|
|
| Re: London news (61084) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
|
| (62869) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sun Mar 13 07:19:48 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by davesgcr on Sun Mar 13 06:59:33 2005. My greateast "concern" is the fate of the swathes of 1930s suburbia - some of which is now ageing badly and despite having good transport links all round (which is why they came into being) are in danger of blight as age creeps in and the desirabity of their status falls through traffic / obsolescence and decay - I cannot think of anyone I know who has really willingly moved in to one.Most attractive are either trendy "inner" areas (where life cycle allows - i.e. no kids) - or the "greenbelt" beyond the M25 ring and attractive towns with fast transport links into mainline terminii.(and often good schools and amenities)A lot of those areas need to be bought up en masse and redeveloped. Some of them have excellent transport links and are distinctly suitable for densification. That should relieve the housing shortage to an extent. The rest can be achieved by perforating the mediaevalistic city wall type green belt in strategic location and restricting development in the real countryside. Not all 1930s suburbs are deteriorating - there remain many excellent , well kept and thriving areas.One of the issues is "genalised travelling time" (the journey to say Stanmore is the same as that to greenbelt Leighton Buzzard or Berkhampstead.Commuting flows on suburnban rail continue to grow - partly as a factor of cheaper fares per mile than Tube fares. Too much has been built in small towns. There needs to be a stop put to wrecking the shires and wrecking London. |
|
|
| (62890) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Sun Mar 13 09:38:05 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Sat Mar 12 20:44:20 2005. Isn’t the greater tragedy that the wealth and economic development not spread out more in the UK? |
|
|
| (62964) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sun Mar 13 12:46:52 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by JohnL on Sun Mar 13 09:38:05 2005. Isn’t the greater tragedy that the wealth and economic development not spread out more in the UK?Oh, totally. There need to be tax breaks for companies which move out of London. But even so, there's been a lot of house price inflation in the rest of the country. The average flat in Birmingham now costs £128,242, which is 325% inflation over the last decade (in 1995, one would have cost £39,492) - over ten times the general rate of inflation. The only place in the West Midlands where property is still cheap-ish is in the rough parts of West Bromwich, where you can still get decent flats under 40 grand - they get even cheaper on the ground floor, but you wouldn't want one of those! |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (62967) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by davesgcr on Sun Mar 13 13:18:04 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by JohnL on Sun Mar 13 09:38:05 2005. Regional inequality (let alone inequality within regions) - exists despite over 50 years of interventionist Goverment policies.The differences would be even greater without subsidies / transfers of civil servants and many infrastruture schemes.However - we dont have 30%+ unemployment in some towns in the North East and Wales thatwas found in the 1930S.The shame is we dont spend enough on (rail) infrastruture - but compared to Europe - the economy isnt bad !Mind you with rail having a 6% market share (and much of that in the London and SE area) to get more spent in the regions would be a triumph of faith. |
|
|
| (62970) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sun Mar 13 13:34:38 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by JohnL on Sat Mar 12 13:13:52 2005. They'd want to live in Hounslow for the same reason we here would want to live in Elmont,Laurelton, Rosedale, Howard Beach, South Ozone Park, Inwood, etc. It's definintely better now that Concorde service is done, but it can get noisy at times. Try standing at 149th Avenue and Springfield Boulevard while the planes are landing and you'll get the picture.wayne |
|
|
| (63320) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Mon Mar 14 09:34:07 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by David Fairthorne on Sat Mar 12 21:39:44 2005. "I don't think there's anything much wrong with Hounslow, but I wouldn't call it "upscale" either. Apart from the aircraft noise, it's just a typical London suburb that became built-up when the Piccadilly underground line was built in 1933"Hounslow isn't upscale. But it developed into a suburb well before the airport, with its noise, arrived. Subsequent additional development has been influenced by the airport's presence, with industrail estates occupying the noisiest areas rather than residential development. The Hounslow line was built by the Metropolitan District Railway to 'Hounslow Barracks' - now Hounslow West - before 1900, and electrified by them in the early 1900s. Piccadilly Line trains took over the line after the creation of London Transport in 1933 - one of the reasons for extending the Piccadilly Line past Hammersmith at that time was the fact that the District Line had too many Western branches for the capacity of its two-track main line through Central London. There was no actual extension of the original route in 1933. That didn't happen until 1977 when the extension to Heathrow Central (now Heathrow Terminals 1,2,3) station opened. |
|
|
| (63321) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Mon Mar 14 09:38:20 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Sat Mar 12 14:24:54 2005. "See the Piccadilly Line loop, with stations at T123 and T4. Hatton Cross is the station where the loop joins up. The next station is Hounslow West. The one after that is Hounslow Central."Just to confuse the unwary, the town centre of Hounslow is near Hounslow East station, which has recently been rebuilt. Hounslow Central - a small island platform station - is actually in a district called Lampton. Hounslow West is a separate, newer neighbourhood with its own shopping centre round the station; before the extension of the line to Heathrow it was a significant tube-bus interchange point. |
|
|
| (63323) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Mon Mar 14 09:46:47 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by AlM on Fri Mar 11 20:04:07 2005. "Oh, and the ends of the Tube are in the country, way beyond suburbs!"Only a few of them - the Central Line into Essex and the Metropolitan Line into Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire. Most are well inside the Greater London Authority's boundaries: some of the northern ones (Stanmore, Edgware, Cockfosters) are close to the GLA boundary, the same way Woodlawn and Wakefield are in the Bronx. |
|
|
| (63326) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Peter Rosa on Mon Mar 14 09:53:50 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Fytton on Mon Mar 14 09:46:47 2005. Oh, and the ends of the Tube are in the country, way beyond suburbs!Only a few of them - the Central Line into Essex and the Metropolitan Line into Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire. The terminals of the Metropolitan line in Uxbridge and Watford may be remote from the center, but they're certainly not rural in any way, nothing like Epping on the Central line. I don't know about Chesham and Amersham. My LIRR/NYCT blog |
|
|
| (63359) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Mar 14 11:18:59 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Fytton on Mon Mar 14 09:38:20 2005. And to be even more confusing, you'll probably get to London quicker from "Hounslow" (South Western) station. |
|
|
| (63360) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Mar 14 11:21:08 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Peter Rosa on Mon Mar 14 09:53:50 2005. The terminals of the Metropolitan line in Uxbridge and Watford may be remote from the center, but they're certainly not rural in any wayUxbridge is surprising. You're actually within 10-15 minutes walk of open country there. |
|
|
| (63362) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Mon Mar 14 11:26:32 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Mar 14 11:18:59 2005. Yes, but in a totally useless place. Factor in 15 minutes for finding the Underground, finding the right line, and then waiting for the next train to take you to where you actually wanted to go to begin with. |
|
|
| (63363) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Mon Mar 14 11:28:31 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Mar 14 11:21:08 2005. Try Perth in Scotland. From right in the middle of the town centre you can see lush green hills practically next door. |
|
|
| (63366) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Mar 14 11:41:19 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Max Roberts on Mon Mar 14 11:26:32 2005. Yes, but in a totally useless place.Waterloo isn't totally useless - it's quite good if you're going to the City (use the Drain) and it's just across the Hungerford Bridge from the West End. Also, if you're trying to get from Hounslow to somewhere in South London, Clapham Junction is usually the best place to change. |
|
|
| (63368) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Mon Mar 14 11:45:55 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Mar 14 11:41:19 2005. I thought Max meant Hounslow (South West Trains) station is in a useless place! It is in the south of Hounslow, much further from the town centre than Hounslow East tube station is. Of course, if you happen to live right by Hounslow station, that's fine! |
|
|
| (63374) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Mon Mar 14 11:55:10 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Mar 14 11:41:19 2005. You didn't qualify location in your previous post. What you should have said is:If you wish to go to Westminster or anywhere east of there, St Paul's or anywhere east of there (except Saturday evenings and Sundays), or Charing Cross/Pimlico or anywhere south of there, then travel on a train to Waterloo will probably be quicker. Of course, if you just miss your train at Hounslow BR you are screwed, as they only run every 30 minutes. Useless. Main problem with the Piccadilly Line is too many stops in west London. Get rid of Turnham Green, Barons Court, and Gloucester Road, and improve the interchange at South Kensington. |
|
|
| (63387) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Mar 14 12:25:09 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by brooklynQB on Sat Mar 12 22:17:20 2005. China is a city? LOLSeriously, I wouldn't want London to become like Tokyo. NYC has its own share of abandoned/undeveloped land within the city and across the river in Jersey, even though the Jersey front is quickly changing. |
|
|
| (63390) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Mar 14 12:29:06 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Max Roberts on Mon Mar 14 11:55:10 2005. Nice idea but I'd like to keep the across the platform interchange at Barons Ct. |
|
|
| (63391) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Mar 14 12:30:29 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Peter Rosa on Sat Mar 12 14:48:05 2005. You can see sheeps if you take the bus from Heathrow to London. |
|
|
| (63394) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Mon Mar 14 12:39:43 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by brooklynQB on Sat Mar 12 22:17:20 2005. As a resident of London for 18 years from 1966 to 1985, it was the green bits and open spaces that made living there bearable. Miles and miles of uninterrupted houses and urban motorways? Yuck, no thanks.Also, given that London's roads and Undergrounds are at capacity, how are all these extra people going to travel? Currently, I live at the pleasant riverside town of Wivenhoe in Essex (population 10,000). It is a 15 minute walk to the local station, and trains take me to London in 1hr 15 minutes. Even if I were to take a job in London, I can't imagine any new housing developments of decline in prices that would tempt me back. Not many photos of Wivenhoe on line, but try this page (its not mine): http://www.mike.varley.btinternet.co.uk/Wivenhoe/wivenhoe.htm |
|
|
| (63395) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Mon Mar 14 12:40:20 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Mar 14 12:29:06 2005. but they have one at Hammersmith |
|
|
| (63397) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Mar 14 12:42:46 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Max Roberts on Mon Mar 14 11:55:10 2005. if you just miss your train at Hounslow BR you are screwed, as they only run every 30 minutes.That was true until last December, when the off-peak service was doubled by making more trains stop on the Hounslow loop. |
|
|
| (63399) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Mon Mar 14 12:44:43 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Mar 14 12:42:46 2005. How about evenings and Sundays? |
|
|
| (63402) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Mar 14 12:49:24 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Max Roberts on Mon Mar 14 12:44:43 2005. How about evenings and Sundays?Weekday evenings and Saturdays: every 15 minutes. Sundays: one train per hour. |
|
|
| (63408) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Peter Rosa on Mon Mar 14 12:59:28 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Max Roberts on Mon Mar 14 12:39:43 2005. Currently, I live at the pleasant riverside town of Wivenhoe in Essex (population 10,000). It is a 15 minute walk to the local station, and trains take me to London in 1hr 15 minutes. Even if I were to take a job in London, I can't imagine any new housing developments of decline in prices that would tempt me back.Not many photos of Wivenhoe on line, but try this page (its not mine): http://www.mike.varley.btinternet.co.uk/Wivenhoe/wivenhoe.htm Not a bad-looking town. Anyway, your comment about the trains to London got me thinking ... London's Greenbelt development limits work well in part because of the massive commuter rail network. People who live beyond the Greenbelt nonetheless can commute into central London quite easily thanks to all the trains. If you had a similar development limit around an auto-oriented American city,* people who couldn't afford to live within the development limit, and therefore had to live in outlying areas, often would be faced with unacceptably long drives into work. * = IIRC Portland has a Greenbelt-style development restriction, but it's not that large of a city and also has a decent light-rail system. My LIRR/NYCT blog |
|
|
| (63411) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Mar 14 13:05:46 2005, in response to London news, posted by Fytton on Wed Mar 9 05:28:45 2005. In other news, the Croydon Guardian reports that the most popular extension to the Croydon Tramlink would be from Streatham to Purley via Thornton Heath and Croydon. However Mayor Livingstone's plan would extend it to Crystal Palace.I prefer the more popular route, which used to be one of the busiest tramlines in London. I would also like the Victoria line extended from Brixton to Streatham. Of course that would be far more expensive than the Crystal Palace route. |
|
|
| (63419) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Mon Mar 14 13:17:22 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Mar 14 13:05:46 2005. There is a lot of traffic congestion along the 109 bus route, so there is a risk that a tram with on-street running would be a shambles. Thats why they were got rid of to begin with.I think that if any tube venture south, it will be the Northern Line that goes direct to Streatham. The Victoria Line seems to have been intended to go to Herne Hill and Tulse Hill. We won't see anything at all with Crossrail and ELX clogging up the planning process, as long as they sit there getting more and more bloated and ridiculous, nothing else will be done. As I said in a post some time ago, when you actually look at current and projected overcrowding, it now looks as though Chelsea-Hackney should be the biggest priority. Unfortunately, that seems to have been hijacked to become a grandiose and impossibly expensive scheme too. |
|
|
| (63430) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Mar 14 13:58:38 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Max Roberts on Mon Mar 14 13:17:22 2005. there is a risk that a tram with on-street running would be a shambles. Thats why they were got rid of to begin with.You are probably right. The same argument applies to the proposed west London tram route along the Uxbridge Road. We won't see anything at all with Crossrail and ELX clogging up the planning process, The downsized Crossrail is terribly expensive for what it is, and they still haven't figured out who will pay for it. My feeling is that the ELL extension money could have been better spent, but it's probably too late now. Then there's Thameslink 2000, which is still in the pipeline; there's supposed to be another public inquiry soon. I have my doubts about that plan too, because I don't see the need for 24 tph through the Thames link, and I doubt if it's practical to run so many relatively infrequent and long distance services via that route. So what would be worthwhile? I suggest: South: An underground extension into south central London, starting in the direction of Streatham. Southeast: Construction of the missing platform 7 at London Bridge (replacing platform 8), allowing all trains to stop there. Southwest: Platform extensions on the suburban lines from Waterloo, allowing 10 or 12 car trains to run. Canary Wharf could perhaps be served by extending the Metropolitan line from Aldgate, as Rail Blue has suggested. |
|
|
| (63515) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Mar 14 17:22:13 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Max Roberts on Mon Mar 14 11:55:10 2005. Of course, if you just miss your train at Hounslow BR you are screwed, as they only run every 30 minutes. Useless.It's better than that now. 6tph off-peak (4 via Brentford, 2 via Richmond). |
|
|
| (63549) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Mar 14 18:25:48 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Mar 14 13:58:38 2005. The downsized Crossrail is terribly expensive for what it is, and they still haven't figured out who will pay for it.It doesn't even go to the right places. The real capacity bottlenecks are at Lewisham and Raynes Park. South: An underground extension into south central London, starting in the direction of Streatham. Agreed. Southeast: Construction of the missing platform 7 at London Bridge (replacing platform 8), allowing all trains to stop there. And 4-tracking through Borough Market Junction. Southwest: Platform extensions on the suburban lines from Waterloo, allowing 10 or 12 car trains to run. Not sensible. There is no practicable way of lengthening platforms 1-4 at Waterloo. Besides, the frequencies suck on the branches - there need to be more trains, not longer ones. |
|
|
| (63570) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Mar 14 19:21:38 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Max Roberts on Mon Mar 14 12:40:20 2005. Oops! I somehow forgot it was the next station. Ok, skip Barons Court! |
|
|
| (63667) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Mar 14 22:51:25 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Mar 14 18:25:48 2005. It doesn't even go to the right places.I don't think there is a real shortage of track capacity on the proposed Crossrail Paddington line, as they run some absurdly short trains (3 cars) even in the peak hours. The Crossrail Shenfield line capacity could be increased by platform lengthening. The real capacity bottlenecks are at Lewisham and Raynes Park. That suggests that a better Crossrail route would run between Lewisham and Raynes Park. Hard to do above ground because of those brick viaducts, and I'm not sure if there is room for more tracks on the surface as you get near Lewisham or Raynes Park. It would probably have to go underground, and ideally it should run via the City and West End. And 4-tracking through Borough Market Junction. Without Thameslink 2000 or something similar, that may not be strictly necessary, but there could be some operational simplification in that the fast and slow tracks could be kept separate. The limiting factor is not so much the viaduct but the platform capacity of Charing Cross and London Bridge stations. Overcrowding on the South Eastern could be alleviated by completing the suburban platform lengthening to 12 cars and actually running 12 car trains. There is no practicable way of lengthening platforms 1-4 at Waterloo. Platform extensions to the south would block the station approach. Platform extensions to the north would encroach on the concourse. However you could reduce the number of platforms and lenghthen the remaining ones. To run more trains you would need better signalling. Double-decker suburban trains are another possibility, but there may not be enough height. |
|
|
| (63743) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Tue Mar 15 04:43:10 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Mar 14 12:49:24 2005. Every 30 minutes after 22:00 approx.Have you seen how they have done this? They have simply made the Weybridge trains all-stations, adding 15 minutes to the schedule and ruined the service to Ashford, Feltham, and Staines in the process. |
|
|
| (63744) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Tue Mar 15 04:53:03 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Sun Mar 13 07:19:48 2005. Disagree completely. Wivenhoe in Essex could easily have 1000 people added to it and no one would notice, except for the local shopkeepers who would get welcome extra business, and of course the local railway station, perhaps a 30 minute interval service to Clacton would be justified.The most obvious places to build are railway stations serving small villages, not towns which are already getting congested, but the smaller locations. As a rule of thumb, any railway station beyond the green belt, which has empty space 15 minutes walk from a railway station or less, should have that space built on. Wivenhoe, Arlesford, Great Bentley, and Weeley on my line could between them swallow a lot of extra houses. How about Wickford to Southminster? There are a lot of people who don't like living on matchboxes on top of everyone else. Once the demand of people who like living that way is satisfied, demand will move elsewhere. The outer suburbs (Southgate etc.) just need looking after. Years of rate-capping and other ways of controlling municiple spending (such as making the south pay for the north) has made them tatty. |
|
|
| (63745) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Mar 15 04:57:23 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Mar 14 22:51:25 2005. That suggests that a better Crossrail route would run between Lewisham and Raynes Park. Hard to do above ground because of those brick viaducts, and I'm not sure if there is room for more tracks on the surface as you get near Lewisham or Raynes Park. It would probably have to go underground, and ideally it should run via the City and West End.The western part would be very easy. You make Wimbledon (District) station through, and put in a flyover immediately SW of the station. That can take over the Sutton/Epsom/Chessington Lines, leaving enough capacity on the Main Slow for everything else. Then you build the proposed Chelney alignment under the King's Road from Parson's Green to Victoria (intermediate stops at Chelsea West, Chelsea, Sloane Sq). Continue it under the parks to Charing X, then under the Strand (Aldwych), Fleet St (Ludgate Circus), Ludgate Hill, St Paul's Chyd, Cannon St (Cannon St - Monument), Gracechurch St, Fenchurch St (Fenchurch St - Aldgate), Aldgate, Aldgate High St, Whitechapel High St, Commercial Rd, West India Dock Rd, then some alignment through the Isle of Dogs (Canary Wharf), then via either Deptford or Greenwich to an underground station at Lewisham, with ramps up South of the station to the SE Main Slow and Mid Kent Lines. And 4-tracking through Borough Market Junction. Without Thameslink 2000 or something similar, that may not be strictly necessary, but there could be some operational simplification in that the fast and slow tracks could be kept separate. The limiting factor is not so much the viaduct but the platform capacity of Charing Cross and London Bridge stations. Overcrowding on the South Eastern could be alleviated by completing the suburban platform lengthening to 12 cars and actually running 12 car trains. Even without sending the trains to the Great Northern, there is spare terminal capacity at Blackfriars. The problem is that Blackfriars is a bit of a middle-of-nowhere station. Platform extensions to the south would block the station approach. Platform extensions to the north would encroach on the concourse. However you could reduce the number of platforms and lenghthen the remaining ones. To run more trains you would need better signalling. Double-decker suburban trains are another possibility, but there may not be enough height. Reducing the number of platforms at Waterloo is the last thing anyone wants. You need a lot of platforms when you have 8 approach tracks. Double deckers wouldn't work without altering practically every overbridge. |
|
|
| (63746) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Tue Mar 15 05:03:44 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Mar 15 04:57:23 2005. Where does Waterloo come in terms of how effectively the platform space is used? I suspect that Charing Cross and Fenchurch Street (possibly even Marylebone) do better. Maybe some personnel should be transferred? |
|
|
| (63756) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Tue Mar 15 07:05:25 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Mar 15 04:57:23 2005. "And 4-tracking through Borough Market Junction.""Without Thameslink 2000 or something similar, that may not be strictly necessary, but there could be some operational simplification in that the fast and slow tracks could be kept separate. The limiting factor is not so much the viaduct but the platform capacity of Charing Cross and London Bridge stations. Overcrowding on the South Eastern could be alleviated by completing the suburban platform lengthening to 12 cars and actually running 12 car trains." "Even without sending the trains to the Great Northern, there is spare terminal capacity at Blackfriars. The problem is that Blackfriars is a bit of a middle-of-nowhere station." That's not the only problem. If Thameslink 2000 isn't done, trains proceeding from London Bridge to Blackfriars still have the flat junction at Metropolitan Junction, so that Blackfriars-bound trains cross trains coming out of Charing Cross on the level. |
|
|
| (63768) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Tue Mar 15 08:01:23 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Mar 14 22:51:25 2005. "Double-decker suburban trains are another possibility, but there may not be enough height."An experimental eight-car double-decker train (the two 4-DD units) ran on the Southern Electric system in the 1950s. It was tricky to design a double-deck car that would fit the UK loading gauge, and both decks lacked headroom and felt quite claustrophobic. It was deemed a failure not for that reason, though, but because the time to unload a whole rush-hour trainload of passengers at a central London terminus was too long - remember we were comparing it with the old 'door to every seating bay' slam-door stock. The two 4-DDs did run for quite a few years, though, and I saw them in service several times. Eventually the 'ten-car scheme', involving purchase of some 2-car units and lengthening of station platforms, was undertaken as an alternative method of increasing rush-hour capacity. |
|
|
| (63772) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Tue Mar 15 08:11:42 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Fytton on Tue Mar 15 08:01:23 2005. These days, double-deckers make use of the space between the wheels, with a low slung underframe. Would that work better? The 4DD had a conventional underframe. |
|
|
| (63775) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Tue Mar 15 08:23:34 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Peter Rosa on Mon Mar 14 12:59:28 2005. 'Anyway, your comment about the trains to London got me thinking ... London's Greenbelt development limits work well in part because of the massive commuter rail network. People who live beyond the Greenbelt nonetheless can commute into central London quite easily thanks to all the trains. If you had a similar development limit around an auto-oriented American city,* people who couldn't afford to live within the development limit, and therefore had to live in outlying areas, often would be faced with unacceptably long drives into work.'A very percipient analysis, Peter. In effect, many other UK cities *do* have green belts without the train services, and do have bad rush-hour traffic problems as a consequence. The reality is that you can't really divorce town-planning policies from transport policies. Available transport links will determine which remote towns and villages will get suburbanised (or at least commuterised) and which won't. They will also determine house prices - other things being equal, accessible places will cost more than inaccessible ones. One English reality that seems to distinguish us from our continental neighbours, and even from the Scots,is that most people don't want to live in cities. They want to live in villages or country towns, but of course when too many of them move there, the villages and country towns lose their rural character! Whic is what James means when he says that green belt policies have been bad for both city and country. However, James says 20 million people wqould like to live in London. I doubt it. Certainly, more than live there now would like to, which is why house prices are so high there. And possibly 20 million (or their breadwinners, anyway) would like to work there. But, as Max says, a lot of them like living away from the big city and commuting to it. The green belt policies that James disagrees with aren't there by the action of a dictatorial government; they have been left in place by successive governements of both main parties, because they are popular! |
|
|
| (63777) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Tue Mar 15 08:29:33 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Fytton on Tue Mar 15 08:23:34 2005. If we ever got Chesea-Hackney in its original form, I might be persuaded to move the green belt around the eastern end of the Central Line. Its mad having an under-used transport asset like this when there are houses being built in places with worse transport.Any other rail lines (Underground and Suburban) not realising their potential because of green belt? Possibly the line down to Epsom Downs. |
|
|
| (63779) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Tue Mar 15 08:35:46 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by davesgcr on Sun Mar 13 07:17:23 2005. "and inner East London /Lea valley"In a recent thread here, somone commented that the Liverpool St-Enfield Town national rail line seemed threatening, in the Tottenham-Edmonton area. The recent IKEA midnight riot was in Edmonton! I can't speak from personal experience, since I haven't been there for years - Edmonton just seems ordinary, on the surface. It's not 'inner East London' though it is 'Lea Valley'. "the walk from Kings Cross to Kings Cross Thameslink via the street -is now - at least in daylight hours - massively better than it used to be" Agreed. The shops on either side of Pentonville Road are being renovated (they were mostly empty) along with the floors above them, which I guess are going to be apartments. It's part of a clean-up operation for the Kings Cross area in advance of the opening of the Eurostar terminus there in 2007. Of course, if St Pancras Thameslink station gets finished, Kings Cross Thameslink station will close, and passengers transferring won't need to walk along Pentonville Road anyway! |
|
|
| (63781) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Tue Mar 15 08:40:11 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Max Roberts on Tue Mar 15 08:29:33 2005. "I might be persuaded to move the green belt around the eastern end of the Central Line. Its mad having an underused transport asset like this when there are houses being built in places with worse transport."Exactly. Even for those of us that like the Green Belt, the case for that amendment is very strong. The old RAF base at Fairlop should be taken out of the Green Belt and get houses built on it. Fairlop and its neighbour Barkingside are two of the least patronised stations on the Underground. The New York parallel must be the Rockaways - areas of oceanfront lots unoccupied, with an underused subway line running past them! |
|
|
| (63874) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Mar 15 12:19:31 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Max Roberts on Tue Mar 15 04:43:10 2005. They have simply made the Weybridge trains all-stationsThey are providing the desired 4 tph at minimum cost, and they have slowed down the schedule to improve punctuality! |
|
|
| (63876) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Tue Mar 15 12:38:37 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Mar 15 12:19:31 2005. Well, taking this to its logical conclusion, lets make all services all stations.This is the 10:00 Flying Scotsman service to Edinburgh, calling at Finsbury Park, Hornsey, Harringay, Alexandra Palace... And due to arrive at Edinburgh at 14:00 ... tomorrow |
|
|
| (63880) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Mar 15 12:46:37 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Fytton on Tue Mar 15 07:05:25 2005. the flat junction at Metropolitan JunctionI don't think that would be a limiting factor, because you can run many more tph between stations than stopping at stations. Blackfriars could provide a limited amount of extra terminal capacity to supplement Charing Cross and Cannon Street, provided there were not too many trains through London Bridge. Each through platform at London Bridge can only handle from about 15 to 20 tph, depending on the time of day and rolling stock. But there is another complication: because Cannon Street trains can use only three platforms at London Bridge, some Cannon Street trains return empty to Grove Park depot via Blackfriars sidings, where they reverse. That one-track link to Blackfriars should probably be two-tracked. |
|
|
| (63882) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Mar 15 12:52:46 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Max Roberts on Tue Mar 15 12:38:37 2005. Well, taking this to its logical conclusion, lets make all services all stations.That's logical! The 4 tph was, I believe, Mayor Livingstone's idea, but I don't think it should be carved in stone. |
|
|
| (63885) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Mar 15 13:02:52 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Fytton on Tue Mar 15 08:01:23 2005. An experimental eight-car double-decker train (the two 4-DD units) ran on the Southern Electric system in the 1950s.There were too many people per door, which increased dwell times, so they lengthened the platforms for 10 cars instead. The South Western differs from the South Eastern in that (a) there are fewer overhead obstructions, and (b) platform lengthening would be difficult at Waterloo. |
|
|
| (63886) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Mar 15 13:21:49 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Max Roberts on Tue Mar 15 05:03:44 2005. Where does Waterloo come in terms of how effectively the platform space is used?In the busiest hour (8 to 9) Charing Cross turns 29 trains on six platforms, and Fenchurch Street turns 20 trains on four platforms. So five tph per platform is about the most possible. Of course longer distance trains need more time to turn. Excluding Eurostar, Waterloo turns about 55 trains on nineteen platforms; call it three tph per platform, which should be plenty. When Eurostar moves to St. Pancras there will be five more available platforms, which should be more than enough. |
|
|
| (63901) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Mar 15 15:23:07 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Mar 15 04:57:23 2005. The western part would be very easy. You make Wimbledon (District) station through, and put in a flyover immediately SW of the station. That can take over the Sutton/Epsom/Chessington Lines, leaving enough capacity on the Main Slow for everything else.Then you build the proposed Chelney alignment under the King's Road from Parson's Green to Victoria (intermediate stops at Chelsea West, Chelsea, Sloane Sq). Continue it under the parks to Charing X, then under the Strand (Aldwych), Fleet St (Ludgate Circus), Ludgate Hill, St Paul's Chyd, Cannon St (Cannon St - Monument), Gracechurch St, Fenchurch St (Fenchurch St - Aldgate), Aldgate, Aldgate High St, Whitechapel High St, Commercial Rd, West India Dock Rd, then some alignment through the Isle of Dogs (Canary Wharf), then via either Deptford or Greenwich to an underground station at Lewisham, with ramps up South of the station to the SE Main Slow and Mid Kent Lines. I certainly agree with your end points (Raynes Park and Lewisham), and I like your choice of outer branches, but I'm not so sure about your tunnel alignment because I think it follows the District line too closely and doesn't serve the West End very well. Also I would prefer fewer stations, to reduce construction costs (and travel times). Using the Wimbledon branch of the District line could reduce the tunnel length, but I am not sure what would become of the remainder of that branch; and I don't think the new line should share tracks with the District line. Between Raynes Park and Lewisham I suggest stopping only at Wimbledon, Clapham Junction, Victoria, Piccadilly Circus, Tottenham Court Road, Farringdon, Liverpool Street/Moorgate and Canary Wharf. That gives you the needed capacity to some of the busiest places, and everywhere else can be reached by other means. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
