London | Future of the Underground Network | Vision - Page 5 - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | news magazine | posting guidelines

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

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


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 September 26th, 2018, 02:23 PM   #81
mr_jrt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,705
Likes (Received): 138

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuu View Post
Why? Ignoring the fact none of this is likely before the heat death of the universe, what benefit is there to having extra tracks any further west than necessary? It doesn't create any more capacity as there are still only two tracks west of Moorgate, and by extending the route there is no need for terminating capacity at Moorgate either
...no, there's 4 tracks to Farringdon
mr_jrt no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old September 26th, 2018, 11:14 PM   #82
Stuu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,605
Likes (Received): 974

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_jrt View Post
...no, there's 4 tracks to Farringdon
Yes... fair point, you've got me there!
__________________

mr_jrt liked this post
Stuu no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 26th, 2018, 11:22 PM   #83
Stuu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,605
Likes (Received): 974

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephen_c View Post
After completion, no SSL trains would be able to run from Liverpool Street to Aldgate East or Tower Hill There would simply be two separate lines crossing at different levels. The new Aldgate station under the bus station would provide interchange between Met and District. Met trains from Baker Street would all run via Liverpool Street to the new Aldgate interchange station and on under the Thames. District trains would all from Tower Hill to Aldgate East via the new Aldgate interchange. There would be no Circle line. The H&C line would just become part of the Met.
Apologies, I have now read your blog post much more thoroughly, and it definitely has merit. Building it is still tricky, and I suspect finding a usable tunnel alignment south, as it is starting so shallow, would be at the very least challenging.
Stuu no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2018, 10:30 PM   #84
Leedsrule
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,629
Likes (Received): 621

OP has been updated to reflect changes discussed (extending Met, removing H&C extension and a CR2 North idea) but still needs more input. I have removed the GOBLIN from CR2 and have looked below at an alternative. It also shows out-of-station interchanges differently to normal ones, so it is easy to plan your journey if you only buy a single ticket. This will also help if Thameslink is ever added to the network. Still obviously open to feedback.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuu View Post
There isn't room at Paddington, the plan is to lose (if it hasn't happened already) the short platforms so it will just have 12 long ones. And these are all planned to be used, and there are also plans to grade-separate the throat to allow more long-distance trains to run
Fair enough, terminating at OOC it is!

Elizabeth line to Dartford and Ebbsfleet

The map shows an often discussed suggestion to extend Crossrail to Ebbsfleet. However, my approach is slightly different.

Obviously CR uses overhead electrification whilst the southeastern lines use 3rd rail. Obviously you could electrify these lines, but I think it would be better for frequencies and reduced disruption to add two new parallel tracks. This would fly over the SE lines at Dartford Junction to 2 new platforms at Dartford. It looks to me as though Dartford was (sensibly) designed with expansion in mind, and there should be space for a third island platform. You wouldnt need to stop trains at Belvedere, Erith and Slade green (and all would maintain their southeastern services), but I feel all three have development potential and it wouldn't slow journeys by that much. East of Dartford, as it would be on new tracks anyway, I think it could serve new places. Firstly, a dedicated station for Bluewater, sitting above it's grand northern approach, as it's something the shopping centre might fund. then, a new station for the Ebbsfleet Valley development (The nearest home is a 20min walk from Ebbsfleet international, so a station of its own would be useful). Finally, the line would terminate at bay platforms either adjacent to or above ebbsfleet int. (named 'Ebbsfleet'). A defined and direct pedestrian route to Northfleet (subsurface from Car Park C) would legitimise the interchange between all 3 stations.

Map from Abbey Wood below, if that wasn't clear enough.



South West Frequencies

The dependencies for this are everything prior to this post. It assumes overhead electrification (and High Speed) on the long distance lines from Waterloo (International), even though it's probablyy difficult to achieve as some bridges en-route won't have been designed with enough clearance. Even if it was Third Rail the network map would look similar. The only changes might be no Ludgershall-Bath connection and no connection to Plymouth, as these would only be viable if high speed.

The south-western network now looks like this:


Lots of little notes on this, so I have uploaded as a vector, please click on the image to zoom and read.

Removing the Circle Line

Another idea stolen from Stephen C I won't be incorporating this in the next update, but as a study, what are your thoughts?

Essentially, the lines would look similar to how they did in 1910. The Metropolitan line is still split into three parts for simplicity (with branches to South Kensington, Hammersmith and Wembley in the east). This predominantly helps the district line to run much higher frequencies through the south section, as all flat junctions here are removed, with one branch or the district line serving the bay platfoms at High Street ken. In the east, there wouldnt be enough capacity through Barking for two lines, which gives the opportunity to expand the network eastwards. Aldgate would be completely rebuilt- so that the district line could branch off northwards towards Shoreditch (possibly to connect with Lea Valley lines) and the H&C could rejoin the district to Barking, and frequencies are maintained. The Met line and (ex) Circle line paths could pass Aldgate below the district line and continue into south London, providing 20tph to new destinations. Alternatively, do what you are discussing there and take the H&C below Aldgate East to continue, with the district line keeping 30tph to Barking & Upminster (I actually think that's a much better idea, but I drew the map below before I read it ).

I'm sure TFL could survey who uses the Circle line and which journeys they tend to make, to see if it is viable to remove. Most journeys between the key stations on the line (Paddington, Euston, KXSP, Victoria, Tower Hill) should be possible using other lines. It would allow frequencies to increase and connect more areas with central London.

I done a map:


Click to zoom.


Euston, St Pancras, Kings Cross and Crossrail 2

I have an issue with the 'Euston St Pancras' station proposed for CR2. Not only will it make the map an absolute mess for tourists to understand, it will also increase walking times by quite a bit between the tube and mainline. From the south end of a CR2 train to St Pancras Eurostar station would be a 2 day hike. This article seems to suggest that a 'Megastation' will be created'. I don't think so, when the walk from one end to another is a kilometer or more. What is the downside of keeping Euston/KXSP seperate? Adding a station between them doesn't make the walk between stations any shorte either, but most transferring to the Eurostar won't want to walk 400m with luggage anyway. Don't be so tight and keep them separate- add a station spanning Euston Square/Euston (South-West/North-East orientation, for an easier northern extension/portal) and a second serving KXSP (likely below the Circle lines, East/West orientation). Also run international services from Birmingham and Manchester, so people don't need to change in London.

