|
Why The Circle Line?
On Mar 6, 6:14*pm, D DB 90001 wrote:
I agree that it would be costly, but not as costly as a new circle line. .. . . . In addition, building a new line would require a lot of new stations, Agreed all this would be very expensive and disruptive. Removal of all the flat junctions on the existing Circle is just not practical, nor do I believe it is necessary. Some selective work might be worthwhile however. When I worked in London and used the line regularly, the Junction at Baker Street often seemed particularly difficult to manage. Lack of capacity at the Aldgate terminus seemed to force immediate turnback of Metropolitan trains arriving there, resulting in convoys of met trains waiting on the westbound at Baker Street to access platform 2 whilst platform 6 remained resolutely empty for extended periods of time as various H&Cs & Circles sat patiently at the back of the queue. This might be addressed by a larger terminal for the met, allowing better ordering and regulation of the westbound flow, and with the demise of Thameslink to Moorgate I believe this opportunity has now arisen to establish such a station at Moorgate. The flat junction conflict at Baker Street is perhaps less of a problem in the sense that there is potential eastbound Circle/H&C path across the junction behind each of these westbound mets, but each train approaching from Edgware Rd is severely limited in approach speed because of the short overlap distance at the end of platform 5, and this impacts capacity. A grade separation here could improve matters for both the H&C & Circle lines. Anyway purely for my own interest I've drawn up some of these ideas, and any constructive comments from the group would be most welcome! See my proposals here - http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf -- Mark |
Why The Circle Line?
"mark townend" wrote in message ... On Mar 6, 6:14 pm, D DB 90001 wrote: I agree that it would be costly, but not as costly as a new circle line. . . . . In addition, building a new line would require a lot of new stations, Agreed all this would be very expensive and disruptive. Removal of all the flat junctions [......snip....] Anyway purely for my own interest I've drawn up some of these ideas, and any constructive comments from the group would be most welcome! See my proposals here - http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf With a spelling error, and a punctuation error, in the very first sentence of that document, I cannot see anyone with clout bothering to read any further, no matter how laudable the prposals seem to be. |
Why The Circle Line?
"Ian" wrote in message ... "mark townend" wrote in message ... On Mar 6, 6:14 pm, D DB 90001 wrote: I agree that it would be costly, but not as costly as a new circle line. . . . . In addition, building a new line would require a lot of new stations, Agreed all this would be very expensive and disruptive. Removal of all the flat junctions [......snip....] Anyway purely for my own interest I've drawn up some of these ideas, and any constructive comments from the group would be most welcome! See my proposals here - http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf With a spelling error, and a punctuation error, in the very first sentence of that document, I cannot see anyone with clout bothering to read any further, no matter how laudable the proposals seem to be. |
Why The Circle Line?
On Mar 8, 9:49*am, "Ian" wrote:
"mark townend" wrote in message ... On Mar 6, 6:14 pm, D DB 90001 wrote: I agree that it would be costly, but not as costly as a new circle line.. . . . . In addition, building a new line would require a lot of new stations, Agreed all this would be very expensive and disruptive. Removal of all the flat junctions [......snip....] Anyway purely for my own interest I've drawn up some of these ideas, and any constructive comments from the group would be most welcome! See my proposals here - http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf With a spelling error, and a punctuation error, in the very first sentence of that document, I cannot see anyone with clout bothering to read any further, no matter how laudable the prposals seem to be. Thank you for checking my document. I've made changes & uploaded a new version. http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf -- Mark |
Why The Circle Line?
"mark townend" wrote in message ... On Mar 8, 9:49 am, "Ian" wrote: "mark townend" wrote in message ... On Mar 6, 6:14 pm, D DB 90001 wrote: I agree that it would be costly, but not as costly as a new circle line. . . . . In addition, building a new line would require a lot of new stations, Agreed all this would be very expensive and disruptive. Removal of all the flat junctions [......snip....] Anyway purely for my own interest I've drawn up some of these ideas, and any constructive comments from the group would be most welcome! See my proposals here - http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf With a spelling error, and a punctuation error, in the very first sentence of that document, I cannot see anyone with clout bothering to read any further, no matter how laudable the prposals seem to be. Thank you for checking my document. I've made changes & uploaded a new version. http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf --------------------------------------------- Better. Try again. Hint: remember a shirt has ONE Collar and TWO Sleeves. -- Ian |
Why The Circle Line?
On Mar 8, 3:23*pm, "Ian" wrote:
Better. Try again. Hint: remember a shirt has ONE Collar and TWO Sleeves. Revision 2 http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf -- Mark |
Why The Circle Line?
"mark townend" wrote in message ... On Mar 8, 3:23 pm, "Ian" wrote: Better. Try again. Hint: remember a shirt has ONE Collar and TWO Sleeves. Revision 2 http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf I suspect it may be necessary to do Revision 3..... :o) -- Ian |
Why The Circle Line?
"mark townend" wrote in message
... Anyway purely for my own interest I've drawn up some of these ideas, and any constructive comments from the group would be most welcome! See my proposals here - http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf The main problem seems to be that any capacity you gain by grade separating Baker Street Jn, would be lost by the new conflicts at Moorgate, where all terminating Mets have to cross over in front of westbound Circle/H&Cs. Peter Smyth |
Why The Circle Line?
On Mar 8, 6:24*pm, "Peter Smyth" wrote:
"mark townend" *wrote in message ... Anyway purely for my own interest I've drawn up some of these ideas, and any constructive comments from the group would be most welcome! See my proposals here - http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf The main problem seems to be that any capacity you gain by grade separating Baker Street Jn, would be lost by the new conflicts at Moorgate, where all terminating Mets have to cross over in front of westbound Circle/H&Cs. Peter Smyth Great diagram! One comment: I initially found the Aldgate diagram hard to comprehend not being familiar with the junction names and north not being top of the map. Would the diagram be easier to understand if the top of the diagram was north? And two questions: 1. What are the benefits of the changes at Paddington? 2. Could you not also implement grade separation at Moorgate to avoid conflicts? Eg a new tunnel connecting platform 2 to the lines to platforms 3 and 4 at Barbican? Regards |
Why The Circle Line?
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 06:24:42PM -0000, Peter Smyth wrote:
"mark townend" wrote: http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf The main problem seems to be that any capacity you gain by grade separating Baker Street Jn, would be lost by the new conflicts at Moorgate, where all terminating Mets have to cross over in front of westbound Circle/H&Cs. The bit of the Metropolitan line east of Baker Street would seem to be a lot less useful if it terminates at Moorgate instead of running through Liverpool Street, as more people will have to change trains, so if you're going to cut it back, why not cut it right back to Baker Street to eliminate the conflicts at the junction there? Mind you, I'd want *detailed* data on passenger flows before proposing anything like that! -- David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive People from my sort of background needed grammar schools to compete with children from privileged homes like ... Tony Benn -- Margaret Thatcher |
Why The Circle Line?
"Peter Smyth" wrote in message ... "mark townend" wrote in message ... Anyway purely for my own interest I've drawn up some of these ideas, and any constructive comments from the group would be most welcome! See my proposals here - http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf I think you'll find the that southern ends of the centre tracks at Aldgate are blocked by pillars that support the station concourse above. |
Why The Circle Line?
On Mar 9, 11:46*am, mark townend wrote:
On Mar 8, 5:54*pm, "Railsigns.co.uk" wrote: On Thursday, 8 March 2012 15:56:21 UTC, Ian *wrote: "mark townend" wrote in message .... On Mar 8, 3:23 pm, "Ian" wrote: Better. Try again. Hint: remember a shirt has ONE Collar and TWO Sleeves. Revision 2 http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf I suspect it may be necessary to do Revision 3..... :o) -- Are there *any* words in the English language where a double "C" makes an "S" (as opposed to a "K" or "X") sound? I doubt there is. Was completely blind to this one - I think I may have accidentally clicked ignore in spell-checking. One other thing: Use of the ampersand (&) should be confined to titles and headings, etc. In normal text, you should always write the word "and" out in full. Ampersands removed as suggested. http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf Your H&C and Circle Line descent from Edgware Road to Baker Street may be impractical. The existing route already descends steeply. The better solution would be to simplify the District Line. If a future Chelney Line could replace the Wimbledon Branch, operation of the Western end of the Circle becomes much simpler. A few District Line Trains might run to Ken High Street. Also, be aware that TfL are real touchy about folks utilizing "their" roundel. IMO, the roundel should be in the public domain. It has been around since the London General Omnibus Company. |
Why The Circle Line?
On Mar 9, 7:01*am, zin92 wrote:
On Mar 8, 6:24*pm, "Peter Smyth" wrote: "mark townend" *wrote in message ... Anyway purely for my own interest I've drawn up some of these ideas, and any constructive comments from the group would be most welcome! See my proposals here - http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf The main problem seems to be that any capacity you gain by grade separating Baker Street Jn, would be lost by the new conflicts at Moorgate, where all terminating Mets have to cross over in front of westbound Circle/H&Cs. Peter Smyth Great diagram! One comment: I initially found the Aldgate diagram hard to comprehend not being familiar with the junction names and north not being top of the map. Would the diagram be easier to understand if the top of the diagram was north? And two questions: 1. What are the benefits of the changes at Paddington? This is to split East and Westbound passengers between different platforms, hence relieving crowding issues. Paddington Suburban would lose one terminal platform which may only be possible following Crossrail. 2. Could you not also implement grade separation at Moorgate to avoid conflicts? Eg a new tunnel connecting platform 2 to the lines to platforms 3 and 4 at Barbican? See reply to Alistair Bell. -- Mark |
Why The Circle Line?
On Mar 7, 8:36*pm, mark townend wrote:
See my proposals here - http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf BTW for reference, I used the excellent track diagram: 'Tube, Underground, Overground & DLR map of London, UK' available free he http://carto.metro.free.fr/en/ I remembered this being referred to before on uk.railway and recommend it as very interesting (if you're into that sort of thing!) -- Mark |
Why The Circle Line?
On Mar 9, 12:08*pm, 77002 wrote:
On Mar 9, 11:46*am, mark townend wrote: On Mar 8, 5:54*pm, "Railsigns.co.uk" wrote: On Thursday, 8 March 2012 15:56:21 UTC, Ian *wrote: "mark townend" wrote in message ... On Mar 8, 3:23 pm, "Ian" wrote: Better. Try again. Hint: remember a shirt has ONE Collar and TWO Sleeves. Revision 2 http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf I suspect it may be necessary to do Revision 3..... :o) -- Are there *any* words in the English language where a double "C" makes an "S" (as opposed to a "K" or "X") sound? I doubt there is. Was completely blind to this one - I think I may have accidentally clicked ignore in spell-checking. One other thing: Use of the ampersand (&) should be confined to titles and headings, etc. In normal text, you should always write the word "and" out in full. Ampersands removed as suggested. http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf Your H&C and Circle Line descent from Edgware Road to Baker Street may be impractical. *The existing route already descends steeply. Alternatively, an overpass over Baker Street Junction, constructed in a shallow cut & cover, possibly with the road above raised marginally to accomodate if neccessary. The better solution would be to simplify the District Line. *If a future Chelney Line could replace the Wimbledon Branch, operation of the Western end of the Circle becomes much simpler. *A few District Line Trains might run to Ken High Street. The conflict at Baker Street wouldn't go away though. Districts removed from Edgware Road might allow enhancements of H&C/Circle frequency! Also, be aware that TfL are real touchy about folks utilizing "their" roundel. *IMO, the roundel should be in the public domain. *It has been around since the London General Omnibus Company. Well i'm not making any money out of this. If they ask me to remove it I will. -- Mark |
Why The Circle Line?
mark townend wrote on 09 March 2012 17:08:32 ...
On Mar 9, 12:08 pm, wrote: On Mar 9, 11:46 am, mark wrote: On Mar 8, 5:54 pm, wrote: On Thursday, 8 March 2012 15:56:21 UTC, Ian wrote: "mark wrote in message ... On Mar 8, 3:23 pm, wrote: Better. Try again. Hint: remember a shirt has ONE Collar and TWO Sleeves. Revision 2 http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf I suspect it may be necessary to do Revision 3..... :o) -- Are there *any* words in the English language where a double "C" makes an "S" (as opposed to a "K" or "X") sound? I doubt there is. Was completely blind to this one - I think I may have accidentally clicked ignore in spell-checking. One other thing: Use of the ampersand (&) should be confined to titles and headings, etc. In normal text, you should always write the word "and" out in full. Ampersands removed as suggested. http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf Your H&C and Circle Line descent from Edgware Road to Baker Street may be impractical. The existing route already descends steeply. Alternatively, an overpass over Baker Street Junction, constructed in a shallow cut& cover, possibly with the road above raised marginally to accomodate if neccessary. Baker Street Junction is only just below the road surface, so any overpass would be at street level, and the road would need far more than "marginal" elevation. I'm not convinced that the descent from Edgware Road is all that steep. The ground above it doesn't seem to fall very much. I reckon that people think it's steep because of the severe eastbound speed restriction, but that's because the head of platform 5 is so close to the junction. Compared to Blackfriars to City Thameslink, it looks almost flat. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
Why The Circle Line?
In article
mark townend wrote: http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf The real solution is to extend the Metropolitan, near to/over/under the Bakerloo. Terminate at Oxford Circus for now, later at Embankment, later a lot further. |
Why The Circle Line?
On 2012\03\09 23:20, Joe keane wrote:
In mark wrote: http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf The real solution is to extend the Metropolitan, near to/over/under the Bakerloo. Terminate at Oxford Circus for now, later at Embankment, later a lot further. Wouldn't it be better and possibly profitable to extend all of the Crossrail Paddington terminators to North Pole, then on a new track to near Harlesden Station , then on the freight line up to Neasden where they could take over the entire Chiltern service (both Amersham and High Wycombe), allowing the line from Neasden to Marylebone including the Marylebone Station site to be sold off and also allowing the Met to terminate at Baker Street? Oh hang on, that would require the Chiltern Lines to be electrified... |
Why The Circle Line?
"Basil Jet" wrote Wouldn't it be better and possibly profitable to extend all of the Crossrail Paddington terminators to North Pole, then on a new track to near Harlesden Station , then on the freight line up to Neasden where they could take over the entire Chiltern service (both Amersham and High Wycombe), allowing the line from Neasden to Marylebone including the Marylebone Station site to be sold off and also allowing the Met to terminate at Baker Street? Oh hang on, that would require the Chiltern Lines to be electrified... An early iteration of Crossrail was indeed to run it via the Acton Wells - Neasden Junction line and then the Chiltern Met Line, taking over the Chiltern Aylesbury via Amersham service as well as the Met Chiltern and Amersham service. The Met would have been left with Watford and Uxbridge. Cost benefit analysis showed that there was no adequate business case. Peter |
Why The Circle Line?
Basil Jet wrote:
Wouldn't it be better and possibly profitable to extend all of the Crossrail Paddington terminators to North Pole, then on a new track to near Harlesden Station , then on the freight line up to Neasden where they could take over the entire Chiltern service (both Amersham and High Wycombe), allowing the line from Neasden to Marylebone including the Marylebone Station site to be sold off and also allowing the Met to terminate at Baker Street? Great idea. Then you could turn Marylebone into a coach terminal with links to the A40/M40. I wonder why no-one has ever thought of that before. ;-) |
Why The Circle Line?
On 09/03/12 23:20, Joe keane wrote:
In article mark townend wrote: http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf The real solution is to extend the Metropolitan, near to/over/under the Bakerloo. Terminate at Oxford Circus for now, later at Embankment, later a lot further. Hasn't that already been done with the Jubilee? Roger |
Why The Circle Line?
On Mar 10, 9:51*am, Roger Lynn wrote:
On 09/03/12 23:20, Joe keane wrote: In article mark townend wrote: http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf The real solution is to extend the Metropolitan, near to/over/under the Bakerloo. *Terminate at Oxford Circus for now, later at Embankment, later a lot further. Hasn't that already been done with the Jubilee? Roger Moorgate bufferstops are around half a mile as the raven flies from those at Cannon Street. Yet another 'Crossrail' idea would be to link these 2 stations and thereby combine the Met services with the South Eastern suburban to Greenwich, Dartford Etc. All DC lines, give or take the power return rail, no pantographs required. Imagine 2 or 2 platforms removed from east side of Cannon street, making way for a steep descent into tunnel, then snaking right, then left to a new underground station near and approx parallel with Gracechurch Street/ Bishopsgate at its junction with Cornhill/Leadenhall, perhaps linked to Bank by walkway then curving left to join at Met bufferstops. Total length of rail tunnels about 1400m. -- Mark |
Why The Circle Line?
"mark townend" wrote in message
... Linking platform 6 at Moorgate to the east is a very good idea but I fear that both that or a potental dive-under west of the station would be unjustifiably expensive. The conflict at Moorgate between terminating Mets and westbound is not such a headache anyway. You should try commuting westbound from Aldgate in the evening peak when disruption on the eastern end of the H&C has resulted in them turning back trains in the Moorgate bays. Last week I left work, next to Aldgate station, at 17:35 and hadn't reached Moorgate by 18:00! Strangely, I hadn't been following this thread until now but had had some similar thoughts myself (based on 25 years of using that section of line). I agree with you (Mark) that most solutions suggested are ludicrously expensive and impractical. However, my solution would be a slight variant of the reconfiguration of Moorgate described. The main problem at Moorgate is that to turn back an eastbound service requires fouling both through lines to get the train into the terminating bay and then the westbound again when it leaves. At various other locations (Tower Hill, Mansion House) the turnback is between the two running lines, reducing conflicts. This could be achieved at Moorgate, by realigning where the westbound dog-legs into platform 2, taking it into platform 3 (currently a bay) and making platforms 2/3 an island, with 2 becoming the turnback - there's rarely a need for both bays to be used and 4 would still be available in severe situations. This would need the removal of the subway access from platform 1 and relocation of it - but, compared to the other solutions, ought to be *relatively* easier to achieve. The Met/Circle/H&C is now such a farce, especially eastbound in the mornings, that it now takes me 10-15 minutes longer to get to work than it used to fifteen years ago (making for a 2hr+ commute). It's now become such a pain in the backside that I handed in my notice last week. Life is stressful enough without having to put up with that additional crap five days a week! |
Why The Circle Line?
"Jack Taylor" wrote The main problem at Moorgate is that to turn back an eastbound service requires fouling both through lines to get the train into the terminating bay and then the westbound again when it leaves. At various other locations (Tower Hill, Mansion House) the turnback is between the two running lines, reducing conflicts. This could be achieved at Moorgate, by realigning where the westbound dog-legs into platform 2, taking it into platform 3 (currently a bay) and making platforms 2/3 an island, with 2 becoming the turnback - there's rarely a need for both bays to be used and 4 would still be available in severe situations. This would need the removal of the subway access from platform 1 and relocation of it - but, compared to the other solutions, ought to be *relatively* easier to achieve. Turnback at Moorgate only happens during disruptions, and you've identified the demand from Aldgate and Liverpool Street which means it would be undesirable to turn back some or all Aldgate trains at Moorgate. So does turnback at Moorgate happen often enough to justify investment? If it does your idea would be worthwhile, though why not divert the WB into platform 4, leaving 2 and 3 for turnback? It would also be possible to use the Up Thameslink line as the WB Circle, etc, with the existing WB used for trains starting back from Moorgate. This would avoid delays as occur at Tower Hill, when the turnback train has been given the road, but isn't actually ready. Meanwhile a through train is held waiting a path. All WB trains would be either side of an island at Barbican. Peter |
Why The Circle Line?
In article ,
77002 wrote: The better solution would be to simplify the District Line. Run the Hammersmith & City more west, and have it take over the branch to Richmond. |
Why The Circle Line?
|
Why The Circle Line?
"Recliner" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 21:02:52 +0000 (UTC), (Joe keane) wrote: Run the Hammersmith & City more west, and have it take over the branch to Richmond. How would it get on to that branch? Too much has been built over, but the LSWR used to run a service from Waterloo to Richmond via West London Junction, Addison Road (now Kensington Olympia), a long-lost curve from south of Shepherds Bush to South of Goldhawk Road, then parallel with the Hammersmith (H&C) line, with a spur from it, to the L&SW Hammersmith station, then a curve to the District west of Hammersmith at Studland Road Junction. In 1905 the line was quadrupled between Studland Road Junction and Turnham Green, the District being given exclusive use of the southern pair. After 1916 the northern L&SW pair were left derelict, until 1932, when the Piccadilly was projected over the centre pair, with the District taking the outer pair. Peter |
Why The Circle Line?
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 21:43:50 -0000, "Peter Masson"
wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 21:02:52 +0000 (UTC), (Joe keane) wrote: Run the Hammersmith & City more west, and have it take over the branch to Richmond. How would it get on to that branch? Too much has been built over, but the LSWR used to run a service from Waterloo to Richmond via West London Junction, Addison Road (now Kensington Olympia), a long-lost curve from south of Shepherds Bush to South of Goldhawk Road, then parallel with the Hammersmith (H&C) line, with a spur from it, to the L&SW Hammersmith station, then a curve to the District west of Hammersmith at Studland Road Junction. In 1905 the line was quadrupled between Studland Road Junction and Turnham Green, the District being given exclusive use of the southern pair. After 1916 the northern L&SW pair were left derelict, until 1932, when the Piccadilly was projected over the centre pair, with the District taking the outer pair. Exactly: the old viaduct would bring the Hammersmith trains on to the Picc, not the District. Also, trains taking that route would not actually stop at either LU Hammersmith station. |
Why The Circle Line?
In article ,
Richard J. wrote: What problem are you trying to solve with your Crossrail 3? service to Chislehurst |
Why The Circle Line?
Joe Keane:
Run the Hammersmith & City more west, and have it take over the branch to Richmond. Peter Masson: Too much has been built over, but the LSWR used to run a service from Waterloo to Richmond via West London Junction, Addison Road (now Kensington Olympia), a long-lost curve from south of Shepherds Bush to South of Goldhawk Road, then parallel with the Hammersmith (H&C) line, with a spur from it, to the L&SW Hammersmith station, then a curve to the District west of Hammersmith at Studland Road Junction. Rather, onto what is now the District. The line to Richmond opened in 1869 as an LSWR route alone. The District was extended to meet it in 1877, creating Studland Road Junction. The line remained in LSWR and then BR ownership until 1950 (although after 1926 it was leased to the Underground group and its successors); when the District started building branches off it from Turnham Green, its trains had to use running rights over the LSWR to access them. The Metropolitan Railway also began operating to Richmond in 1877, just as Joe suggests. This service ran until 1906. (But as Peter said, that doesn't mean it could just be restarted now.) In 1905 the line was quadrupled between Studland Road Junction and Turnham Green, the District being given exclusive use of the southern pair. Actually 1911. 1905 was the date the subsurface lines electrified. I believe the two northern tracks were not electrified at that time. But the LSWR service was moribund, as the District had a straighter route, and... After 1916 the northern L&SW pair were left derelict, until 1932, when the Piccadilly was projected over the centre pair, with the District taking the outer pair. At the same time, the section from Barons Court to Hammersmith was also reconfigured to give the Piccadilly the two middle tracks; previously it had used the two northern tracks. -- Mark Brader, Toronto | "Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable | from a feature." -- Rich Kulawiec (after Clarke) My text in this article is in the public domain. |
Why The Circle Line?
On Mar 7, 8:36*pm, mark townend wrote:
See my proposals here - http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf -- Mark 1. What exactly does swapping things at Aldgate achieve? Circle line trains still cross the H&C tracks, so you haven't resolved any conflict issues. And what does the district line need extension to Aldgate for - that bit of the circle isn't that busy, its not like there are loads of people who need to get to that bit of the city via the district line. And theres some structural supports right in the middle of where your tracks would go. 2. Why curtail the Met line at Moorgate? It may be connected by crossrail to liverpool street, but thats still a massive walk - virtually the same distance as it is on the surface. Its really not the same thing as a platform at liverpool street. A very large number of people take the Met line to the city. The main SSL line stations on the north side of the city are Moorgate, Liverpool Street, and Aldgate - cutting it off at Moorgate would massively inconvenience thousands of people. 3. Why use the former thameslink route from farringdon? It won't relieve congestion / increase capacity, because there's still only the existing amount of track between Baker Street and Farringdon, so there's still the same number of trains having to fit into that track. So why not just branch off at moorgate? Branching from farringdon just seems like a very thinly disguised excuse for reusing those tracks, without any genuine justification behind it. 4. Paddington. Why? Theres that expensive new ticket hall above platforms 16 & 15, with lifts direct to platform. Moving the main line to a seperate platform means expensive new lifts have to be built, just to keep the station's newly built disabled access. This seems completely irrational. 5. Edgware Road - why have platform 5 the westbound through platform? You've got an expensive change to the junction - why not just have platform 4 the westbound through platform, as it is now, and have platform 5 as a new terminating platform? Creating a new platform, just means that you've got rid of cross- platform interchange. Which removes interchange entirely for disabled passengers. That's not a good thing. Why would you willingly do that? Also, the sidings are already removed. There's a big new electricity supply thing being built there, with a "green wall", so your platform 5 would be a massively expensive demolition job, with a replacement for the new electricity supply thing, which has only just been built, having to be rebuilt again. For what reason would you do that? 6. How does the new tunnel at Baker Street get past building foundations? It would have to go under the Baker Street station building - which is quite big, so must have fairly deep foundations. That doesn't preclude a deeper tunnel, but how would a passenger get to platform x? How would you put in the access? One of the few practical options would be to put escalators / lifts in instead of the existing eastbound platform and track - but then you couldn't have the siding you've suggested, and you'd also risk the ire of English Heritage for altering the appearance of that part of the station (which is one of the oldest in the world). But you couldn't have it coming from the existing underground concourse area either, because there isn't any room on the southern concourse wall, and having access from the northern wall would be peverse. So that really leaves I suppose the area around the existing entrance to the eastbound platform, but then you'd be restricting access to that platform again, and English Heritage would again be against you for harming the appearance. You could gut the gents toilet, and use the space to provide the access route, but that's a bit off to the side, which wouldn't be good from a pedestrian flow point of view. And you'd **** off people who needed one. I suppose you could shorten platform 1, and use the space at the southern end, but that might run into strutural problems, as its near the wall of the surface building, several other walls, and some trackside buildings that english heritage may well regard as important. And its quite out of the way from the rest of the platform - its a bit hidden, which isn't good for passengers. You could perhaps massively rebuild the southern ticket office (the one south of the westbound platform), so that it provides access to the new platform, but if you are going to do that, then it would be much more convenient for passengers if the new tunnel ran directly under the existing tracks, rather than round to the north. And that area isn't exactly convenient - the bridge is very low-ceilinged, and narrow, so its not a good idea to have even more people using it. Most of your proposals seem like they'd be massively expensive vanity projects, for zero actual benefit. |
Why The Circle Line?
On Mar 10, 9:02*pm, (Joe keane) wrote:
In article , 77002 wrote: The better solution would be to simplify the District Line. Run the Hammersmith & City more west, and have it take over the branch to Richmond. That doesn't simplify the District Line. It complicates things. It may simplify it on the map, but it complicates all the stations on the shared bit of track in the bit beyond hammersmith; people now need to work out which train it is they need to get if they want to go to Victoria or the like. That's an inconvenience, that's a complication, not a simplifying. |
Why The Circle Line?
On 10/03/2012 21:02, Joe keane wrote:
In , wrote: The better solution would be to simplify the District Line. Run the Hammersmith& City more west, and have it take over the branch to Richmond. They took out the junction decades ago. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Why The Circle Line?
On Mar 11, 3:11*pm, lonelytraveller
wrote: On Mar 7, 8:36*pm, mark townend wrote: See my proposals here - http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf -- Mark 1. What exactly does swapping things at Aldgate achieve? Circle line trains still cross the H&C tracks, so you haven't resolved any conflict issues. Agreed but the conflict between H&C and terminating Met at Aldgate is removed from there. The larger capacity of 4 Met platforms at the Moorgate terminus coupled with the independent approach and departure tracks provided by the 4 tracking means that trains can have a longer layover and can be better regulated in both crossing the Westbound H&C/Circle flow at the west end of the station and merging them back in east of Farringdon. And what does the district line need extension to Aldgate for - that bit of the circle isn't that busy, its not like there are loads of people who need to get to that bit of the city via the district line. Based on no Metropolitan terminators remaining there, 2 platforms would become spare. These could be abandoned and removed completely or become reversing sidings for stabling 1 or 2 spare District/Circle sets. Yet another possibility would be to run the 'circle' as a 'U' between Aldgate and Edgware Rd, filling the paths given up on the the north side with additional H&Cs, and removing all the junction conflicts at the Liverpool Street end of Aldgate. And theres some structural supports right in the middle of where your tracks would go. Fair enough. Not insurmountable but adding expense. 2. Why curtail the Met line at Moorgate? It may be connected by crossrail to liverpool street, but thats still a massive walk - virtually the same distance as it is on the surface. Its really not the same thing as a platform at liverpool street. Agreed its a fair walk, but at least covered, and the shorter walk to the Crossrail platforms themselves, rather than all the way through to LS main line would suffice for many suburban GE destinations. A very large number of people take the Met line to the city. The main SSL line stations on the north side of the city are Moorgate, Liverpool Street, and Aldgate - cutting it off at Moorgate would massively inconvenience thousands of people. Perhaps they could change or walk a little further. It might be a price worth paying for greater dependability. 3. Why use the former thameslink route from farringdon? It won't relieve congestion / increase capacity, because there's still only the existing amount of track between Baker Street and Farringdon, so there's still the same number of trains having to fit into that track. The main benefit of the bigger terminal and 4 track approach is in regulating movements through the junctions at either end of the double track section to maximise its actual delivered capacity and smooth flow. The need to immediately turn all peak Aldgate terminators often leads to convoys of westbound Mets queuing to get through platform 2 at Baker Street, delaying following Circle/H&Cs. So why not just branch off at moorgate? Branching from farringdon just seems like a very thinly disguised excuse for reusing those tracks, without any genuine justification behind it. 4. Paddington. Why? Theres that expensive new ticket hall above platforms 16 & 15, with lifts direct to platform. Moving the main line to a seperate platform means expensive new lifts have to be built, just to keep the station's newly built disabled access. Fair enough, I haven't been to Paddigton for over 2 years and wasn't aware of that development. 5. Edgware Road - why have platform 5 the westbound through platform? You've got an expensive change to the junction - why not just have platform 4 the westbound through platform, as it is now, and have platform 5 as a new terminating platform? To keep the terminating platforms in the middle whilst allowing for an overlap overrun spur so Westbound can arrive with signalling delay. Creating a new platform, just means that you've got rid of cross- platform interchange. Which removes interchange entirely for disabled passengers. That's not a good thing. Why would you willingly do that? Probably worth looking at lifts on all platforms. Also, the sidings are already removed. There's a big new electricity supply thing being built there, with a "green wall", so your platform 5 would be a massively expensive demolition job, with a replacement for the new electricity supply thing, which has only just been built, having to be rebuilt again. For what reason would you do that? 6. How does the new tunnel at Baker Street get past building foundations? It would have to go under the Baker Street station building - which is quite big, so must have fairly deep foundations. That doesn't preclude a deeper tunnel, but how would a passenger get to platform x? How would you put in the access? One of the few practical options would be to put escalators / lifts in instead of the existing eastbound platform and track - but then you couldn't have the siding you've suggested, and you'd also risk the ire of English Heritage for altering the appearance of that part of the station (which is one of the oldest in the world). But you couldn't have it coming from the existing underground concourse area either, because there isn't any room on the southern concourse wall, and having access from the northern wall would be peverse. So that really leaves I suppose the area around the existing entrance to the eastbound platform, but then you'd be restricting access to that platform again, and English Heritage would again be against you for harming the appearance. You could gut the gents toilet, and use the space to provide the access route, but that's a bit off to the side, which wouldn't be good from a pedestrian flow point of view. And you'd **** off people who needed one. I suppose you could shorten platform 1, and use the space at the southern end, but that might run into strutural problems, as its near the wall of the surface building, several other walls, and some trackside buildings that english heritage may well regard as important. And its quite out of the way from the rest of the platform - its a bit hidden, which isn't good for passengers. You could perhaps massively rebuild the southern ticket office (the one south of the westbound platform), so that it provides access to the new platform, but if you are going to do that, then it would be much more convenient for passengers if the new tunnel ran directly under the existing tracks, rather than round to the north. And that area isn't exactly convenient - the bridge is very low-ceilinged, and narrow, so its not a good idea to have even more people using it. Some excellent points. As with all projects, detailed design would have many to overcome many heritage and station access issues. Most of your proposals seem like they'd be massively expensive vanity projects, for zero actual benefit. You are entitled to your opinions! |
Why The Circle Line?
On Mar 7, 8:36*pm, mark townend wrote:
Anyway purely for my own interest I've drawn up some of these ideas, and any constructive comments from the group would be most welcome! See my proposals here - http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf -- Mark In response to the many useful comments here I have revised my proposals. Notable changes: No work at Paddington - I had missed the new access improvements already made for platforms 15/16, and I'm sure improved frequency of service due to diverted Circles has reduced crowd build-up here. Middle platforms and tracks at Aldgate completely removed, not used for extending District Line. http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf -- Mark |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk