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 March 17th, 2007, 07:12 AM   #1241
Fortyfiver
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Broward County, FL
Posts: 35
Likes (Received): 11

This maybe a little off topic, but there was some talk about banks of escalators. In the World Trade Center PATH station in New York, there was a single bank of 7 or 9 escalators between a lower mezzanine above the platforms and the WTC concourse at ground level. Most of these escalators were reversible. It was an impressive sight in the rush hour.

As a regular commuter through WTC from Jersey in the 80's, I still get the shivers when I think of the WTC PATH station, which ceased to exist on September 11, 2001.
__________________
Son of Scotland, citizen of the world.
Fortyfiver no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 17th, 2007, 04:48 PM   #1242
kingart
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 7
Likes (Received): 0

There were 8 escalators and 1 staircase. It was arranged 2-5-2.
The stairs were next to the down escalator on the right.
kingart no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 18th, 2007, 01:04 AM   #1243
Kentigern
Local man
 
Kentigern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 384
Likes (Received): 6

Tubeman,

A little off topic, but what do you think of the proposal to spend £2.3Bn extending the subway in Glasgow? Most of the Glasgow forumers think it's way to expensive for just 7 new stations, plus a total overhaul including (probably) driverless trains.

Thoughts?
Kentigern no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 18th, 2007, 01:27 PM   #1244
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kentigern View Post
Tubeman,

A little off topic, but what do you think of the proposal to spend £2.3Bn extending the subway in Glasgow? Most of the Glasgow forumers think it's way to expensive for just 7 new stations, plus a total overhaul including (probably) driverless trains.

Thoughts?
Does it need the overhaul in your opinion? Wasn't it completely overhauled and upgraded in the late 1970's? I haven't seen a map of the proposal, and don't know Glasgow well enough to comment on the route's merits I'm afraid.

My knowledge of Glasgow is that the suburban rail network is very comprehensive... are there tracts of the city without any rail transport to speak of that need an extended subway?

My sentiment is that the clockwork orange should be kept on as it is, but perhaps upgraded to ATO. The focus should be on Crossrail-type schemes... personally I feel these are the future of urban rail travel in the UK.

On that note, I found out on friday that my atlas is being used in presentations regarding Crossrail and Thameslink 2000 to the government! Not bad...
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2007, 10:23 PM   #1245
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

On page 2... don't let me die!
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2007, 02:43 PM   #1246
westender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 146
Likes (Received): 0

Tubeman, how fast to tube trains normally go? I lived in London for a couple of years. Now live in Sydney, every time I ride the trains here they seem to be slower than London tube trains. In fact all the metros I used in Europe seem to be faster than Sydney's. I know there is a slight difference in tube line. Such as District, Circle and Hammersmith & City may be slower than the trains that operate on the Northern, Jubilee, Central and Piccadilly lines. Our government scrapped heaps of rail services a couple of years ago, slowed down our trains (when they were slow enough already) and increased stopping times claiming this would help drivers keep up with timetables. Seems to have worked, although people are cranky about slow trains (I ride one every day - Inner-West Line) and among other problems, Sydney people seem to be happy about the improved punctuallity of CityRail trains.

Cheers from Westender
westender no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2007, 09:41 PM   #1247
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by westender View Post
Tubeman, how fast to tube trains normally go? I lived in London for a couple of years. Now live in Sydney, every time I ride the trains here they seem to be slower than London tube trains. In fact all the metros I used in Europe seem to be faster than Sydney's. I know there is a slight difference in tube line. Such as District, Circle and Hammersmith & City may be slower than the trains that operate on the Northern, Jubilee, Central and Piccadilly lines. Our government scrapped heaps of rail services a couple of years ago, slowed down our trains (when they were slow enough already) and increased stopping times claiming this would help drivers keep up with timetables. Seems to have worked, although people are cranky about slow trains (I ride one every day - Inner-West Line) and among other problems, Sydney people seem to be happy about the improved punctuallity of CityRail trains.

Cheers from Westender
It's actually a little bit of an illusion: our 'Tube' trains rattling down tunnels with only 9 inches between the train and the tunnel wall give a greater impression of speed than a Cityrail or Sub-surface Underground train with greater clearance between the train and tunnel and less noise / vibration.

The speeds very much depend on the line topography and train performance, but between stations in Central London 30mph / 50kmh is pretty standard on all lines. The only real exceptions are the Victoria and Central Lines which both have ATO... The Victoria Line generally has long stretches between stations with gentle curves whilst the Central Line has very high performance motors and braking combined with a distinctive station 'hump' profile which means 40mph / 60kmh between Central London stations is pretty standard.

Open section speeds depend really on gradients and distances between stations... For example Elm Park to Dagenham East on the District Line is downhill and a long way, so 60mph / 100kmh is achievable... Another quick section I've driven over is High Barnet to Totteridge & Whetstone on the Northern Line, again its downhill and a long way so 60mph / 100kmh is quite achievable.

Southbound on the Northern Line from Hampstead or Highgate to Camden Town are also fast sections, the roads above the two branches are in places very steep hills (e.g. Haverstock Hill and Archway Road), and the Tube lines below echo these gradients with 1/30 typical. I often got in excess of 50mph out of the rickety old 1959 stocks on these sections, which considering they were 40 years old and made all sorts of bangs and creaks even at moderate speeds must have been pretty terrifying for the poor passengers!

Officially the fastest Tube section is Seven Sisters to Finsbury Park Victoria Line southbound, where speeds hit 57mph (as the trains are automatic pretty much every train will touch this speed)... Overground officially the Metropolitan Line is limited to 60mph / 100kmh maximum but unofficially far higher speeds are reached on the southbound coming down through the Chiltern Hills ex-Amersham, with 100mph / 160kmh+ having been reached (so I've heard!...).
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2007, 02:02 PM   #1248
Jean Luc
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 460
Likes (Received): 15

In relation to the above topic, is there an inverse relationship between speed and capacity on any given line (tube, mainline, whatever) operating trains of a given length? That is, the faster the trains go, the greater the stopping distance is needed between consecutive trains, so the greater the headway needs to be, hence the fewer trains per hour that can be operated, therefore the less the passenger carrying capacity of the line will be.

An article in a recent U.K. railway magazine said that Britain should forget about building high speed lines and invest available funds in increasing the capacity of the existing system instead. This is because of the surge in patronage in recent years.
Jean Luc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2007, 03:15 PM   #1249
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean Luc View Post
In relation to the above topic, is there an inverse relationship between speed and capacity on any given line (tube, mainline, whatever) operating trains of a given length? That is, the faster the trains go, the greater the stopping distance is needed between consecutive trains, so the greater the headway needs to be, hence the fewer trains per hour that can be operated, therefore the less the passenger carrying capacity of the line will be.

An article in a recent U.K. railway magazine said that Britain should forget about building high speed lines and invest available funds in increasing the capacity of the existing system instead. This is because of the surge in patronage in recent years.
Absolutely, with conventional signalling systems there is an inverse relationship between speed and capacity (in terms of trains, not passengers). Faster / heavier trains take longer to stop than slower / lighter ones so need to be spaced out more. I presume this is why TGV / Shinkansen / Eurostar etc run such long train sets, as they can't run a very frequent service compared to, say, a metro line.

With 'moving block' and ATP / ATO technology trains no longer need to be a safe braking distance (at line speed) apart, as it takes into account the speeds of trains whereas conventional signalling assumes all trains are running at full speed. Technically two trains running at the same speed could be a matter of just metres apart, as the one in front is going to take the same distance to stop as the one behind. This is why on ATO lines like the Victoria a train will leave the platform and you'll see the next one scarily close behind waiting to come in to the platform, as it is able to creep up slowly to the rear of the train in front.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2007, 09:51 PM   #1250
sarflonlad
Registered User
 
sarflonlad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,086
Likes (Received): 68

On this topic... yesterday my Victoria line train home accelerated and braked with quite unusual fluctuations. It felt like it was being driven by a person rather than ATO.

How often do ATO lines go back to manual? What would be the reasons for doing this?
sarflonlad no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2007, 03:21 AM   #1251
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarflonlad View Post
On this topic... yesterday my Victoria line train home accelerated and braked with quite unusual fluctuations. It felt like it was being driven by a person rather than ATO.

How often do ATO lines go back to manual? What would be the reasons for doing this?
The Victoria Line is only driven in manual between Northumberland Park Depot and Seven Sisters or if the ATO fails ('codes lost')... The speed is limited to only 10mph in this instance, so unless your train was moving very slowly it was still in auto mode. You might find you were just following the train in front: whereas on a manual line the driver would just accelerate less and roll slowly towards a red signal waiting for it to change, on an ATO line trains basically have 2 modes: 'go' and 'stop'. For this reason an ATO train might seem to make bizarre accelerations and decelerations as it follows the train in front as there is no human being to make the judgment to coast along slowly due to the proximity to the train in front.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2007, 03:27 AM   #1252
ADCS
Kickin' it
 
ADCS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Screwston, Plexus
Posts: 508
Likes (Received): 37

Just as a bit of conjecture, as nothing like this would ever happen, but what would it take, not to mention what would the costs be, to convert the Underground to full 24 hour operation? I know triple- and quadruple-tracking would be necessary, and ridiculously expensive, but are there any other aspects which would also prevent this from happening?
ADCS no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2007, 11:28 AM   #1253
Jean Luc
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 460
Likes (Received): 15

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Technically two trains running at the same speed could be a matter of just metres apart, as the one in front is going to take the same distance to stop as the one behind.
This would never happen in practice off course. Just imagine what would happen if the first train crashed! How would the passengers in an automated train e.g. Lille VAL Metro, who can see out the front window, feel if they could see another train running just ahead of them?

Under ATO would a train somewhere between two stations come to a stop if the preceding train was at a stop at a station?
Jean Luc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2007, 01:10 PM   #1254
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by ADCS View Post
Just as a bit of conjecture, as nothing like this would ever happen, but what would it take, not to mention what would the costs be, to convert the Underground to full 24 hour operation? I know triple- and quadruple-tracking would be necessary, and ridiculously expensive, but are there any other aspects which would also prevent this from happening?
Once the current wave of PPP upgrades are fininished the track / tunnels / signals etc should be in much better nick, so we could at least get away with whole weekends with no overnight maintenance works (i.e. 48 hour running)... I wouldn't be surprised if the Tube runs from Friday morning through to Sunday night in maybe 10 years time, but not yet. During the rest of the week I don't think there's enough demand to justify a 24 hour mass transit service: London is well served by a comprehensive Nightbus network which copes fine during the week (but buckles under the strain of traffic at weekends, admittedly).

Trains would be pretty empty after about 1am and therefore dangerous places to be, most passengers would be drunk and therefore trains would be getting withdrawn due to vomit or the service delayed due to fights, malicious passenger alarms etc... Its bad enough last thing on a Friday / Saturday night as it is in this respect. Homeless people would no doubt treat Underground trains as mobile hostels, especially in the Winter when its cold, as they'd never be turfed off the system.

Also, having the break in service between 01:30 and 04:30 allows for service recovery: on a 'bad night' caused by 'one unders' or signal failures Service control can at least just get all the trains in the right depots and start again the next morning afresh. I remember when we ran overnight on the Golden Jubilee the signal main went at Whitechapel at about 22:00 and the District Line fell over spectacularly, the operational probelms persisted well into the next day as the all-night running meant the disruption just went on and on.

