daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > European Forums > UK & Ireland Architecture Forums > Transport, Urban Planning and Infrastructure

Transport, Urban Planning and Infrastructure Shaping space, urbanity and mobility



Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old November 21st, 2009, 04:07 AM   #101
AAA94
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Posts: 263
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rational Plan View Post
No, but he proposed closing Wandsworth Town and Queenstown road on the South West Trains lines to free capacity, thereby cutting them off from the all the other stations in the network. While people could still get to Putney via his tube proposal from Wandsworth, to change to National Rational involves a long walk if you want to points West, or travelling in towards Clapham and changing to National rail, either you are talking about a big increase connection times, compared to the current situation with a cross platform interchange of slow and fast services at Putney.

Not everyone is going to Central London, the loop lines means that a lot of local town centres are interconnected by trains and it is much better than bus or road for local travel. In fact a lot of people reverse commute, plenty of towns have their own commuters from other London neighbourhoods. As the Southwest is quite rich it attracts lots employment so plenty of people commute to Richmond, Putney or Wimbledon from South London, often interchanging at Clapham.
no but then again....not THAT many people commute to wandsworth, in terms of what benefits quicker journey times into london and less passengers the RML carries people will get. if someone who lived in putney or barnes needed to get to wandsworth, they'd get the 337 bus... or if someone from the city wanted to get to wandsworth theyd get the tube and interchange with the northern line, or w&c which ever one the extension down the RML is built on.

people from richmond wanting to get to wandsworth...simple. fast train to clapham jct. no stops then tube to wandy town. its not that much of a bigger deal, just like when many mainline stations were closed in inner london to mainline trains. on WCML, ECML, GEML,MML, GWML and the services passed to LU or LOROL the SWML is really the only line this hasnt happened on.

eg. WCML south hampstead
GWML Royal Oak or westbourne park
ECML Holloway Rd
MML Camden Rd
GEML Bishopsgate or Bethnal Green

queenstown rd wouldnt be missed. it practically derelict as it is and is near battersea park stn.

wandy town. close enough to clapham j and putney, for buses and new tube route to be sufficient for no mainline service.

not queenstown rd, no wandy town. would mean than effectively every train into london on the RML from barnes to w'loo would be semi fast....
AAA94 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old November 21st, 2009, 11:54 AM   #102
Rational Plan
Registered User
 
Rational Plan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Slough
Posts: 3,287
Likes (Received): 271

Quote:
Originally Posted by AAA94 View Post
no but then again....not THAT many people commute to wandsworth, in terms of what benefits quicker journey times into london and less passengers the RML carries people will get. if someone who lived in putney or barnes needed to get to wandsworth, they'd get the 337 bus... or if someone from the city wanted to get to wandsworth theyd get the tube and interchange with the northern line, or w&c which ever one the extension down the RML is built on.

people from richmond wanting to get to wandsworth...simple. fast train to clapham jct. no stops then tube to wandy town. its not that much of a bigger deal, just like when many mainline stations were closed in inner london to mainline trains. on WCML, ECML, GEML,MML, GWML and the services passed to LU or LOROL the SWML is really the only line this hasnt happened on.

eg. WCML south hampstead
GWML Royal Oak or westbourne park
ECML Holloway Rd
MML Camden Rd
GEML Bishopsgate or Bethnal Green

queenstown rd wouldnt be missed. it practically derelict as it is and is near battersea park stn.

wandy town. close enough to clapham j and putney, for buses and new tube route to be sufficient for no mainline service.

not queenstown rd, no wandy town. would mean than effectively every train into london on the RML from barnes to w'loo would be semi fast....
Never mind, this is all academic anyway, as the Northern line will never be extended to Wandsworth town centre anyway.

The only chance this part of town has is with Chelney. Though Putney to Wimbledon or Clapham Junction will more likely be targets even for that line.
Rational Plan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2009, 02:34 AM   #103
AAA94
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Posts: 263
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rational Plan View Post
Never mind, this is all academic anyway, as the Northern line will never be extended to Wandsworth town centre anyway.

