West London Line - what recession?
 

Paul Scott wrote on 28 October 2009
10:14:47 ...
D7666 wrote:

I would have thought the most significant length constraint would be
Willesden Junction (for LO trains obviously not SN). To extend that to
8-car would involve bridging WCML and that would not come cheap. As
there would be no benefit to LO in 8car trains if Willesden Junycion
were never done, the entire cost of 8car works on WLL would be born by
the SN operation.

I expect WJ (HL) won't be anything like as difficult to extend to 8 car
length once the current 4 car extension is completed. Getting across the LL
tracks, which is underway now, is the main problem to solve.

On the current track alignment, an extension to 8 cars would have a very
narrow platform at the eastern end. You'd have to move the tracks
further apart, and there could be problems with adjacent lines and the
curvature at that point.

Having said that - I'm not too sure where the new reversing siding is going
with respect to the new platform ends - that could prove a limiting factor in the
eastward direction as well...

The siding will almost certainly go in the space between the NLL tracks
between the Harrow Road bridge and Kensal Green junction. There's
certainly room for a 6-car siding there, possibly longer. In fact there
used to be a siding there, the remains of which are still visible.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

West London Line - what recession?
 

E27002 wrote:


London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making London
and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.
I'm not sure that those making such decisions for big business care
about the price of using buses and trains, as such people will tend to
use chauffeur-driven car services instead (or at the very least
taxis).

It certainly affects employees. I would think that employee
accommodation and transportation costs would at least be a
consideration. London scores badly on both.

London is in the top two cities worldwide, with New York, according to
the Global Power City Index 2009, which tries to compare different
cities in a sort of objective manner. Tokyo and Paris form a pair just
behind, then you get the rest*. I'm not sure *fares* so much as
generally being able to get around the place matter more. Los Angeles
isn't a top ranking city by these measures and furthermore, all the top
ones are notable as having excellent dense public transportation, which
has to count for something, surely?

For the record, London scored very highly on the culture and
accessibility (transport, basically) categories, high on economy and
poor on livability (including cost of living) and environment, which is
about right, having lived here long enough - yes, it's expensive to get
around but the system is excellent and works well. This is actually
true of New York as well, and no one's claiming that's not an attractive
metropolis to do business, surely?

The point about being attractive/unattractive is that it's across a
range of factors, and overall London's good points more than outweigh
the bad. For the record the three most livable cities according to this
report are Paris, Berlin and Vancouver and the most environmental ones
are Geneva, Zurich and Vienna.

t

* Singapore, Berlin, Vienna, Amsterdam, Zurich, Hong Kong... - the 'goo
city has good public transport' aspect holds true, I suggest. LA is 13th.

West London Line - what recession?
 

On 28 Oct, 07:10, Stephen Furley wrote:
On 28 Oct, 04:05, D7666 wrote:

I would have thought the most significant length constraint would be
Willesden Junction (for LO trains obviously not SN). To extend that to
8-car would involve bridging WCML and that would not come cheap.

Which would put the high-level station back just about where it used
to be. *I'm certainly not holding my breath for that to happen.
They've been talking about re-building the platforms on the slow lines
almost since the old ones were demolished. *I'm not expecting that to
happen in my lifetime either.

How long were the platforms at the old station? *Given the previous
platform lengths at various other North London Line stations, I'm
guessing that they were rather longer than at the present station.

The original station also had a third platform, generally known as the
'Earls Court Bay', though I believe it was actually a through
platform, rather than a real bay. *If this was still available it
would have avoided the situation which existed a few years ago, I'm
not sure if it still does now as I haven't used the line for some
time, where a train arriving from the WLL is held just before the
junction while trains run through in both directions on the NLL, so
you then have a long wait for a connection on that line.

This is why NEW tube lines - be they tube size or main line size -
need to get under way now as they take 10 years to build even once
planning is done, and that takes years too.

An LU person at a LURS meeting at the time that the Jubilee Line
extension was being either planned or constructed stated that this was
being built to traditional tube dimensions only because the rest of
the tube section of the line was that size, and that any future tube
line would almost certainly be to take surface stock size trains, as
the cost of tunneling to the larger size would not be much greater
using modern equipment and techniques.

Don't suppose you know of any diagrams of the old pre-1960's layout of
Willesden Junction?

I hear odd descriptions from time to time, but the best I've ever
managed were a few scattered old photos that didn't really give any
indication of how it all was laid out.

Something for the station's wikipedia page perhaps :)

West London Line - what recession?
 

In message
Tom Barry wrote:

E27002 wrote:


London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making London
and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.
I'm not sure that those making such decisions for big business care
about the price of using buses and trains, as such people will tend to
use chauffeur-driven car services instead (or at the very least
taxis).

It certainly affects employees. I would think that employee
accommodation and transportation costs would at least be a
consideration. London scores badly on both.

London is in the top two cities worldwide, with New York, according to
the Global Power City Index 2009, which tries to compare different
cities in a sort of objective manner. Tokyo and Paris form a pair just
behind, then you get the rest*. I'm not sure *fares* so much as
generally being able to get around the place matter more. Los Angeles
isn't a top ranking city by these measures and furthermore, all the top
ones are notable as having excellent dense public transportation, which
has to count for something, surely?

For the record, London scored very highly on the culture and
accessibility (transport, basically) categories, high on economy and
poor on livability (including cost of living) and environment, which is
about right, having lived here long enough - yes, it's expensive to get
around but the system is excellent and works well. This is actually
true of New York as well, and no one's claiming that's not an attractive
metropolis to do business, surely?

The point about being attractive/unattractive is that it's across a
range of factors, and overall London's good points more than outweigh
the bad. For the record the three most livable cities according to this
report are Paris, Berlin and Vancouver and the most environmental ones
are Geneva, Zurich and Vienna.

t

* Singapore, Berlin, Vienna, Amsterdam, Zurich, Hong Kong... - the 'goo
city has good public transport' aspect holds true, I suggest. LA is 13th.

A couple of years ago there was a survey that claimed Buenos Aires was the
most expensive city in the world to live in relative to the local cost of
living. I doubt it would rate anywhere in the list of good places to do
business but the public transport provision is cheap and plentiful.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 09:17:10PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote:

Even now, the link from MKC to Clapham Jn and beyond is *very* heavily
used. While there would be an issue with making the LO service 8
cars, the Southern one could easily be made so given a few units, had
the short-sighted decision to build a 4-car platform at Imperial Wharf
not been made.

Having trains be longer than the platforms at some stations isn't a
problem elsewhere on the network (eg at Battersea Park or
Billingshurst) so why is it a problem at Imperial Wharf?

And Shepherds Bush is just as short, so the "problem" isn't just
Imperial Wharf.

That said, given that said service is mainly about linking the WCML to
the SWML, it could I suppose be extended to 8 then not stop at
Imperial Wharf. How long is the platform at Shepherd's Bush?

Four coaches southbound, IIRC it's longer northbound, which strikes me
as being perverse.

--
David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information

Us Germans take our humour very seriously
-- German cultural attache talking to the Today Programme,
about the German supposed lack of a sense of humour, 29 Aug 2001

West London Line - what recession?
 

On 28 Oct, 12:53, David Cantrell wrote:
Four coaches southbound, IIRC it's longer northbound, which strikes me
as being perverse.

Trains reversing there (and heading south) need to stop north of the
signal under the footbridge.

There's passive provision for 8 car platforms given the location of
the emergency escape footbridge (some distance down the line). I can't
see any particular obstacle to extending Imperial Wharf either.

Anyway, I think TfL's 4-car strategy is fine. Once you multiply the 3
to 4 car lengthening with the planned frequency increases, you get
roughly double the capacity on every route. I don't think the demand
exists beyond that.

U

West London Line - what recession?
 

On 28 Oct, 11:42, "Richard J." wrote:
On the current track alignment, an extension to 8 cars would have a very
narrow platform at the eastern end. *You'd have to move the tracks
further apart

I'm not sure I follow. The tracks don't converge until a considerable
distance east, and in fact they go under Harrow Road bridge through
completely separate spans. I think you'd even be able to take the
siding through one of those spans, which would get you 8 car platforms
and an 8 car centre siding.

It all depends where they put the pointwork.

U

West London Line - what recession?
 

Mr Thant wrote on 28 October
2009 13:24:18 ...
On 28 Oct, 11:42, "Richard J." wrote:
On the current track alignment, an extension to 8 cars would have a very
narrow platform at the eastern end. You'd have to move the tracks
further apart

I'm not sure I follow. The tracks don't converge until a considerable
distance east, and in fact they go under Harrow Road bridge through
completely separate spans.

You're right. Sorry, I withdraw my earlier comment. I made it after a
quick look at the satellite image, but having got my ruler out I realise
that there is in fact plenty of room for an 8-car island platform, both
lengthwise and widthwise. So I don't know why Nick/D7666 thought that
an 8-car platform would have to be on a bridge over the WCML.

I'm assuming that, as an extension of an existing curved platform, it
would be allowed to continue the curve.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

West London Line - what recession?
 

On 28 Oct, 12:19, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On 28 Oct, 07:10, Stephen Furley wrote:



On 28 Oct, 04:05, D7666 wrote:

I would have thought the most significant length constraint would be
Willesden Junction (for LO trains obviously not SN). To extend that to
8-car would involve bridging WCML and that would not come cheap.

Which would put the high-level station back just about where it used
to be. *I'm certainly not holding my breath for that to happen.
They've been talking about re-building the platforms on the slow lines
almost since the old ones were demolished. *I'm not expecting that to
happen in my lifetime either.

How long were the platforms at the old station? *Given the previous
platform lengths at various other North London Line stations, I'm
guessing that they were rather longer than at the present station.

The original station also had a third platform, generally known as the
'Earls Court Bay', though I believe it was actually a through
platform, rather than a real bay. *If this was still available it
would have avoided the situation which existed a few years ago, I'm
not sure if it still does now as I haven't used the line for some
time, where a train arriving from the WLL is held just before the
junction while trains run through in both directions on the NLL, so
you then have a long wait for a connection on that line.

This is why NEW tube lines - be they tube size or main line size -
need to get under way now as they take 10 years to build even once
planning is done, and that takes years too.

An LU person at a LURS meeting at the time that the Jubilee Line
extension was being either planned or constructed stated that this was
being built to traditional tube dimensions only because the rest of
the tube section of the line was that size, and that any future tube
line would almost certainly be to take surface stock size trains, as
the cost of tunneling to the larger size would not be much greater
using modern equipment and techniques.

Don't suppose you know of any diagrams of the old pre-1960's layout of
Willesden Junction?

I hear odd descriptions from time to time, but the best I've ever
managed were a few scattered old photos that didn't really give any
indication of how it all was laid out.

Something for the station's wikipedia page perhaps :)

No sorry, and I don't know much about it. There was a track in the
second bay, next to platform 2, in the 'new' station. I have seen a
picture of the old high level station; the two main tracks were served
by side platforms as I remember, and one of these was an island with
the 'Earls Court' track on the other side of it. The signalbox seems
to have been just at the end of the ramps of the high-level platforms
in the pictures I've seen. The bridge which gives access to the high-
level platforms also used to serve the main line platforms, I know
this because until not too many years ago old painted over signs
pointing to these platforms could just be made out on this bridge.

Before the old ticket office was demolished, with the odd situation
that you had to cross a road to get from the ticket office to the
platforms, a bricked-up doorway could just be made out in one of the
walls, which I think would also have provided access to these
platforms.

In the South-West you have Clapham Junction, with lots of platforms on
all lines, and most trains stopping there. In the North-East you have
something similar at Stratford. it always seemed to me that Willesden
Junction should be the one in the North-West, though there's not
really an obvious one in the South-East.

West London Line - what recession?
 

"Paul Terry" wrote:

Chris Read wrote:

Allowing pensioners who live in £500k houses, with £100k plus in
the bank, totally free travel, whilst charging full rate to a supermarket
worker on £6 an hour, is an interesting take on social justice. But there
is
no political will to challenge the status quo here.

Politicians also have to remember the environmental issue: pensioners in
that position have cars, which many would undoubtedly use if free travel
was withdrawn, thus adding to congestion and pollution.

I'm not necessarily suggesting that pensioners are charged full fare. I
would favour a flat rate of 50p or £1 per journey.

I don't buy the supposed environmental case, that people who have a choice
of modes will use public transport only if it's *completely* free.

There aren't, and never have been, valid social justice or environmental
arguments to support free bus travel for all pensioners. It was purely a
matter of poltical calculation. In fact, on grounds of both social justice
and environmental protection, the arguments for free bus travel for
teenagers are much stronger, although in my view not strong enough.

Chris