Couldn't they just destroy the scissors crossover, and replace it with
one on the site of the current White City station when the southern
replacement is finished?

Kensington olympia must be the most random station in the world

lonelytraveller wrote:
Kensington olympia must be the most random station in the world

Really? It's therefore an amazing coincidence that this randomly
located station actually found itself not only in Kensington but also
right next door to Olympia. I always thought that was deliberate, but
according to you it was just chance.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Richard J. wrote:

Really? It's therefore an amazing coincidence that this randomly
located station actually found itself not only in Kensington but also
right next door to Olympia. I always thought that was deliberate, but
according to you it was just chance.

Erm isn't the tube station actually in Hammersmith & Fulham? (The through
line is the bondary.)

Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
Richard J. wrote:

Really? It's therefore an amazing coincidence that this randomly
located station actually found itself not only in Kensington but
also right next door to Olympia. I always thought that was
deliberate, but according to you it was just chance.

Erm isn't the tube station actually in Hammersmith & Fulham? (The
through line is the bondary.)

I think you're right. Not such an amazing coincidence after all.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In article , Tom
Anderson writes
The discussion says that something called a '4-track relay terminal
with a 2-track relay' used to exist at Park Row on the New York subway.
No idea what that is, but the poster seemed to be impressed.

I asked a knowledgeable friend.

Firstly, it wasn't on the Subway but on the erstwhile Brooklyn Bridge
Railway, at the Manhattan end. Turning it into UK terms, the layout
would be:

####D####
/--------------\
|------* ####A#### \
\-----------\ /--*----
X
/-----------/ \--*----
|------* ####D#### /
\--------------/
####A####

The platforms marked D were for departing passengers and A for arriving
ones. The X is a simple diamond crossing without slips.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Richard J. wrote:
Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:

Richard J. wrote:


Really? It's therefore an amazing coincidence that this randomly
located station actually found itself not only in Kensington but
also right next door to Olympia. I always thought that was
deliberate, but according to you it was just chance.

Erm isn't the tube station actually in Hammersmith & Fulham? (The
through line is the bondary.)


I think you're right. Not such an amazing coincidence after all.

Just because it's in LB Hammersmith & Fulham and not RB Kensington &
Chelsea doesn't mean it's not in Kensington. It is just off Kensington
High Street.

After all, if Bromley can be in "Kent"...


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

lonelytraveller wrote:
West Ruislip - Connecting this station up to a new station on the
metropolitan would mean that you could make the connection to Uxbridge
quite easily, rather than needing to use local transport instead, or
having to go via acton, which is ridiculous.


This area is far from densely populated, and a new station would never
pass any cost-benefit analysis. If you're travelling from the Central
line to Uxbridge, the proposed Park Royal interchange may help - but
otherwise, the demand isn't really there.

West Ruislip is very close to the metropolitan/piccadilly line, which
is why I have never understood why the other lines don't have an
interchange station here, since it makes journeys between the lines
particularly awkward.

As I said before - the population is really dense enough to justify an
extra station, as the area to the south is just fields! As for an
interchange, it probably wouldn't facilitate enough journeys to make it
worthwhile constructing platforms on the Met (and inconveniencing Met
passengers with the extra journey time). If anything, it would probably
be worth more to potential Chiltern passengers travelling to Uxbridge or
Harrow, rather than to Met/Central interchange passengers.

It wouldn't be that convenient an interchange either - it would be a
good 5-minute walk from the platforms at West Ruislip to the Met.


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

On Tue, 24 May 2005, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

In article , Tom Anderson
writes

The discussion says that something called a '4-track relay terminal
with a 2-track relay' used to exist at Park Row on the New York subway.
No idea what that is, but the poster seemed to be impressed.

I asked a knowledgeable friend.

Firstly, it wasn't on the Subway but on the erstwhile Brooklyn Bridge
Railway, at the Manhattan end. Turning it into UK terms, the layout would be:

####D####
/--------------\
|------* ####A#### \
\-----------\ /--*----
X
/-----------/ \--*----
|------* ####D#### /
\--------------/
####A####

The platforms marked D were for departing passengers and A for arriving
ones.

Wow. I can't even begin to figure out what the capacity of that would be!

Do trains drive on the left in the US, then?

The X is a simple diamond crossing without slips.

Is the entirety of railway terminology invented purely to wind me up?
I'm guessing a diamond crossing is just where two pairs of rails cross;
switching to line-per-rail mode:

\ \ / /
\ \ / /
\ \ / /
\ X /
\ / \ /
X X
/ \ / \
/ X \
/ / \ \
/ / \ \
/ / \ \

Is that right? If so, what's a slip?

tom

--
an optical recording release. copyright digitally mastered. .,

On Tue, 24 May 2005, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

In article , Tom Anderson
writes
The discussion says that something called a '4-track relay terminal with a
2-track relay' used to exist at Park Row on the New York subway. No idea
what that is, but the poster seemed to be impressed.

####D####
/--------------\
|------* ####A#### \
\-----------\ /--*----
X
/-----------/ \--*----
|------* ####D#### /
\--------------/
####A####

I've just realised how to build a terminal with arbitarily high capacity,
provided you don't mind making your passengers choose between an equally
arbitrary number of platforms:

+-[--------+-]-\
### / [ ### / ] \-----
-----+ [ -----+ ] /----
\ [ \ ] /
+-[--------+-]-/
n

Where the bit in square brackets with an n at the bottom is a repeated
unit (think polymers!). Trains come in from the east (and why do trains
always come in from the east in these things?), run along the road at the
southern edge of the structure, then pick a bay to stop in, run in on the
diagonal approach road, get in, stop, exchange passengers, then pull out
on the diagonal departure road, joining the main road at the northern edge
and heading back out east. The point is, there are no conflicting
movements, and no contention for anything except the running roads, so the
terminal doesn't restrict capacity below that which the line supports
(provided you can do the diverges and converges perfectly). Note that when
n = 0, this is a normal single-track reversing terminal, and when n = 1,
it's rather like a Sao Paulo terminal (but with more irritating platform
layout).

I think you have to be rather clever about the order in which bays are
used to preserve even intervals between trains, though.

If you replace the reversing bays with through lines, you get a
multi-track loop:

/-[--+-]-\
/ [ / ] \
|# [ |# ] \-----
|# [ |# ] /----
|# [ |# ] /
\ [ \ ] /
\-[--+-]-/
n

Which is wider, shorter, doesn't reverse the trains and is amenable to the
use of island platforms.

Probably not the most sensible use of railway space, either way!

tom

--
an optical recording release. copyright digitally mastered. .,