[Tom Anderson]

On Thu, 26 May 2005, Rupert Candy wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

Is this abstract concept of "proper trains" to do with higher capacity?

Yes.

Tom - by 'heavy rail', what do you have in mind

Trains bigger than light rail - for example, the tube or mainline
railways.

something like the JLE, or 'heavy rail' as we understand it in South
London (widely-spaced and unpleasant stations, no more than 4 tph,
inappropriately designed trains for inner-suburban services, poor
penetration of zone 1 beyond a few peripheral termini)?

Less like that!

Sorry for not making myself clearer. I was thinking of things like the
tube, or WAGN services from Chingford, or Crossrail.

What's this about widely-spaced stations in the south, though? From
looking at maps, i get the general impression that spacings are comparable
to those on north London tube lines at equivalent distances out from town.

It strikes me that the reason the DLR has proved popular with the huge
numbers of people moving to Docklands is because it's perceived (rightly
or wrongly) as a 'pretend Tube' - something which that area of London
was previously notably lacking. (Even if it doesn't get any further into
Central London than your average suburban rail service.)

I think that's the same reason people are getting so excited about the
ELLX [1] - because it's perceived as 'something different' from the
despised heavy rail services we already have.

True. I'd never thought of it like that. To be fair, it does also have
much better frequencies, which makes a huge difference in the way you can
use the service. I guess the southern reaches of the ELL won't get a great
frequency, though.

You only have to compare the DLR and NR stations at (say) Deptford and
Deptford Bridge to see which of the two presents more of a modern, safe,
clean rapid transit-type image. Of course that's not entirely the fault
of the railway - its stations are 80-100 years older than those of the
DLR (though that's no excuse for the lamentable state of most
inner-suburban stations compared to their Tube equivalents).

True. The DLR does have the advantage of being very modern, but the
neglect of suburban NR stations is awful. Roll on London Rail!

[1] well, that and a chronic misunderstanding of what it will actually
involve - I still giggle every time I see a "TUBE COMING TO BROMLEY!"
headline on a local paper...

I get the same with "TUBE COMING TO DALSTON!" headlines.

tom

--
Punk's not sexual, it's just aggression.

[Boltar]

for some reason this
seems setup seems to be seen to be ok for city airport

Because it's a toy airport.

Now it yes yes. But infrastructure tends to grow in line with
the transport links to it. If the jubilee (or even DLR) had gone to
the airport much earlier it would probably be handling far more
passengers now than it does. Admittedly it'll never be another
heathrow simply because of the space limitation and length of
runway , but thats not to say it won't become a major short-hop
hub. Of course whether we want any more air traffic and hence
pollution around london is another matter entirely.

B2003

[Paul Corfield]

On 26 May 2005 02:08:30 -0700, "Boltar" wrote:

Anyone suggesting the
piccadilly line should terminate at hounslow and a light rail line run
to heathrow would be considered mad , yet for some reason this
seems setup seems to be seen to be ok for city airport. British
short sightedness at its most stunningly thickwitted I would say.

Funny that years ago the Piccadilly Line used to run only as far as
Hounslow West and everyone was kicked off on to a bus to get to
Heathrow.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

[Paul Terry]

In message , James Farrar
writes

How do passenger numbers at LCY now compare with those at LHR when the
Piccadilly Line extension was approved?

Nowhere near. LCY passenger numbers for 2003 were 1.5 million. Heathrow
was already seeing 5.27 million in 1960, long before the Piccadilly
extension was planned:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/h...html/1960s.stm

--
Paul Terry

[David Splett]

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
.li...
I'm lamentably badly-informed of the history of the "railway alignments"
which were recycled by the "DLR", so i have to confess that it was a
purely speculative remark.

The DLR is a bit of a mix of lines, and doesn't really use any great length
of any route. Sections are as follows:-

- Tower Gateway (near Christian Street Junction) to Limehouse, which uses
two tracks of the former four-track LTS alignment at this point.

- Limehouse to Westferry - uses part of the former route from Limehouse to
Blackwall.

All of the DLR in the Poplar area is on new alignment, partly using old
goods yards. IIRC Aspen Way occupied part of the Blackwall route at this
point.

- Poplar to Bow Church uses the southern end of the North London Line's
Victoria Park to Poplar route.

- Bow Church to Stratford uses a former track used by trains travelling
from Bow Junction via Bow Road to Limehouse.

- Prince Regent to Cyprus and the immediate approach to Beckton uses parts
of the branches to Gallions and Beckton respectively.

- Crossharbour to Mudchute uses part of the route of the Millwall Extension
Railway, which ran from the Poplar area (Millwall Junction station) to North
Greenwich (actually Island Gardens).

So really the amount of old railway used by the DLR is quite small, and in
any event it tends to use off bits of line rather than any great length -
leading to sharp curves and steep gradients.


A quick look at CULG suggests that a Stratford
- Bow - Isle of Dogs route could be liberated for heavy rail.

The curves in the Poplar and South Quay areas would be a problem. The
original route ran "straight ahead" north of Crossharbour. I suspect forging
a railway through that area would be quite difficult due to subsequent
building on the alignment.


Convert rather than close. In places, the spacing is too close for heavy
rail, i admit, and there, stations would have to close, unless there was
room for DLR and heavy rail to run side by side or interwork. That would
be a tough decision.

I would like to see one of Heron Quays or West India Quay closed, plus
perhaps one or two stations on the Beckton line. The DLR has to be the
slowest rail service I've ever been on.

[Paul Terry]

In message , Paul Corfield
writes

Funny that years ago the Piccadilly Line used to run only as far as
Hounslow West and everyone was kicked off on to a bus to get to
Heathrow.

But hardly anyone took that route to Heathrow in my experience.

Before the Piccadilly Line extension, if you weren't travelling to
Heathrow by cab or car you would normally check in at the West London
Air Terminal in Cromwell Road. You and your luggage would then be taken
by BEA (or BOAC) coach down the A4 (and later the M4) to the appropriate
terminal building at Heathrow. Prior to 1957 I believe the check-in was
at Waterloo, although the onward journey was still by airline coach.

--
Paul Terry

[Paul Terry]

In message .com,
Boltar writes

LCY

But infrastructure tends to grow in line with the transport links to
it.

It can only do so if there is room. And it is not just runway space. As
you increase the number of flights, the space needed for plane servicing
and maintenance, parking (plane and car), baggage handling, passenger
facilities, and so forth, also increases. There is simply not the room
at LCY (unless all of the remaining docks are to be drained and filled
in).

If the jubilee (or even DLR) had gone to
the airport much earlier it would probably be handling far more
passengers now than it does.

I think that is very debatable. The 'bread and butter' of LCY consists
of highly expensive short-hop business flights. For people using these
services, the cost of a cab from Docklands or even the City is very
little compared with the cost of the flight. I don't think they are
likely to want to use the tube in the way that incoming tourists and
outgoing holidaymakers do on the Piccadilly Line in order to save a few
squid.

Of course whether we want any more air traffic and hence
pollution around london is another matter entirely.

Indeed - and also to what extent it is possible to fit in more LCY
traffic, given the proximity of two of Heathrow's holding stacks, the
main Heathrow incoming flightpath, and also Stansted stacking areas such
as Brentwood (which are set to widen). In other words - safety issues.

--
Paul Terry

[Colin Rosenstiel]

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On 26 May 2005 02:08:30 -0700, "Boltar" wrote:

Anyone suggesting the
piccadilly line should terminate at hounslow and a light rail line run
to heathrow would be considered mad , yet for some reason this
seems setup seems to be seen to be ok for city airport. British
short sightedness at its most stunningly thickwitted I would say.

Funny that years ago the Piccadilly Line used to run only as far as
Hounslow West and everyone was kicked off on to a bus to get to
Heathrow.

Actually it was over 25 years ago but you're right, no-one would be so
stupid as to expect people to do that would they? :-)

--
Colin Rosenstiel

[Mrs Redboots]

Paul Corfield wrote to uk.transport.london on Thu, 26 May 2005:

On 26 May 2005 02:08:30 -0700, "Boltar" wrote:

Anyone suggesting the
piccadilly line should terminate at hounslow and a light rail line run
to heathrow would be considered mad , yet for some reason this
seems setup seems to be seen to be ok for city airport. British
short sightedness at its most stunningly thickwitted I would say.

Funny that years ago the Piccadilly Line used to run only as far as
Hounslow West and everyone was kicked off on to a bus to get to
Heathrow.

Nonsense - I mean, not nonsense that the Picc. Line ended at Hounslow,
of course it did, but the way you went to Heathrow then was by coach
from the West London Air Terminal (which is now a Sainsbury's) on the
Cromwell Road. You went only as far as Gloucester Road by Tube! And I
think there was also a terminal opposite Victoria Coach station, if I
remember rightly.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 23 May 2005

[Brimstone]

Mrs Redboots wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote to uk.transport.london on Thu, 26 May 2005:

On 26 May 2005 02:08:30 -0700, "Boltar"
wrote:

Anyone suggesting the
piccadilly line should terminate at hounslow and a light rail line
run to heathrow would be considered mad , yet for some reason this
seems setup seems to be seen to be ok for city airport. British
short sightedness at its most stunningly thickwitted I would say.

Funny that years ago the Piccadilly Line used to run only as far as
Hounslow West and everyone was kicked off on to a bus to get to
Heathrow.

Nonsense - I mean, not nonsense that the Picc. Line ended at Hounslow,
of course it did, but the way you went to Heathrow then was by coach
from the West London Air Terminal (which is now a Sainsbury's) on the
Cromwell Road. You went only as far as Gloucester Road by Tube! And
I think there was also a terminal opposite Victoria Coach station, if
I remember rightly.

Not quite opposite, it was in Buckingham Palace Road over some of the
railway tracks out of Victoria; where there is now a big shopping/office
complex.