On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:12:04 +0000 (UTC), "Jonn Elledge"
wrote:

Not sure about the Waterloo one - a line already exists, but I'm not sure
how much use it is - but from discussions I've seen here in the past, the
Moorgate to Cannon Street is a non-starter: there's too much difference in
height, and the Bank of England vaults in the way.

Leaving aside other issues, could the Bank vaults not be moved
somewhere else, if such a line was really wanted? (If there is
anything worth having in there, I'll look after it...!)


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

In article ,
(Aidan Stanger) wrote:

Travelators probably do cost more than escalators, but they still exist
elsewhere on the Tube system, and they have the advantage of being
wheelchair accessible.

"They"? How many are there beyond the two at Bank (W&C)?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
(Aidan Stanger) wrote:

Travelators probably do cost more than escalators, but they still exist
elsewhere on the Tube system, and they have the advantage of being
wheelchair accessible.

"They"? How many are there beyond the two at Bank (W&C)?

AFAIK those are the only sloping ones, but there are flat ones at
Waterloo (connecting the Jubilee with everything else) and Heathrow T123
(albeit outside the ticket gates).

Michael Bell wrote:

You see the effect the Crossrail proposal has! Knowledgeable people can
debate on this newsgroup the virtues of alternative uses of the money, but
in the eyes of the politicians and the media they're not "on the table".

The LRM proposal is on the table, eveh though it isn't in a prominent
position ATM.

No matter that the alternatives may be much better, the politicians will
only consider the alternatives that the big interest groups put forward.

Sooner or later, money will force them to consider the other
alternatives. You may be right about the big interest groups, but if you
take a look at the members of the LRM consortium, there are some big
interest groups in it. When you factor in the City Of London Corporation
(who want it constructed as quickly and efficiently as possible) the
chances of getting it built right are surprisingly good.

"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message
...

Plus those in great swathes of East London get direct
access to the west End for the first time.

The cross-platform interchange at Stratford means that they pretty much have
this already.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

..

Oh dear. You've made the classic mistake of people who plan these
frequencies. What you are describing is a line. What we need is a
network. As soon as your journey involves a change, 4 tph is
inadequate on short-distance services. Even if both services are 4
tph, if you have a deadline you have to plan on a 15 minute delay at
the connection - in a journey where you might only spend 15 minutes
moving. This is not the way to compete with the car.




Fair point.

However my guess is that most people who catch a London-bound train at
Eltham are either going to a destination within walking distance of
London Bridge/Waterloo/Charing Cross/Cannon St or will continue their
journey by tube. The number who need to think about a connection to
eg Shepperton or Carshalton Beeches is probably fairly small. I don't
have any figures to back this up but if I'm right, improving the line
will be what most people need.

My main point though is there seems to be a tendency among transport
planners to give up on improving peak services to and from South-East
London and to fob people off with more off-peak services. Extra
off-peak services may be desirable (especially in the evening) but I
don't think are the top priority. What's really needed in the short
term is longer trains/platforms, in the medium term Thameslink 2000
and in the long term a new tube line.

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Aidan Stanger wrote:

Gary Jenkins wrote:

Alternatively this could be a completely new line going on northwards
to Canary Wharf, Mile End and Hackney and finishing off at Finsbury
Park or Tottenham Hale.

I don't think a line that misses Central London would be worth all that
expensive tunnelling!

Agreed - this would be a repeat of the exercise in futility that is the
ELL extension, only far worse. Lines really need to give people access to
central London; once they have that, you can think about orbital routes.

Hmm. Surely the ELL extension extension would give people better
access to central london -- they could get on at whatever god-
forsaken wilderness they currently live in, as it would give them
an interchange with the Jubilee, District, etc lines, and thence
they would get to central london more easily. Also, they might
use it to avoid central london because they didn't want to go
via there anyway.

#Paul

Tom Anderson wrote:
Agreed - this would be a repeat of the exercise in futility that is the
ELL extension, only far worse. Lines really need to give people access to
central London; once they have that, you can think about orbital routes.

Actually, a considerable amount of central London tube congestion -
and much suburban road congestion - is caused by the fact that the
quickest public transport route for many suburb to suburb journeys is
via the centre. This includes suburbs essentially on the same side of
London - e.g. Greenford to Richmond.

Orbital routes are still generally cheaper to build than ones across
central London, making them one of the more cost-effective ways of
relieving zone 1 tube congestion.

But I'm in favour of Crossrail, if it is built as a metro service.

Colin McKenzie

In article , Colin McKenzie
wrote:
[snip]

Orbital routes are still generally cheaper to build than ones across
central London, making them one of the more cost-effective ways of
relieving zone 1 tube congestion.

[snip]
Colin McKenzie

Pi being what it is, on field where there is no preferred direction, an
orbital route will be shorter than an in and change and go out the other
side route for a journey of upt to 120° rotation round the city centre.

Michael Bell

--

Colin McKenzie wrote the following in:


Tom Anderson wrote:
Agreed - this would be a repeat of the exercise in futility that
is the ELL extension, only far worse. Lines really need to give
people access to central London; once they have that, you can
think about orbital routes.

Actually, a considerable amount of central London tube congestion
- and much suburban road congestion - is caused by the fact that
the quickest public transport route for many suburb to suburb
journeys is via the centre. This includes suburbs essentially on
the same side of London - e.g. Greenford to Richmond.

Indeed. I think the idea that access to central London is a line's most
important feature is extremely flawed. A large number of journeys
currently involve central London not because the person wants to go
there but because they have to in order to get from one outer London
area to another.

Buses are one way of making an orbital journey at the moment but they
aren't really very good for the longish journeys that would be made
easily possible by an orbital rail link. An example of that sort of
thing, the North London line, seems fairly heavily used with the trains
often being uncomfortably packed at busy times. I know I go on about
this all the time, but I think it would be even more heavily used if a
more frequent and reliable service was provided and the stations were
done up a bit. The ELL as it currently is gets quite a few passengers
and I expect it would get quite a few more if it had more interchanges
and served more destinations, as it will when (if?) the extension is
finished.

This brings me to another point, which is that a line doesn't have to
go to central London for it to be useful to people wanting to get
there. People can use an orbital line to get from their local station
to an interchange with a line going into central London, for example
Highbury and Islington on the NLL or Canada Water on the ELL.

--
message by Robin May, enforcer of sod's law.
"Dust Hill guy likes the Gordon clock"

"You MUST NOT drive dangerously" - the Highway Code
Spelling lesson: then and than are different words.