news.bbc.co.uk/local/london/hi/people_and_places.../8236894.stm

www.bromptonroad.org.uk

P. O. Box 63718, London, SW3 9AT

wrote on 04 September 2009 19:09:47 ...
news.bbc.co.uk/local/london/hi/people_and_places.../8236894.stm

www.bromptonroad.org.uk

P. O. Box 63718, London, SW3 9AT

You've now given us an invalid BBC website reference 3 times. What you
haven't said is why on earth you think that Brompton Road might re-open.
To get LU interested, you would have to demonstrate that there would be
a net benefit in journey times, setting the advantages for Brompton Road
residents and visitors against the delay of a minute or so for ALL
existing Piccadilly Line passengers. Have you done this?

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

The link is:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/london/h...00/8236894.stm

Transport in London is so politicised (for better or worse) that interesting
the Mayor and the Assembly (or even Kensington & Chelsea council, though
local councils do not run LUL) is much more likely to lead to results than
lobbying LUL.

At the moment, my modest aim (as a local resident) is simply to sound out
how much interest there is in the possibility of re-opening Brompton Road
amongst local residents and traders. If there is enough interest to lobby
effectively for the project, a feasibilty study would have to be
commissioned. LUL did so for York Road, and came to rather negative
conclusions; see
http://www.kingscrossenvironment.com...road-tube.html but
supporters of the campaign to re-open York Road (such as Bill Perrin, who
writes on the King's Cross ennvironment blog) do not necessarily agree with
all the working assumptions.

"Richard J." wrote in message
om...
wrote on 04 September 2009 19:09:47 ...
news.bbc.co.uk/local/london/hi/people_and_places.../8236894.stm

www.bromptonroad.org.uk

P. O. Box 63718, London, SW3 9AT

You've now given us an invalid BBC website reference 3 times. What you
haven't said is why on earth you think that Brompton Road might re-open.
To get LU interested, you would have to demonstrate that there would be a
net benefit in journey times, setting the advantages for Brompton Road
residents and visitors against the delay of a minute or so for ALL
existing Piccadilly Line passengers. Have you done this?

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

Whilst I agree that reopening Brompton Road is unlikely after 70 years, you
seem overly dismissive of the idea. First, stations on the central section
of the Piccadilly are close together, most notably of course, Covent Garden
and Leicester Sq (0.16 miles - maybe CG should be closed?) whereas the gap
between Knightsbridge and South Ken is 0.77 miles, the longest station gap
anywhere between Manor House and Earls Court (apart from Cal Road to Kings X
where of course there is another "missing" station) so an intermediate stop
is not an unreasonable aspiration. Apart from providing easier access to the
Vic & Albert, it could also relieve both Knightsbridge and South Ken
stations which get very crowded particularly during holidays and sale times.
I don't know what local demand there is, nor how many people travel over the
central section, as compared with those from the north alighting say, at
Kings X, or from the west at or by South Ken. Either way, it won't affect
ALL Picc line passengers.

Give the bloke a chance!

MaxB

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...

You cite Covent Garden - well it is very heavily used but it is at the
point where such huge sums need to be spent on it to make it cope
adequately and safely that a valid scenario could well be closure. At
some points the lifts will require replacement and that will cost an
awful lot of money and I would doubt the station could safely work with
2 out of 4 lifts in operation. Therefore it would shut during the work
but a perfectly rational option would be to shut permanently, speed up
journeys and divert the passengers elsewhere. There are only two big
arguments against this - Leicester Square is not overflowing with spare
capacity so almost certainly could not cope with diverted traffic (nor
could Holborn) and the stakeholder / political fall out would be huge.



How feasible would it be to simply construct a walkway/escalator from the
Eastern end of the Picadilly platforms at Leicester square to the surface
building at Covent Garden, then closing the existing Covent Garden
platforms?

Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything obvious in the way, and if
tourists took the 'exit to Covent Garden' from platform they wouldn't get
lost trying to find it from Leicester Square station at street level.

BTN

In message , Batman55
writes

Apart from providing easier access to the Vic & Albert, it could also
relieve both Knightsbridge and South Ken stations which get very
crowded particularly during holidays and sale times.

I'm not convinced that Cottage Place (site of the old Brompton Road
station) is significantly closer to the main entrance of the V&A than
South Ken. It could even be fractionally further. These days many people
use the Exhibition Road entrance, which is much nearer South Ken
(especially when using the direct foot tunnel).

There's also the problem that there were never escalator shafts at
Brompton Road - it was just lifts.
--
Paul Terry

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...

How feasible would it be to simply construct a walkway/escalator from the
Eastern end of the Picadilly platforms at Leicester square to the surface
building at Covent Garden, then closing the existing Covent Garden
platforms?

Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything obvious in the way, and
if
tourists took the 'exit to Covent Garden' from platform they wouldn't get
lost trying to find it from Leicester Square station at street level.

I really have no idea how far the building basements / foundations go
down in that area. My other main observation would be that Leicester
Square's platforms are horribly narrow and below capacity. At peak times
(i.e. evenings and late) you barely move due to lack of space for people
waiting *and* those alighting from trains. The stairs and corridors also
jam up very badly - it's not unknown to have to wait on the stairs to
let trains go to be able to reach the platforms. Shoving another 16m pax
p.a. into that would not helpful. Leicester Square badly needs
reconstruction but that's another scheme shoved off into the ether due
to no money for big station schemes. If you were to add in Covent
Garden's flows you need a much bigger scheme.



It could potentially alleviate both flows, if there was a substantial (e.g.
JLex-scale) open area immediately off the eastern end of the Picc platforms
that widened out as it sloped surfacewards, then maybe a bank of four
escalators plus a modern accessibilty lift.


All this shows is that there are rarely simple answers to the Tube's
capacity problems.


The biggest single problem is the lack of lines.

There is way too much unnecessary bureaucracy overhead during the planning
and consulation phases to try and ensure an optimal route, when the reality
is that any half-decent route will be well-patronised to the point of
near-overcrowding, and will relieve pressure on existing routes, so better
to just build the ****ers rather than waste decades discussing them.

Anybody with half a brain could come up with new line ideas just by looking
at a map.

Example:

Albert Line:

Arnos Grove
Alexandra Palace
Hornsey Central
Archway
Gospel Oak
Belsize Park
St. Johns Wood
Edgware Road
Lancaster Gate
Royal Albert Hall
South Kensington
Albert Bridge
Battersea
Clapham Junction
Wandsworth Common
Tooting Broadway
Tooting Junction
Mitcham



And if they just started building this, rather than wasting time and money
talking about things like it, it could be delivered sooner and more cheaply.
Probably.

BTN

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 17:48:38 +0100, "Sir Benjamin Nunn"
wrote:

Anybody with half a brain could come up with new line ideas just by looking
at a map.

Example:

Albert Line:

Arnos Grove
Alexandra Palace
Hornsey Central
Archway
Gospel Oak
Belsize Park
St. Johns Wood
Edgware Road
Lancaster Gate
Royal Albert Hall
South Kensington
Albert Bridge
Battersea
Clapham Junction
Wandsworth Common
Tooting Broadway
Tooting Junction
Mitcham

Ooh, we haven't had a Scheme on UTL in yonks. Duly mapped:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...820a7d99caba8f

Let me know if it doesn't match your vision.

An interesting alignment - not one I would have dreamed up.

No. It mostly seems to be an exercise in getting people from the suburbs
to places they don't want to go. The only stations you could describe as
being central are Edgware Road, Lancaster Gate and Royal Albert Hall -
none of which are significant commuter destinations. The Edgware Road stop
could serve Paddington Basin, of course. The RAH and South Ken stops would
be great for Albertopolis, including all the museums, plus Imperial
College, the RCA and various other educational institutions, and the RAH
itself, but i'm highly skeptical that there are enough jobs round there to
fill a tube line. The Battersea stop is too far west to serve the
developments round there. The line could serve as a feeder from the
suburbs to other tube lines that it crosses, but all the suburban stations
area already on lines which do that, or are useful lines in their own
right.

So, it serves Paddington Basin, a major cultural complex, and gives access
to other lines. That's not useless, but it can't justify a tube line.

However it's lovely to stick new tube lines in to the network but all
that happens if you push overall ridership up and up and up thereby
exacerbating your existing pinch points.

Ah, but this wouldn't be a problem with Sir Benjamin's line, seeing as how
no bugger would use it.

tom

--
Give the future a chance!

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
rth.li...
On Sat, 5 Sep 2009, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 17:48:38 +0100, "Sir Benjamin Nunn"
wrote:

Anybody with half a brain could come up with new line ideas just by
looking
at a map.

Example:

Albert Line:

Arnos Grove
Alexandra Palace
Hornsey Central
Archway
Gospel Oak
Belsize Park
St. Johns Wood
Edgware Road
Lancaster Gate
Royal Albert Hall
South Kensington
Albert Bridge
Battersea
Clapham Junction
Wandsworth Common
Tooting Broadway
Tooting Junction
Mitcham

Ooh, we haven't had a Scheme on UTL in yonks. Duly mapped:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...820a7d99caba8f

Let me know if it doesn't match your vision.


Heh. I'd actually already done one on google maps:


http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en...d8fb6aa53&z=11

Your version is slightly more direct.


An interesting alignment - not one I would have dreamed up.

No. It mostly seems to be an exercise in getting people from the suburbs
to places they don't want to go. The only stations you could describe as
being central are Edgware Road, Lancaster Gate and Royal Albert Hall -
none of which are significant commuter destinations. The Edgware Road stop
could serve Paddington Basin, of course. The RAH and South Ken stops would
be great for Albertopolis, including all the museums, plus Imperial
College, the RCA and various other educational institutions, and the RAH
itself, but i'm highly skeptical that there are enough jobs round there to
fill a tube line. The Battersea stop is too far west to serve the
developments round there. The line could serve as a feeder from the
suburbs to other tube lines that it crosses, but all the suburban stations
area already on lines which do that, or are useful lines in their own
right.

So, it serves Paddington Basin, a major cultural complex, and gives access
to other lines. That's not useless, but it can't justify a tube line.

However it's lovely to stick new tube lines in to the network but all
that happens if you push overall ridership up and up and up thereby
exacerbating your existing pinch points.

Ah, but this wouldn't be a problem with Sir Benjamin's line, seeing as how
no bugger would use it.



I'd use it!

Getting from Tooting/Mitcham to Central London takes ages. Getting to North
London (or indeed West or East London) is something you don't even want to
think about.

Clapham Junction doesn't have an LU service.

Tramlink only has one LU interchange, at the far end.

The walk from South Ken to the Albert Hall through the foot tunnel is
unpleasant.

All the radial limbs of the underground in North London lack lateral routes
providing interchanges.

The spacing of the stations would make this line a quick, direct
Victoria-style experience, as opposed to the
sluggishness of the Northern Line.



Here's another one I came up with that takes over bits and pieces of
existing infrastructure.

(see if you can spot which bits!)

Mill Hill East
Finchley Central
Muswell Hill
Hornsey Central
Crouch Hill
Finsbury Park
Drayton Park
Highbury & Islington
Essex Road
Old Street
Moorgate
Bank
Blackfriars
Waterloo
Vauxhall
Battersea Park
Clapham Junction
Wandsworth Town
East Putney
Roehampton

BTN

wrote on 05 September 2009 13:49:59 ...
The link is:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/london/h...00/8236894.stm

Transport in London is so politicised (for better or worse) that interesting
the Mayor and the Assembly (or even Kensington & Chelsea council, though
local councils do not run LUL) is much more likely to lead to results than
lobbying LUL.

That has not been my experience in similar circumstances elsewhere on
the Piccadilly Line. The politicians can facilitate discussions about
such proposals, but the cost-benefit balance has to be right before you
get a result.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)