and Hatton X, the tunnel, at some point turns from cut-and.cover to "standard" deep level. I also understand that there is the possibiliy of trains terminating at Hounslow Central. So why doesn't the Discrit linr go to Hounslow Central?
DanielFigFoz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2009, 02:50 AM   #3517
Overground
Registered User
 
Overground's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 1,593
Likes (Received): 125

I have a question. I haven't been back in Blighty for quite awhile so I'm out of the loop. What's happening with the proposed link between Croxley and Watford Junction? Also, are they still thinking of having a link between Watford and Aylesbury?
Overground no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2009, 04:06 AM   #3518
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielFigFoz View Post
Ok i've got a question, I know that the Discrit line can't go to Heathrow, because in between Hounslow West and Hatton X, the tunnel, at some point turns from cut-and.cover to "standard" deep level. I also understand that there is the possibiliy of trains terminating at Hounslow Central. So why doesn't the Discrit linr go to Hounslow Central?
Why would the District line need to go Hounslow Central when the Piccadilly line goes there?
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2009, 11:53 AM   #3519
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielFigFoz View Post
Ok i've got a question, I know that the Discrit line can't go to Heathrow, because in between Hounslow West and Hatton X, the tunnel, at some point turns from cut-and.cover to "standard" deep level. I also understand that there is the possibiliy of trains terminating at Hounslow Central. So why doesn't the Discrit linr go to Hounslow Central?
It used to... Prior to the extension to Heathrow both lines terminated at Hounslow West... They were segregated in the 1960's in order to simplify operations. This is the reason why it's pretty pointless reversing this, as it would complicate operations again without any benefit.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2009, 11:56 AM   #3520
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by Overground View Post
I have a question. I haven't been back in Blighty for quite awhile so I'm out of the loop. What's happening with the proposed link between Croxley and Watford Junction? Also, are they still thinking of having a link between Watford and Aylesbury?
The Croxley link remains on the drawing board, a travesty considering it's only about 200m of new railway which would lead to a significant benefit. It isn't dead, but it isn't very close to realisation either.

Not sure about a Watford - Aylesbury Link; this would be possible with the Croxley Link... where did you hear about it?
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 08:38 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