The only chance this part of town has is with Chelney. Though Putney to Wimbledon or Clapham Junction will more likely be targets even for that line.
people said humans would die if they traveled over 30 mph. thats clearly not true

never say never.

and i also said. the northern line or the W&C not just the northern line.
AAA94 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2010, 09:09 AM   #104
RBRJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 579
Likes (Received): 2

Extract from Post, by Streetquark, on the Bakerloo Southern Extension

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_jrt
It would be a fairly pointless spur that would just remove capacity from the longer route.

IMHO, it would be far better served by extending the W&C south - a realignment at Waterloo to permit the extension, running south to Lambeth Palace so (which, along with a Bakerloo extension with a new, larger depot leading to the closure of London Road) Lambeth North can close (it's stupidly close to Waterloo anyway), then on to Vauxhall, Nine Elms, Battersea, then Clapham Junction. As it stands, the alignment is very poorly served by rail given the number of lines running through it!



Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon10
I quite agree, but TfL will always follow the money, unless they are stopped.


Hopefully, this option CAN be stopped - it seems an issue to try and place in local press letters' pages, and get some local politicians on-side.

Anyone fancy taking that on?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kleinhond
Where do I sign up?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon10
You have to be self-motivated! You could start a blog on the subject, with maps and arguments, and get linked from all known residents associations, councillors' blogs, and so on.

Then get councillors to write to their local papers, and put copies of their letters on your blog.

Tell us all when you've done that!

Surely any addition is worthwhile if someone's going to (hopefully) pay for it.

The Northern should go south/south-east but in the meantime the new Battersea addition if it goes ahead will be of benefit compared to the current situation and can be tagged on to another line, i.e. W&C, at a later date, allowing the Northern to be extended elsewhere. The only real problem would be Kennington becomes a major interchange point with 2 Northern branches crossing/converging and the Battersea line going to wherever it goes to.

TfL would prefer the Battersea extension to go on to Clapham Junction (along with the DLR Bank-Victoria extension - 2 lines going to Clapham Junction meaning neither gets overloaded). Personally I'd prefer the line went near/under Vauxhall for future connection and when taken off the Northern (which can head south) would be well suited to a W&C extension. Lambeth Palace seems an ideal place for an intermediate station between Kennington and Waterloo, with the W&C getting a new Waterloo station after leaving the existing tunnels around about the IMAX.

Lambeth North is not on top of Waterloo. It might not be the most heavily used station but it has potential in an up and coming Central area, especially on a line that will come in from further south than E&C.

If and when the Battersea Extension were built:-
1) What if any practical difficulties would there be in tacking it onto the W & C?
2) Especially if the W & C were to go to Labeth Palace firstly!
3) Would Kennington be able to cope as a major transport hub?

Last edited by RBRJ; February 9th, 2010 at 09:18 AM.
RBRJ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2010, 06:29 PM   #105
streetquark
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 731
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBRJ View Post
If and when the Battersea Extension were built:-
1) What if any practical difficulties would there be in tacking it onto the W & C?
2) Especially if the W & C were to go to Labeth Palace firstly!
3) Would Kennington be able to cope as a major transport hub?
The extension would have to leave the existing W&C alignment north of Waterloo, i.e. just north of where the IMAX is (Waterloo Road/Stamford Street/York road junction). However, I'm not an expert of the gradient situation, and it might be better to diverge further north.

The new alignment would have to swing to the south from just north of the IMAX to interchange with Waterloo. It would then be pointed straight at Kennington.

In order to pick up the Battersea extension at Kennington the alignment would presumably swing a little further east facing south-east then gently swing to the south-west to parallel the Northern Bank branch into Kennington. It would have to clear the various Northern tunnels, so likely would only join the new spur some way to the west.

This leaves room for the Waterloo-Kennington section to have a station at the junction of Kennington and Lambeth Roads but not really further west as I was originally thinking.

However, does the W&C need to pick up the Battersea extension from Kennington? Does it need an interchange with lines it connects with at Waterloo and Bank anyway?

If the W&C diverged south half way along Stamford Street then under Waterloo but still in a SSW direction it could head for Lambeth Palace (western end of Lambeth Road) with a possible station to serve the area, then take over the Battersea extension somewhere between Vauxhall and Kennington leaving only a short section of redundant tunnels west of Kennington.

