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 October 26th, 2007, 06:15 PM   #1921
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by elfabyanos View Post
Tubeman, do you have any track layout diagrams of the LU? Or know anywhere some could be located? Likewise for NR?
In addition to the diagrammatic series below, Quail also do a foldout map 'London Transport Railway Track Map' which is a vaguely geographically accurate track diagram of all LU lines + DLR.

Save your money for 2008, when the second edition of my book comes out: I'm in the process now of re-drawing it all to show exact track layouts of all of London's railways past & present. Bloody hard work, but its looking very good.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 27th, 2007, 12:45 AM   #1922
sarflonlad
Registered User
 
sarflonlad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,086
Likes (Received): 68

The tracks between the Thameslink line to Sutton and the Northern Line morden depot are pretty much touching each other (see image).



Will LU ever consider extending the the Northern Line across these tracks to Sutton (most stations en route only have 2tph at the moment) as previously planned? Surely with an ATO upgrade or having Fast Services the Northern line could become a credible commute in to Central London down in those parts with no tube and no real benefits from Thameslink 2000?
sarflonlad no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2007, 11:14 AM   #1923
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
The tracks between the Thameslink line to Sutton and the Northern Line morden depot are pretty much touching each other (see image).



Will LU ever consider extending the the Northern Line across these tracks to Sutton (most stations en route only have 2tph at the moment) as previously planned? Surely with an ATO upgrade or having Fast Services the Northern line could become a credible commute in to Central London down in those parts with no tube and no real benefits from Thameslink 2000?
The line from Wimbledon to Sutton was actually built to prevent the Northern Line from reaching Sutton by physically blocking it's path at this point. The line is underutilised and has a poor service pattern, it was actually intended to be operated by the District Line, but the L&SWR never built the flyover at Wimbledon they promised to allow this so it just ended up being a suburban backwater.

It probably wouldn't be an enormous task to extend the Northern Line up to the line, but the problem is what happens to the route north of Morden South... Having the link between Wimbledon and Sutton is useful and a lot of the users in places like Rosehill and St Helier are trying to go north to Wimbledon. Maybe there could be a slightly unusual service pattern with 50% of trains terminating at Morden and 50% at Sutton, with the Wimbledon to Sutton service remaining as a shuttle service.

Current capacity on the Northern Line wouldn't allow this anyway, but as you rightly suggest it could be possible with ATO and the upgrade.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2007, 11:19 AM   #1924
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
I'm confused about two developments...

Victoria station upgrade: http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...n-upgrade.html I don't see how the plan will relieve overcrowding on the northbound Victoria line platforms, which is where the problem lies! What is the purpose of it exactly?

And this:http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...ngs-cross.html I don't actually get it... Is the tunnel going to be abadoned? Why is it temporary?

Also an unrelated question: Why wasn't Angel made with step free access when it was refurbished in the 90s? And why did they relocate the surface building and not build two escalators, twice the size, one could go up one way, and then a u-turn and up the other way, and hoorah you're at the same place as you'd be if you got lifts!
I'm not entirely sure about your Victoria and King's Cross queries, but with regard to Angel I suppose the answer is it was planned pre-DDA. It is fixed step free, it's all escalators though. I suspect that if they did it all again today the lifts at City Road would have been renovated as MIP lifts and the original booking hall refurbished. As it is it's about 60 seconds walk between the old and new entrances, so it's hardly much of an issue.

As acemcbuller rightly suggests, the new entrance is far better placed than the old anyway.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2007, 12:09 PM   #1925
sarflonlad
Registered User
 
sarflonlad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,086
Likes (Received): 68

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
The line from Wimbledon to Sutton was actually built to prevent the Northern Line from reaching Sutton by physically blocking it's path at this point. The line is underutilised and has a poor service pattern, it was actually intended to be operated by the District Line, but the L&SWR never built the flyover at Wimbledon they promised to allow this so it just ended up being a suburban backwater.

It probably wouldn't be an enormous task to extend the Northern Line up to the line, but the problem is what happens to the route north of Morden South... Having the link between Wimbledon and Sutton is useful and a lot of the users in places like Rosehill and St Helier are trying to go north to Wimbledon. Maybe there could be a slightly unusual service pattern with 50% of trains terminating at Morden and 50% at Sutton, with the Wimbledon to Sutton service remaining as a shuttle service.

Current capacity on the Northern Line wouldn't allow this anyway, but as you rightly suggest it could be possible with ATO and the upgrade.
Interesting! So given a choice - what do you think is a more appropriate use of this poor mans part of the overground:

i. Build the flyover at Wimbledon on to the District Line or even the SWT Tracks (surely this just involves replacing a small bit of railway track!).

ii. Extend the Northern Line following the introduction of ATO

Or both!
sarflonlad no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2007, 11:26 AM   #1926
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
Interesting! So given a choice - what do you think is a more appropriate use of this poor mans part of the overground:

i. Build the flyover at Wimbledon on to the District Line or even the SWT Tracks (surely this just involves replacing a small bit of railway track!).

ii. Extend the Northern Line following the introduction of ATO

Or both!
In an ideal world I'd suggest building the flyover / dive-under at Wimbledon to allow the District Line to fulfil what is an 80-year old promise, and also extend the Northern Line up from the depot to the route allowing it too to run to Sutton and thus also provide the District / Northern with an interchange. The only issue this poses is the problem of surface and Tube stock sharing the same platforms... I suppose it could just be preferable (and much cheaper) to have separate terminal platforms at a low level adjacent to Morden South station with an escalator link.

The problem at the moment, on both lines, is capacity. The District can only really offer 15tph on the Wimbledon branch (7tph to Edgware Rd and 7tph via the City) and is chokka during the peak. The former NR section (East Putney to Wimbledon) is still signalled by NR and doesn't have the same capacity as a purpose-built LU line. It would require resignalling to increase capacity, and really removal of the physical links with NR as they still run on a whim empty stock and often (during engineering works or disruption) passenger services over our route even though we own it, which can wreck the District sevice. Trying to run 20tph+ would currently be impossible for these reasons, and if one of the current services was just extended to Sutton (e.g. Edgware Road), the trains would be heaving by the time they got to Wimbledon (in the peak trains are often standing room only even departing Wimbledon and impossible to get on by Putney).
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2007, 01:06 PM   #1927
CharlieP
Tax avoider
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 23,762
Likes (Received): 1980

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Save your money for 2008, when the second edition of my book comes out: I'm in the process now of re-drawing it all to show exact track layouts of all of London's railways past & present. Bloody hard work, but its looking very good.
You could have bloody well got it right the first time!
__________________
This signature is socialist and un-American.
CharlieP no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2007, 04:19 PM   #1928
U Thant
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 232
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
Victoria station upgrade: http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...n-upgrade.html I don't see how the plan will relieve overcrowding on the northbound Victoria line platforms, which is where the problem lies! What is the purpose of it exactly?
Ah, that's my blog. The overcrowding on the platform happens because people aren't being taken away quickly enough by trains, so can only be solved by improving capacity. Over the next ~5 years the line is getting brand new trains (slightly bigger and there'll be more of them), and a new signalling system for running more often.

The new entrance relieves crowding in the ticket hall and interchange passages. It separates passengers to/from the main line station from passengers to/from the local area (there's a major office district NE of the station, where the new entrance will be).

Quote:
And this:http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...ngs-cross.html I don't actually get it... Is the tunnel going to be abandoned? Why is it temporary?
There's no need for it to stay open. As you can see on my diagram, it'll be entirely redundant once the other tunnel reopens. The internal fittings are certainly only temporary.

I don't actually have a clue what the future plan for it is - it's missing from most of the official documentation of the project (which does back up the idea it will be abandoned). I suspect it could be reused as a ventilation shaft (it's quite near the surface) or equipment room, or could just as easily stay open as a mostly useless interchange tunnel.
U Thant no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2007, 07:25 PM   #1929
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

Thanks for replying...

I know about the Victoria line upgrade, but will a few more trains and slightly bigger trains (by about an inch or two? ) really make much of a difference?

And I don't see how the passageway is useless It offers an interchange between the Victoria and Piccadilly lines, going in the other direction and going through the narrow stairway which connects the Victoria line concourse with the Piccadilly/Northern one is a bit of a trek as it's badly signed and overcrowded. It also makes the platforms less unevenly crowded as the corridor ends up at the opposite end of the platform from where most passengers congregate. It also seems stupid to me to go through all of the malarky of boring a new tunnel to end up abadoning it in a few years.
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2007, 01:17 AM   #1930
U Thant
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 232
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
Thanks for replying...
I know about the Victoria line upgrade, but will a few more trains and slightly bigger trains (by about an inch or two? ) really make much of a difference?
There should be a roughly 25% increase in capacity, which should be noticeable. The long term plan for this route is the Chelsea-Hackney (aka Crossrail 2), but don't hold your breath.

Quote:
And I don't see how the passageway is useless It offers an interchange between the Victoria and Piccadilly lines, going in the other direction and going through the narrow stairway which connects the Victoria line concourse with the Piccadilly/Northern one is a bit of a trek as it's badly signed and overcrowded.
Have another look at the diagram. The middle passageway will eventually reopen and provide a short route between the two, and have an escalator up rather than stairs. The new passageway merges with the old one, so there's not even an increase in capacity by having both open.
U Thant no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2007, 03:26 PM   #1931
cle
Registered User
 
cle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,096
Likes (Received): 524

As the south London sections of both the Northern and District (and Victoria) are too busy to extend, wouldn't you say that it'd make sense to extend the Bakerloo from Camberwell - and then towards Peckham etc... but also down the current Thameslink line to Herne Hill and round the Sutton/Wimbledon loop? Might be cheaper.
cle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2007, 05:05 PM   #1932
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

Quote:
Originally Posted by U Thant View Post
Have another look at the diagram. The middle passageway will eventually reopen and provide a short route between the two, and have an escalator up rather than stairs. The new passageway merges with the old one, so there's not even an increase in capacity by having both open.
I thought that the traffic between the Victoria and Piccadilly lines could be seperated from the traffic between the Piccadilly and Thameslink, the passageway also spreads out the passengers along the platform a bit more, which some passengers seem incapable of doing themselves. It's not the most important of passageways, but now that they've spent the money on building it it seems ludicrous to shut it so soon.
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2007, 09:46 PM   #1933
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by cle View Post
As the south London sections of both the Northern and District (and Victoria) are too busy to extend, wouldn't you say that it'd make sense to extend the Bakerloo from Camberwell - and then towards Peckham etc... but also down the current Thameslink line to Herne Hill and round the Sutton/Wimbledon loop? Might be cheaper.
The Bakerloo is planned to extend via Camberwell and Peckham to Lewisham and thence to Hayes (Kent), taking over the NR branch via Catford.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2007, 10:53 PM   #1934
sarflonlad
Registered User
 
sarflonlad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,086
Likes (Received): 68

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
The Bakerloo is planned to extend via Camberwell and Peckham to Lewisham and thence to Hayes (Kent), taking over the NR branch via Catford.
What priority does this project have?
sarflonlad no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2007, 11:12 PM   #1935
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
What priority does this project have?
Low-ish, but its is seriously being developed. Estimated delivery date 2025.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2007, 12:25 AM   #1936
sarflonlad
Registered User
 
sarflonlad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,086
Likes (Received): 68

Does the Bakerloo ever get particularly busy and crowded? Always seems like a ghost line to me. A sort of back up line.

Do you agree that it would be beneficial to close some stations on the Northern Line to make it run faster e.g. Embankment once ATO gets installed?
sarflonlad no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2007, 01:12 AM   #1937
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
Does the Bakerloo ever get particularly busy and crowded? Always seems like a ghost line to me. A sort of back up line.

Do you agree that it would be beneficial to close some stations on the Northern Line to make it run faster e.g. Embankment once ATO gets installed?
Yeah, Waterloo to Paddington can get very busy in the peaks. It used to be the most crowded line on the underground when the Stanmore to Baker Street section of the Jubilee was a Bakerloo branch and the current line ran all the way to Watford Junction. The whole point of theJubilee line was to divert the Stanmore branch along a new line to reduce crowding on the Bakerloo.

One or two Northern stations could go, but not many. Now that the Jubilee platforms are closed, I'd like to see Charing Cross again split into two stations (Strand and Trafalgar Square) as it's advertised as an interchange but the two lines are miles apart... This could result in 'Strand' (the Northern Line station) being closed: commuters ex-Charing Cross could get on the Northern at Embankment instead. I can't really think of any other candidates: Mornington Crescent?
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2007, 01:59 AM   #1938
Acemcbuller
Lifelong Londoner
 
Acemcbuller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London
Posts: 204
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarflonlad View Post
Do you agree that it would be beneficial to close some stations on the Northern Line to make it run faster e.g. Embankment once ATO gets installed?
Or resurrect the Northern Line Express idea:
http://underground-history.co.uk/shelters.php
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/rsg/featur...ers/index.html
Acemcbuller no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2007, 01:55 PM   #1939
cle
Registered User
 
cle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,096
Likes (Received): 524

Could ditch Goodge St, cute as it is.

I always thought a merged Charing X/Embankment station would be better if rebuilt well. It would save journey times slightly and give the stations a more important mainline feel. They could also redo those hideous 70s sections underneath the Strand at Charing X.

Would the Bakerloo extension be done in stages, so the Camberwell section first, up and running while the conversion is done from Lewisham - Hayes and the main bit of tunnelling from Camberwell to Lewisham is done?
cle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2007, 06:57 PM   #1940
Justme
Gotta lite?
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester (Forecast: Rain)
Posts: 4,953
Likes (Received): 781

To be honest, instead of ditching stations which may not have large passenger numbers, it maybe more logical to designate these as new high density housing area's. The public transport is in place (and underutilized) and new, modern highrise apartments (of high quality) could be built there.

High rise housing around public transport really work well together.
__________________
I'm doing my bit to save bandwidth by deleting my signature
Justme 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