Victoria Revamp
 

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.

Kevin

Victoria Revamp
 

Victoria Revamp
 

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.

Kevin

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...

M.
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.

Kevin

Victoria Revamp
 

On 7 Sep 2005 01:04:19 -0700, 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.

The upgrade of Victoria station is urgently needed because it simply
cannot cope with current loadings. People are delayed getting through
all parts of the station when it is busy or worse.

The station upgrade coincides with the delivery of the line upgrade
according to the press release. This means that the higher volumes of
people being carried by the upgraded train service can actually get in
and out of Victoria and conversely, of course, that there is more train
service to carry the extra people who will be able to use Victoria
without getting delayed as the congested parts of the station will have
been rebuild or added to..

The scale of the planned construction is quite something but I am
somewhat disappointed that it seems to do very little indeed to deal
with the District / Circle parts of the station which is horribly
cramped with platforms that are too small and connecting corridors
bridges which are inappropriate. I wonder if a Phase 2 is planned to
deal with the increased service provided by the sub surface upgrade?
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Victoria Revamp
 

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.

Kevin

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...

M.
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.

I don't know if this is in the current plan, but the original
congestion busting proposal is to have a second platform
on the opposite side to separate the joining/alighting pax
flows

tim

Victoria Revamp
 

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.

Kevin

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...

M.
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.

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

Victoria Revamp
 

tim (moved to sweden) wrote:

I don't know if this is in the current plan, but the original
congestion busting proposal is to have a second platform
on the opposite side to separate the joining/alighting pax
flows

And then open the doors on both sides?

I think they would have to open the doors on the get off side a couple
of seconds before the get on side. That way people will manage to get
off the correct side.

Tim

Victoria Revamp
 

"Tim Bray" wrote in message
.. .
tim (moved to sweden) wrote:

I don't know if this is in the current plan, but the original
congestion busting proposal is to have a second platform
on the opposite side to separate the joining/alighting pax
flows

And then open the doors on both sides?

I think they would have to open the doors on the get off side a couple of
seconds before the get on side.

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

tim

Victoria Revamp
 

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.

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.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Victoria Revamp
 

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.

Kevin

Victoria Revamp
 

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)

Victoria Revamp
 

"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

Victoria Revamp
 

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

Victoria Revamp
 

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

Victoria Revamp
 

"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

Victoria Revamp
 

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"?

Victoria Revamp
 

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?

Victoria Revamp
 

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

Victoria Revamp
 

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

Victoria Revamp
 

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.

Victoria Revamp
 

Quoting restored so I can respond to multiple points at once.

Tim Bray, referring to stations where platforms are used on both sides
of one track at once, writes:

I think they would have to open the doors on the get off side
a couple of seconds before the get on side.

Another Tim then writes:

This is what happens in Munich.
There are anouncements on the train to alight from the
correct (by name) side.

Does "by name" mean they say left/right (links/rechts), or something else?

Incidentally, Toronto has one station with this type of platform usage:
Kennedy station http://transit.toronto.on.ca/images/subway-5107-06.jpg
on the Scarborough RT (light railway) line. They just open the doors on
the arrival-platform side first, as Tim Bray says; there's no specific
announcement.

...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)

Well, that could get awkward if there was an emergency and people
already on the departure platform suddenly had to evacuate. Of course
they could press the emergency stop buttons and use the escalators,
but would they think of it?

Arthur Figgis asks:
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?

The second Tim writes:
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?

They sure didn't do that in Berlin the last time I was there. It was
the fact that it went against the national stereotype that called it
to my attention. Maybe this varies regionally and Munich is different.

Laurence Payne comments:
Don't the Americans demonise "jay-walking"?

In the US it does vary regionally. In California, people (and the police)
tend to feel that streets are for cars and pedestrians need to keep their
place. In New York, any attempt by the authorities to stop people from
crossing the street where and when they like is likely to be met with
complaints, and especially when the street to be crossed is only two
lanes wide, it's very common for pedestrians to cross against the light.
--
Mark Brader "Those who do not know USENET
Toronto are doomed to repeat each other."
-- Erik Fair (after George Santayana)

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Victoria Revamp
 

In message , at 02:43:08 on Fri, 9
Sep 2005, Mark Brader remarked:
Don't the Americans demonise "jay-walking"?

In the US it does vary regionally. In California, people (and the police)
tend to feel that streets are for cars and pedestrians need to keep their
place.

I've seen "no pedestrians" signs (for normal roads) in a few places. I
forget where, but it may have been Austin, Texas. More specifically,
there are "No pedestrian" signs on the entrances to bus stations in
Atlanta, but that's a revenue protection measure because you have to pay
a flat fee to go through a turnstyle, and then you catch your bus. There
are "No pedestrian" signs on the access road into Nottingham Bus station
too, but that's clearly a road safety issue (and there's a path right
next to the road).
--
Roland Perry

Victoria Revamp
 

"Mark Brader" wrote in message
...
Another Tim then writes:
snippty
This is what happens in Munich.
There are anouncements on the train to alight from the
correct (by name) side.

Does "by name" mean they say left/right (links/rechts), or something else?

..I was in Munich last weekend, as the S-Bahn from the airport was
approaching the Hauptbahnhof there was an announcement in German which was
followed by an announcement in English saying "Next stop Munich Central
Station, please exit the train on the right hand side." The alighting
platform was to the right looking in the direction of travel. I'm not sure
if they set up the alighting side door enable before the boarding side, I'll
check next time I'm there.
--
Cheers, Steve.
Change from jealous to sad to reply.

Victoria Revamp
 

"Mark Brader" wrote in message
...
Quoting restored so I can respond to multiple points at once.

Tim Bray, referring to stations where platforms are used on both sides
of one track at once, writes:

I think they would have to open the doors on the get off side
a couple of seconds before the get on side.

Another Tim then writes:

This is what happens in Munich.
There are anouncements on the train to alight from the
correct (by name) side.

Does "by name" mean they say left/right (links/rechts), or something else?

Yes (as someone else has explained). (I realld did want to avoid
going around a loop discussing whether it was always the 'right'
side)

Incidentally, Toronto has one station with this type of platform usage:
Kennedy station http://transit.toronto.on.ca/images/subway-5107-06.jpg
on the Scarborough RT (light railway) line. They just open the doors on
the arrival-platform side first, as Tim Bray says; there's no specific
announcement.

...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)

Well, that could get awkward if there was an emergency and people
already on the departure platform suddenly had to evacuate. Of course
they could press the emergency stop buttons and use the escalators,
but would they think of it?

I'm sure that they would.

Arthur Figgis asks:
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?

The second Tim writes:
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?

They sure didn't do that in Berlin the last time I was there. It was
the fact that it went against the national stereotype that called it
to my attention. Maybe this varies regionally and Munich is different.

I was just using this as an example. Generally Germans are
sticklers for rules and follow them blindly, no matter how
inconvenient.

No doubt you'll find a few who don't obey everything, but as a
national group they are very compliant.

tim

Victoria Revamp
 

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


"Arthur Figgis" ] wrote in message
.. .

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?

On a trip to Copenhagen it was hard to tell if the Danes were more
surpised that we _would_ cross an empty road against a red man, or we
were more surprised that they wouldn't.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Victoria Revamp
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 02:43:08 on Fri, 9
Sep 2005, Mark Brader remarked:

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


In the US it does vary regionally. In California, people (and the
police)
tend to feel that streets are for cars and pedestrians need to keep their
place.


I've seen "no pedestrians" signs (for normal roads) in a few places. I
forget where, but it may have been Austin, Texas.

They exist in Austin, but the intent doesn't so much seem to be "no
pedestrians" as "you can't cross this road on this side of the
junction," thus forcing people to go the long way around. However, there
are places I can recall seeing at least two such signs facing the same
corner, leaving you with no way to legally cross there whatsoever.

Victoria Revamp
 

Tim Bray wrote:
tim (moved to sweden) wrote:

And then open the doors on both sides?

I think they would have to open the doors on the get off side a couple
of seconds before the get on side. That way people will manage to get
off the correct side.

Tim

Are they planning to have platform edge doors? Separate 'on' and 'off'
platforms is a good idea, but platforms on both sides of the track
would mean having a conductor rail below the platform edge; would that
be allowed these days without PEDs? Come to that, would any new or
rebuilt platform be allowed without them now that the JLE has set the
precident?