If Lambeth North station is kept open, the W&C extension could simply miss out a Lambeth Palace station. It would offer a direct fast tube link non-stop between Waterloo and the proposed Nine Elms/Wandsworth Road station, with Vauxhall being added when the Vic is relieved (assuming they don't stuff it up by making the alignment too distant from Vauxhall).

This answers the question of overloading little Kennington!
streetquark no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2010, 09:31 AM   #106
RBRJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 579
Likes (Received): 2

TfL recently announced that they were "splitting" the Northern Line. This was reported on in the London Evening Standard. The Charing Cross branch was to terminate at Kennington(more information on this is to be found on the TfL website).
It strikes me that this would involve some signalling work, and I wondered whether it had any meaning ie planning ahead for an extension to Battersea and Clapham Junction.
RBRJ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2010, 01:25 PM   #107
Jang0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 131
Likes (Received): 0

Evening Standard were yesterday quoting the Kennington work at £312m. I think they must be mistaken, because that kind of money should be able to buy a lot more than just signalling
Jang0 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2010, 06:32 PM   #108
TedStriker
Over Macho Grande
 
TedStriker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: London
Posts: 1,891
Likes (Received): 115



If that figure is correct, I think it might be because the plan to split the Northern Line services means that Camden Town station will need to be rebuilt, to cope with extra people who will be switching between trains.
TedStriker no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 14th, 2010, 12:17 AM   #109
OperateOnMe
Registered User
 
OperateOnMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Greater Birmingham (London)
Posts: 644
Likes (Received): 5

The figure sounds right, according to fat-cat law and taking money off the side! You know you need to spend millions to get all them maps changed to show this, plus millions in marketing the change, hireing new cleaners and toilets.... Hopefully the new goverment will put a stop to this and reduce our budget deficit this way rather than giving us the Poll Tax!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rational Plan View Post
Never mind, this is all academic anyway, as the Northern line will never be extended to Wandsworth town centre anyway.

The only chance this part of town has is with Chelney. Though Putney to Wimbledon or Clapham Junction will more likely be targets even for that line.
Sorry RationalPlan, but have you ever heard of Tooting? Its also in Wandsworth and already has two Underground stations. You make it sound Wandsworth is desperate. Both Tooting and Wandsworth given the local reverse commute (like Clapham & Croyden) are more in need of a tram-stop
OperateOnMe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2010, 08:31 AM   #110
RBRJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 579
Likes (Received): 2

London Reconnections (LR) reports that Treasury Holdings (TH) are preparing a consultation exercise for a best fit for their projected extension to the Northern Line to Battersea Power Station. There are 4 options.

TH have started leafleting Wansworth residents. There is also an online version were you respond to the plans. LR has also some useful and insightful views in it comments
RBRJ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2010, 04:58 PM   #111
citybus
Registered User
 
citybus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Belfast
Posts: 1,350
Likes (Received): 56

You should post the link next time mate
http://londonreconnections.blogspot....hern-line.html

They've got maps showing the route options. Anyone know which branch of the northern line would go to bettersea
citybus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2010, 05:16 PM   #112
dronkula
Registered User
 
dronkula's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 1,525
Likes (Received): 10

Wasn't there also plans to terminate the Charing Cross branch at Kennington with just the City branch going all the way south to Morden.

So, I would assume that if they did that *and* extended the northern line to Battersea, it would be the Charing Cross branch that would be extended.
dronkula no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2010, 07:20 PM   #113
Sesquip
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,387
Likes (Received): 68

Quote:
Originally Posted by dronkula View Post
Wasn't there also plans to terminate the Charing Cross branch at Kennington with just the City branch going all the way south to Morden.

So, I would assume that if they did that *and* extended the northern line to Battersea, it would be the Charing Cross branch that would be extended.
The turning loop at Kennington is directly connected to the Charing X branch, and it's this loop that the proposed extension would be connected to, as per the diagrams in the link. So yes, any southern extension to the northern line must come from the charing X branch.
Sesquip no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2011, 10:58 AM   #114
RBRJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 579
Likes (Received): 2

http://www.mellersh.co.uk/News.aspx?ArticleId=800396585

Offices in Battersea Power Station get green light
10/02/2011 09:47:41

Offices in Battersea Power Station have been given the green light by the government.

