A long walk for anyone with mobility problems.

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 17:28:55 on Thu, 3 Mar 2016, Recliner
remarked:

You are still fixated upon the position of the Victoria Line. What I'm
interested in is why the passageway from the Victoria to Piccadilly
doesn't emerge at the western end of the latter's platforms. And later,
the same for the Jubilee.

As I said upthread, they were almost certainly trying to avoid congestion
at the western end of the platforms as you already get queues backing up
from the escalators on to the platforms, even without mixing in all the
people heading to and from the other lines. This way, even though it
increases the walking distance for those at the western end of the trains,
is safer. And it doesn't increase the walking distance for the pax at the
eastern end of the trains. If you're at the western end of the Piccadilly
line train, just take the escalator up, and then the Victoria line
escalator down.

That doesn't explain why this is the only station on the network where
the up-and-back-down escalator workaround is required, or they worry
about mixing new and transfer passengers.
--
Roland Perry

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 17:37:24 on Thu, 3 Mar 2016, Recliner
remarked:

It's not the crowds on the trains that's the problem. It's the crowds at
the western end of the Green Park Picc platforms queueing for the
escalators.

What are these crowds? Green Park is the 14th busiest, with a third of
the entries and exits of the top ones.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 17:05:17 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 16:05:51 on Thu, 3 Mar 2016, Recliner
remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:07:19 on
Thu, 3 Mar 2016, Recliner remarked:

People also complain about the earlier Victoria-Picc connection. There
must be something in the way to stop it dropping down halfway along.

http://husk.org/www.geocities.com/at.../ltgreenpk.gif

I think the 'thing' is the expensive buildings north of Piccadilly.
It's much easier, cheaper and safer to build station tunnels under a
(literally) green park than large buildings.

The Piccadilly Line platforms will be under the road, so the "thing" is
also under the road, towards the western end of the platforms.

No, the issue is that the current station building is linked by single
long escalators to Piccadilly line platforms that used to be under a
different surface building directly above the line, linked by lifts.

** see below

So the Picc platforms are under the road, but well to the east of the
current station building.

The Victoria line came next, at approximately right angles to the
east-west Piccadilly line, and the platforms were placed just south of
the road, for ease of construction. The escalators link to the
platforms about a third of the way along (which is better than
connecting to the extreme ends of the platforms, which is what happens
with the Piccadilly line).

The subsequent Jubilee line platforms are below and just to the east
of the Victoria platforms. Of course, if they'd known then about the
later change of route, with the new line not needing to swing so far
east, the Jubilee line might have had a very different configuration
at Green Park, with the platforms parallel to the Victoria line. They
might even have delivered cross-platform interchange with the Victoria
line, as at, say Baker Street.

But the Picc platforms are so far to the east of the station, that
there's no good way of connecting new north-south platforms to both
the station building and the Piccadilly platforms to the east.

None of that explains why...

But they could nevertheless have started the passage between them
further to the western end of the Piccadilly line platforms.

...the passages from the two new stations don't head for the bottom of
the Piccadilly escalators, rather than the eastern ends of the platforms
which is what creates the excessively long walks.

I wonder if that was to avoid congestion on the platforms, which also have
to act as the route to the escalators? This way, people heading to the
passage to the Victoria line aren't mixed in with people heading for the
exit.

Such matters don't appear to bother the designers of other stations.

But... ** the "thing" might be the old lift shafts, the space taken up
by which, for some reason, they declined to re-use.

No, the old Dover Street station lift shafts will be over the Piccadilly
platforms

The "thing" I'm trying to identify is also above the Piccadilly
platforms.

-- you can work out where they must be from the location of the
old station at Dover St.

The space occupied by the "thing" is very likely under the junction
between Dover St and Piccadilly (which makes a lift shaft less likely).

But I presume that the Piccadilly line escalator
motor rooms must be below the line, so the Victoria line needed to run
further to the west, to be well clear of the escalators and their
equipment. It was probably easier to build the new line to run almost
directly under the existing station building. That minimised the length of
escalators, and meant that the station construction activity wasn't
directly under someone else's property.

You are still fixated upon the position of the Victoria Line. What I'm
interested in is why the passageway from the Victoria to Piccadilly
doesn't emerge at the western end of the latter's platforms. And later,
the same for the Jubilee.

Another thought strikes me: I wonder if the Picc platform exits and
stairs to the long passages to the Victoria and Jubilee lines are the
re-used original exits and stairs to the old Dover St station lower
lift landing? They seem to be in the right place for that, and
re-using them would have saved disruption to the Piccadilly line
platforms when the station was extended for the new lines.

On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 20:43:04 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 17:37:24 on Thu, 3 Mar 2016, Recliner
remarked:

It's not the crowds on the trains that's the problem. It's the crowds at
the western end of the Green Park Picc platforms queueing for the
escalators.

What are these crowds? Green Park is the 14th busiest, with a third of
the entries and exits of the top ones.

When a busy train disgorges lots of passengers, the queues for the
escalator(s) soon back up into the platforms. Also, passengers
arriving from the surface have to negotiate the same route, so the two
streams are in conflict.

Most other busy deep stations have signposted one-way stairs and
corridors between the platforms and escalators, so the streams are
kept separate, and the escalators are not so close to the platforms
that the queues back up on to them.

On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 20:39:51 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 17:28:55 on Thu, 3 Mar 2016, Recliner
remarked:

You are still fixated upon the position of the Victoria Line. What I'm
interested in is why the passageway from the Victoria to Piccadilly
doesn't emerge at the western end of the latter's platforms. And later,
the same for the Jubilee.

As I said upthread, they were almost certainly trying to avoid congestion
at the western end of the platforms as you already get queues backing up
from the escalators on to the platforms, even without mixing in all the
people heading to and from the other lines. This way, even though it
increases the walking distance for those at the western end of the trains,
is safer. And it doesn't increase the walking distance for the pax at the
eastern end of the trains. If you're at the western end of the Piccadilly
line train, just take the escalator up, and then the Victoria line
escalator down.

That doesn't explain why this is the only station on the network where
the up-and-back-down escalator workaround is required, or they worry
about mixing new and transfer passengers.

The workaround isn't 'required', it's just a handy trick I discovered
when using the station. Incidentally, Wikipedia suggests that the
direct connection between the Picc and Vic lines was added later, so
maybe my handy trick for getting between them was actually the only
route initially. I can't remember if I discovered the shortcut when it
was the only way between them, but perhaps I did.

At quieter times, it's a very convenient station to use, with the
escalators at the same level and so near the platforms, and that's
probably what they were thinking of when they rebuilt it in 1933. With
the great increase in traffic in later years, what worked well then
doesn't work so well with today's crowds (remember that it's the
airport line).

So maybe the long corridor connection was added because the crowding
was too great at the western end of the Picc platforms, and if my
other theory is right, they took advantage of the disused 1906
platform exits, stairs and lift landing to do so.

In message , at 21:21:24 on
Thu, 3 Mar 2016, Recliner remarked:

You are still fixated upon the position of the Victoria Line. What I'm
interested in is why the passageway from the Victoria to Piccadilly
doesn't emerge at the western end of the latter's platforms. And later,
the same for the Jubilee.

As I said upthread, they were almost certainly trying to avoid congestion
at the western end of the platforms as you already get queues backing up
from the escalators on to the platforms, even without mixing in all the
people heading to and from the other lines. This way, even though it
increases the walking distance for those at the western end of the trains,
is safer. And it doesn't increase the walking distance for the pax at the
eastern end of the trains. If you're at the western end of the Piccadilly
line train, just take the escalator up, and then the Victoria line
escalator down.

That doesn't explain why this is the only station on the network where
the up-and-back-down escalator workaround is required, or they worry
about mixing new and transfer passengers.

The workaround isn't 'required', it's just a handy trick I discovered
when using the station.

It is required if you want to avoid the long walk.

Incidentally, Wikipedia suggests that the direct connection between the
Picc and Vic lines was added later

The older plan I've posted a link to is annotated: "1960's plan" and I
see that the Wikipedia article doesn't have a reference for their
assertion that the link wasn't there on opening in 1969. It's possible
the link didn't open until a bit later (some of the passages at the
revised Kings Cross deep tube complex were opened in stages) but that
plan clearly says "New escalators" so is likely to be contemporary to
the opening.

, so maybe my handy trick for getting between them was actually the
only route initially. I can't remember if I discovered the shortcut
when it was the only way between them, but perhaps I did.

It's the way I've always done it, can't remember from when, but it was
definitely as an *alternative* to the long passage.

they took advantage of the disused 1906
platform exits, stairs and lift landing to do so.

They did (but I claim from when it was opened), but was it simply a cost
saving measure, or is there something at the western end of the
platforms which prevents them installing a similar set of stairs much
closer to the Victoria Line?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 21:11:18 on
Thu, 3 Mar 2016, Recliner remarked:

What are these crowds? Green Park is the 14th busiest, with a third of
the entries and exits of the top ones.

When a busy train disgorges lots of passengers, the queues for the
escalator(s) soon back up into the platforms.

They would not have done in 1969.

Also, passengers arriving from the surface have to negotiate the same
route, so the two streams are in conflict.

Sure, but that's the default arrangement at hundreds of stations.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Robin9 wrote:
I suggest you are approaching this from the wrong angle.
The key requirement is not to mislead people who are physically
disadvantaged.

Agreed. I don't believe that folk with impairments are mislead by
the current tube map; in my experience they are very much aware
that the "normal" tube map assumes average mobility.

Therefore any connection can be shown as long
as the map makes clear the distances involved.

And the distance for a route that has escalators but not stairs;
the distance for a route that is step free; the type of surfaces
traversed; the gap between platform and train, and so on and on and
on and on.

Everyone's needs are different; some people would be happy to have
a longer route if it meant 100 yards of poor surface was replaced
by nice, smooth tiles; some people would rather it the other way
round.

This information needs to be available for all possible interchanges
- at KXStP, for example, that's perhaps 6 interchanges just between
the underground lines,[1] never mind the three or four mainline
stations and the street.

If all possible infomation is on the map, then it becomes too complex
to actaully use. There's a difficult balance to get right - and
multiple publications are probably the only sensible way of doing
it. Hence the step-free guide and the information available via
the online journey planner and so on.

As an example, a middle-aged woman with heavy luggage
travelling from Bedford to Walthamstow needs to know that
trudging from St. Pancras International to the Victoria Line
platforms is quite a hike. Does this mean that a map should
not show a connection at St. Pancras? Of course not. It means
that additional information needs to be given. (It also means
that a travelator should have been installed when they re-built
that station)

[1] Vic-Northern; Vic-Pic; Vic-SSL; Northern-Pic; Northern-SSL;
Pic-SSL. Assuming that they're all symetrical (which they won't
be).


--
Mike Bristow

On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 17:29:26 +0000
Basil Jet wrote:
I imagine that the western end of the Piccadilly trains was more
crowded. But I agree that forcing longer walks is not the answer.
Telling people on the platform to move along is a better idea.

Unfortunately LU has shot itself in the foot there. Because most of its
announcements are either useless ("mind the closing doors" when its already
beeping) or outright lies ("there is a good service on all lines" when you're
standing on a rammed platform in the rush hour and the next train is 5 mins
away) I've noticed that people simply ignore most of what is said by tannoy now.

Actually we must be at the point where it would be almost trivially easy
for carriages to weigh their cargo and communicate it to the railway so
that LED displays on the tunnel wall at the next station can tell
passengers where the most space is available on the approaching train.

Thats a good idea. Or just have different coloured lights on the train cars
over the doors. Green for lots of space, yellow for getting busy and red
for don't even bother. Or something like that

--
Spud