|
|
| Re: London's five-year plan (11409) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: London's five-year plan |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Fri Oct 22 15:32:13 2004, in response to Re: London's five-year plan, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Oct 22 08:26:10 2004. Line C was, however, a bargain. The new tunnel was from Invalides to Orsay.That would explain why the route to the north (lines C1 and C3) starts out going south west, then turns north east! For long distance passengers, London can be a distinct nuisance. Yes but you obviously cannot expect through routes to connect every combination of places served from eleven main line termini, or even every combination of airports. So London is an unavoidable nuisance for through journeys. Try getting from Ipswich to Cardiff. Or for that matter try getting from Leicester to Brighton: Liverpool Street to Paddington via Circle line. Kings Cross / St Pancras to Victoria via Victoria line. Definitely not Thameslink! Remind me, quite how is this an advantage over terminating everything at Holborn Viaduct? I am not happy about the excessive number (twelve) of southern branches planned for Thameslink 2000, especially combined with the mixture of local and long distance routes using the same tracks. There are too many interfaces with the rest of the rail network for a robust and reliable service of 24 tph. I think they should reduce the planned tph through the Snow Hill tunnel, and (yes) continue to terminate more long distance trains at the main line termini. I mean, you could fit a 2-track railway alignment into 25-30ft or so. But you would need four track width for the junction at Monument, unless it's a flat junction. |
|
|
|