Rant over.

Further North:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuu View Post
What's wrong with sending them up the Lea Valley as planned? Also they could go to Chingford. The DC line does not need a crossrail type link as it already has one, which will cope with any foreseeable demand.
Surely even four-tracking the Lea Valley mainline, it would be difficult to achieve tube frequencies here? It would effectively end the 'Crossrail East' Canary Wharf link too, as the Lea Valley is the only logical route to the north.*

Underground to Wood Green is the other official option, and I do agree it could do with another line, but it is a lot of extra tunneling and the Waterloo & Northern City would take some of the strain off this area. There just doesn't seem to be any obvious destinations, North London already has plenty of stations.

You might know this, but the question is open to anyone: There is an extra trackbed to the east of the Kings Cross mainline tracks. Any idea what this is for? Is it being reinstated for something?

My limited research suggests it isn't, in which case CR2 could follow this route. Emerging either just south of, within, or just north of the Gasworks tunnel, there would be a station at this point (an alternative to the new Piccadilly station as it is easier & less disruptive to build above ground, would be longer, and connects better with the NLL). The main entrance to the station would be on the north side of Randell's Road, with another on York Way near the existing substation, allowing for an easy bridge connection with the NLL. After another station and connection at Caledonian Road (maybe not needed), the tracks would flyover the mainlines east of Holloway Road to connect with rebuilt Finsbury Park platforms 9 and 10. If this isn't possible- duck underground at Holloway Road and have two more underground platforms at FP. North, the line would tunnel under part of the Parkland Walk and onto serve Crouch End and Wood Green. This would only require about 6km of tunnelling in total. Check the OP on Page 1 to see the proposal. An alternative route might take it onto Muswell Hill, Finchley and Mill Hill East.

GOBLIN & DC have become LO lines again, although I am particularly opposed to showing the latter as no other services to London Termini are on the LU map, so it shouldn't be either.

*This isn't to say that the Lee valley lines aren't the 'right' answer, but I want to interrogate all the alternatives here.

Last edited by Leedsrule; October 4th, 2018 at 10:41 PM. Reason: Seeking a PDF host: they're all shit! Any suggestions?
Leedsrule no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2018, 04:14 PM   #85
stephen_c
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Posts: 517
Likes (Received): 135

On Dartford/Ebbsfleet, it is key to understand the importance to TfL of separating their service from Network Rail. What Crossrail 1 (and CR2) have is the ability to run a near-full frequency service only using completely new infrastructure. For CR1 this is Paddington to Abbey Wood. This allows them to be insulated at times of disruption. It is also key for them that this core section has a single electrification type.

My view on Ebbsfleet is that the best way to achieve it is to terminate NR trains at Abbey Wood, and convert the line from Abbey Wood to Slade Green to be exclusively CR1 with overhead electrification. Then you only need two new tracks from there to Dartford (and yes, ideally via Bluewater to Ebbsfleet/Northfleet). Since journeys via CR1 will be much quicker than via London Bridge, few passengers will see disbenefits.

On the SW map, the plan doesn't work at Raynes Park. Building a complex flyover junction there to separate Epsom trains from Chessington trains would be extremely difficult and IMO undesirable. Avoiding this is why I suggested the Mole Valley Link, to take Leatherhead and Dorking services away from the clash at Raynes Park.

On the Circle line, my view in the west was that the Circle line is reduced to a 6tph shuttle from Edgware Road to Gloucester Road. The east end doesn't need complicating if Aldgate is rebuilt - the Met and District simply cross with no junctions, and both routes can easily use the full frequency.
__________________
My blog
stephen_c no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2018, 11:28 AM   #86
damo_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,271
Likes (Received): 258

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephen_c View Post
On Dartford/Ebbsfleet, it is key to understand the importance to TfL of separating their service from Network Rail. What Crossrail 1 (and CR2) have is the ability to run a near-full frequency service only using completely new infrastructure. For CR1 this is Paddington to Abbey Wood. This allows them to be insulated at times of disruption. It is also key for them that this core section has a single electrification type.

My view on Ebbsfleet is that the best way to achieve it is to terminate NR trains at Abbey Wood, and convert the line from Abbey Wood to Slade Green to be exclusively CR1 with overhead electrification. Then you only need two new tracks from there to Dartford (and yes, ideally via Bluewater to Ebbsfleet/Northfleet). Since journeys via CR1 will be much quicker than via London Bridge, few passengers will see disbenefits.

On the SW map, the plan doesn't work at Raynes Park. Building a complex flyover junction there to separate Epsom trains from Chessington trains would be extremely difficult and IMO undesirable. Avoiding this is why I suggested the Mole Valley Link, to take Leatherhead and Dorking services away from the clash at Raynes Park.

On the Circle line, my view in the west was that the Circle line is reduced to a 6tph shuttle from Edgware Road to Gloucester Road. The east end doesn't need complicating if Aldgate is rebuilt - the Met and District simply cross with no junctions, and both routes can easily use the full frequency.
I can not see how you would wind something into Bluewater, its pretty bumpy with all the quarries. And especially now as almost all the available surrounding land is being developed. The bus from Greenhithe works well for Bluewater except at Christmas but then nothing moves near Bluewater at Christmas.

You could put a direct walking route from Northfleet which seems like a real no brainer. Or if you are on it with the crayons the sidings used for waste from CR1 would make acceptable turn back platforms.

Generally speaking the transport along this corridor is good. Almost all the housing is north of the A2 and there are frequent stations. The biggest issue is having Gravesend as the last HS1 interchange which, like I said, could be moved to Ebbsfleet with minimum effort.
damo_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 18th, 2018, 11:25 PM   #87
Leedsrule
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,629
Likes (Received): 621

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephen_c View Post
My view on Ebbsfleet is that the best way to achieve it is to terminate NR trains at Abbey Wood, and convert the line from Abbey Wood to Slade Green to be exclusively CR1 with overhead electrification. Then you only need two new tracks from there to Dartford (and yes, ideally via Bluewater to Ebbsfleet/Northfleet). Since journeys via CR1 will be much quicker than via London Bridge, few passengers will see disbenefits.
The problem with this is it really limits SouthEastern and Thamelink services in this direction. More services would be forced through the pinchpoint at Hither Green and the cost of converting the line to overhead electrification probably isn't that much less than building a new adjacent line, which would be less disruptive and provide significantly more trains to key development opportunity areas such as Dartford.


Crossrail 2 South

Quote:
On the SW map, the plan doesn't work at Raynes Park. Building a complex flyover junction there to separate Epsom trains from Chessington trains would be extremely difficult and IMO undesirable. Avoiding this is why I suggested the Mole Valley Link, to take Leatherhead and Dorking services away from the clash at Raynes Park.
I understand the conflict here, and the Mole valley link would certainly resolve this (but I don't like cutting through forests where avoidable). My logic was that, given only 4tph will run between Epsom and Raynes Park, they could be timetabled to cross the slow Crossrail lines onto the fast lines during the gaps in services, given at least 4tph CR2 services will divert towards East Croydon at Clapham Junction. This might be ambitious, and removes the dedicated lines that you'd want from Crossrail, but it could be achievable. Alternatively, a complete rebuild of Raynes Park and the junction could avoid conflicts, all within a modest piece of industrial land. Disruptive, yes, but this could be done after the Esher Tunnel is complete to divert fast services and slow ones could continue during the works.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuu View Post
No, this is a bad idea. Heathrow is getting Crossrail trains because it's not very far away, and has other links as well. Sitting on a metro type train as far as Gatwick doesn't seem a good idea. You don't want to be mixing this sort of service together as you end up with hybrid trains which do neither job very well - hello Thameslink
This is a fair point, and I'll drop the idea for now. I do completely accept that 100mph hybrid Thameslink style trains aren't ideal for a metro-like tube line, if thats what CR2 is. But still, if jouney times were the same (which they would be, as trains could run fast to gatwick), is it that different to Crossrail to Heathrow? Perhaps it is ok because Heathrow still has Heathrow Express as an alternative? In that case, maybe the semi-fast southern line to Gatwick could run through the core.

However I do feel that Epsom is still the weakest of the CR2 South destinations, sharing platforms with through services. I think those extra paths could run towards Croydon to serve more destinations. The problem is that they would join the Southern fast lines at CJ, not the slow ones, so it would need to run fast to Selhurst. Here, it could pick up any of a number of branches, or terminate at EC. Tube trains from this distance isn't ideal, but I expect most would take the compromise in return for a route through the core (and as most passengers stand currently anyway, it'll be the same). It could even take over the southern slow service to Gatwick (same issues as you mention with trains, but the Gatwick express and Thameslink remain as alternatives, and I'm sure the airport want to be on the LU map). In the end, I've settled on Tattenham Corner as the terminus, as long as tracks either north or south of Croydon allow the lines to switch over to the Victoria Fast side.

The Tunnel option 3 or 4 in the LFN post below could redirect fast Victoria services and free up the Victoria fast platforms through Selhurst-Balham for more stopping services, some of which could go through the CR2 core.

HS2-HS1 link

I understand that HS2 has enough demand to London that directing services around London seems wasteful. But as part of a wider strategy to support cities outside of London, offering international services from Birmingham and Manchester seems vital. The high speed map here shows the link. Ive seen somewhere that 3tph in each direction possible with a single track through Primrose Hill/Camden. 1.5 international tph to Birmingham and Manchester is enough, given Hs2 capacity constraints. The remaining track is left for freight (is this needed?). Perhaps in future, if HS2 is upgraded, freight could be diverted and both tracks given to this link.

Why is there so much demolition associated with this option? The only demolition I can see is north of Camden gardens where a wider bridge is needed to have 4 tracks on that 80m stretch between the junction and Camden Road station. But reports seem to suggest it would cause huge demolition of Camden Market (cheaper to get CPO's, but politically expensive). I really can't see where that would be needed though. Even if the line was low speed it would be far quicker and better than changing at Euston/StP.

This feeds into the study below.

London Freight Network

I know F all about freight travel really, but I wonder if there's a way to simply cross-London freight travel with clear orbital routes with low passenger frequencies. For example, the WLL has very high frequencies of passenger traffic (especially with the LO proposals) so can't sustain frequent freight trains during the day.

Clear freight destinations such as the Channel Tunnel, Southampton (most go via Reading but some via the SWML) and London Gateway need links to to every mainline, but as rail freight and London orbital journeys both increase, capacity is limited.

Part of this is to introduce a new tunnel from the south/south-east to London, which could be vital to relieve passenger services too. The northern portal for this tunnel, in my opinion, could be just north of Clapham High Street. 6 tracks to Factory junction allows trains from Brixton to Victoria to use the easternmost tracks. The westernmost ones are Overground, going to Battersea Park or Clapham Junction. The middle two from the portal can continue to Victoria, whilst freight traffic can use the Ludgate Line to connect with the WLL, or up past CJ platforms 2&3 on a dedicated tracks to use the New Kew Junction to bypass the WLL (or through the Esher Tunnel for SWML if suitable for freight). The GOB is then the main freight route around London, with a few existing chords to Mainlines.

To the south, there seems four options for the tunnel:
Tunnel Option 1: Beckenham Hill
+ Kent mainline to Victoria would bypass the busy Herne Hill junction
+ Established freight route to the Channel Tunnel and closer access to Kent ports
+ Avoids Beckenham Junction pinch-point
- 10km of tunneling
- Southeastern services already relieved by Underground extensions

Option 2: Dulwich/Herne Hill
+ 3km of tunneling
+ Allows Kent Mainline to bypass conflicted Herne Hill and frequencies to increase.
- Pinch-point at Beckenham Junction remains
- May remove Kent Mainline access to Blackfrairs, depending on tunnel portal position
- Southeastern services already relieved by Underground extensions

Option 3: Anerley
+ 8km of tunnneling
+ Easiest underutilised freight route to the Channel tunnel via Redhill & Tonbridge
- Services through East Croydon still very constrained

Option 4: South Croydon
+ Benefit to neglected Southern network
+ Easiest underutilised freight route to the Channel tunnel via Redhill & Tonbridge
+ Faster and more frequent Gatwick Express/Brighton services
+ Fast services bypass East Croydon
- At least 12km of tunneling
- Pinch-point at Herne Hill remains



My questions are which, if any, of these tunnel options would most benefit freight and passenger traffic? If we want to seriously increase suburban rail capacity it would be the best way to bypass key pinpoints of the network. Perhaps option 2?

Effect on Southern Services

Whichever tunnel option above is chosen, it would help simplify services in South London. Part of the issue is various operators sharing key routes. For example, if West Sutton Thameslink services could 'terminate' at Sutton and continue as the slow 2/3tph Southern service to Victoria via West Croydon. This would allow the Sutton-Blackfrairs faster service to extend beyond Epsom.

More Chiltern/EWR/Heathrow thoughts

A services diagram better explains the new routes in and around Aylesbury, Heathrow and East/West Rail (EWR).



Nothing radical, but extending the Bourne End line to High Wycombe would do several things. Firstly a potentially useful local connection between the Chiltern and GWR networks. Currently the route between, say, High Wycombe and Reading takes 1h 30 with a ridiculous route. Moving north-south in the counties West of London is impossible by rail, which puts strain on the M25 (just as East-West travel is difficult north and south of London). Secondly, it would resolve what I expect is one of the worst routes to do as a driver, as there are more stations in which you need to change direction than stations where you don't! This would mean frequencies could increase, even with mostly a single track (with dual track from Bourne End-HW, and a second platform at Cookham). Peak frequencies could be 1/2tph Marlow-High Wycombe and 2tph Maidenhead-High Wycombe(some continue to MK via Aylesbury Int). It would also open up a possible connection between the Chiltern network and Heathrow (OOC would provide opportunities, but this would be faster).

If a west facing terminus at Heathrow shared platforms with Heathrow Southern, It could run some services from the GWML to Heathrow and EWR/Crosscountry services to MK/Oxford/Birmingham. The simplest way to do this would be to extend the Crosscountry service which currently terminates at Reading to Heathrow. This might require adding tracks between Heathrow and Maidenhead or Reading, but this would surely be simpler and faster than the Windsor tunnel idea. This would give 0.5tph services to Oxford, Birmingham, Sheffield and beyond. There is probably the demand to increase this to 1tph, or divert CC services from Southampton to instead terminate at Heathrow.

Heathrow T5 station

The thing about travelling to the airport, and these are only assumptions, is that you don't necessarily need to be there quickly. Workers aside (who probably live locally), most people will be travelling to the airport won't be in a big rush, will leave plenty of time, and if the trains are hourly or bi-hourly they'll choose before they head off which train is most appropriate (ie you probably wouldn't just turn up at the station and wait for the next train to the airport, youll plan in advance). Convenience is also important for these journeys as people with luggage won't want to change if possible. Part of this is about competing with cars, currently you can only get to London from Heathrow without changing trains. The number of passengers travelling to the airport is also lower than you might think. Heathrow express is only 4tph, suggesting any more than 1tph to places link Bristol, Southampton or Oxford would be excessive (unless those trains served other destinations too, such as continuing to Paddington). The exception to this is to Gatwick, which could justify 2tph*.

Running through services from the Heathrow Express is a much more efficient use of a platform (bay platforms can only handle about 4tph each compared to 16-20tph as through platforms). I wonder if this can be considered to allow more Heathrow Express services to run. In the above proposal, 1tph continues to Woking, Basingstoke and Southampton (+ Bournemouth?), whilst others could rejoin the GWML for Bristol/Cardiff. The issue is, passengers for Paddington won't want to be disrupted taking the detour, and there isn't enough demand for Heathrow alone to justify 4tph from Reading. The answer is to take over and extend existing semi-fast paths into Paddington. For example, the Didcot Parkway via Cholsey/Tilehurst ect. Service currently runs slow from Reading but after Crossrail won't need to. So divert that train via Heathrow, connect with Heathrow Express (So services run fast from Heathrow, still much faster than currently). On the other end, extend it from Didcot to Bristol & Cardiff (1tph each, or 2tph to Bristol). This would allow 6tph Heathrow Express into Paddington, with 1tph continuing to each of Southampton, Bristol and Cardiff. Another option could be to extend heathrow express services to Birmingham, if paths allow it. The issue is TOC's- Heathrow Express won't want to run the local Cholsey line service, nor will it want to allow GWR to profit from fast Heathrow-Paddington trains. It isn't always clear who would run any of these lines (until nationalisation), although in a previous post I assumed Reading-Gatwick and all Heathrow Southern routes would be under SWR control. In theory, all of the lines in the diagram above could become part of a new wider Heathrow Connect brand.

Controversial opinion: Perhaps Crossrail services shouldn't call at T5 at all. People aren't going to waiting on a central London station waiting for a T5 train in 20 minutes and nor do we want to encourage that. Nor will they be looking up train times in advance, as crossrail is marketed as a tube service and a lot of people don't realise these are even timetabled. Plus, it limits the number of Heathrow Express services that can serve T5, and both services would share the same platform making things confusing for tourists (as waiting for the next train sometimes becomes faster than getting on the first one). Instead, that 2tph could go to T4, or be sent to an upgraded Windsor & Eton Central Station, along with 1 of the 2tph currently terminating at Maidenhead, or more occasionally (Royal Weddings/Summer Weekends).

*Via the North Downs line the journey would take around an hour. Hardly HS4 Air speeds, but still faster/more consistent than the M25, and anyone changing between airports will allow for plenty of time anyway.



Final note: See the disruption on the lines from Paddington the other day? These proposals would prevent anything on this scale happening again, as all commuter lines would have more than 1 possible terminus, and extra Diesel trains could run emergency through services from Swindon, Reading, Heathrow T5 (reverse out), Staines, London Waterloo- or the alternative Basingstoke-Woking-Heathrow-Paddington. Because of the other proposals, Chiltern/MK trains have a connection to OOC if their line ever went down, Greater Anglia could access Fenchurch Street or Canary Wharf and the long-distance Waterloo lines could even reach Victoria. I don't really understand why GWR Diesel trains aren't being redirected to Waterloo via Basingstoke during the off-peak, or more SWR services to Bristol/Exeter laid on- but I suspect it is because they are all separate TOC's so don't have that flexibility.
__________________

patel2897 liked this post
Leedsrule no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2018, 12:15 AM   #88
heymikey1981
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 898
Likes (Received): 851

Developer-led Metropolitan line extension from Aldgate passing through:

Bermondsey
Surrey Quays (station paid for by Canada Water redevelopment)
Crossharbour (station paid for by the various developments south of Canary Wharf)
Greenwich Peninsula South (station paid for by Greenwich Peninsula redevelopment)
Charlton Riverside (station paid for by the developers in the area)

__________________

patel2897 liked this post

Last edited by heymikey1981; October 25th, 2018 at 12:27 AM.
heymikey1981 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2018, 05:07 PM   #89
CharlieP
Tax avoider
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 23,933
Likes (Received): 2099

I'd love to see the proposed track layout at Aldgate!
__________________
This signature is socialist and un-American.

ill tonkso liked this post
CharlieP no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2018, 11:42 PM   #90
Leedsrule
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,629
Likes (Received): 621

On the first page you will find an updated map. The major change is the re-branding of Crossrail lines (including Thameslink) to differentiate them from Underground lines, the difference being not all services stop at every station on Crossrail services, and other differences explained later in this post. Effectively central Crossrail services can still be used like tube lines for Central London journeys, but beyond this, a second London S-bahn style map would be used. Other changes include the CR2 south changes discussed. Also, the DLR link to Thamesmead has been removed. The local connection may be useful, but realistically it is a lot of cost for very little benefit unless accompanied with a huge housebuilding scheme. The Bakerloo and Crossrail extension are more than enough to serve this area, and actually makes a better case for the Bakerloo to be extended to Thamesmead if it doesn't have an alternate DLR connection.

Crossrail 2

I'm really having second thoughts about the CR2 North spur to Stratford, but can't decide whether to drop it. On one hand, it is a useful connection, particularly from Stratford and Hackney to KXSP, Euston and Victoria. On the other, simultaneous improvements mean that Hackney and Stratford are already well connected to central London, and Stratford is limited for bay platform capacity. It also requires a complex underground junction and about 4km more tunneling than sending all paths north via FP. Does anyone have any input?

If the idea is to re-think CR2 as a suburban line, rather than a metro line (which is what people asked for, to be fair), then maybe a southern extension to and beyond Epsom would make that spur worthwhile after all, and avoid the Raynes Park conflict that both my and the Real plan have. For now, the Tattenham Corner spur is kept, but when the Crossrail/Suburban plan is developed this might be designed out. In the north, the line to Stevenage fits the profile of a "Crossrail" line more, and simple changes to Finsbury Park allow the destinations of the lines north of the station to be reshuffled. The Original Post map shows the start of this process, and the next sub-section deals with its impact.

Finsbury Park

Finsbury Park station is in need of a rebuild/reconfiguration. This diagram shows the principles, but how the tracks and platforms might work completely depends on the routes running through it, which are undecided at the moment.



To create two through fast tracks, Platform 6 is demolished, with 5 retained as an east-facing-only platform, for southbound journeys to KX at very limited times (such as when the park is hosting an event, or possibly after Arsenal games). At those same times, the W&C line operates an egress and ingress system, on platform 3 and 2 respectively. In a northbound direction, platform 8 would be built as west-facing only, with adjacent island platform made much wider, and that track slightly moved accordingly. The whole station would have a new underpass connecting every platform to the underground platforms and exits on both sides.

From the south, ignoring the fast trains that run through, FP recieves around 30tph from Waterloo/Moorgate in the peak. It receives between 18-24tph from Crossrail 2 from Kings Cross, around 8tph from St Pancras Thameslink and possibly more from Kings Cross mainline. FP would be reconfigured with 3 platforms and 4 tracks in each direction, giving each service a platform.

North of FP, the route that Thameslink, Waterloo & City line and Crossrail 2 take is ambiguous (but impacts on the FP layout). The CR2 spur to 'New River' which existed in the previous version has gone. It would have been useful to serve those places, but none had any massive development potential and the number of underground stations involved would have made it very expensive. People in Wood Green can just go to the better served Ally Pally, just as people in Kingston use Surbiton Station. Instead, a spur goes towards Highgate high level, and onto terminate at Mill Hill East. This would involve a short section of tunnelling, although it might be possible to cut-and-cover the Parkland Walk. Obviously you'd need 4 tracks between East Finchley and Finchley Central, a fourth platform at the latter and a flyover in between for northbound NL services to pass over the rest. CR2 could serve this spur (depending on platform configuration at FP), but I have shown it as part of the W&C line* (up to 4tph, plus another 4tph using the reversing loop at Finsbury Central). The other W&C paths could turn towards Enfield**, but I have shown terminating at an extended New Barnet*** (with a new flyover just to the south of the station). This means that between Harringay and New Barnet, Slow Thameslink and W&C services are sharing the same track and platforms which is not ideal, but effectively happens at the moment.

Crouch Hill station is rebuilt with longer platforms which reach a new main entrance on the pedestrianaised "Mount Pleasant Villas" bridge. It's renamed "Stroud Green" station and a 150m long route connects it with W&C platforms on the existing Parkland Walk (with another station entrance on Stapleton Hall Road, and the existing one possibly closed).

Crossrail 2 instead takes exclusive use of the two outermost tracksthrough Ally Pally and goes exclusively towards Hertford North. Some would turn back at Bowes Park and Gordon Hill, and at least 2tph would continue beyond Stevenage and terminate at Letchworth Garden City.

Fast Thameslink/GN services beyond FP (8tph max) switch onto the fast lines and don't stop/switch off these until at least Welwyn Garden City or Stevenage. This means 10 Long Distance KX trains per hour should be achievable?!

Obviously the Digswell Viaduct and Welwyn North station are restricting capacity of long-distance KX services. The way I see it best resolved is to get rid of Welwyn North station. Instead, take the westernmost line out of WGC (Platform 4?) and continue it alongside the existing four tracks. this would gradually drop from the rest, allowing it to run above/alongside Bessemer Road seperate to the viaduct. Here it could become dual-track again (single track from WGC to here if okay with the expected frequencies). it would continue to drop to a new "Welwyn Parkway" station just north of the Hertford Rd, serving Digswell and Welwyn. It would only have a frequency of 2tph (4 at peak, if the single track stretch can manage), and effectively be an extension of some services that otherwise terminate at WGC. At WGC, Platform 3 serves Cambridge and Welwyn Parkway, and Platform 4 serves London (some from WP, some terminating/starting from here).

* I feel it is important to differentiate between LU and Crossrail services, with the former remaining in "London" wherever possible, I thought it suited the profile of the W&C better. The alternative, of course, is that you design the new W&C as a "Crossrail" style service, simply connecting the Finsbury Park mainline in the north with the East Croydon one in the south. This definitely required further resolution.
**These stations lose their direct connection to The City, but Enfield Town still provides that, and instead of 6tph to Moorgate they now get 24tph to KX, Victoria and beyond, and cross-platform interchange at FP for the W&C to Moorgate and Bank.
***A second platform at Mill Hill East should mean trains can be stepped back and frequencies on that branch increased? Which would allow a more reasonable 12tph peak to New Barnet.

Heathrow: Following the last post

Following on, I've had a few thoughts regarding the Heathrow Southern connection.

The SW rail map shows two new chords from the Frimley line to the SWML, at Sturt Road for London-bound services and at Ash Vale for Ascot-bound services, as This Report details. With the other improvements to SWML capacity, fast services could be run from Ascot to Waterloo via Camberley and Woking at peak times. Heathrow Southern prresents an opportunity to also use this line, though, and as through trains at Heathrow T5 are more efficient than terminating ones, perhaps an option could be to extend 1tph Heathrow Express service to Aldershot via Ascot and Camberley. It would require a new connection somewhere around Egham, but would connect several local towns to the airport and also provide them with a much faster London service bypassing the level crossings and limited capacity of the Windsor lines to Waterloo.

Heathrow Express services from Paddington would be:
1tph to Southampton Central via Woking and Basingstoke
1tph to Aldershot via Egham and Ascot
1tph to Bristol Temple Meads via Reading and Didcot Parkway
1tph to Didcot Parkway via Reading
2tph Terminate at Heathrow T5

In Surrey, the other SWR services would also be simplified, such as:

2tph Ascot to Woking (+Waterloo @ peak) via Camberley
2tph Alton to Guildford via Aldershot
2tph Alton to London Waterloo via Woking
2tph Heathrow Airport to London Waterloo via Richmond
2tph Reading to London Waterloo via Egham and Richmond
2tph Reading to Redhill (1tph +Gatwick Airport) via Guildford and Shalford
2tph Heathrow Airport to Gatwick Airport via Woking and Guildford

Thoughts?

Crossrail West

Also further to previous posts, I'm here proposing a fairly radical rebrand of cross-London services. This section also follows on from THIS blog post- which shows the complexities of services running into Paddington at present.

This image (not mine) shows Crossrail frequencies, and up to 12tph terminating at Paddington. This is extremely inefficient, but presumably happens because GWML capacity is so limited, particularly through Ealing Broadway, so more trains can't run west in this direction. Also, because the Paddington lines don't branch off to serve many destinations like the SWML does, places like Ealing and Southall simply don't need more than 10tph.



It is also caused by not all services calling at all stations in the west, unlike normal tube services, which is why it probably shouldn't have been designated as a tube line, which is besides the point but could affect where and how it can expand in future.

Assuming the line is re-branded in future as some kind of London S-bahn alongside Thameslink, there is definitely scope to open up more destinations to the west to make use of those trains terminating at Paddington.

Firstly, lets remove the Crossrail T5 service. It uses up valuable platform space in T5 (see map above) and complicates services (with people hanging around in central London stations for half an hour waiting for a T5 train). Instead, offer Windsor & Eton Central 2tph for Crossrail, particularly important for increasing the town's accessibility as a tourist destination.

With some Chiltern services already agreed to terminate at OOC, it makes a lot of sense to send some of these through the Crossrail core. This isn't a new idea, but one that doesn't really fit with the "London Underground" mantra which the Elizabeth line is trying to fit into. After a rebrand solves the image issue, and more comfortable trains are introduced, it would be sensible to send some (up to 12tph) [img=https://postimg.cc/sMGDMQ1Z]Chiltern services to places like High Wycombe, Oxford and Milton Keynes[/img] through the Crossrail core to both Shenfield and Abbey Wood. Additional and longer distance Chiltern services would go to Marylebone as present.

If Paddington is reconfigured to operate long distance services from fewer platforms, there may not be spare capacity in the station, but there is plenty in the approach to Crossrail from OOC. With upgraded Heathrow Express trains, all trains on the 'fast' lines will be capable of high speeds. Some of these would stop at OOC, but pull aside to do so with through tracks allowing frequencies to remain high. Beyond Airport Junctions, long distance services would continue towards Reading, then onto Oxford, Newbury and the west. Fewer trains would serve Bristol and Plymouth, as the new high speed line from Waterloo Int. would pick up some of those services.

South London Suburban rationalisation

I'm going to assume that, following my last post, a short bypass tunnel around Herne Hill is the best option to solve the freight and passenger pinchpoint. I know the cost of it would be high and at this point I am proposing changes like this too freely, but it would allow south London services to increase their frequencies. If you forget TOC's, there must be a more logical way to direct lines in and out of London. Where possible, people should be given the option to link to The City, Canary Wharf and the West End/Westminster

A new London Suburban map showing all of the changes mentioned in this post is coming soon. This should not only present the future network changes, but also update the appearance to make the extended network far more legible.

Differentiating Underground and Crossrail (Suburban) services

--- The LU network is (almost) entirely within Greater London, designed to prioritise those living in London and paying London prices and taxes. the Crossrail network, by comparison, covers the suburban area around London, and several cities further afield, and is designed primarily to bring people into London rather than move people around it. As a result, 'Crossrail' trains are usually 160m+ with seating designed for longer cross-city journeys, rather than just a few stops (although some, like the existing LO services, may retain longitudinal seating).
--- As a result, 'Crossrail' service capacity is usually limited to around 24tph, compared to 30tph+ possible on most tube lines.
---The London Underground runs on dedicated tracks (or shared with other underground lines, but never Network Rail lines). Crossrail often shares track with other lines. Will have to resolve the currently shared track of the W&C line north of Finsbury Park, and at Clapton.
--- On the LU, all services call at all stations on that route (although some may stop short before the end of the line). 'Crossrail' services, though, would sometimes skip stations or run fast between two points.
--- 'Crossrail' lines often branch close to the city centre (ie Thameslink in Southwark, Crossrail in Whitechapel, ect), wheras LU lines should be as simple and legible as possible, knowing every train that arrives will probably take you where you need to on that line, an advantage of the Paris Metro. This will also involve splitting the Northern Line into two for clarity, although some confusing exceptions still apply such as the District line.
--- The Metropolitan line is simplified, with all services calling at all stations between Baker Street and Harrow on the Hill. Frequencies of 30tph could be achieved in this stretch, with half continuing through to Aldgate (and beyond). All services north of Harrow also call at every station, no need for semi-fast services, with Chiltern picking up that role (being designated as a Crossrail line in the process).
--- Whilst underground lines very much operate a "turn up and go" policy, where people will rarely check timetables, you would check in advance when travelling on 'Crossrail' services due to the increased long-distance destinations and often infrequently served spurs. Underground lines display boards simply show [Destination] and the [Minutes until next train], whilst Crossrail boards would show:
[Time Scheduled] [Service Code] [Destination] [Time Due]
[Calling at ................................................................................]

My next post will show the "Crossrail" lines in isolation.

You could eventually see a system where every line in the country is given a code, which could really simplify journeys (or complicate them!).

Waterloo & City & Blackfrairs

Remember this is a NEW line--which could follow the same path as the existing or might deviate: is the station at Blackfrairs needed? It connects with Thameslink at plenty of other places, north and south, and most stations on the route have alternate ways to get onto the circle lines. That said, it's still a very central and useful destination in its own right. If the W&C took a new path, maybe a station on the Southbank would be more useful? This wouldn't really affect peak traffic to The City but would massively improve its usefulness at other times.

Option 1:


Option 2:


Option 3:


Re-evaluating the configuration of new Underground lines

When writing the above, I realized that reconnecting the Ludgate (Thameslea) line and the Waterloo and City line could use the platform lengths at each far more efficiently, and possibly create a simpler (albeit still complex) solution at Moorgate. The Ludgate line was planned to be run as ATO, with shorter (~120m) trains, but 180m long platforms in the western side. Meanwhile, the Waterloo & City would be limited to 120m trains by the existing stations north of Moorgate, despite Crystal Palace having 180m long platforms. I will therefore propose a switch, connecting the Northern City to the Ludgate line and extending the Waterloo & City to the Lea Valley lines. Moorgate is re-organised to allow interchange between the two. Both lines from the north would retain a connection to Southern or SW services, and vice versa.

This may be no better, and as much as I feel extending the NCL is a great opportunity for south London to connect to the city, I'm finding it very difficult to convince myself that it's a worthwhile idea.

Perhaps it is easier to extend than the Metropolitan line?

I need to think about it a bit more.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE UPDATED LONDON UNDERGROUND MAP.
Leedsrule no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 16th, 2018, 03:34 PM   #91
acs121
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 25
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leedsrule View Post

Click for full route.


Like an increasing number of places in central London, Bank-Liverpool Street-Moorgate is already a mess of tunnels and, in this case, bank vaults, among other things. So I don't know how feasible this is, but my proposal is to extend the Waterloo & City line to incorporate the Northern City lines from Moorgate, and then extended into South London. This would initially rely on a tunnel little more than 500m long, although I have no idea at which level they both sit. It would also probably rely on significant works at Bank and Waterloo, especially as far more passengers would be heading in every direction at all times of day.

Assuming the Bakerloo line will head down OKR and through Lewisham (I have assumed it would continue to serve Woolwich Common and Thamesmead), the W+C line could provide stations at Walworth, Camberwell and Denmark Hill, before continuing into the commuter lines of South London. How exactly, I am unsure, as very few existing dedicated lines that could handle underground frequencies exist, so it would probably have to stay underground. I think serving East Croydon could be vital, as a local hub it would be helpful to connect it to Crossrail 1, Crossrail 2 and the City of London. Therefore, if taken further than Denmark Hill I would suggest an underground stretch to Crystal Palace via North Dulwich. From here, the line would be 4 tracks to Norwood junction and 4tph would serve Birbeck/Beckenham Junction overground. The rest would serve Norwood Junction then head underground into a dedicated underground bay platform at East Croydon (also serving Canary Wharf through this idea). There may be opportunities to connect it to other southeastern or Southern services as well but so many of them already share busy tracks that I'll leave it to you to think of a solution.

Between Waterloo and Bank you might be tempted to add a station at Blackfrairs. Given that the line connects with Thameslink through Elephant and Castle and Finsbury Park, the only benefit would be the transfer to the circle/district line. For this reason I haven't included it yet. There could also be a Southbank station, but without any connections, this seems like a waste of money. One solution could be a platform stretching under the Thames with access on both sides, with more benefits but more cost.

Overall it would create a vital link to the city from South London, reducing overcrowding on other lines including the northern line and Thameslink services.
Funny, because I also see the Waterloo & City line as something that should be connected to the Northern City line.

Here's how I imagined it :

- No new south section. I didn't think about this in the first place...
- No new station between Waterloo and Bank. It's always faster to use this line than the Bakerloo + the Northern or a bus if ever you're at Waterloo and want to catch the Central or the DLR. We don't want it spending a minute at a pointless station - which is pointless because it's a bit far from the Tate Modern, actually.
- I didn't think about "splitting" the W&C and NCL services. I don't think it's a good idea, especially for what's next.
- I imagined it going to Finsbury Park to and using again the Parkland Walk - after all, there's no gubbins in the way of such an extension, and if we wanted we could convert this green path into a railway again.
- I also imagined it taking over the Mill Hill East branch, but double-tracking it and making it go further - in fact, to Mill Hill Broadway and then all the way to Luton Airport, following the Midland Main Line.
- Additionally, tracks between Mill Hill Broadway and south of Luton Airport Parkway would be shared with Thameslink trains.
- If it was possible, the other tracks for fast trains would have been used for "Luton Express" trains : starting at Waterloo, but non-stop from Mill Hill East onwards.
acs121 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 17th, 2018, 02:10 PM   #92
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,751
Likes (Received): 2595

Any scheme that tries to integrate the W&C into it will be costlier, more disruptive and less optimal than even just building a new pair of tunnels near it.
NCT no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 17th, 2018, 08:26 PM   #93
Paul7755
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 527
Likes (Received): 99

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
Any scheme that tries to integrate the W&C into it will be costlier, more disruptive and less optimal than even just building a new pair of tunnels near it.
Isn’t it also generally understood that there’s nowhere straight enough or level enough for extra intermediate W&C platforms?
__________________

Rapidtransitman liked this post
Paul7755 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 17th, 2018, 10:25 PM   #94
Stuu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,605
Likes (Received): 974

There must be an equivalent of Godwin's Law with regards to the W&C, for some reason it's nigh-on impossible for people to come up with ideas for the tube without suggesting it gets extended.
__________________
Stuu no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2018, 05:26 PM   #95
acs121
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 25
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCT View Post
Any scheme that tries to integrate the W&C into it will be costlier, more disruptive and less optimal than even just building a new pair of tunnels near it.
Why not build a new pair of tunnels from it ?
After all, can't the section from Waterloo to somewhere south of Bank still be used ?
The thing is, the W&C is somewhat useless without an extension. Which is also the case of many lines.
acs121 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2018, 05:34 PM   #96
DarJoLe
Registered User
 
DarJoLe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 21,550
Likes (Received): 10748

It's hardly useless it's one of the most used on the network! It works perfectly precisely because it is only two stops.
__________________

cle, Rapidtransitman liked this post
DarJoLe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2018, 06:02 PM   #97
cle
Registered User
 
cle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,698
Likes (Received): 823

The only viable thing ever, ever, would have been a Blackfriars station - given this new-age of (almost) operational Thameslink, and how it passes underneath.

But even that would be impossible to build without a long closure, and would add even more people to a full service.
cle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2018, 06:03 PM   #98
ill tonkso
Portsmouths Finest, Maybe
 
ill tonkso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: St. Neots
Posts: 16,919
Likes (Received): 2552

The Waterloo and City does exactly what it says on the tin, connects London's busiest terminus to the city. That's all it does, that's all it needs to do. Works exactly the same way the shuttle people mover works between Gatwick's North Terminal and the Railway Station (albeit, probably not today...). The only useful thing that could be done is platform lengthening and longer trains to boost capacity, and that could probably be better done with better signalling and automation.
__________________

Rapidtransitman liked this post
ill tonkso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2018, 11:12 PM   #99
acs121
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 25
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarJoLe View Post
It's hardly useless it's one of the most used on the network! It works perfectly precisely because it is only two stops.
It sure is second when you see the numbers of passengers per mile, but it is the least used of all the 11 lines of the Underground. It still is not as much as the Victoria.

As for the Blackfriars station : it was an idea proposed for many years, but I can't even tell how useful this would be. It's not just about the Thameslink, as it's worth noting the W&C is the only line, with the Central Line, to not have an interchange with the Thameslink, but about the District / Circle lines.

As for what I can say - I admit it, it's a bit of playing "joining the dots". There are lines that just end in central London, and other bits of unused tunnels in Central London.

On the side of the lines that end in central London : the Watford DC line, the Overground Lea Valley lines, the Bakerloo line and the Metropolitan line.

And on the side of the abandoned stuff : Two tunnels between Holborn and Aldwych (not just the Tube, but also the Kingsway Subway), the City Widened lines (tracks still in place) and the Jubilee line tunnels to Charing Cross. This is it.

Now, join the dots. It's just a game, after all...
acs121 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2018, 11:46 PM   #100
mr_jrt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,705
Likes (Received): 138

I still think the W&C would have been best served by a new tunnel from London Road depot to Waterloo under York Rd., with new, straight, 8-car platforms on that, and the platforms lengthened at Bank back towards Mansion House to a similar 8-car length. Then you can decide about a station at Blackfriars.

...for bonus points, project on past London Rd. to Lambeth Palace, Vauxhall, Nine Elms, Battersea and Clapham Junction. Obviously all pre NLE. Still think that should have gone via Vauxhall so the tunnels could be re-purposed later for the W&C.
mr_jrt no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LONDON | Projects & Construction wjfox City/Metro Compilations 24060 Today 12:11 AM
BRAZIL | Urban Transport Compilation mopc Subways and Urban Transport 2245 Yesterday 07:07 PM
Lisboa | Village Underground MarcoSousa Projectos 55 July 12th, 2014 11:32 AM


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us