On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, John Rowland wrote:

sweek wrote:

i don't see the point in this. There is so much congestion on stations
already that we should work on actually spreading people around more
stations, not trying to centralise it. As long as the termini are
interconnected I think you're fine. And of course Crossrail schemes can
help with that as well.

Actually, it's best if all main lines passed through London, and all
lines interchanged with each other and with all tube lines, but not too
many lines interchanging at the same station.

Right - this spreads interchange out, rather than having massive traffic
in a small number of places.

That way a terrorist strike on a single station causes minimal
disruption.

John, are you seriously suggesting we plan transport infrastructure around
terrorism? Have you been completely taken in by what the government's told
you in the papers?

A single London Central station has no benefits and huge disbenefits.

I'd say 'no benefits' is a bit harsh: it would be much cheaper to build
one Great Central Station than N-squared mini-interchanges. I reckon it'd
make sense to handle the long-distance lines like this, but to put the
suburban lines into a system like you describe, RER style.

IIRC, there were moves to build something like a London Central in the
Victorian era, but they were blocked by parliament, who didn't like the
idea of smelly steam trains rushing around in their beautiful city.

tom

--
see im down wid yo sci fi crew

Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, John Rowland wrote:

That way a terrorist strike on a single station causes minimal
disruption.

John, are you seriously suggesting we plan transport infrastructure around
terrorism? Have you been completely taken in by what the government's told
you in the papers?

Hear hear Tom, well said.

Mizter T wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, John Rowland wrote:

That way a terrorist strike on a single station causes minimal
disruption.

John, are you seriously suggesting we plan transport infrastructure
around terrorism? Have you been completely taken in by what the
government's told you in the papers?

Hear hear Tom, well said.

Okay, that way a gas leak at a single station causes minimal disruption, and
a fire at a single station causes minimal disruption etc etc etc.

John Rowland wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, John Rowland wrote:

That way a terrorist strike on a single station causes minimal
disruption.

John, are you seriously suggesting we plan transport infrastructure
around terrorism? Have you been completely taken in by what the
government's told you in the papers?

Hear hear Tom, well said.

Okay, that way a gas leak at a single station causes minimal disruption, and
a fire at a single station causes minimal disruption etc etc etc.

Terrorism itself is not something to plan around, but in the IRA's
heyday it only took a phone call to close a London terminal - can you
imagine how keen people would be to close a London Central?

In article ,
(John Rowland) wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, John Rowland wrote:

That way a terrorist strike on a single station causes minimal
disruption.

John, are you seriously suggesting we plan transport
infrastructure around terrorism? Have you been completely taken in
by what the government's told you in the papers?

Hear hear Tom, well said.

Okay, that way a gas leak at a single station causes minimal
disruption, and a fire at a single station causes minimal
disruption etc etc etc.

Or an overheated acetylene tank paralysing the East Coast Main Line all
the way to Peterborough and Royston?

--
Colin Rosenstiel