In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

Charing Cross to/from Bakerloo

Of course, the Bakerloo platforms were once a completely separate
station called Trafalgar Square - and with its own street level
entrances. All they did was join them up with a long foot tunnel.

via a now-closed Jubilee platform.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

There were other considerations at Euston. The original City & South
London platform at Euston was an island in a wide tunnel. They were
dangerous and have all now gone except at one of the Clapham stations.

Errrr.... two of the Clapham stations, surely?

asdf wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:33:44 -0700, brixtonite wrote:

In general, it seems to me that the Victoria line was a high point in
terms of easy connexions - cross-platform interchange wherever
possible, often created thanks to considerable ingenuity. The JLE is
clearly a step backwards in this respect (notably at Waterloo) and it
seems that from now onwards the priority will always be maximising
capacity rather than convenience.

AFAIK, the problem with the JLE was that new H&S requirements meant
that all platforms had to be completely straight and level. This all
but precluded cross-platform interchanges, as it would be prohibitive
to re-align existing lines so that such platforms could be built (and
there may not have been enough unused space underground to fit the
platforms in).

An exception was allowed for Canada Water ELL, which is noticeably
sloping... the benefits of a cross-platform interchanange might have allowed
exceptions to be made elsewhere.

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
asdf wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:33:44 -0700, brixtonite wrote:

In general, it seems to me that the Victoria line was a high point in
terms of easy connexions - cross-platform interchange wherever
possible, often created thanks to considerable ingenuity. The JLE is
clearly a step backwards in this respect (notably at Waterloo) and it
seems that from now onwards the priority will always be maximising
capacity rather than convenience.

AFAIK, the problem with the JLE was that new H&S requirements meant
that all platforms had to be completely straight and level. This all
but precluded cross-platform interchanges, as it would be prohibitive
to re-align existing lines so that such platforms could be built (and
there may not have been enough unused space underground to fit the
platforms in).

An exception was allowed for Canada Water ELL, which is noticeably
sloping... the benefits of a cross-platform interchanange might have
allowed exceptions to be made elsewhere.
That isn't a true 'cross platform interchange' of the type being discussed
though, where the running tunnels are parallel, with through connections...

Paul

"Paul Scott" wrote

An exception was allowed for Canada Water ELL, which is noticeably
sloping... the benefits of a cross-platform interchanange might have
allowed exceptions to be made elsewhere.
That isn't a true 'cross platform interchange' of the type being discussed
though, where the running tunnels are parallel, with through
connections...

But at least rigid insistence on level track at stations didn't rule out the
interchange altogether - I don't think the ELL platforms would have gone
ahead if they had meant rebuilding a considerable stretch of the ELL to
achieve a level section.

Peter

John Rowland wrote:
asdf wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:33:44 -0700, brixtonite wrote:
In general, it seems to me that the Victoria line was a high point in
terms of easy connexions - cross-platform interchange wherever
possible, often created thanks to considerable ingenuity. The JLE is
clearly a step backwards in this respect (notably at Waterloo) and it
seems that from now onwards the priority will always be maximising
capacity rather than convenience.
AFAIK, the problem with the JLE was that new H&S requirements meant
that all platforms had to be completely straight and level. This all
but precluded cross-platform interchanges, as it would be prohibitive
to re-align existing lines so that such platforms could be built (and
there may not have been enough unused space underground to fit the
platforms in).

An exception was allowed for Canada Water ELL, which is noticeably
sloping... the benefits of a cross-platform interchanange might have allowed
exceptions to be made elsewhere.


I thought the Victoria Line had straight platforms - narrow, though.
Ian

Ian Patterson wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
asdf wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:33:44 -0700, brixtonite wrote:
In general, it seems to me that the Victoria line was a high point
in terms of easy connexions - cross-platform interchange wherever
possible, often created thanks to considerable ingenuity. The JLE
is clearly a step backwards in this respect (notably at Waterloo)
and it seems that from now onwards the priority will always be
maximising capacity rather than convenience.
AFAIK, the problem with the JLE was that new H&S requirements meant
that all platforms had to be completely straight and level. This all
but precluded cross-platform interchanges, as it would be
prohibitive to re-align existing lines so that such platforms could
be built (and there may not have been enough unused space
underground to fit the platforms in).

An exception was allowed for Canada Water ELL, which is noticeably
sloping... the benefits of a cross-platform interchanange might have
allowed exceptions to be made elsewhere.


I thought the Victoria Line had straight platforms - narrow, though.
Ian

They certainly aren't level - the platform at Finsbury Park is one of the
Munros.

John Rowland wrote:

Ian Patterson wrote:

John Rowland wrote:

asdf wrote:

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:33:44 -0700, brixtonite wrote:

In general, it seems to me that the Victoria line was a high point
in terms of easy connexions - cross-platform interchange wherever
possible, often created thanks to considerable ingenuity. The JLE
is clearly a step backwards in this respect (notably at Waterloo)
and it seems that from now onwards the priority will always be
maximising capacity rather than convenience.

AFAIK, the problem with the JLE was that new H&S requirements meant
that all platforms had to be completely straight and level. This all
but precluded cross-platform interchanges, as it would be
prohibitive to re-align existing lines so that such platforms could
be built (and there may not have been enough unused space
underground to fit the platforms in).

An exception was allowed for Canada Water ELL, which is noticeably
sloping... the benefits of a cross-platform interchanange might have
allowed exceptions to be made elsewhere.



I thought the Victoria Line had straight platforms - narrow, though.
Ian


They certainly aren't level - the platform at Finsbury Park is one of the
Munros.


Both deep-level platform pairs at Finsbury Park are actually built long
before the Victoria Line and therefore it is not really a good example
of the platforms built when the Victoria Line was built.

--
Olof Lagerkvist
ICQ: 724451
Web: http://here.is/olof

In article ,
(John Rowland) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

There were other considerations at Euston. The original City & South
London platform at Euston was an island in a wide tunnel. They were
dangerous and have all now gone except at one of the Clapham
stations.

Errrr.... two of the Clapham stations, surely?

Probably. I never go there and was writing from memory only. The last
ones to go were at Angel and London Bridge, weren't they?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
says...
In article ,
(John Rowland) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

There were other considerations at Euston. The original City & South
London platform at Euston was an island in a wide tunnel. They were
dangerous and have all now gone except at one of the Clapham
stations.

Errrr.... two of the Clapham stations, surely?

Probably. I never go there and was writing from memory only. The last
ones to go were at Angel and London Bridge, weren't they?


Angel certainly, from memory London Bridge wasn't ever an island
platform.