Secretary of state for communities and local government Eric Pickles granted permission for the development in central London, which is expected to start next year.

The offices will be located one mile from Westminster and are set to be serviced by a new London Underground station and potentially the extended Northern Line from Kennington.

Real Estate Opportunities revealed that around 15,000 new jobs and training opportunities could be created under plans to transform the Nine Elms area.

As well as the first zero-carbon offices in central London, Battersea Power Station has been earmarked for one of the largest ballrooms in the capital and a modern conference centre.

Businesses looking for new areas of London to work from may like to consider Nine Elms, which is also soon to be serviced by the extended east London line.
RBRJ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2011, 03:50 AM   #115
stimarco
INACTIVE
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,454
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBRJ View Post
"The offices will be located one mile from Westminster and are set to be serviced by a new London Underground station and potentially the extended Northern Line from Kennington."
So the new underground station is definitely going to be built, but that station's connection to anything else is merely "potential"? Now that's what I call "joined-up" thinking!

Quote:
Businesses looking for new areas of London to work from may like to consider Nine Elms, which is also soon to be serviced by the extended east London line.
The ELL Phase 2 extension to Clapham Junction will "serve" Nine Elms in much the same way that St. Pancras station "serves" the City. It's a bit of a walk.

Surely the better selling point is its proximity to the existing stations at Battersea Park and Queenstown Road?
stimarco no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2011, 09:31 PM   #116
Acemcbuller
Lifelong Londoner
 
Acemcbuller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London
Posts: 213
Likes (Received): 0

If a branch can be made from the Kennington loop can be made to serve Battersea what's to stop another branch to serve another destination? Just trains per hour I guess, but it sounds like Battersea won't need that many.
Then again I suppose if the developers are building it, they have the right to get as many trains as they want, at least for the forseeable future.
Acemcbuller no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2011, 12:03 AM   #117
stimarco
INACTIVE
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,454
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acemcbuller View Post
If a branch can be made from the Kennington loop can be made to serve Battersea what's to stop another branch to serve another destination? Just trains per hour I guess, but it sounds like Battersea won't need that many.
Then again I suppose if the developers are building it, they have the right to get as many trains as they want, at least for the forseeable future.
The point is to pump as many trains through the central core of the route. Where the trains end up at the outer ends of the line isn't all that important; the trains have to terminate somewhere. That "somewhere" only needs to be at the far end of a line that passes through enough housing to fill up the trains heading into town during the morning peaks to justify its existence. (This also makes it feasible to build a depot on cheaper land outside London, rather than shoehorning one into its dense urban core.)

Adding one or two branches has its advantages: you can split the services further out, so that you don't end up giving a small village on the green belt a pointlessly over-the-top 24 tph. service. However, if you start a branch too close to the core, where most of the demand is found, you can end up with an unbalanced service.

The 'unbalanced service' argument is the basis of most of the criticism of the Battersea extension. In its favour, the Northern Line is already a bit of a mess. It has two 'core' sections, multiple northern branches, but only one southern terminus.

Kennington is already the point where the two central 'core' lines diverge, so it's the ideal point to build a junction from an engineering perspective: the only other option would be a new junction station further south, requiring every single train share a short common stretch. This would inherently limit the potential throughput of the line. Kennington is simply the only viable long-term option short of quadrupling from this station southwards to a new (expensive) junction station.

The W&C is simply not worth extending. It doesn't really serve the West End—you'd have to change at Waterloo—and you can't keep it partially open while the rebuilding work takes place at the Waterloo terminus, thus making it a more expensive proposition. The Battersea Branch would still allow services on the Northern Line to run. Some disruption is likely while the new branch tunnels are physically connected to the Kennington loop, but services would still be able to run for the most part, albeit with some reduction in frequencies. (Even then, it's likely that the works will be done primarily at night, or during a short blockade.)

The Waterloo & City line really needs to be considered as what it is: a glorified people mover that merely happens to use deep-level tube technology. It was built to perform a very specific job, and it does so just fine. Extending it from the Bank end is not really viable due to the rat's maze of existing infrastructure it would need to avoid, this inherently limits its potential. (It's also one of the oldest of London's deep-level Tubes, so it also has that generation's tiny loading gauge and tunnels. Any new line would have to be built to this restrictive gauge, inherently reducing the passenger capacity.)

If a new line is needed along roughly the same alignment as the W&C, it can be built at a deeper level and use larger tunnels and trains. Should the new line ultimately prove the W&C's undoing, the W&C's infrastructure can still be converted to other uses, such as carrying services like electricity, telecoms, or water.
stimarco no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2011, 01:23 PM   #118
Rational Plan
Registered User
 
Rational Plan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Slough
Posts: 3,287
Likes (Received): 271

Quote:
Originally Posted by stimarco View Post
So the new underground station is definitely going to be built, but that station's connection to anything else is merely "potential"? Now that's what I call "joined-up" thinking!



The ELL Phase 2 extension to Clapham Junction will "serve" Nine Elms in much the same way that St. Pancras station "serves" the City. It's a bit of a walk.

Surely the better selling point is its proximity to the existing stations at Battersea Park and Queenstown Road?
The proposed extension had two stations at Nine elms and Battersea, and there is talk of maybe extending it to Clapham Junction.
Rational Plan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2011, 07:31 PM   #119
mr_jrt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,064
Likes (Received): 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by stimarco View Post
The W&C is simply not worth extending. It doesn't really serve the West End—you'd have to change at Waterloo—and you can't keep it partially open while the rebuilding work takes place at the Waterloo terminus, thus making it a more expensive proposition. The Battersea Branch would still allow services on the Northern Line to run. Some disruption is likely while the new branch tunnels are physically connected to the Kennington loop, but services would still be able to run for the most part, albeit with some reduction in frequencies. (Even then, it's likely that the works will be done primarily at night, or during a short blockade.)

The Waterloo & City line really needs to be considered as what it is: a glorified people mover that merely happens to use deep-level tube technology. It was built to perform a very specific job, and it does so just fine. Extending it from the Bank end is not really viable due to the rat's maze of existing infrastructure it would need to avoid, this inherently limits its potential. (It's also one of the oldest of London's deep-level Tubes, so it also has that generation's tiny loading gauge and tunnels. Any new line would have to be built to this restrictive gauge, inherently reducing the passenger capacity.)

If a new line is needed along roughly the same alignment as the W&C, it can be built at a deeper level and use larger tunnels and trains. Should the new line ultimately prove the W&C's undoing, the W&C's infrastructure can still be converted to other uses, such as carrying services like electricity, telecoms, or water.
As usual, I'm inclined to disagree. There's nothign inherently wrong with tube gauge, yes it's not as comfortable, but capacity isn't that much different. Tubes are also smaller, which makes them easier to thread through London's subterranean environment (see: Chelney - Piccadilly Circus). The platforms at both ends would need to be rebuilt anyway, so it's no great issue to realign them whilst you do so.

The Bank end could dive down to Northern Line tunnels around Mansion House, and the Northern Line tunnels could take over the DLR tunnels. The DLR then gets new tunnels pointing towards Green Park. The Northern Line could reconnect to it's old tunnels as soon as it can with the new tunnels running above them, ready to connect at Moorgate.

At the Waterloo end, as we've said, the line curves from York Road under the station. Simply extend this along York Road with new longer platforms and you're golden.

Platforms at Blackfriars would probably need to be under Queen Victoria St, or in front of Unilever House, depending on the curvature of the line at that point.
mr_jrt no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2011, 01:22 AM   #120
stimarco
INACTIVE
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,454
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rational Plan View Post
The proposed extension had two stations at Nine elms and Battersea, and there is talk of maybe extending it to Clapham Junction.
I'll believe them when I see them, frankly. The farces over Surrey Canal Road station (East London Line) and Crossrail's station at Woolwich don't fill me with confidence.
stimarco no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

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



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

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

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu