Just had another look at what is without a doubt my favourite London
transport map:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/downloads/...eases/putting-
transport-onthemap.pdf

It's how the network SHOULD look in 2016. I love the map.

However, when it was drawn up, Shoreditch is still there as a branch
coming off the new ELLx.

This isn't because the map is of "how the network looks on 31 August
2004 (when it was released) PLUS the new lines, because they've erased
for example the Silverlink between Stratford and Woolwich.

So is leaving Shoreditch in an oversight/mistake, or was the intention
then to give Shoreditch the Mill Hill East treatment.

On a similar note, Waterloo is still listed with a Eurostar logo. I
assume that's another mistake, correct?

Some other questions:

I'm delighted that Aldwych's name may come back (albeit as a tram
station) - funny how things go in circles. I assume though that it won't
use the old station, as the plan is for the tram to cross Waterloo
Bridge, not go under the river. Pretty picture of how this may look
he
http://www.crossriverpartnership.org/page.asp?id=1236

Are all these trams going to share the road like in the old days, and
like you have in most of Europe eg Prague, or are they going to be in a
sort of raised lane just for the trams?

If this is the case, I assume (again if that picture is anything to go
by) that they will be using overhead wires to power it? If they are
using the same roads etc, how the hell are the tall trucks and the
double-decker buses etc going to avoid the wires (and electrocuting the
passengers! ouch!)

I can't see it myself. All those cables will cause havoc, and then
you'll have people complaining about cables being attached to the side
of their properties.... it'll all end in tears. So what else? An under-
the-road conduit system? No wires at all... and the trams to run on
hydrogen or something? (after all, we are talking 2016 here). It's going
to have to be a "green" system of some kind...

Talking about the CPR I must say I chuckled when I saw on their website
that the report they commissioned to find the seven best trams in Europe
are all... in France! http://www.crossriverpartnership.org/page.asp?id=
1573
I mean, I'm sure they're excellent trams, but the top 7 all in France?
You'd have thought the students would have thrown in Copenhagen,
Gothenburg, Milan, Vienna or at least one non French town! Anyway, I

It's going to be an interesting experiment. Many of the proposed roads
are too narrow for the trams to have their own dedicated lane, so
they're going to have to share. Will they then be able to stick to any
kind of timetable (I'm aways amazed at how the tram in Prague is so
punctual, considering the mad traffic and the fact that the trams use
the same roads).

What about all the other trams, crossrail, etc etc. How on course are
they to actually having that map look accurate by 2016?

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:15:55 -0600, "Tristán White"
wrote:

Just had another look at what is without a doubt my favourite London
transport map:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/downloads/...eases/putting-
transport-onthemap.pdf

It's how the network SHOULD look in 2016. I love the map.

However, when it was drawn up, Shoreditch is still there as a branch
coming off the new ELLx.

This isn't because the map is of "how the network looks on 31 August
2004 (when it was released) PLUS the new lines, because they've erased
for example the Silverlink between Stratford and Woolwich.

So is leaving Shoreditch in an oversight/mistake, or was the intention
then to give Shoreditch the Mill Hill East treatment.

I think it is a mistake. I have never heard of any option for ELLX that
retains the existing Shoreditch. It is in the way of the new alignment
and has to be demolished / lose its ability to have a platform as the
line will be on a rising alignment.

On a similar note, Waterloo is still listed with a Eurostar logo. I
assume that's another mistake, correct?

Maybe not - I think there was this still the option when the map was put
together that Eurostar might run some trips into Waterloo.

There are other errors such as showing Thameslink 2000 (hah!) but still
showing a service to Moorgate. The Moorgate to Finsbury Park line is
missing and yet the link out of Kings Cross from Thameslink is shown -
eh?

Some other questions:

I'm delighted that Aldwych's name may come back (albeit as a tram
station) - funny how things go in circles. I assume though that it won't
use the old station, as the plan is for the tram to cross Waterloo
Bridge, not go under the river.

The tram stop will be on the surface at Aldwych and I can't see the old
tube station or tram subway featuring at all.

Are all these trams going to share the road like in the old days, and
like you have in most of Europe eg Prague, or are they going to be in a
sort of raised lane just for the trams?

I would expect that where segregation was feasible that they would
provide it - this is one way of trying to provide a reliable service.

If this is the case, I assume (again if that picture is anything to go
by) that they will be using overhead wires to power it? If they are
using the same roads etc, how the hell are the tall trucks and the
double-decker buses etc going to avoid the wires (and electrocuting the
passengers! ouch!)

I can't see it myself. All those cables will cause havoc, and then
you'll have people complaining about cables being attached to the side
of their properties.... it'll all end in tears. So what else? An under-
the-road conduit system? No wires at all... and the trams to run on
hydrogen or something? (after all, we are talking 2016 here). It's going
to have to be a "green" system of some kind...

Err Metrolink trams seem to deal with double decker buses and lorries
perfectly well in Manchester as do trams in Nottingham, Croydon,
Birmingham and Blackpool. This is not an issue with overhead wiring. I
agree that there might be pressure to adopt an alternative form of
traction supply but there are risks associated with doing this. One
advantage of trams is that the basic technology and operational issues
are very well understood as there is worldwide experience to draw from.
If I was TfL Trams I would much prefer to go for conventional but up to
date technology that provided excellent performance and reliability but
was captured the benefits from technological advances such as lighter
weight, easy to maintain systems, intelligent diagnostics, good
passenger access and comfort.

What about all the other trams, crossrail, etc etc. How on course are
they to actually having that map look accurate by 2016?

Most of the tramlink proposals won't happen except the Crystal Palace
line as that seems favoured.

Crossrail won't run to Kingston not beyond Abbey Wood. I doubt it will
be built by 2016. At my most cynical I don't think construction will
have started by then because the Olympics will so heavily skew
construction costs that you don't stand a chance of demonstrating value
for money and lots of schemes will be "paused" during the Olympics which
will mean there will be a backlog of transport schemes "restarting" post
2012 using up other resources that would be needed by Crossrail.

Overground is out to tender now and probably will be in place but I am
utterly confused as to what is going to run where and with what service
level and train configuration. A letter in Modern Railways this month
creates yet more confusion over phasing of the services from ELL to the
NLL.

Thameslink might have started construction and might be finished by 2016
but it has the same cost risks as Crossrail. I also have no idea what
will happen with rolling stock for FCC and I think that is also a big
risk.

DLR will get everything built - they are a proven success story so will
be favoured for investment. Most of the extensions are approved anyway
and Dagenham Dock line planning and consultation prior to the TWA
application is underway or will start soon.

West London Tram - who knows? It's embroiled in nasty local politics
and could take years to progress although I think the financial issue
for TfL is what will ultimately kill it.

Croxley link - no idea.

East London / Waterfront Transit - they are glorified bus services so
something will turn up at some point but it will be far short of the
original concept.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:15:55 -0600, "Tristán White"
wrote:

Just had another look at what is without a doubt my favourite London
transport map:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/downloads/...eases/putting-
transport-onthemap.pdf

There are other errors such as showing Thameslink 2000 (hah!) but still
showing a service to Moorgate. The Moorgate to Finsbury Park line is
missing and yet the link out of Kings Cross from Thameslink is shown -
eh?

Hang on, hang on - what do you think is going to happen, and what do you
think the map is showing?

My understanding is that Thameslink 2000/3000 (TLnK) will gofrom Finsbury
Park to King's Cross (well, St Pancras) and beyond, but that there will
still be trains on the Northern City Line (NCL) from Finsbury Park to
Moorgate (no idea what the service pattern will be). The intention is not,
AIUI, to close the Northern City Line. If that's the case, then the fact
that the map doesn't show the line but does have a BR arrow at Moorgate
(and Old Street and Highbury & Islington) makes sense - the arrow
indicates the presence of an NR service that isn't shown as a line on the
map (as at Seven Sisters, Tottenham Hale, etc)

Now, what is a bit odd is that TLnK is shown as a line and the NCL is only
implied. However, there isn't a hard and fast rule for what's shown and
what's implied: on the tube map, all NR lines (except the NLL and
Thameslink) are implied, and on the london connections map, all NR lines
are shown, but on a weirdo special-purpose map like this, it's all up in
the air. I'd like to be able to infer that this means that TLnK will be
running a high-frequency tube-like commuter service, whereas the NCL will
carry a low-frequency long-distance service, but i don't think that's true
- TLnK will be long-distance trains from the sticks, and NCL will still be
inner suburbans; i suppose the frequencies may be as suggested, though,
with 16 tph on TLnK and 4 tph or whatever it is on the NCL. Rather, i
suspect the difference is based simply on what TfL wants to emphasise: the
lines shown are the tube lines everyone already knows, plus all the new
stuff (including the assimilated NLL etc); all other NR lines remain only
as BR arrows.

Also, what is Thameslink 2000 called these days? Surely it should be the
Thameslink Extension, which would give us TLX, and perhaps let us get
George Lucas on board.

tom

--
mimeotraditionalists

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:11:07 +0000, Paul Corfield wrote:

There are other errors such as showing Thameslink 2000 (hah!) but still
showing a service to Moorgate. The Moorgate to Finsbury Park line is
missing and yet the link out of Kings Cross from Thameslink is shown -
eh?

Oddly, it doesn't show all of TL2k - none of the new branches south of
the river are shown.

As well as Shoreditch, Watford Met is still shown, even though it will
close if the Croxley Link does go ahead.

It also still shows Euston-Watford all stations, and no Bakerloo Line
to Watford, but perhaps the map was drawn up before those changes were
decided.

As for the Moorgate to FP line, I think it simply doesn't show NR
services that aren't changing.

I also thought the original Watford station would be dropped in case
the Met is extended to Watford Junction? Am I also supposed to look for
a change in the Earl's Court services now that the line alignment has
been changed again?

Tristán White wrote:

If this is the case, I assume (again if that picture is anything to go
by) that they will be using overhead wires to power it? If they are
using the same roads etc, how the hell are the tall trucks and the
double-decker buses etc going to avoid the wires (and electrocuting the
passengers! ouch!)

I can't see it myself.

Then you've never been to Manchester, have you? Or Birmingham, or
Sheffield, or Nottingham, or Blackpool, or... well, you get the idea.

And never mind the newer systems - double-decker buses and trams
coexisted perfectly well throughout the first half of the twentieth
century. It's a non-issue.

--

Stephen

That's the last time I buy anything just because it's furry.

Stephen Farrow wrote:

And never mind the newer systems - double-decker buses and trams
coexisted perfectly well throughout the first half of the twentieth
century. It's a non-issue.

There are also numerous railway level crossings where lorries and buses pass
beneath much higher voltages, including two in the Enfield/Waltham Cross
area.

Tristán White wrote:

http://www.crossriverpartnership.org/page.asp?id=1236

Are all these trams going to share the road like in the old days, and
like you have in most of Europe eg Prague, or are they going to be in
a sort of raised lane just for the trams?

The entire length of the Cross River Transit will have two dedicated or
nearly-dedicated tracks: nearly dedicated, in so far as only local access
traffic will be allowed in. If you cunningly alternate sections where cars
are only allowed to share the northbound track with sections where cars are
only allowed to share the southbound track, you end up with cars still able
to get to all of the side roads, but the tram route is no longer of any use
to through traffic. Tram sensors will control all of the traffic lights
which allow the local access cars onto the tracks, so that nothing should
hold the trams up. The only place the trams won't have complete control of
everything is where the route crosses the Euston Road.

"John Rowland" wrote in
:

Tristán White wrote:

http://www.crossriverpartnership.org/page.asp?id=1236

Are all these trams going to share the road like in the old days, and
like you have in most of Europe eg Prague, or are they going to be in
a sort of raised lane just for the trams?

The entire length of the Cross River Transit will have two dedicated
or nearly-dedicated tracks: nearly dedicated, in so far as only local
access traffic will be allowed in. If you cunningly alternate sections
where cars are only allowed to share the northbound track with
sections where cars are only allowed to share the southbound track,
you end up with cars still able to get to all of the side roads, but
the tram route is no longer of any use to through traffic. Tram
sensors will control all of the traffic lights which allow the local
access cars onto the tracks, so that nothing should hold the trams up.
The only place the trams won't have complete control of everything is
where the route crosses the Euston Road.


Excellent. I was hoping you'd be able to give a good answer!

I'm really looking forward to trams being a major part of the city. Far
greener and more punctual than buses, a nicer way to see the city
compared to the tubes, and there's something romantic about a tram -
perhaps it's because there are trams in all those romantic cities in
Europe, perhaps it's because of all those wonderful Black and White
films in America before General Motors took it upon themselves to pretty
much destroy the tram industry in the USA in the 40s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General...car_conspiracy if you
haven't got a clue what I'm on about...

I know Cross River will be using Waterloo Bridge, but what about the
other crossings of the other trams? Above or below the river? The new
Thames Gateway bridge? And the crossing to Kinsgston?

Looking (again) at my local map of my area 1893 (Greengate, near
Plaistow) I see there used to be a massive tram depot off Jedburgh Road
- what is now the Spectacle Works. How brilliant.

On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Tristán White wrote:

General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

This would be a good name for a band.

tom

--
The sun just came out, I can't believe it