In the message ups.com...
wrote:

Michael Hopkins wrote:

The only ways to increase capacity a
i) more trains
ii) improvements to track and signalling to allow them to run closer
together, thereby increasing the number of passengers carried per unit
time.
iii) redesign trains to get more people on each one, i.e. adjusting the
balance of seats to standing space, and positioning the seats to take up
least space.
iv) schemes (such as the extra platforms proposed at Victoria) to help
(ii)
by decreasing station dwell times.

What seems to be proposed for Victoria is a very clever solution to
*station* overcrowding. As I understand it, in itself it won't affect
train
capacities.

Michael
The frequency on the Victoria Line is already very high, I suppose that
you might squeeze a few extra in per hour but then you still have to
overcome the overcrowding and unloading/loading time at Victoria.

Indeed. Looking at the timescale (Building work will start in 2008 and is
due to finish in 2013) I can't help thinking that the money could be spent
better in helping to provide alternative rail routes from southern London to
central London - notably the Thameslink 2000 scheme, but also the ELR
extension and Crossrail. According to press reports, "The "huge influx" of
commuters from the Home Counties and south London has increased pressure on
the station, the mayor said. Every morning about 35,000 passengers pass
through it." Yet despite the clearly identified lack of traffic on the west
of London for Crossrail, the idea of incorporating a service to
Richmond/Twickenham/Kingston has apparently been discarded. Joined-up
thinking, anybody ?

Regards,

- Alan (in Brussels)

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Michael Hopkins) wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

marcb wrote:
wrote:

There was much on the news last night about the £500M revamp at
Victoria and the increse in capacity. Surely you can only increase
capacity buy increasing the frequency of trains or increasing the
carrying capacity or have I missed something.

I had the same thought - I think there are only four platforms for
Victoria and Circle/District. and most people won't want Victora
southbound...

I don't know about the District/Circle but the Victoria lines platforms
are already packed to overflowing. How is increasing the passenger
tunnel capacity going to help. I would have thought that £500M would
have been better spent incresing train length to give extra capacity
which would also help in loading unloading times therefore increasing
frequency.

London Underground can't increase length (despite the election
promises of the new Conservative MP for Putney) because the length of
the platforms in subsurface tunnels is fixed. To lengthen all the
platforms would either be prohibitivly expensive, or take so long as
to take generations to actually build.

Much as it might pain me to agree with her, the new MP for Putney is
not wrong. The District Line ran 8-car Q, CP and R stock trains until
the 1970s. The platforms, give or take a bit of selective door opening,
are all long enough, except between High St Ken and Edgware Road where
shorter trains have always been used. So, if the eventual D stock
replacements were 8 car length (car lengths as C and earlier stocks)
there would be a worthwhile increase in capacity.

Fair point, but that would involve re-arranging the timetable/line
permutations because of Wimbleware, so if you're throwing that kind of idea
around, I guss anything's possible!

Michael

In article ,
(Michael Hopkins) wrote:

Much as it might pain me to agree with her, the new MP for Putney is
not wrong. The District Line ran 8-car Q, CP and R stock trains until
the 1970s. The platforms, give or take a bit of selective door
opening, are all long enough, except between High St Ken and Edgware
Road where shorter trains have always been used. So, if the eventual
D stock replacements were 8 car length (car lengths as C and earlier
stocks) there would be a worthwhile increase in capacity.

Fair point, but that would involve re-arranging the timetable/line
permutations because of Wimbleware, so if you're throwing that kind of
idea around, I guss anything's possible!

Why? Wimbleware trains are already shorter than main District line
trains are.

The switch to 7 car CO/CP and R stock trains was to avoid uncoupling I
thought as there wasn't enough stock for all District main line trains
to be 8 cars. The D stock order then fossilised those limited capacity
arrangements. But with D stock to be replaced under the PPP the
possibility of longer trains again is perfectly feasible.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 00:00:33 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
wrote:


This is what happens in Munich.
There are anouncements on the train to alight from the
correct (by name) side. Regular travellers don't do it
wrong twice though, if you do get off the wrong side you
find yourself stuck on a platform with only down escalators
and no obvious way to get to another level (there are some
stairs but there are no signs to them)

That way people will manage to get off the correct side.

hopefully

At risk of a certain degree of national stereotyping, are people in
Munich more likely to follow the instructions than people in London
would be?
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

"Arthur Figgis" ] wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 00:00:33 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
wrote:


This is what happens in Munich.
There are anouncements on the train to alight from the
correct (by name) side. Regular travellers don't do it
wrong twice though, if you do get off the wrong side you
find yourself stuck on a platform with only down escalators
and no obvious way to get to another level (there are some
stairs but there are no signs to them)

That way people will manage to get off the correct side.

hopefully

At risk of a certain degree of national stereotyping, are people in
Munich more likely to follow the instructions than people in London
would be?

You are joking?

How many nationalities do you know that will happily stand by
the side of an empty road, because there's a little lit-up picture
of a man telling them to do so?

Tim

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 23:20:48 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
wrote:

How many nationalities do you know that will happily stand by
the side of an empty road, because there's a little lit-up picture
of a man telling them to do so?

Don't the Americans demonise "jay-walking"?

The switch to 7 car was also to avoid use of narrow 'catwalks' at the
ends of some central area District Line platforms which were in danger
of falling foul of the Railway Inspectorate (today's Heath & Safety
fascists), and even using these narrow channels (still in place at
certain stations) required the 'end door cut outs' to be operated to
stop the first and last sets of double doors opening on an 8-car train.
What chance of this in today's nanny state?

wrote:


The switch to 7 car was also to avoid use of narrow 'catwalks' at the
ends of some central area District Line platforms which were in danger
of falling foul of the Railway Inspectorate (today's Heath & Safety
fascists), and even using these narrow channels (still in place at
certain stations) required the 'end door cut outs' to be operated to
stop the first and last sets of double doors opening on an 8-car train.

And this was before Driver Only Operation. The CCTV monitors now fill the
ends of many platforms, and in many cases there would be no suitable place
to relocate them. Although I suppose with new stock, the sub-surface lines
may move over to in-cab CCTV monitors as per the Central line.

Chris

In article ,
(Chris Read) wrote:

wrote:

The switch to 7 car was also to avoid use of narrow 'catwalks' at the
ends of some central area District Line platforms which were in
danger
of falling foul of the Railway Inspectorate (today's Heath & Safety
fascists), and even using these narrow channels (still in place at
certain stations) required the 'end door cut outs' to be operated to
stop the first and last sets of double doors opening on an 8-car
train.

How many, though?

And this was before Driver Only Operation. The CCTV monitors now fill
the ends of many platforms, and in many cases there would be no
suitable
place to relocate them. Although I suppose with new stock, the
sub-surface lines may move over to in-cab CCTV monitors as per the
Central line.

That would be intelligent!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Alan (in Brussels) wrote:
snip
Indeed. Looking at the timescale (Building work will start in 2008 and is
due to finish in 2013) I can't help thinking that the money could be spent
better in helping to provide alternative rail routes from southern London to
central London - notably the Thameslink 2000 scheme, but also the ELR
extension and Crossrail. According to press reports, "The "huge influx" of
commuters from the Home Counties and south London has increased pressure on
the station, the mayor said. Every morning about 35,000 passengers pass
through it." Yet despite the clearly identified lack of traffic on the west
of London for Crossrail, the idea of incorporating a service to
Richmond/Twickenham/Kingston has apparently been discarded. Joined-up
thinking, anybody ?

Indeed - if less people come into Victoria by rail, less will want to
cram onto the Victoria Line. It is however a hard task working out what
those alternative rail routes and interchanges that could relieve
Victoria might be, and if they're financially or technically viable.

Part of the problem is the extent to which the Victoria Line is the
victim of it's own success. When it works properly, it's a speedy
(albeit cramped) route across town, as opposed to (for example) the
Circle/District or Northern lines which can chug along a bit.