London | Future of the Underground Network | Vision - Page 13 - 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 October 28th, 2019, 12:41 AM   #241
Stuu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,612
Likes (Received): 990

Quote:
Originally Posted by 437.001 View Post
I like this option.

Wouldn't that need a new tunnel from Baker St to Lewisham to relieve pressure and improve frequencies?

I don't dislike the idea though.

But the cost would be huge.

So for now, Hayes would better be a future Bakerloo extension.
There isn't anywhere sensible to tunnel from near Baker St, it would need to start near West Hampstead, so a tunnel right the way across the city. Or in other words, it's never going to happen
__________________

437.001 liked this post
Stuu no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old October 28th, 2019, 12:46 AM   #242
Stuu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,612
Likes (Received): 990

Quote:
Originally Posted by geogregor View Post
Because everything in the UK cost ludicrous amount of money, just look at the road projects...

There is serious question though, what drives the costs up? Yes, the labour costs are higher in the UK, but not multiple times highers. (and actually lower than in Scandinavia)

Is it the cost of bureaucracy? Protracted planning? Too high specs? Badly run procurement system? There must be a reason.
I have no idea, I have asked this question here and on other sites and never got a remotely sensible answer. Roads is a particularly good example, a mile of road in the UK is identical to a road elsewhere but costs many times as much. And it's nothing to do with the cost of land
__________________

Wilderbeast liked this post
Stuu no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2019, 11:32 AM   #243
geogregor
Registered User
 
geogregor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London
Posts: 22,694
Likes (Received): 46411

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyking View Post
Land value, planning and regulation I'd say, plus generally higher spec in recent years.
Land value can't be responsible for huge disparities. Especially on the underground projects where you only need land above stations and a few shafts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 437.001 View Post
On the other hand, the soil under (most of) Madrid is much better for tunneling than the one under London.
London clay is an excellent material to tunnel through, one of the best you can get.

I'm inclined to say that a lot of cost is due to long and complicated planning and design stages and high specs. But what exactly are those high specs bits? Too much obsession with absolute safety? I really don't know.
geogregor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old October 28th, 2019, 03:53 PM   #244
437.001
Sister Greed U
 
437.001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: on the road (Spain)
Posts: 36,436
Likes (Received): 20487

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuu View Post
There isn't anywhere sensible to tunnel from near Baker St, it would need to start near West Hampstead, so a tunnel right the way across the city. Or in other words, it's never going to happen
Never say never, but it won't happen in our lifetimes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuu View Post
I have no idea, I have asked this question here and on other sites and never got a remotely sensible answer. Roads is a particularly good example, a mile of road in the UK is identical to a road elsewhere but costs many times as much. And it's nothing to do with the cost of land
Quote:
Originally Posted by geogregor View Post
Land value can't be responsible for huge disparities. Especially on the underground projects where you only need land above stations and a few shafts.
"Only" is perhaps "a lot".
See Tottenhan Court Road or Bond Street. Or Canary Wharf.
That's not cheap at all.
And you have to purchase the land. Who owns the land in London?

Quote:
Originally Posted by geogregor View Post
London clay is an excellent material to tunnel through, one of the best you can get.
As long as it's not expansive, no problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by geogregor View Post
I'm inclined to say that a lot of cost is due to long and complicated planning and design stages and high specs. But what exactly are those high specs bits? Too much obsession with absolute safety? I really don't know.
I suspect population density also plays a role.

England is pretty dense, so designing infrastructure is complicated.

In Spain much of the works of HSL's are pretty inexpensive as they run through quite empty regions.

That said, I don't know how expensive it is in Germany, which is even denser than England, in parts.
And Scotland is as empty as most of Spain, yet cheap it is not.

