Dave Arquati wrote:

Although it is the off-peak service Hanger Lane to West Ruislip, at
Chiswick Park, North Ealing to South Harrow, Harrow & Wealdstone to
Wembley Central, North Harrow to Northwood, Croxley and Watford, New
Cross and New Cross Gate, Mill Hill East, Kensington Olympia, Blackwall
to Beckton, and Roding Valley to Barkingside.

All irrelevant. "Tube style" implies "metro style", and was a
generalisation across the city's network and across time periods.

"off-peak [...] New Cross to New Cross Gate" FFS

By this do you mean building a back-to-back link between London Bridge and
Waterloo, making them both straight-through stations? I think that would
be a great idea, to give the trains a non-terminating run straight across
the south side of the city centre, and making the north-south journey to
reach this route from places in the city centre a much shorter one. It
involves no tunnelling, so should be cheap. Well, cheaper than Crossrail
and coping with existing traffic rather than creating new.

Michael Bell

--

I'd have it run on the south of the station along Lower Marsh, across
Waterloo Road, to meet the existing line at around Hatfields. A
flyover could be put somewhere so that trains could turn into Cannon
Street.

On the subject of Cannon Street, I've often heard about the slope
being to much, and the vaults being in the way. However, it's just the
lines that need to be linked, not the stations. Its not a cheap option
and would cost a lot of money. But it could be more beneficial than
Crossrail.

Dan Gravell wrote:

Dave Arquati wrote:


Although it is the off-peak service Hanger Lane to West Ruislip, at
Chiswick Park, North Ealing to South Harrow, Harrow & Wealdstone to
Wembley Central, North Harrow to Northwood, Croxley and Watford, New
Cross and New Cross Gate, Mill Hill East, Kensington Olympia, Blackwall
to Beckton, and Roding Valley to Barkingside.


All irrelevant. "Tube style" implies "metro style", and was a
generalisation across the city's network and across time periods.

I was trying to point out that these are all outer London areas just
like anywhere on the lines previously mentioned, so six trains per hour
is enough - not a start. I doubt much of South East London could sustain
a full offpeak service every few minutes as exists on some LU lines.

"off-peak [...] New Cross to New Cross Gate" FFS

I did say New Cross *and* New Cross Gate... otherwise I think you'd get
a much better frequency by walking!

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Chetoph wrote:

By this do you mean building a back-to-back link between London Bridge and
Waterloo, making them both straight-through stations? I think that would
be a great idea, to give the trains a non-terminating run straight across
the south side of the city centre, and making the north-south journey to
reach this route from places in the city centre a much shorter one. It
involves no tunnelling, so should be cheap. Well, cheaper than Crossrail
and coping with existing traffic rather than creating new.

Michael Bell

--


I'd have it run on the south of the station along Lower Marsh, across
Waterloo Road, to meet the existing line at around Hatfields. A
flyover could be put somewhere so that trains could turn into Cannon
Street.

On the subject of Cannon Street, I've often heard about the slope
being to much, and the vaults being in the way. However, it's just the
lines that need to be linked, not the stations. Its not a cheap option
and would cost a lot of money. But it could be more beneficial than
Crossrail.

I'm not convinced. Crossrail delivers at least double benefits -
commuters into Paddington or Waterloo get direct access to the City and
West End, and the City gets fast direct access to Heathrow. Since Cannon
Street and Moorgate are already *in* the City, those benefits are
immediately lost - you wouldn't get the reduction in overcrowding on the
tube.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

I'm not convinced. Crossrail delivers at least double benefits -
commuters into Paddington or Waterloo get direct access to the City and
West End, and the City gets fast direct access to Heathrow.

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

Jonn Elledge wrote:
"Chetoph" wrote...
The idea of linking stations up in London is a good idea but it's
probably best to start of with closer links rather than starting with
two substantially far away from each other. Linking Moorgate to Cannon
Street and Waterloo to Waterloo East (or destroying it) would offer
plenty of benefits. Yes they would be complicated and expensive, but
I'm sure (well guessing) that they would be under or the same price as
Crossrail.

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.

Would it be possible to run a line slightly further east, from Moorgate
under Throgmorton, perhaps with new Bank/Moorgate platforms somewhere around
Birchin Lane, to a new underground station at the eastern end of London
Bridge station,

The main obstacle in that area is not vaults nor gradients - it's
foundations! Many City buildings (especially the taller ones) have
foundations that go down a very long way, preventing any tube line from
getting through.

A new underground station at the eastern end of London Bridge station
could also be a problem for the same reason. All those new
groundscrapers around Tooley Street may prevent the construction of any
new tunnels.

The only possible route I can see (apart from beneath the existing
lines) is under Gracechurch Street and Bishopsgate, giving interchange
with Liverpool Street station instead of Moorgate. I don't know how
easily it could be linked to Old Street, though.

with a portal somewhere in the vicinity of Southwark Park
Road. The line could take over services on the East Dulwich line. There may
even be room for a new stop somewhere around the bottom of Bermondsey
Street, as that area's not brilliantly served by the tube. (Yes, I'm biased
because I live in it, so sue me.)

If you're going to link it to the East Dulwich line, it would be better
to make it more direct. Instead of detouring through South Bermondsey
and Peckham, it could go south through Walworth, Camberwell and
Denmark Hill.

John Rowland wrote:
"Aidan Stanger" wrote...
Gary Jenkins wrote:

As an alternative to a Bakerloo extension is it
feasible to hope for a Jubilee line branch from
North Greenwich in a south-easterly direction
towards Charlton. Eltham and Sidcup?

This would be great for Eltham, as an elongated
station (with travelators instead of escalators)
could serve both the station and the High Street.

While I can see the advantage of such a station, I can't think of any
station in London like that, so I doubt that the economics would add up.

Why would the economics not add up? They've done a similar thing with
Seven Sisters, but there it was close enough to use escalators.
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.

There are four possible reasons for no such stations having been
constructed yet:

1) They just didn't think of it.
2) Too expensive.
3) Local technical conditions prevent it.
4) No perceived need.

Considering how badly designed most of the new Jubilee stations are, I
would not consider LU's past decisions to be of much value for designing
future stations.

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

Michael


In article , Aidan Stanger
wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
"Aidan Stanger" wrote...
Gary Jenkins wrote:

As an alternative to a Bakerloo extension is it
feasible to hope for a Jubilee line branch from
North Greenwich in a south-easterly direction
towards Charlton. Eltham and Sidcup?

This would be great for Eltham, as an elongated
station (with travelators instead of escalators)
could serve both the station and the High Street.

While I can see the advantage of such a station, I can't think of any
station in London like that, so I doubt that the economics would add up.

Why would the economics not add up? They've done a similar thing with
Seven Sisters, but there it was close enough to use escalators.
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.

There are four possible reasons for no such stations having been
constructed yet:

1) They just didn't think of it.
2) Too expensive.
3) Local technical conditions prevent it.
4) No perceived need.

Considering how badly designed most of the new Jubilee stations are, I
would not consider LU's past decisions to be of much value for designing
future stations.


--

(Aidan Stanger) wrote the following in:


Considering how badly designed most of the new Jubilee stations
are, I would not consider LU's past decisions to be of much value
for designing future stations.

What's wrong with the new Jubilee stations?

--
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.

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.

tom

--
REMOVE AND DESTROY