On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 Tom Anderson wrote:

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006, Tristán White wrote:

Check out page 12 of this week's Time Out, which includes a page on
future London transports and the likelihood of them ever being built. I
was surprised that they only gave 35% chance for the CrossRiver tram,
considerably less than 45% for the Oxford Street tram.

Rings a bell:

http://www.newlondonarchitecture.org/exhibitions.php

OFFSHORE LONDON AIRPORT: 10%
CROSSRIVER TRAM: 35%
OXFORD STREET TRAM: 45%
MONOMETRO: 10%
BATTERSEA POWER STATION RIVERBUS: 40%
EXHIBITION ROAD CLEAR-OUT: 85%
THAMESLINK 2012: 60%

What chances do they give for the West London Tram?
--
Thoss

Further to my previous email, just skimread the 80 pages of the brochure.
Looks interesting.

Disappointed to see no mention of the East London Transit. It may not be
happening, but surely it is more likely that some of the "blue sky" ideas
detailled in the brochure.

According to TFL things appear still to be on track...
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/east-london-transit/int.shtml

thoss wrote in
:

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 Tom Anderson wrote:

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006, Tristán White wrote:

Check out page 12 of this week's Time Out, which includes a page on
future London transports and the likelihood of them ever being
built. I was surprised that they only gave 35% chance for the
CrossRiver tram, considerably less than 45% for the Oxford Street
tram.

Rings a bell:

http://www.newlondonarchitecture.org/exhibitions.php

OFFSHORE LONDON AIRPORT: 10%
CROSSRIVER TRAM: 35%
OXFORD STREET TRAM: 45%
MONOMETRO: 10%
BATTERSEA POWER STATION RIVERBUS: 40%
EXHIBITION ROAD CLEAR-OUT: 85%
THAMESLINK 2012: 60%

What chances do they give for the West London Tram?


They don't mention it. They only mention those I've listed above.

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 Tristán White wrote:

thoss wrote in
:

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 Tom Anderson wrote:

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006, Tristán White wrote:

Check out page 12 of this week's Time Out, which includes a page on
future London transports and the likelihood of them ever being
built. I was surprised that they only gave 35% chance for the
CrossRiver tram, considerably less than 45% for the Oxford Street
tram.

Rings a bell:

http://www.newlondonarchitecture.org/exhibitions.php

OFFSHORE LONDON AIRPORT: 10%
CROSSRIVER TRAM: 35%
OXFORD STREET TRAM: 45%
MONOMETRO: 10%
BATTERSEA POWER STATION RIVERBUS: 40%
EXHIBITION ROAD CLEAR-OUT: 85%
THAMESLINK 2012: 60%

What chances do they give for the West London Tram?


They don't mention it. They only mention those I've listed above.

Thank you. I hope this means that it's got even less chance of being
built than the lowest in the list.

--
Thoss

thoss wrote in
:

Thank you. I hope this means that it's got even less chance of being
built than the lowest in the list.


Sorry, I think you misunderstood me, or I misunderstood you.

It's not mentioned in Time Out.

But it is mentioned in the New London Architecture brochure, on page 23. A
whole page devoted to it.

27% probability, cost £250m, earliest delivery 2013.

"Mayor Ken Livinstone remains keen", it says. Among other things. Check it
out, on page 23 of
http://www.newlondonarchitecture.org...gues/LondonsMo
ving.pdf

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 Tristán White wrote:

thoss wrote in
:

Thank you. I hope this means that it's got even less chance of being
built than the lowest in the list.


Sorry, I think you misunderstood me, or I misunderstood you.

It's not mentioned in Time Out.

But it is mentioned in the New London Architecture brochure, on page 23. A
whole page devoted to it.

27% probability, cost £250m, earliest delivery 2013.

"Mayor Ken Livinstone remains keen", it says. Among other things. Check it
out, on page 23 of
http://www.newlondonarchitecture.org...gues/LondonsMo
ving.pdf

I wonder where they got that figure (£250m) from. A year or more ago
the official estimate was given as £648m.

Thanks for drawing my attention to the brochure.
--
Thoss

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 22:02:31 +0000, Dave Arquati
wrote:

John Rowland wrote:
alex_t wrote:
There's also a nice picture of the MonoMetro as it passes down
Liverpool Street. But they only give 10% chance for that one, sadly.
That's really sad.
I think nobody will deny that the only unused space left in London, is
space between house *above* roads - so such project could be very
useful and really change transport situation for the better.

The sky isn't unused, it has amenity value. In America they have
progressively torn down the Els and replaced them with subways on the same
alignment.

Exactly - elevated monorails are very visually intrusive, despite the
slimmer supports and tracks. If they are intended to go down existing
streets, most streets in London would look completely closed in if an
elevated monorail were running down them. The video shows them on
Waterloo Bridge, Euston Road, at Canary Wharf - where there is a lot of
space.

As well as being eyesores, urban monorails also drop oil on people
below, which will not go down well. The one in Sydney has strategic
oil-catchers under the track at places where either people congregate
under the track (i.e. at a pedestrian crossing where they might stand
and wait for a green light) or where trains stop or slow down a lot
(e.g. tight corners).

I have never seen a "top suspended" monorail like the one in that
video though. Doesn't such a design make it massively more complex, in
that the trains have to be so much stronger to hang from something
rather than just sit there on a concrete beam? It's certainly going to
make the track bed harder to get through, because the pylons will have
to be so much higher, and it'll be more difficult to integrate track
and buildings. For instance the Sydney monorail goes through the
middle of the odd building (some of which were there before they built
it) and is just sitting on top of the building walls (no doubt
strengthened), top-hung must be way more challenging to poke through
existing structures or tight spaces.

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, Peter Frimberley wrote:

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 22:02:31 +0000, Dave Arquati
wrote:

John Rowland wrote:
alex_t wrote:

There's also a nice picture of the MonoMetro as it passes down
Liverpool Street. But they only give 10% chance for that one, sadly.

I have never seen a "top suspended" monorail like the one in that video
though. Doesn't such a design make it massively more complex, in that
the trains have to be so much stronger to hang from something rather
than just sit there on a concrete beam?

Er, no. Rather than supporting N tonnes on a rail beneath them, they have
to support N tonnes on a rail above them. The difference will be that a
bottom-rail system is in compression, while a top-rail system is in
tension, which are completely differnt types of load. However, i believe
that common engineering materials, like steel and carbon fibre, perform
better in tension than compression, although IANAengineer. If that's true,
it would mean top-rail systems could be lighter.

It's certainly going to make the track bed harder to get through,
because the pylons will have to be so much higher, and it'll be more
difficult to integrate track and buildings. For instance the Sydney
monorail goes through the middle of the odd building (some of which were
there before they built it) and is just sitting on top of the building
walls (no doubt strengthened), top-hung must be way more challenging to
poke through existing structures or tight spaces.

Will it? You need exactly the same sized hole through buildings, just with
the rail at the top rather than the bottom.

tom

--
It is better to create badly than to appreciate well. -- Gareth Jones

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, Tristán White wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote in
h.li:

Did they claim this was their own work, or do they mention the NLA?

They mention the NLA, and at the end of the article they plug the
exhibition and give the website reference.

Well, i'll let them get away with it, then.

Given that the NLA gallery is all of 300 metres walk from Time Out's
offices, this is probably the laziest journalism i've seen in a while.

Not really - I guess a deal was struck: we plug your exhibition, if we
can use your facts and figures to make a page up. I for one am delighted
they did as I may not have heard of this exhibition otherwise.

Ahem.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....ee89e31?hl=en&

Perhaps i should start including bar and events listings in my posts to
attract attention!

tom

--
It is better to create badly than to appreciate well. -- Gareth Jones

Peter Frimberley wrote:

the Sydney monorail goes through the middle of the odd building

Crikey!

http://home.informatik.tu-muenchen.d...y-monorail.JPG