Oh and NIMBY's and lobbies play a role, too, of course.
__________________
&&& a PMRCat ImpTgn Cat2017 WC/CA/EC ImmTGN
Everybody got a job to lose (A.E, Vision Thing, WEA, 1990)

Last edited by 437.001; October 28th, 2019 at 03:59 PM.
437.001 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2019, 04:22 PM   #245
gghdev
Registered User
 
gghdev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: London/Edinburgh
Posts: 150
Likes (Received): 183

This is quite an interesting summary of the issues:
https://economics.stackexchange.com/...e-so-expensive

Many of the points raised here are also raised on the linked thread, although there are some interesting additions such as:

Quote:
Wider construction market issues: The UK has the smallest construction market of the big five countries in Europe which has seen a shift from fixed to variable resources. This means there are less firms investing in construction which leads to higher levels of subcontracting and supply chain specialisation. The report argues that this leads to higher transaction costs along the supply chains.
Quote:
Stop and start investment: The report makes a very interesting argument here whereby it says that the UK's short term investment plan compared to Germany and Frances long term investment plans, allows the latter countries to reduce costs. This is because it allows for opportunity for innovation and the ability to plan work more efficiently. As well as the fact that it generates investor certainty as the projects are more long term.
The primary source for those wanting to read further is here:
https://assets.publishing.service.go...main211210.pdf
__________________
ofanywhere.com/blog

geogregor liked this post
gghdev no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2019, 06:04 AM   #246
bazza667
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 838
Likes (Received): 369

Quote:
Originally Posted by gghdev View Post
This is quite an interesting summary of the issues:
https://economics.stackexchange.com/...e-so-expensive

Many of the points raised here are also raised on the linked thread, although there are some interesting additions such as:





The primary source for those wanting to read further is here:
https://assets.publishing.service.go...main211210.pdf
Is it a case of too many middle men/rent seekers taking the money?
__________________

Stuu liked this post
bazza667 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2019, 01:05 PM   #247
Stuu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,612
Likes (Received): 990

Quote:
Originally Posted by 437.001 View Post
Never say never, but it won't happen in our lifetimes.
Although from my point of view, not in my lifetime is the same as never!

Quote:
Originally Posted by 437.001 View Post
I suspect population density also plays a role.

England is pretty dense, so designing infrastructure is complicated.
Not necessarily. I asked this question about costs on a roads forum, comparing a section of the A303 which is going to be replaced by a dual carriageway with the A54 in Galicia. The A54 cost €7m per km, the A303, in very similar countryside, with no tunnels or viaducts or anything complex, will cost around €40m per km.
Stuu no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2019, 11:12 PM   #248
437.001
Sister Greed U
 
437.001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: on the road (Spain)
Posts: 36,436
Likes (Received): 20487

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuu View Post
Not necessarily. I asked this question about costs on a roads forum, comparing a section of the A303 which is going to be replaced by a dual carriageway with the A54 in Galicia. The A54 cost €7m per km, the A303, in very similar countryside, with no tunnels or viaducts or anything complex, will cost around €40m per km.


Tax system, then?

"Someone" who is collectively taking the piss out of you Brits, and you don't know because you trust "them"?
__________________
&&& a PMRCat ImpTgn Cat2017 WC/CA/EC ImmTGN
Everybody got a job to lose (A.E, Vision Thing, WEA, 1990)
437.001 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2019, 12:46 PM   #249
Stuu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,612
Likes (Received): 990

Quote:
Originally Posted by 437.001 View Post


Tax system, then?

"Someone" who is collectively taking the piss out of you Brits, and you don't know because you trust "them"?
No idea. The thing is UK road and rail construction contracts are all tendered via the OJEU, so companies across Europe can bid for them. If there were huge profits to be made, more companies would bid for them, but they don't seem to bother. This surely means the cost of the actual construction really is higher, but why that is I do not know
Stuu no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 31st, 2019, 01:21 AM   #250
Vyking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 807
Likes (Received): 867

Quote:
Originally Posted by geogregor View Post
Land value can't be responsible for huge disparities. Especially on the underground projects where you only need land above stations and a few shafts.
No but its certainly one of the factors. I think its a case of a lot of factors accumulating rather than any one single thing. It is perplexing.
Vyking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 31st, 2019, 11:06 AM   #251
Stuu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,612
Likes (Received): 990

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyking View Post
No but its certainly one of the factors. I think its a case of a lot of factors accumulating rather than any one single thing. It is perplexing.
It would be useful to know how land purchased for projects such as the Bakerloo line extension is accounted for. I would guess that least 90% of the land acquired will end up being sold on again once construction is complete - so when estimating project costs, does a worst-case resale value get deducted from the cost of the land purchased?

Or is it just the cost of the land and any resale value is outside the scope of the estimate? If it is that way round, then for underground infrastructure that might explain some of the cost discrepancies
__________________

geogregor liked this post
Stuu no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 31st, 2019, 01:47 PM   #252
NCT
Not Cwite There
 
NCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shanghai, London, Nottingham
Posts: 6,751
Likes (Received): 2609

Project appraisal actually consider lifetime net costs over a number of different scenarios. What gets reported in headlines however tends to be upfront gross cost.
__________________
My Shanghai photos - Nanjing Road, People's Square, The Bund, Xintiandi and more!
NCT no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2019, 08:07 PM   #253
Leedsrule
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,629
Likes (Received): 621

Quote:
Originally Posted by 437.001 View Post
So for now, Hayes would better be a future Bakerloo extension.
Bakerloo & Hayes

I also have to admit that with the proposed Bakerloo alignment through Lewisham, it makes far more sense to join the Hayes lines to that. The downside I see is that for passengers on this line, their journey into central London (the city or west end) journey times will increase and comfort potentially decrease. It will simplify the mainline through here though without the Parks Bridge flat junction so the knock on benefits would make it worthwhile (though not necessarily of benefit to TfL at this time).

I also feel that losing Lambeth North station would be a shame. Lambeth has several deadspots with no station within a 10-15 minute walk. The existing station helps this, so perhaps if the line is re-routed a new station could be provided under the London Road depot? Or maybe a new station to serve this area falls under the plans for another line? If a new station elsewhere did replace Lambeth North, could the Bakerloo line afford a new station at Bricklayers Arms, rather than replace Lambeth North? I sort of agree with Southwark Council that a new station here could really catalyse regeneration and development in the area.


New Waterloo & City

Will re-assess the new W&C line in future (always proposed as a new line remember, not an extension of the existing). For the time being though, as much as a link to East Croydon would be well used, it isn’t realistic. For now, I’ve suggested an alternative route through central Lambeth, hitting the tube deadspot mentioned above and facilitating a Vauxhall/Battersea level of redevelopment along the railway and river there. The more I think about adding a station here, the more sensible it seems, actually.



The line would continue underground for around 5km more, hitting several key areas of development potential, with stops in Kennington, Camberwell and Peckham. This is shown below alongside the Bakerloo extension. Rather than Kennington, an interchange at Oval might be better?

Creating a terminus at Peckham Rye seems logical. It's due an upgrade anyway, and it seems fairly straightforward to simplify with the underground platfoms running parallel and inbetween the existing overground ones- with a spacious shared concourse created at street level.



Thamesmead

I think a connection to Thamesmead is desirable, but I think a link between Barking and Beckton is important too. Every plan I've seen seems to have either one or the other. It's going to be a weigh up of how many houses can you build at Thamesmead to make a DLR or Overground extension viable. The thing that makes the difference, in my opinion, is what wider benefit could a new line here have. The DLR wouldn't change much, except very locally, but the Overground could really improve cross-London travel, if a new line did something like this:



Barking to Dartford currently takes around 50 minutes, a journey which wouldn't be improved by a DLR extension. With this extension , journey time would be around 20 minutes. Is that enough of a benefit to justify the cost?

Also, why does no-one discuss the cheaper and more obvious solution- adding a small branch line to Thamesmead from Plumstead for Cannon St. services? If Crossrail is extended to Dartford, a few Cannon St. services could be diverted to instead terminate at Thamesmead, giving them a direct service into the city. Something like this:



How to get people to Canary Wharf

Although I think a connection between Clapham Junction and Canary Wharf would be very useful, I am doubting the viability of the ‘Thameslink 2’ proposal shown on Page 1. Firstly, Silwood Junction would become enormously complicated and the line would still be limited by flat junctions at Old Kent Road and Peckham Rye. This would limit the number of services running though the core, and even if high frequencies could be achieved, is there enough demand for another 24tph service between Stratford and Canary Wharf? For now I've kept it, but feel it needs a re-think.

Given other proposed lines such as Crossrail and the DLR extension would relieve pressure on the Jubilee, perhaps journeys from South and South-West London to Canary Wharf would already be improved. A much cheaper alternative to a 6km underground line, with another £500m station at CW, would be to extend the DLR like so.

In theory, over 40tph could be achieved on the automated DLR through central London (which links to Clapham Junction anyway). At Poplar, we might imagine that each of the three branches gets around 16tph each. This means that only 16tph serves Herons Quay and onwards. So instead of this, could a further 16tph from Stratford join the line through Herons Quay? Additional services from Stratford, Woolwich or this new branch could also run and terminate at Canary Wharf Platfoms 3/4, from either direction.

Then, after Herons Quay, a new junction could take services from Stratford on a new route. One option is a new flat junction as the DLR turns over Admirals Way, which would take up much less space than a grade separated one, and an automated network should be able to deal with a flat junction at that frequency. The line would divert off south-westwards and a new 'Millwall' station would serve the cut-off western edge of the Isle of Dogs. Alternatively, the line would split off after South Quay and head eastwards, to serve a completely different area. This option seems far more sensible to be honest, even though it doesn't really help the Jubilee or improve access from the SW.

[/url]


Crossrail 2 North Proposal

I'm finding myself buying the arguments for the WAML route, which must be a good thing. Surely though, a mostly-overground route to Hertford via Ally Pally would be cheaper and more efficient than the tunnelled branch proposed. I also think there might be a better route to Tottenham. Here, we have an underground junction just after St Pancras, which sends this branch towards Islington. I'm undecided on which intermediate stations would be best- Angel would provide virtually no interchange opportunities so it might as well be a standalone station somewhere north of City Road to best serve Tech City. Alternatively, it might be Hoxton for the interchange options it brings. Then, Hackney makes more sense to me than Dalston as it falls within a London Plan opportunity area. This would involve improving the overground connection between Hackney Central and Hackney Downs, but I’m unsure exactly how the underground station fits in.



The line would surface south of Tottenham Hale. The line would be 4-tracked to Brimsdown with western pair of tracks exclusively for CR2, but these would terminate at Brimsbown with the fast lines continuing. Theres 2 options of how to do this, depending on whether you want some slow services to continue to Brimsdown, which relies on removing the level crossings at Enfield Lock and Cheshunt. You could ask Stansted Airport to fund these works, and in return they will receive 4 Crossrail 2 services per hour, connecting the airport with Stratford. Crossrail 2 fast services would only need to reach 100mph to match the fastest existing services on that line- quite achievable- so CR2 Stansted services would offer an alternative to the Stansted Express, which should serve LS via Stratford.



Option 1 makes journeys from Enfield Lock, Cheshunt and Broxbourne to Brimsdown more difficult (unless low/high level platforms were also added at Brimsdown for interchange), but would allow the level crossing to be closed, so is probably worth it.

This would result in an overall CR2 [peak] service of:
4tph to Stansted Airport direct
6[8]tph to Brimsdown
2tph to Broxbourne
2tph to Stevenage [Letchworth Garden City]
2[4]tph to Hertford north
4[6]tph to Gordon hill
4tph to Finsbury park -or possibly onwards towards New Barnet



The existing 2tph Stratford-Meridian Water service would run on the slow lines shared with CR2 and terminate at Brimsdown. The track arrangement also allows for services like these to skip some stops. There’s also a new station proposed in the long gap between Meridian Water and Ponders End.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuu View Post
I have no idea, I have asked this question here and on other sites and never got a remotely sensible answer. Roads is a particularly good example, a mile of road in the UK is identical to a road elsewhere but costs many times as much. And it's nothing to do with the cost of land
I thought it was down to legal costs more than anything else? Landowners have more rights here, so can drag appeal processes on for years everytime anything is proposed near or though their land. But NIMBYism is less of an issue for new underground lines, so that can't be the answer.
__________________

LondonerN1 liked this post
Leedsrule no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 4th, 2019, 10:25 PM   #254
Stuu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,612
Likes (Received): 990

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leedsrule View Post
I think a connection to Thamesmead is desirable, but I think a link between Barking and Beckton is important too. Every plan I've seen seems to have either one or the other. It's going to be a weigh up of how many houses can you build at Thamesmead to make a DLR or Overground extension viable.
Extending from Barking Riverside looks good on a map, but is it really worth it for 4-5 tph of 4 carriage trains? Getting the DLR there would be much better. DLR to Charlton is a good idea, as is meeting the Bakerloo line. It might work better as a standalone route though, it would mostly have to be underground anyway, at least west of North Greenwich

