| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
London Hauptbahnhof
I was in Berlin recently and of course took some time to admire the new
Hauptbahnhof. Reading up about it, I discovered that pre-WW2, Berlin had the same situation as London regarding mainline termini, i.e. a number of them in a circle around the city, depending on which part of the country you were travelling to. As part of reunification, a decision was made to build a Berlin Hauptbahnhof where all mainline trains to the city would halt. My question is, was something similar ever considered for London in the immediate postwar period? The area where the Barbican now is was flattened, so would it have been possible for the lines from Euston, King's Cross/St Pancras, Moorgate, Fenchurch Street, Cannon Street/London Bridge and Waterloo to have been extended somehow to build a London "Hauptbahnhof" on a site in that area? I know it would have left out Victoria & Paddington, and would have meant a lot of demolition, but the postwar nationalisation period would seem to have been the natural time for such a big project if the idea were ever mooted. Patrick |
London Hauptbahnhof
|
London Hauptbahnhof
|
London Hauptbahnhof
On 24 Oct 2006 08:40:15 -0700, Earl Purple wrote:
London Bridge is not a terminus. In the same way that Paddington isn't a terminus? |
London Hauptbahnhof
I think that there was a suggestion, round about 1870, that
Farringdon be such a thing. Didn't the Circle Line have broad gauge tracks, as well as standard, at one time? The only thing I remember about the Abercrombie plan of 1943 was that it proposed to abolish Waterloo. I liked its plan to have aeroplane landing strips on the roof of all the main line terminals, for the taxi planes bringing people into town from the long-haul airports. Jeremy Parker |
London Hauptbahnhof
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. |
London Hauptbahnhof
asdf wrote: On 24 Oct 2006 08:40:15 -0700, Earl Purple wrote: London Bridge is not a terminus. In the same way that Paddington isn't a terminus? No. |
London Hauptbahnhof
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. That way a terrorist strike on a single station causes minimal disruption. A single London Central station has no benefits and huge disbenefits. |
London Hauptbahnhof
Earl Purple wrote:
London Bridge is not a terminus. Yes it is - it just isn't a terminus for every service that uses it, same as Blackfriars. -- Stephen The Doctor: Must be a spatial temporal hyperlink. Mickey: What's that? The Doctor: No idea. Just made it up. Didn't want to say 'magic door'. |
London Hauptbahnhof
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 |
London Hauptbahnhof
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. |
London Hauptbahnhof
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. |
London Hauptbahnhof
Paul Terry wrote:
So, not one central station - but a scheme that would have been at least as costly! A giant Merseyrail? Well, it works on Merseyside. Not cheap to build or run, but generally a well-designed system. Neil |
London Hauptbahnhof
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. That way a terrorist strike on a single station causes minimal disruption. A single London Central station has no benefits and huge disbenefits. Actually if the point is simply to interchange and that the passenger doesn't want to go to London at all then I would suggest a couple of decent orbital rail service. I would like one around the M25 and one around the North/South Circular. Someone coming from the North and going to Southampton, say, could take their service as far as the outer orbital, then round the orbital, then from there to Southampton. Still 2 interchanges but would reduce the congestion in London. Note that having such orbital services would also provide commuters with an alternative that using their cars and would justify any road-charging schemes for those who continued to do so anyway. The money raised from any such road-charging schemes would then help to pay for the cost of building and maintaining the railway. |
London Hauptbahnhof
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? |
London Hauptbahnhof
|
London Hauptbahnhof
Jeremy Parker wrote:
I think that there was a suggestion, round about 1870, that Farringdon be such a thing. Didn't the Circle Line have broad gauge tracks, as well as standard, at one time? The only thing I remember about the Abercrombie plan of 1943 was that it proposed to abolish Waterloo. I liked its plan to have aeroplane landing strips on the roof of all the main line terminals, for the taxi planes bringing people into town from the long-haul airports. This was standard thinking for some time - the French government considered not building the first TGV line to Lyon because there would be dozens of STOL runways on roofs across Paris allowing people to get to and from Lyon much more quickly. -- Dave Arquati www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
London Hauptbahnhof
In message , Jeremy Parker
writes The only thing I remember about the Abercrombie plan of 1943 was that it proposed to abolish Waterloo. Wasn't it Charing Cross that Abercrombie wanted to abolish? (My copy of the County of London Plan is currently inaccessible due to planned engineering works in what used to be our dining room.......) -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
London Hauptbahnhof
Dave Arquati wrote:
Jeremy Parker wrote: I think that there was a suggestion, round about 1870, that Farringdon be such a thing. Didn't the Circle Line have broad gauge tracks, as well as standard, at one time? The only thing I remember about the Abercrombie plan of 1943 was that it proposed to abolish Waterloo. I liked its plan to have aeroplane landing strips on the roof of all the main line terminals, for the taxi planes bringing people into town from the long-haul airports. This was standard thinking for some time - the French government considered not building the first TGV line to Lyon because there would be dozens of STOL runways on roofs across Paris allowing people to get to and from Lyon much more quickly. I'm fascinated by these postwar notions of STOLports everywhere! Reading about the development of London City Airport it would seem that in the 80's people were pretty certain that STOLports were going to be big as well - but whilst LCY is doing well STOLports haven't cropped up everywhere else as was predicted. I'm not an expert on LCY, but as it's had a runway extension to enable it to take larger aircraft perhaps it doesn't really qualify as a STOLport anymore. Or maybe the term just never really caught on! Given the environmental damage that flying does perhaps it's just as well these ideas didn't materialise. That said the aviation industry has managed to expand massively anyway without STOLports so perhaps it doesn't really make much of a difference anyway. Indeed there is a slightly contradictory view that's comes across on this newsgroup - on the one hand public transport is approved of given it's environmental credentials, yet people are very keen to ensure there are good public transport links to airports so people can fly more. An argument can be made saying that the better the public transport links are the more people will be encouraged to fly (and fly more often) - an argument which could particularly be made in the case of LCY - but I've don't think I've ever read any such notions expressed on utl. I'm not rabidly anti-flying, but the truth is this method of transport has significant negative effects on the environment. The problem is people are now hooked on air travel so such arguments often cut a little too close to the bone for some. |
London Hauptbahnhof
In message , Ian Jelf
writes Wasn't it Charing Cross that Abercrombie wanted to abolish? According to the map of the proposals, the line from London Bridge to Charing Cross would have gone, along with the Thames bridges into Cannon Street, Blackfriars and Charing Cross. However, all three would have survived as deep-level through stations on the southern loop. (I can't see any sign in the plan of Waterloo being demolished.) -- Paul Terry |
London Hauptbahnhof
Mizter T wrote:
I'm fascinated by these postwar notions of STOLports everywhere! Reading about the development of London City Airport it would seem that in the 80's people were pretty certain that STOLports were going to be big as well - but whilst LCY is doing well STOLports haven't cropped up everywhere else as was predicted. I'm not an expert on LCY, but as it's had a runway extension to enable it to take larger aircraft perhaps it doesn't really qualify as a STOLport anymore. Or maybe the term just never really caught on! Probably that. Notably, Schiphol's website (I think) still refers to it as "London City Stolport". It certainly is still one, and the largest aircraft you tend to see there is the BAe-146 (I think) small quad-jet. Approaches are still steep and rough, but one of the most spectacular and impressive I've seen. The runway is short (but longer than it was) - but many of the aircraft you get there now can take off and land using probably about half to 2/3 of it (the Fokker 50s certainly can, being well off the ground before getting even near the terminal when doing a London-direction takeoff). Apparently, though, Airbus did a successful test with an A318 (small version of the A319/20) with a software mod for steeper descents, so perhaps some of those will be seen there soon, especially as the F50s and BAe jets are getting on a bit. Neil |
London Hauptbahnhof
"John Rowland" wrote in message
... 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. That way a terrorist strike on a single station causes minimal disruption. A single London Central station has no benefits and huge disbenefits. Planning rail routes and services around terrorism? Does it really happen that frequently? :) |
London Hauptbahnhof
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 08:40:15AM -0700, Earl Purple wrote:
Perhaps now there's a congestion charge and internet shopping and all the shops in Oxford Street are doing so badly, we should bulldoze is all down to make that the common London terminus then? Not only do the shops claim to be doing badly (although I don't see them all closing, so they must still be making some money from the hordes of tourist scum) certainly the vast majority of them, especially east of oxford circus, are just plain crap, selling nothing but poor quality clothes, phones, "sports" shoes and stolen goods to, to be blunt, poor quality people. Flattening them all would be a good thing even if we didn't build a huge Victorian-style temple of gleaming wrought iron and glass on the site. -- David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life -- Samuel Johnson |
London Hauptbahnhof
Mizter T wrote: I'm fascinated by these postwar notions of STOLports everywhere! Reading about the development of London City Airport it would seem that in the 80's people were pretty certain that STOLports were going to be big as well - but whilst LCY is doing well STOLports haven't cropped up everywhere else as was predicted. I'm not an expert on LCY, but as it's had a runway extension to enable it to take larger aircraft perhaps it doesn't really qualify as a STOLport anymore. Or maybe the term just never really caught on! Off the top of my head, they have them in Belfast and Toronto too - and probably other places with disused docklands. |
London Hauptbahnhof
d wrote:
Planning rail routes and services around terrorism? Does it really happen that frequently? :) In the 70s and 80s it did happen that frequently. We don't know what the future will hold. |
London Hauptbahnhof
d wrote:
"John Rowland" wrote in message ... 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. That way a terrorist strike on a single station causes minimal disruption. A single London Central station has no benefits and huge disbenefits. Planning rail routes and services around terrorism? Does it really happen that frequently? :) *Attacks* don't happen that frequently. There have been periods where disruption due to phoned-in (fake) bomb threats happened on a very, *very* regular basis. -- Stephen Dolly: A kebab? It's hardly a sex life. Twinkle: Depends what you're into. |
London Hauptbahnhof
|
London Hauptbahnhof
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Stephen Farrow wrote:
d wrote: "John Rowland" wrote in message ... 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. That way a terrorist strike on a single station causes minimal disruption. A single London Central station has no benefits and huge disbenefits. Planning rail routes and services around terrorism? Does it really happen that frequently? :) *Attacks* don't happen that frequently. There have been periods where disruption due to phoned-in (fake) bomb threats happened on a very, *very* regular basis. Phoning in fake bomb threats for multiple stations doesn't seem much harder than phoning in for one. tom -- Tomorrow has made a phone call to today. |
London Hauptbahnhof
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Stephen Farrow wrote: d wrote: "John Rowland" wrote in message ... 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. That way a terrorist strike on a single station causes minimal disruption. A single London Central station has no benefits and huge disbenefits. Planning rail routes and services around terrorism? Does it really happen that frequently? :) *Attacks* don't happen that frequently. There have been periods where disruption due to phoned-in (fake) bomb threats happened on a very, *very* regular basis. Phoning in fake bomb threats for multiple stations doesn't seem much harder than phoning in for one. It isn't, and that certainly used to happen as well - but the fact remains that funnelling all routes through a single station makes causing disruption easier. -- Stephen Fire bad. Tree pretty. |
London Hauptbahnhof
Paul Terry wrote: In message , Ian Jelf writes Wasn't it Charing Cross that Abercrombie wanted to abolish? According to the map of the proposals, the line from London Bridge to Charing Cross would have gone, along with the Thames bridges into Cannon Street, Blackfriars and Charing Cross. However, all three would have survived as deep-level through stations on the southern loop. Are there maps of those proposals online anywhere? Or, come to that, the Bartlett School of Planning RER plans? My extensive googlings have let me down. Jonn |
London Hauptbahnhof
|
London Hauptbahnhof
Tom Anderson wrote: On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 wrote: Or, come to that, the Bartlett School of Planning RER plans? The what? That one passed me by. If you can't find it online, give me some details and i'll see if i can turn anything up at UCL. I'm pretty sure it came out of Bartlett. There was a map I saw a few years back, which showed various of the mainline railways joined up - but haven't seen a copy online for a long time now. Am afraid I don't remember much else about it, except that one of the lines excluded was rather bizarrely the Liverpool Street-Shenfield line. Jonn |
London Hauptbahnhof
In message , Paul Terry
writes In message , Ian Jelf writes Wasn't it Charing Cross that Abercrombie wanted to abolish? According to the map of the proposals, the line from London Bridge to Charing Cross would have gone, along with the Thames bridges into Cannon Street, Blackfriars and Charing Cross. However, all three would have survived as deep-level through stations on the southern loop. (I can't see any sign in the plan of Waterloo being demolished.) Engineering works in the Dining Rooms have been completed ahead of schedule and I can confirm that Charing Cross (and indeed Cannon Street and Blackfriars) would have gone. The report has a strange fascination or obsession with removing Thames railway bridges but adding a new Charing Cross Road Bridge. I hadn't really considered them being "replaced" by underground equivalents, looking at the deep level railway tubes as being London Underground rather than a form of Crossrail (or S-Bahn, if you see what I mean) but that does seem to be the case. -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
London Hauptbahnhof
Mizter T wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote: Jeremy Parker wrote: I think that there was a suggestion, round about 1870, that Farringdon be such a thing. Didn't the Circle Line have broad gauge tracks, as well as standard, at one time? The only thing I remember about the Abercrombie plan of 1943 was that it proposed to abolish Waterloo. I liked its plan to have aeroplane landing strips on the roof of all the main line terminals, for the taxi planes bringing people into town from the long-haul airports. This was standard thinking for some time - the French government considered not building the first TGV line to Lyon because there would be dozens of STOL runways on roofs across Paris allowing people to get to and from Lyon much more quickly. I'm fascinated by these postwar notions of STOLports everywhere! Reading about the development of London City Airport it would seem that in the 80's people were pretty certain that STOLports were going to be big as well - but whilst LCY is doing well STOLports haven't cropped up everywhere else as was predicted. I'm not an expert on LCY, but as it's had a runway extension to enable it to take larger aircraft perhaps it doesn't really qualify as a STOLport anymore. Or maybe the term just never really caught on! Given the environmental damage that flying does perhaps it's just as well these ideas didn't materialise. That said the aviation industry has managed to expand massively anyway without STOLports so perhaps it doesn't really make much of a difference anyway. Indeed there is a slightly contradictory view that's comes across on this newsgroup - on the one hand public transport is approved of given it's environmental credentials, yet people are very keen to ensure there are good public transport links to airports so people can fly more. An argument can be made saying that the better the public transport links are the more people will be encouraged to fly (and fly more often) - an argument which could particularly be made in the case of LCY - but I've don't think I've ever read any such notions expressed on utl. I don't think you've framed the argument quite right there - it's not that public transport links should be provided to airports because we want people to fly more - we want to provide PT links to airports because we want people to drive less. The airports are there and aren't going away, so the best approach is to stave off explosive car (and taxi) traffic growth for access to them, as poor PT links to the airport will result in increased private traffic in the city itself. Whilst you are right that better transport to the airport will potentially result in more air travel from the airport, some judgment must be made as to what level of air traffic growth would have taken place anyway (with access to the airport by car/taxi). I don't imagine that airport access concerns play very strongly on people's minds when they decide to take a flight - just look at Ryanair's success, despite dropping people off at tiny airports in the middle of nowhere. For shorter journeys where a train alternative is available, if PT were not available to the airport, rather than thinking therefore that they must go by train, it is more likely that they will consider driving or taking a taxi to the airport. In fact, I'm constantly amazed by how much people are taken in by the shockingly misleading headline fares from some budget airlines. The idea that "I can get to Paris for a pound!" has bamboozled many into forgetting about not only the additional charges, but also the costs of airport access at both ends. If people don't think about that, then PT access considerations to airports will be very low on the list when it comes to deciding to fly in the first place. I'm not rabidly anti-flying, but the truth is this method of transport has significant negative effects on the environment. The problem is people are now hooked on air travel so such arguments often cut a little too close to the bone for some. I totally agree with you. Flying has brought large benefits and disbenefits in one package, just like widespread car travel - but whilst people can see, hear and smell the negative effects of high levels of car traffic, many of the negative effects of air travel are either confined to communities around airports or are basically invisible - so people just don't care. People are increasingly concerned about environmental issues and climate change - but I hardly ever hear anyone express any concern over their or others' decision to fly. -- Dave Arquati www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
London Hauptbahnhof
Ian Jelf wrote on 25 Oct 2006:
My copy of the County of London Plan is currently inaccessible due to planned engineering works in what used to be our dining room....... Ian Jelf then wrote on 27 Oct 2006: Engineering works in the Dining Rooms have been completed ahead of schedule Amazing! Not only have you beaten the schedule, but you now have at least one additional dining room. Please, please, get a job at Metronet! -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
London Hauptbahnhof
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:23:50 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote: Ian Jelf wrote on 25 Oct 2006: My copy of the County of London Plan is currently inaccessible due to planned engineering works in what used to be our dining room....... Ian Jelf then wrote on 27 Oct 2006: Engineering works in the Dining Rooms have been completed ahead of schedule Amazing! Not only have you beaten the schedule, but you now have at least one additional dining room. Please, please, get a job at Metronet! LOL! -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
London Hauptbahnhof
|
London Hauptbahnhof
In message , Ian Jelf
writes The report has a strange fascination or obsession with removing Thames railway bridges but adding a new Charing Cross Road Bridge. I hadn't noticed that before, but you are right - and it looks as though the railway bridges into Blackfriars and Cannon Street would also have become road bridges. I hadn't really considered them being "replaced" by underground equivalents, looking at the deep level railway tubes as being London Underground rather than a form of Crossrail (or S-Bahn, if you see what I mean) but that does seem to be the case. Indeed so. I have put a scan of the map on the WWW at: http://www.musonix.com/maps/map001.jpg -- Paul Terry |
London Hauptbahnhof
Paul Terry wrote:
In message . com, writes Are there maps of those proposals online anywhere? I can't find them anywhere so, for those interested, I have scanned my copy of the 1943 Railway proposals map and put it online at: http://www.musonix.com/maps/map001.jpg Very interesting. Interesting that they for example were planning a direct connection between Victoria and Paddington because even today there is still no really good and fast north-south cross Hyde Park and Kensington direct connection, for example Victoria - Paddington/Marylebone. Circle Line, or Victoria-Bakerloo with change at Oxford Circus, are ok but it takes 15-20 minutes... Also, the route Charing Cross - Aldwych - Blackfriars - Canon Street - Tower - Wapping - (rest of ELL) - New Cross/Gate seems to be quite like the "Fleet Line" phase 2 route planned in the 70's to be built in the late 80's. -- Olof Lagerkvist ICQ: 724451 Web: http://here.is/olof |
London Hauptbahnhof
Paul Terry wrote: One of the loopier (literally) ideas emanating out of County Hall was the LCC's post-war plan (concocted in 1943) for four mainline railway loops in deep-level tunnels that would link existing terminii. One (starting from Bermondsey) passed through London Bridge and Waterloo, then crossed the Thames beneath Westminster Bridge and returned through Charing Cross, Blackfriars, Cannon Street and back out round to London Bridge. Another ran roughly under the N, E and S parts of the Circle line - but when it got to Victoria cut straight up under Hyde Park to get to Paddington. The other two linked various parts of these two main loops. Are there any web sites with plans drawings etc of this ? -- Nick |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:26 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk