On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:10:25 +0100 John Youles wrote:
} On 14 Jul 2003 14:15:59 -0700 in uk.transport.london,
} (nmtop40) tapped out on the keyboard:
}
} Matthew Malthouse wrote in message ...
} At least that's what the Evening Standard headline said. I only had time
} to skim the first couple of pars and the only other point I saw was that
} it was unlikely to be complete in time for a possible Olympics in 2012
} in part because enabling legislation was unlikely before next year.
}
} Matthew
}
} presumably this is the E/W line through the middle of London.
}
} But is it really really necessary?
}
} It's a connecting line around London we need, not more lines going
} through the middle of it.
}
} I disagree completely. A major reason why rail is not used more in
} this country is that journeys via London are a complete pain in the
} neck. For example I am travelling from Norwich to Torquay shortly
} which entails dragging luggage from Liverpool Street to Paddington.
} The ideal, which will never happen, is a megastation in the middle of
} London where all the inter-city services connect.

How about a deep tube that just connected the larger termini leaving
intermediate traffic to the existing Circle?

Matthew
--
Il est important d'être un homme ou une femme en colère; le jour où nous
quitte la colère, ou le désir, c'est cuit. - Barbara

http://www.calmeilles.co.uk/

It's a connecting line around London we need, not more lines going
through the middle of it.

I disagree completely. A major reason why rail is not used more in
this country is that journeys via London are a complete pain in the
neck. For example I am travelling from Norwich to Torquay shortly
which entails dragging luggage from Liverpool Street to Paddington.
The ideal, which will never happen, is a megastation in the middle of
London where all the inter-city services connect.


In the 19th century the railway companies made a plan to
have a huge central London station, but Parliament stepped in and
forced them to stop at the edge of the city centre and join them
all using the circel line. It would be a very different London
today if that had not happened. Would it have been better? An
interesting question!.

Michael Bell

--

On 14 Jul 2003 14:15:59 -0700, (nmtop40) wrote:

[crossrail]

presumably this is the E/W line through the middle of London.
But is it really really necessary?

Yes I think it is necessary because the areas it will serve are already
on lines at maximum capacity with a forecast for more usage growth.
Unless you propose to move development (and existing businesses) out of
central london permanently then people need to be able to travel there
in large and increasing numbers.

We are still debating the value of 1 line when Paris has 5 and Berlin
has completely renovated its own version - the S Bahn. Try using the
Paris RER in the rush hour and then try to imagine how a bad a state the
Metro would be in if it was trying to carry even 50% of the RER
passengers. It would not work and London will not work unless we adopt
the same "can do and must do" philosophy that the French seem to have
towards public transport investment.

On top of Crossrail you need to have a strategy for each main line out
of London that will expand capacity as well as improving interchange to
other lines that intersect with them. We fleetingly had the prospect of
the line upgrade option until the SRA decided it had no money, didn't
want 20 year franchises and somehow thought squeezing more and more out
of the current capacity is a viable long term option.

It's a connecting line around London we need, not more lines going
through the middle of it.

I agree with the orbital line idea in addition to Crossrail and I think
it could be done relatively cheaply if people employed some imagination
as to the execution of the concept.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

In article , Paul Corfield
writes
On 14 Jul 2003 14:15:59 -0700, (nmtop40) wrote:

[crossrail]


It's a connecting line around London we need, not more lines going
through the middle of it.

I agree with the orbital line idea in addition to Crossrail and I think
it could be done relatively cheaply if people employed some imagination
as to the execution of the concept.
People in favour of crossrail often quote people wanting to travel from
the GE lines to Paddington - but how many want to? Surely lots want to
travel from GE to Waterloo/Victoria - I do quite often, and others want
to go to go from Marylebone to London Bridge.

I commute to Kings Cross from the GE - it would probably ease my travel
a bit, but I am not convinced by the plan - given the number of people
or orbit the M25 I can see advantages in an orbital line linking key
interchanges.

--
John

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:42:41 +0100, John wrote:

In article , Paul Corfield
writes
On 14 Jul 2003 14:15:59 -0700, (nmtop40) wrote:

[crossrail]

It's a connecting line around London we need, not more lines going
through the middle of it.

I agree with the orbital line idea in addition to Crossrail and I think
it could be done relatively cheaply if people employed some imagination
as to the execution of the concept.

People in favour of crossrail often quote people wanting to travel from
the GE lines to Paddington - but how many want to? Surely lots want to
travel from GE to Waterloo/Victoria - I do quite often, and others want
to go to go from Marylebone to London Bridge.

But that is not the whole story is it. Crossrail will relieve a lot of
other lines as well as provide very quick links across the centre. If
you live in Ilford and want to go to Oxford St you currently get a GE
train and then a tube. In future one train to TCR that is much faster
overall as the line speed will be far higher than the Tube.

Let's say you want to go Romford to Gatwick. In future one fast train to
Farringdon then one fast Thameslink to Gatwick. There are a myriad of
options opened up with Crossrail. I think people need to use the RER in
Paris to see how good a concept it is in comparison to the Metro (which
is good at what it does too but it is comparatively slow and nearly
always requires one change to get anywhere).

I commute to Kings Cross from the GE - it would probably ease my travel
a bit, but I am not convinced by the plan - given the number of people
or orbit the M25 I can see advantages in an orbital line linking key
interchanges.

so in future you get one direct train to Farringdon and then Thameslink
or a Tube one stop. Sounds fine and dandy to me (assuming it all works,
of course).

I'd like to see Thameslink 2050 (!) built, Crossrail 1 then something
doing KX- Victoria (Crossrail 2) and then Waterloo / Vauxhall - Euston
preferably linking into Holborn / Aldwych. The only really difficult
option would be whether we could create a London version of Chatelet Les
Halles (Paris) with (nearly) all the lines linked or whether you'd have
a couple of big Central London interchange stations.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:42:41 +0100, John wrote:

In article , Paul Corfield
writes
On 14 Jul 2003 14:15:59 -0700, (nmtop40) wrote:

[crossrail]

It's a connecting line around London we need, not more lines going
through the middle of it.

I agree with the orbital line idea in addition to Crossrail and I think
it could be done relatively cheaply if people employed some imagination
as to the execution of the concept.

People in favour of crossrail often quote people wanting to travel from
the GE lines to Paddington - but how many want to? Surely lots want to
travel from GE to Waterloo/Victoria - I do quite often, and others want
to go to go from Marylebone to London Bridge.

(snip)

I commute to Kings Cross from the GE - it would probably ease my travel
a bit, but I am not convinced by the plan - given the number of people
or orbit the M25 I can see advantages in an orbital line linking key
interchanges.

so in future you get one direct train to Farringdon and then Thameslink
or a Tube one stop. Sounds fine and dandy to me (assuming it all works,
of course).

I'd like to see Thameslink 2050 (!) built, Crossrail 1 then something
doing KX- Victoria (Crossrail 2) and then Waterloo / Vauxhall - Euston
preferably linking into Holborn / Aldwych. The only really difficult
option would be whether we could create a London version of Chatelet Les
Halles (Paris) with (nearly) all the lines linked or whether you'd have
a couple of big Central London interchange stations.

The problem already with that is that Crossrail 2 is currently proposed to
run Victoria - TCR - KX... so you already have three interchange stations
(KX, Farringdon, TCR) in a triangle for TL2K/XR1/XR2. Crossrail 2 could be
changed at this early stage but it wouldn't be sensible to run it via
Farringdon just for ease of use. I'm not sure of my Paris geography - does
it have several main centres like London's West End, City & Canary Wharf -
or just one main one at Chatelet?

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7

In article ,
says...
At least that's what the Evening Standard headline said. I only had time
to skim the first couple of pars and the only other point I saw was that
it was unlikely to be complete in time for a possible Olympics in 2012
in part because enabling legislation was unlikely before next year.


The funding is far from approved.

The minister agreed with the scheme in principle, but said it would go
ahead only if the private sector paid a substantial sum toward it.