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leedsrule View Post
I thought it was down to legal costs more than anything else? Landowners have more rights here, so can drag appeal processes on for years everytime anything is proposed near or though their land. But NIMBYism is less of an issue for new underground lines, so that can't be the answer.
I'm not convinced that is true, other countries are just as bad, especially Germany. But my point was about the actual construction contracts, which compare very badly to our continental neighbours. Partly that will be down to the fact we don't actually build very much infrastructure though

Last edited by Stuu; November 4th, 2019 at 10:30 PM.
Stuu no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 5th, 2019, 03:41 AM   #255
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,158
Likes (Received): 697

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leedsrule View Post
It would make more sense to me, if the slow lines were placed between the fast lines. One could then turn slow services without a fly-over near the slow line terminus.
flierfy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2019, 08:03 PM   #256
Leedsrule
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,629
Likes (Received): 621

Masterplan

It really helps to think of this whole thing as a masterplan for the rail and tube network in London. This doesn't mean consistent detailed design, but does require exploring some complex issues in detail to assess their viability and effect, and then zooming right back out to reassess the network as a whole, in the same way an architect approaches any masterplan, even if that means abandoning ideas after scrutiny. I think TfL would benefit from a proper masterplan, assessing the impact of potential projects on one another, to create a clear vision and target for future travel in London.

London's RER
As mentioned before, creating a separate 'crossrail' map would really help clarify inner London train services. I still reckon Thameslink, Crossrail 1&2 and Overground share a similarity to the RER network in Paris. They may not be identical, but they have enough in common to create a brand to encompass them all, resulting in a legible RER-style map for cross-city services.

The definitions of underground and 'crossrail' services would still be:

Quote:
---The London Underground Network is (almost) entirely in London, and has a London-first ethos serving London taxpayers. The Crossrail network has a much broader reach and primarily connects the surrounding regions to the capital and one another.

---The LU network is isolated and dedicated. It does not share tracks, platforms or rolling stock with other services.

---The LU network has a simpler, more legible service pattern. All services call at all stations on that line. Complexities around where exactly services go, such as on the Docklands line, probably need to be resolved. By comparison, Crossrail services are far more complex, with many more destinations and irrregular calling services.

--- LU lines rarely branch off close to the city centre, making them preferable for central London travel.

---Crossrail line frequencies are usually 24tph maximum. LU lines by comparison can reach 36tph. Most importantly, almost all stations on the LU network have a high (6tph+) level of service, with a "turn-up-and-go" ethos and no need to check timetables or wait at the station. Crossrail services are more complex and usually less frequent. Boards like the existing Thameslink ones at Blackfrairs would demonstrate all the information about each service, which wouldnt be needed on the LU network.

---Crossrail trains would generally (not always) be similar to existing Thameslink trains, with mostly rows of seating suitable for commuting. By comparison, London Underground rolling stock would be almost entirely parallel seating with more standing space. On both networks, rolling stock would be compatible on many different lines, although ideally the service will be visible by looking at the train, by colour for example.

---Although pricing on the two would be the same (at least initially), interchange between the two networks often involves tapping out and back in. This may help price differentiation if the technology allows it in future, to encourage longer distance journeys on Crossrail, and central London/ tourist journeys on the Underground.
There are 2 options for the map- the first includes all suburban services into the London termini which might be run under the TfL / NR London / Crossrail umbrella, with consistent branding, rolling stock and network maps wherever possible. The second imagines only the cross-London services shown, with 'London terminals' routes assumed to be controlled and operated separately, even if they share lines with Crossrail in some places.






Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
It would make more sense to me, if the slow lines were placed between the fast lines. One could then turn slow services without a fly-over near the slow line terminus.
The lines are superimposed at Brimsdown on that plan- in reality the fast lines fly over/under the whole station to allow the level crossing to close. You wouldn't need to tunback before here anyway, and for the intermediate stations, platforms on each side are more spatially efficient than an island platform between 4 tracks, as the tracks remain parallel at all times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuu View Post
Extending from Barking Riverside looks good on a map, but is it really worth it for 4-5 tph of 4 carriage trains? Getting the DLR there would be much better. DLR to Charlton is a good idea, as is meeting the Bakerloo line. It might work better as a standalone route though, it would mostly have to be underground anyway, at least west of North Greenwich
Agreed. I'm not sure the number of new homes in Thameslink demands any rail extension, but the overground probably isn't the way to go.

Updated Underground/DLR Map

I really think these DLR extension routes have some merit, and I'm struggling to decide which is more worthwhile. I don't think linking them would be that helpful as it would require a mined underground station at Canary Wharf, which would be very expensive and if you're going to do that, there must be better places to connect it to. The advantage of splitting from the current DLR is that the new branch could still theoretically have 24tph to Canary Wharf* with most continuing to Stratford, without requiring any new underground stations on the Isle of Dogs.

Option 1- Bermondsey
This option mostly serves existing customers who would otherwise go to Canada Water/London Bridge and onto the Jubilee. It would probably support the development of a few thousand homes in Deptford Waterfront which would otherwise be too far from any train station. Mosttly tunnelled which isn't ideal, but all stations should be able to be built using cut-and-cover. Link to Old Kent Road might support developments here, but their route to CW via Lewisham is already fairly straightforward.

Option 2- Charlton
This option mostly serves new development proposals (20000 new homes on Greenwich Peninsula and 3500+ in Charlton), but those proposals would go ahead with or without a new line, with commuters using North Greenwich and the Jubilee westbound. If connected to Chalton mainline, it would also reduce congestion on DLR Lewisham branch. Route option via Cubitt Town would be better than option via N.Greenwich, otherwise you're just putting even more passengers on the Jubilee, and a new station on the Isle of Dogs would be useful. Mostly overground for its entirety, so significantly cheaper.

*Depending on the type of junction to this new branch, Herons Quay might have 16tph Lewisham-Bank, 16tph NEW-Stratford and 8tph NEW-Canary Wharf platform 3/4.

__________________

LondonerN1, VDB liked this post
Leedsrule no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2019, 12:47 AM   #257
geogregor
Registered User
 
geogregor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London
Posts: 22,694
Likes (Received): 46411

@Leedsrule

There is not a chance in hell for Crossrail 2 having any station at Tottenham Court Road. They are just finishing expensive and complicated one for first Crossrail . Nobody is going to touch it for a veeeeery long time...
geogregor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2019, 01:12 AM   #258
LondonerN1
Now in SE10
 
LondonerN1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: London
Posts: 353
Likes (Received): 1113

@Leedsrule – love your route for the DLR from Charlton. Where did you envisage the station 'East Marsh' to be sited?
LondonerN1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2019, 07:36 AM   #259
Leedsrule
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,629
Likes (Received): 621

Quote:
Originally Posted by geogregor View Post
@Leedsrule

There is not a chance in hell for Crossrail 2 having any station at Tottenham Court Road. They are just finishing expensive and complicated one for first Crossrail . Nobody is going to touch it for a veeeeery long time...
I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure TCR was designed so that CR2 could come along later without any effect over ground. Of course if they'd had a bit more foresight and a lot more money they could have already built the CR2 platforms, perhaps with Cross-platform interchange with CR1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LondonerN1 View Post
@Leedsrule – love your route for the DLR from Charlton. Where did you envisage the station 'East Marsh' to be sited?
I thought this might be somewhere around the junction of Peartree way/Bugsby way. I'm sure there's a better name for that station! If planned soon enough, the line could be mostly overground/elevated and continue along Bugsby Way to New Charlton and Charlton ML.
__________________

LondonerN1 liked this post
Leedsrule no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2019, 12:19 PM   #260
DarJoLe
Registered User
 
DarJoLe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 21,558
Likes (Received): 10797

TCR has provision for an eventual CR2.
DarJoLe 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 24072 Today 01:54 AM
BRAZIL | Urban Transport Compilation mopc Subways and Urban Transport 2251 Yesterday 06:09 AM
Lisboa | Village Underground MarcoSousa Projectos 55 July 12th, 2014 11:32 AM


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:27 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