The other issue is staff: stations currently are staffed overnight, but with a skeleton service (usually just a single Supervisor to book on contractors), so many more staff would need to be 'booked on' overnight to allow for 24 hour running. Also, we currently have a few 'Night' drivers who work the last trains at night and first trains in the morning, but on average this is only perhaps 4 or 5 at each depot each night, so many more drivers would need to be booked on overnight to allow for the service... Needless to say this wouldn't be the slightest bit popular, especially considering the danger / criminality aspect late at night I already alluded to. LUL would need to provide a significant sweetener to roster more nights for drivers and station staff, so it would be very unlikely to be cost effective, especially as trains wouldn't be at all busy in the small hours of the morning.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2007, 01:21 PM   #1255
mrstar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 37
Likes (Received): 0

Hey Tube Man,

Which route does the new CTRL tunnel take under north London? i.e which streets and landmarks does it pass under and also, what is the depth of the tunnel?
mrstar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2007, 01:32 PM   #1256
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean Luc View Post
This would never happen in practice off course. Just imagine what would happen if the first train crashed! How would the passengers in an automated train e.g. Lille VAL Metro, who can see out the front window, feel if they could see another train running just ahead of them?

Under ATO would a train somewhere between two stations come to a stop if the preceding train was at a stop at a station?
That's quite a big 'what if?' though... Even with conventional signalling you could say "What if the train derails and fouls the oncoming line?"... shit happens... the latter has happened numerous times (e.g. the Clapham Junction disaster) and signalling can do nothing to help the oncoming train which ploughs into the derailed train.

The answer is not to let passengers see out of the front... I've ridden in a Victoria Line cab and its pretty scary, to be honest.. you'll bear down on the rear of the train in front, the brakes will slam on, and you'll then crawl up to it until you're sat what feels like touching distance away. As a former driver who had a taste for speed, even I pooed my pants watching from the cab how fast the Victoria Line trains hit platforms. Often if its a bit congested and you're stood at the rear end of the platform, a train will depart only to reveal the headlights of the train behind sitting just a few metres away in the tunnel waiting to come in... much to the alarm of the people stood on the platform!

I'll have to correct something I said before slightly: When I said the ATO basically has 'go' and 'stop' commands to the train I should have expanded a little on 'go': my understanding of the Victoria Line (which is very prosaic ATO technology, but now in its 40th year) is that the train can receive 2 'go' commands... 'go at full pelt' and 'crawl'... the latter 'crawl' command is also the maximum achieveable manually as there are no signals to speak of.

If a train is detained in a platform, the train behind will be accelerating towards it at full pelt until it hits a track section a safe braking distance away from the platform ahead, when the codes will switch to tell the train to slam on the brakes as there is a train ahead. Once the train has decelerated to a crawl, if the train ahead still hasn't moved, the code will switch to 'crawl' mode and the train will then crawl up to the rear of the train ahead, stopping a safe braking distance at the lower speed away, which can be just a few metres.

I suppose in sarflonlad's example where the train seemed to be bizarrely braking then accelerating over and over his train was closely following the train in front and had slightly better acceleration than it, so the ATO had to keep telling the train it was too close and braking, then when the gap opened up enough to accelerate, then when it again go too close to brake, and so on...
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2007, 06:12 PM   #1257
ADCS
Kickin' it
 
ADCS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Screwston, Plexus
Posts: 508
Likes (Received): 37

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Once the current wave of PPP upgrades are fininished the track / tunnels / signals etc should be in much better nick, so we could at least get away with whole weekends with no overnight maintenance works (i.e. 48 hour running)... I wouldn't be surprised if the Tube runs from Friday morning through to Sunday night in maybe 10 years time, but not yet. During the rest of the week I don't think there's enough demand to justify a 24 hour mass transit service: London is well served by a comprehensive Nightbus network which copes fine during the week (but buckles under the strain of traffic at weekends, admittedly).

Trains would be pretty empty after about 1am and therefore dangerous places to be, most passengers would be drunk and therefore trains would be getting withdrawn due to vomit or the service delayed due to fights, malicious passenger alarms etc... Its bad enough last thing on a Friday / Saturday night as it is in this respect. Homeless people would no doubt treat Underground trains as mobile hostels, especially in the Winter when its cold, as they'd never be turfed off the system.

Also, having the break in service between 01:30 and 04:30 allows for service recovery: on a 'bad night' caused by 'one unders' or signal failures Service control can at least just get all the trains in the right depots and start again the next morning afresh. I remember when we ran overnight on the Golden Jubilee the signal main went at Whitechapel at about 22:00 and the District Line fell over spectacularly, the operational probelms persisted well into the next day as the all-night running meant the disruption just went on and on.

The other issue is staff: stations currently are staffed overnight, but with a skeleton service (usually just a single Supervisor to book on contractors), so many more staff would need to be 'booked on' overnight to allow for 24 hour running. Also, we currently have a few 'Night' drivers who work the last trains at night and first trains in the morning, but on average this is only perhaps 4 or 5 at each depot each night, so many more drivers would need to be booked on overnight to allow for the service... Needless to say this wouldn't be the slightest bit popular, especially considering the danger / criminality aspect late at night I already alluded to. LUL would need to provide a significant sweetener to roster more nights for drivers and station staff, so it would be very unlikely to be cost effective, especially as trains wouldn't be at all busy in the small hours of the morning.
That's interesting, especially the part about the night staff. I was recently in New York for the first time, and of course, comparisons of the Subway with the Underground (which I had used before) arose. I noticed things close up much earlier in London than I was used to in the United States; places would be closed at 6 or 7 where it would be 8 to 10 here.

Maintenance is always the sticky point, isn't it?
ADCS no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2007, 10:46 PM   #1258
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrstar View Post
Hey Tube Man,

Which route does the new CTRL tunnel take under north London? i.e which streets and landmarks does it pass under and also, what is the depth of the tunnel?
The CTRL tunnel (rather boringly) follows the route of existing railway lines above pretty much, deviating slightly either side of Stratford.

Leaving St Pancras the tracks swing to the east and enter the first tunnel at Gifford Street just after passing over the main line ex-King's Cross, from here it follows the North London Line pretty much exactly under Caledonian Road & Barnsbury, Highbury & Islington, Canonbury, Dalston Kingsland, Hackney Central, Homerton from where it then deviates slightly as the North London Line swings southwards to Hackney Wick. It follows its own course across the Lea valley, emerging briefly for Stratford International station before entering the second tunnel immediately to the east. The second tunnel runs pretty much along the course of the A118 Romford Road through Maryland, Forest Gate and Manor Park before swinging to the south-east where it follows the course of the C2C main line under Barking station then under the Tilbury Loop line to Dagenham Dock station, where it emerges and runs parallel to the C2C Tilbury Loop line.

It goes under absolutely nowhere of interest to be honest, just some pretty grotty bits of East London. Regarding the depth, I'm not entirely sure... pretty deep to avoid disturbance and vibration at ground level, but varying depending on other Tube lines etc, e.g. at Highbury & Islington where it needs to cross below the Victoria and Great Northern & City Line tunnels.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2007, 11:14 PM   #1259
sweek
Registered User
 
sweek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London NW1
Posts: 1,636
Likes (Received): 1

What's the top speed trains are allowed to reach in the tunnels, actually?
sweek no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 30th, 2007, 01:03 AM   #1260
Monkey
BANNED
 
Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Londinium
Posts: 14,103
Likes (Received): 38

Tube carries one billion passengers for first time
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/4770.aspx

28 March 2007

Transport for London (TfL) today revealed that over the last year London Underground (LU) carried one billion passengers for the first time in its 144-year history.

Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, said that the record-breaking figure showed the strength of London's economy and reinforced the need for substantial investment to increase the capacity of the system. Mayor Ken Livingstone said: "Every day the London Underground carries more passengers than the entire national rail network.

"This new record of one billion passengers shows the strength of London's economy and how crucial the Tube is to that economic success.

"The challenge we now face is to sustain the investment necessary to get the most out of the existing system and expand capacity to meet ever increasing demand.

"The key to meeting that new demand, and making travel more comfortable for existing passengers, is the step change in Underground capacity which the proposed new Crossrail line would deliver.

"London is challenging New York as the world's most important financial centre and an effective transport system places a critical role in London's success.

Improvements to stations
"All Londoners owe a debt to the dedicated staff of London Underground who work so hard to get so much out of the oldest Tube network in the world."

LU Managing Director Tim O'Toole said: "London Underground is now running more trains and carrying more passengers than ever before.

"This important milestone could only have been achieved through the hard work and dedication of staff across the Underground network.

"It is also remarkable that this record passenger figure has been achieved as we carry out the renewal of the Tube.

Record passenger numbers
"Improvements to stations, track and trains are being delivered, but this does mean the closure of sections of lines at weekend.

"We thank passengers for their patience and urge them to 'check before you travel' on the Tube at weekends."

Last year (2005/06), the Tube carried a total of 971 million passengers.

The one billion passenger figure was achieved this week and with two weeks of the current financial year remaining the final figure will be even higher.

Growing importance of Docklands
On average, the Tube carries just over three million passengers each day, rising to 3.4 million passengers on weekdays.

On one day last year, December 8, due in part to Christmas shopping and leisure travel, LU calculates that around four million passengers were carried for the first time. Overall, in the run up to Christmas the Tube carried more passengers - 87m - in one four week period than ever before.

By 2016, it is estimated that the Tube could be carrying 25 per cent more passengers, equivalent to an average of 3.4 million passengers each day, as a direct result of London's growing population.

London Underground also released latest available figures for the busiest stations on the Tube network in 2005/06 which demonstrates the growing importance of Docklands to London's economy.

Future growth
Canary Wharf station which opened in 1999 as part of the Jubilee Line Extension is now the ninth busiest station on the Tube network with over 34 million passengers each year, but did not even feature in the top fifteen busiest Underground stations in 2003.

The number of passengers using the station is predicted to grow even further as Docklands grows.

Part of this growth will be met by the Jubilee line which will deliver a 45 per cent increase in capacity, but the only transport solution for the long-term is Crossrail.

King's Cross St Pancras remains the Tube's busiest station with nearly 72 million passengers, with the numbers using the station expected to reach 127 million by 2016.

This is in part due to the transfer of Eurostar services to St. Pancras later this year, and in coming years the opening of a new Thameslink station at King's Cross, the start of domestic services on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and the extension of King's Cross mainline station.

To meet this growing demand, LU last year opened the new Western Ticket Hall at the Tube station which doubled the station's capacity.

Work is now well underway on the new Northern Ticket Hall, which is due for completion in 2010.



Notes to editors

- TfL is investing £10bn to improve and expand London's transport network, with than half of that in the Tube

- In 2005/06 the Tube carried 971 million passengers and in 2004/5 976 million

- In 2005/06, the busiest stations on the Tube network were (1) King's Cross St. Pancras - 71.50 million; (2) Victoria - 67.82 million; (3) Waterloo - 67.40 million; (4) Oxford Circus - 63.06 million; (5) Liverpool Street - 50.67 million, (6) London Bridge - 44.97 million; (7) Bank & Monument - 34.30 million; (8) Paddington - 34.29 million; (9) Canary Wharf - 34.21 million (10) Piccadilly Circus - 33.76 million; (11) Tottenham Court Road - 30.80 million; (12) Bond Street - 29.57 million; (13) Leicester Square - 29.54 million; (14) Holborn - 25.07 million and (15) Green Park - 24.89 million

- In 2003/04, the busiest stations on the Tube network were (1) King's Cross St. Pancras - 69.76 million; (2) Victoria - 66.24 million; (3) Waterloo - 64.52 million; (4) Oxford Circus - 58.75 million; (5) Liverpool Street - 48.00 million; (6) London Bridge - 40.10 million; (7) Piccadilly Circus - 34 million; (8) Bank & Monument - 32.97 million; (9) Paddington - 32.45 million; (10) Leicester Square - 31.23 million; (11) Tottenham Court Road - 29.49 million; (12) Bond Street - 27.60 million; (13) Canary Wharf - 24.23 million; (14) South Kensington - 24.12 million and (15) Hammersmith (District and Piccadilly) - 24.06 million

- The Tube carried four million passengers in one day for the first time in December 2006
Monkey 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 02:05 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