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 July 10th, 2011, 06:34 PM   #4621
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Agreed... and for this reason I'd advocate splitting Charing Cross back apart into the original Bakerloo (Trafalgar Square) and Northern (I'd keep this as Charing Cross) stations... by all means keep the miles-long connecting passageway open a la Monument / Bank, but it shouldn't be shown as an interchange anymore when Embankment is far more convenient.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 11th, 2011, 01:47 AM   #4622
davidaiow
Registered User
 
davidaiow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London E14/Isle of Wight
Posts: 544
Likes (Received): 5

Finally, somebody agrees! How much influence do you have over these things. So often it's those not in charge who speak the most sense
davidaiow no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2011, 11:17 PM   #4623
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidaiow View Post
Finally, somebody agrees! How much influence do you have over these things. So often it's those not in charge who speak the most sense
Well it would cost a bomb, I guess it could be attached onto the Bakerloo upgrade as the cost would be swallowed up, and it would be a logical opportunity to change a station name if there are other changes at the same time e.g. Watford Junction extension.

The costs are DVA changes on trains, station management re-organisation, new maps, new station enamels... it all mounts up.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2011, 01:17 AM   #4624
davidaiow
Registered User
 
davidaiow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London E14/Isle of Wight
Posts: 544
Likes (Received): 5

Surely it was a short-sighted thing to do to begin with? Though I guess it was to benefit an interchange with the Jubilee originally. You are right of course, it would be a lot, and is it really necessary? Though perhaps it would help tourists and newcomers.
davidaiow no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2011, 10:49 AM   #4625
CairnsTony
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Cairns, Qld.
Posts: 242
Likes (Received): 24

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidaiow View Post
Surely it was a short-sighted thing to do to begin with? Though I guess it was to benefit an interchange with the Jubilee originally. You are right of course, it would be a lot, and is it really necessary? Though perhaps it would help tourists and newcomers.
I always assumed that was the reason. If the DLR ever heads that way, how would that then connect up with existing lines especially as seems likely it would use widened ex-Jubilee tunnels and the old platforms at CharingX.
CairnsTony no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 13th, 2011, 05:10 AM   #4626
MiaM
Registered User
 
MiaM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 280
Likes (Received): 85

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Yes, sound ideas for overlapping services... there are so many potential routes using the LOROL infrastructure it's mind-boggling... I guess someone should analyse the movement of people in London (i.e. their door-to-door journeys) to see which routes would give the most cost-benefit, while keeping it simple.
I assume oyster data gives a rather good picture about how people travel. All rail travel should have check-in and check-out data, and for bus and tram you could probably assume that people get off at the place the get on the bus/tram in the other direction / part of the day.

Are this data used today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
West Croydon is necessary to provide a Croydon station on the line towards Sutton... and I guess was chosen over East Croydon as a terminus due to operating constraints at East Croydon (much busier line and no real reversing facilities). West Croydon used to be the terminus of the Wimbledon trains, and so had the reversing capacity already. I agree that East Croydon is the better placed station for Croydon town centre however.
Would it be reasonable to convert the line to Sutton to a part of Tramlink (and run the trains via Mitcham Junction, or would that be a bad idea?

If that line could be converted to Tramlink and the capacity problem East Croydon - South Croydon (-Purley) would be solved then East Croydon would be a better idea. I'm not only thinking about Croydon itself but also the interchange possibilities with fast trains at East Croydon but only a few slower trains at West Croydon.

If LOROL will stick to West Croydon for a while then perhaps another entrance to the station could be opened somewhere near the tram stop / bus station? Although it's not really a long walk between a train and a tram/bus it's a bit silly to have to round the N End / Station Rd corner when you almost can see the trains next to the tram stop.
MiaM no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 13th, 2011, 05:25 AM   #4627
MiaM
Registered User
 
MiaM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 280
Likes (Received): 85

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
I disagree. The interchange between LOROL and the Jubilee at West Hampstead is much quicker, so why would you want to encourage passengers to change at Kilburn/Brondesbury? I live in this area so I know what i'm talking about.
If those stations were buildt to be a good interchange, the LU station would have its entrance/exit on the west and not the east side of the road. As it's now you have to cross the road to change between the LU station and the Overground and NR stations.

If Google Street View is correct the NR station signs still refers to Overground as "Silverlik". (Google Street View correctly shows Overground signs at the Overground station)

How about adding Metropolitan/fast platforms at West Hampstead to make it easier to change to Overground there? Perhaps remove Finchley Road from Metropolitan services?
MiaM no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 13th, 2011, 06:41 PM   #4628
davidaiow
Registered User
 
davidaiow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London E14/Isle of Wight
Posts: 544
Likes (Received): 5

^Don't say that! I love my 2 tube options!
davidaiow no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2011, 01:18 AM   #4629
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidaiow View Post
Surely it was a short-sighted thing to do to begin with? Though I guess it was to benefit an interchange with the Jubilee originally. You are right of course, it would be a lot, and is it really necessary? Though perhaps it would help tourists and newcomers.
Yes, Strand and Trafalgar Square stations were conjoined with effect from 01/05/1979, with the Jubilee Line opening.

The closure of Charing Cross as a Jubilee Line station reversed this.

I guess the complex serves a purpose by giving Charing Cross two Tube lines rather than one (ignoring Embankment station), removing the 1979 deep level passageway between the two stations would mean that Charing Cross mainline to the Bakerloo Line would have to be done at street level.

I guess it's analogous to the two Paddington LU stations, and could be depicted as such... show the interchange between NR and LU for both stations while discouraging interchange between the LU stations there.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2011, 01:20 AM   #4630
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by CairnsTony View Post
I always assumed that was the reason. If the DLR ever heads that way, how would that then connect up with existing lines especially as seems likely it would use widened ex-Jubilee tunnels and the old platforms at CharingX.
Straight swap for the Jubilee Line... doesn't make the Bakerloo and Northern Line platforms any closer together though!
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2011, 01:24 AM   #4631
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiaM View Post
I assume oyster data gives a rather good picture about how people travel. All rail travel should have check-in and check-out data, and for bus and tram you could probably assume that people get off at the place the get on the bus/tram in the other direction / part of the day.

Are this data used today?
I hope so... would make sense to!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiaM View Post
Would it be reasonable to convert the line to Sutton to a part of Tramlink (and run the trains via Mitcham Junction, or would that be a bad idea?

If that line could be converted to Tramlink and the capacity problem East Croydon - South Croydon (-Purley) would be solved then East Croydon would be a better idea. I'm not only thinking about Croydon itself but also the interchange possibilities with fast trains at East Croydon but only a few slower trains at West Croydon.

If LOROL will stick to West Croydon for a while then perhaps another entrance to the station could be opened somewhere near the tram stop / bus station? Although it's not really a long walk between a train and a tram/bus it's a bit silly to have to round the N End / Station Rd corner when you almost can see the trains next to the tram stop.
No, it's a good idea... Tramlink taking over West Croydon to Epsom Downs via Sutton, with the line via Mitcham Junction remaining NR. I guess the only drawback to continued Tramlink expansion is what is happening in Manchester... more and more suburban branches being added onto the existing central street-running core leading to congestion... the same will happen in Croydon is they aren't careful.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2011, 12:24 PM   #4632
mr_jrt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,529
Likes (Received): 98

Given the 5th track between Norwood Junction and South Croydon, would the benefit of laying an additional track (a 6th) which the LO services could then use to operate segregated away from the "mainline" services down to South Croydon permit a LO extension/diversion in that direction?

...additionally, I don't fully understand why East Croydon hasn't been expanded yet. There's a lot of vacant land to the west of the station suitable for terminating platforms (and a lot of railway land north of it for the flyovers required to reach the western side), and with the demolition of 1...maybe 2 buildings on the south western side of the station (on the other side of the road bridge)...several of these new platforms could quite easily be new through platforms, you could probably manage 1 (2 at a real stretch) without the demolition at all...
mr_jrt no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2011, 02:26 PM   #4633
RedArkady
Viewseeker
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 546
Likes (Received): 37

Fantastic London Overground round-up at London Reconnections, focussing on ELL Phase II: http://londonreconnections.blogspot....d-roundup.html
RedArkady no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2011, 09:34 PM   #4634
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_jrt View Post
Given the 5th track between Norwood Junction and South Croydon, would the benefit of laying an additional track (a 6th) which the LO services could then use to operate segregated away from the "mainline" services down to South Croydon permit a LO extension/diversion in that direction?

...additionally, I don't fully understand why East Croydon hasn't been expanded yet. There's a lot of vacant land to the west of the station suitable for terminating platforms (and a lot of railway land north of it for the flyovers required to reach the western side), and with the demolition of 1...maybe 2 buildings on the south western side of the station (on the other side of the road bridge)...several of these new platforms could quite easily be new through platforms, you could probably manage 1 (2 at a real stretch) without the demolition at all...
Yes, there's heaps of room on the former goods yard site for terminal platforms if need be. I guess better use would be adding a 6th track... ideally being 6-track all the way to Purley... so that the Caterham and Tattenham Corner Branches could be segregated and become LOROL. I guess driving the 6th track under the overbridge south of E Croydon is the really disruptive bit. An alternative could be to tunnel from Selhurst / Norwood Junction to Purley and sink the 'fast' roads below ground, i.e. quadruple 'slow' tracks at ground level and deep-level 'fast' by-passing East Croydon.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2011, 09:34 PM   #4635
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedArkady View Post
Fantastic London Overground round-up at London Reconnections, focussing on ELL Phase II: http://londonreconnections.blogspot....d-roundup.html
Yes, brilliant... saves me the bother of traipsing around my new manor with a camera!
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2011, 11:43 PM   #4636
mr_jrt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,529
Likes (Received): 98

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Yes, there's heaps of room on the former goods yard site for terminal platforms if need be. I guess better use would be adding a 6th track... ideally being 6-track all the way to Purley... so that the Caterham and Tattenham Corner Branches could be segregated and become LOROL. I guess driving the 6th track under the overbridge south of E Croydon is the really disruptive bit. An alternative could be to tunnel from Selhurst / Norwood Junction to Purley and sink the 'fast' roads below ground, i.e. quadruple 'slow' tracks at ground level and deep-level 'fast' by-passing East Croydon.
Luckily, there's actually 6 tracks through East Croydon already
mr_jrt no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2011, 12:46 PM   #4637
RedArkady
Viewseeker
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 546
Likes (Received): 37

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Yes, brilliant... saves me the bother of traipsing around my new manor with a camera!
Don't be lazy, we demand pictures as well as answers! ;-)
RedArkady no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2011, 11:59 PM   #4638
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_jrt View Post
Luckily, there's actually 6 tracks through East Croydon already
Well hurry up and bring my ideas to fruition then!
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2011, 11:59 PM   #4639
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedArkady View Post
Don't be lazy, we demand pictures as well as answers! ;-)
It chucked it down today, so I just got drunk instead
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 17th, 2011, 09:08 PM   #4640
lemmo
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 299
Likes (Received): 60

Quote:
...re-establish the Mortimer Street Curve (between Kentish Town and GOBLIN) and run the western half of GOBLIN as a Thameslink branch (electrified 25Kv OHLE), by re-laying the Tottenham North curve (South Tottenham to Tottenham Hale), trains could continue up the Lea Valley Line to Stansted Airport... This means that Thameslink would serve Stansted, Luton, and Gatwick while Crossrail serves Heathrow and London City... connecting all 5 main international airports with cross-London heavy rail. Intermediate stations at Upper Holloway, Crouch Hill, Harringay Green Lanes, and South Tottenham would gain hugely improved services, tapping into I think large potential in that area of London.
Great idea, have been thinking about that for years, why did they not propose it in the new Thameslink program?

However, Thameslink will max out at 24tph (and they may not even achieve that with the pinchpoint flat junction south of Blackfriars). If 10 of those go to the Great Northern mainline, that leaves only 14 for the Midland route... so not enough paths. Shame
lemmo no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
london, railways, tube

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium