|
Post by crusty54 on Apr 5, 2014 7:34:10 GMT
Some doors will open in both the first and last carriages of the five at Canada Water If that is only one pair of doors in both the first and last carriage, then what is the need of doing any work, as it would still be the equivalent of four carriages being completely berthed in the platform. If the platforms are not to be lengthened at all, with trains stopping as you describe, then surely the only work for five carriage trains would be dealing with the signalling for the scissors crossover at the south end of the station. The platform is only four cars long at the moment. The work will enable the driver to see monitors in the tunnel.
|
|
|
Post by redbond on Apr 5, 2014 7:46:38 GMT
The work will enable the driver to see monitors in the tunnel. I doubt it, we use internal screens to view images from cameras attached to the side of the train.
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Apr 5, 2014 8:25:51 GMT
The work will enable the driver to see monitors in the tunnel. I doubt it, we use internal screens to view images from cameras attached to the side of the train. With respect I meant the cab monitors - they still need to be docked correctly.
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Apr 5, 2014 8:37:59 GMT
I thought the CCTV was all done on the train, hence the little CCTV cameras on the train. If not, then what infrastructure is needed for the transmission, as I've not seen any around. Or have I misinterpreted what you said?
|
|
|
Post by longhedge on Apr 5, 2014 8:53:47 GMT
I must be missing something here - I am 61 years old after all!!!
Currently, Canada Water platforms can `completely` handle a 4 car train, with all doors opened and the whole train completely platformed. I initially read that SDO would be used, and the rear car of the 5 car unit would have no doors opened. If this is the case, why would any works be needed at Canada Water? If the usable length of the platforms is being extended by selected demolition at the Southern end of the platforms, with no works to lengthen the tunnel I assumed this would enable 1 door to be opened in the rear car number 5. I just do not `get` this idea that the rear door in each 5 car unit will not open. If this is so, why do any works at CW? Whjat am I missing?
|
|
|
Post by longhedge on Apr 5, 2014 8:56:56 GMT
My last comment is unclear. What I meant to say is why would you have both doors near the cab (at each end of the train) not opening?
|
|
|
Post by mcmaddog on Apr 5, 2014 9:14:40 GMT
I must be missing something here - I am 61 years old after all!!! Currently, Canada Water platforms can `completely` handle a 4 car train, with all doors opened and the whole train completely platformed. I initially read that SDO would be used, and the rear car of the 5 car unit would have no doors opened. If this is the case, why would any works be needed at Canada Water? If the usable length of the platforms is being extended by selected demolition at the Southern end of the platforms, with no works to lengthen the tunnel I assumed this would enable 1 door to be opened in the rear car number 5. I just do not `get` this idea that the rear door in each 5 car unit will not open. If this is so, why do any works at CW? Whjat am I missing? Agreed. Not only do the current 4 cars fit, they fit easily with space to spare. Given the size of space being freed by the works I was in no doubt that 5 cars would fit until I started reading this thread.
|
|
|
Post by redbond on Apr 5, 2014 10:32:35 GMT
With respect I meant the cab monitors - they still need to be docked correctly. I still don't know what you mean sorry. All of the DOO equipment is 'on board'. There is nothing whatsoever on the platforms for this, as we view images in the cab from cameras fixed to the side of the train. The platforms at Canonbury and Hoxton have been extended slightly with a metal walkway which will be where the stop board will be placed. If the driver needs to get out they will have to walk through the end platform gate. I think the same kind of work is being done at Canada Water. The same as Rotherhithe on the 'up'. The stop board there is beyond the gate, as is Whitechapel currently. The driver needs to be able to get out if needed through the side cab door, so extending slightly so that there is enough room for the cab door but not enough for the first set of doors kind of makes sense, which would put the first set of doors out of use at Canada Water. Approaching Canada Water from Surrey Quays, a new AWS magnet has been placed, ahead of the current one. I assume the signal (which protects the crossover) is going to be moved forward which makes me think that the crossover will be moved too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2014 10:44:53 GMT
I think this is what has been baffling. The work MUST be to enable at least one extra set of doors on. I can see how if the leading cab is to sit quite far forward there may need to be some clearance and illumination for the external camera at the front to show a clear enough view on the monitors. I am becoming more convinced that 9 doors will fit. I am trying to establish whether work on either platform will enable driver access to the platform while bringing the front passenger doors as close as they can to the platform barrier (just as they are on the Rotherhithe up). It might be possible on the up as they appear to have pinched a bit more at the rear than they have on the down. I guess time will tell. If its that close the margin for error on stopping will be very tight. Even if its just one door off that will probably be sufficient. In rush hour people tend to file out of one or two sets of doors and the wait on that will more than likely take longer than someone having to move from a set of doors out of use on SDO to one that opens at the rear. It might be more of an issue for the unfamiliar traveller (especially if English is not their first language) travelling on a quieter service when dwell time is much reduced.
|
|
|
Post by longhedge on Apr 5, 2014 12:10:04 GMT
What I find `strange` is that with all the interest generated over this issue - witness the number of postings on this thread - that no official announcement has been made of the future `modus operandi` at Canada Water. It would all be good `PR`. I can only imagine that a decision has been made for at least 1 door to open in all 5 cars, which seems a logical decision if it can be achieved, and the `first` door of the last car would be very close to the tunnel mouth if nothing was done.
My - this is all getting exciting!! I see a competition in the offing!!
|
|
|
Post by dmncf on Apr 5, 2014 21:27:54 GMT
If you google maps Blackmore drive, Stonebridge Park Stn. www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5436123,-0.2781283,325m/data=!3m1!1e3 The first 6 roads south of the buildings. Hope this helps? Thanks very much. I think I see the six sidings you mean, with a blue freight train shown in one of the middle sidings on Google Maps. I had expected that London Overground's sidings would be shorter and more discrete from the rest of the Wembley freight yard, whereas these six sidings look generously long and rather mixed into the rest of the yard. Does anyone know how trains will access the sidings? I notice the south end can be used to access the diveunder that Southern's Milton Keynes to Croydon service uses to access the West London Line.
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Apr 6, 2014 0:08:37 GMT
Thanks very much. I think I see the six sidings you mean, with a blue freight train shown in one of the middle sidings on Google Maps. I had expected that London Overground's sidings would be shorter and more discrete from the rest of the Wembley freight yard, whereas these six sidings look generously long and rather mixed into the rest of the yard. Does anyone know how trains will access the sidings? I notice the south end can be used to access the diveunder that Southern's Milton Keynes to Croydon service uses to access the West London Line. These are shown on the Quail track plans as the Wembley Yard 'C' Sidings. Access would possibly via the connection to the West Coast mainline at the north end of Willesden Depot and then the High Level Goods line, which is the line you can see running around the perimeter of the Prince Royal Distribution Centre on the map. As you say, trains can also access the route from the West London Line, via the Willesden Relief lines. I don't know if the southern most of the six lines counts, as it is actually shown as belonging to the 'B' sidings (as 8 road, Through Siding) and you can see it is on a different alignment at the western end. I was actually expecting the sidings to be much closer to Willesden, using the definitely disused Willesden Brent Sidings which can been seen covered in overgrowth just to the north of Willesden Junction. However, these are lacking overhead wires etc., so might be a bit expensive to reinstate and arn't in the 'secure' area that Wembley is.
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Apr 7, 2014 21:22:59 GMT
What I find `strange` is that with all the interest generated over this issue - witness the number of postings on this thread - that no official announcement has been made of the future `modus operandi` at Canada Water. It would all be good `PR`. I can only imagine that a decision has been made for at least 1 door to open in all 5 cars, which seems a logical decision if it can be achieved, and the `first` door of the last car would be very close to the tunnel mouth if nothing was done. My - this is all getting exciting!! I see a competition in the offing!! Think I spotted the problem at Canada Water. There are emergency stairs at the platform ends. The area at the south end of the northbound platform has had the wall removed to enable a driver strip for emergency use to be constructed. In addition at this end you can see that the station box was cut into a curved roof. This limits the space to extend the platform.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2014 18:35:06 GMT
TfL have announced the appointment of Cleshars to extend some platforms on the East London and New South London lines. A few highlights from the press release - not all to do with the ELL / SLL. - late 2014 is the earliest date when extended trains will start running. - not all of the ELL platforms are referenced in the list of works. Whitechapel is not mentioned neither is Rotherhithe. However Canada Water is mentioned so it will be interesting to see what work is done there given the long standing concerns about platform lengths there. - none of the platforms on the route to Crystal Palace and West Croydon are mentioned but that's not a surprise. - Predictably Wandsworth Road and Clapham High Street are in scope of extensions but quite why Clapham Junction is mentioned is beyond me. The SLL platform stretches half way to Wandsworth - the contractor for works to NLL and WLL platforms will be appointed later this year. - A footnote states that GOBLIN electrification will complete in 2017. However TfL are investigating ways to increase capacity in the short term. I wonder what that will entail? If only they had rebuilt/built platforms long enough for 5-car trains in the first place- they would have saved a lot of hassle and money!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 9, 2014 18:52:30 GMT
If only they had rebuilt/built platforms long enough for 5-car trains in the first place- they would have saved a lot of hassle and money! But they didn't did they? It's easy being wise after the event but no one predicted the vast increase in Overground patronage which has run massively ahead of any growth trend. You need to understand that it is virtually impossible to spend money speculatively "just in case something might happen". You simply don't get your investment paper approved or the money released - been there, done that! Much of the Overground upgrade was funded with money from the Olympic Delivery Authority and they were never going to pay for a 5 car service which was not going to operate during the Games. I was on the edge of dealings with the ODA on other matters and they were clearly tasked with not spending one extra penny than was justified in respect of extra infrastructure for the Games. Would you care to predict when 6, 7 or 8 car trains will be needed on the Overground and suggest what the extra cost of each train length option would be for the NLL, WLL and ELL? I'm excluding Watford and GOBLIN routes. If you can predict this accurately with supporting evidence on patronage growth, system design and costs then you should be running London Overground.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 11:13:46 GMT
If only they had rebuilt/built platforms long enough for 5-car trains in the first place- they would have saved a lot of hassle and money! But they didn't did they? It's easy being wise after the event but no one predicted the vast increase in Overground patronage which has run massively ahead of any growth trend. You need to understand that it is virtually impossible to spend money speculatively "just in case something might happen". You simply don't get your investment paper approved or the money released - been there, done that! Much of the Overground upgrade was funded with money from the Olympic Delivery Authority and they were never going to pay for a 5 car service which was not going to operate during the Games. I was on the edge of dealings with the ODA on other matters and they were clearly tasked with not spending one extra penny than was justified in respect of extra infrastructure for the Games. Would you care to predict when 6, 7 or 8 car trains will be needed on the Overground and suggest what the extra cost of each train length option would be for the NLL, WLL and ELL? I'm excluding Watford and GOBLIN routes. If you can predict this accurately with supporting evidence on patronage growth, system design and costs then you should be running London Overground. True -hindsight is a wonderful thing. One might ask why they don't just go for 6 or even 7 car trains now- after all as time has shown more or often than not the longer you leave investment the more expensive/difficult it becomes! Surely they could have run 5 car trains- I think they've extended some LO trains in the past! I predict that 6 even 7 cars are needed now!LO trains are packed by the time they leave Clapham Junction at peaks! Hire me for LO director lol! The ELL would probably be more expensive to extend due to the numerous sub-surface stations
|
|
|
Post by dazz285 on Apr 10, 2014 12:27:17 GMT
Probably all boils down to budgets & how much money is in the kitty to spend...
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 10, 2014 13:17:04 GMT
True -hindsight is a wonderful thing. One might ask why they don't just go for 6 or even 7 car trains now- after all as time has shown more or often than not the longer you leave investment the more expensive/difficult it becomes! Surely they could have run 5 car trains- I think they've extended some LO trains in the past! I predict that 6 even 7 cars are needed now!LO trains are packed by the time they leave Clapham Junction at peaks! Hire me for LO director lol! The ELL would probably be more expensive to extend due to the numerous sub-surface stations TfL have already said that 6 car trains would be a very big step change given the need for much bigger depots, sidings and resignalling. Expanding stations would present a considerable challenge in some places and I think closure would become an issue for some stops on the ELL. That is therefore going to be hugely controversial and possibly not likely to succeed. You then reach a point of having SDO enabled six car trains which have ridiculous dwell times at short platform stops which then wrecks the service headway and operating speed on the line. What's the merit in that? I've read remarks recently from a ELL driver who is saying life on the line is already difficult and pressured due to the intensity of the service and crowding. It made me realise that there are aspects to running the service I hadn't considered and especially when dealing with a very busy and intensive frequency of trains. I actually think the issue is not one of extending to 6 cars but rather whether an upgrade to 8 car capability (signalling, platforms etc) is justified and affordable. You might run shorter trains in the interim but the infrastructure would get a big step change. That is really the next step change in infrastructure capability that would be needed beyond 5 cars. That is also quite a change in philosophy on the existing core Overground network and may well affect freight operations too. It's something that needs a lot of consideration with a range of stakeholders.
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Apr 10, 2014 16:48:19 GMT
The fact is that you'll never ever keep up with demand for rail travel in London until you spot and counter the "elephant in the room" which is the exponential growth of people moving to the area whose needs cannot be met. You could make the trains 16 carriages long if platforms and signalling permitted but it would eventually be useless. What would you do when that configuration became saturated? Double the length of the trains further, quadruple the existing tracks, make aslefshrugged work 20 hour shifts?....... There's not sufficient money to do this, and even if there were, sooner or later it would achieve nothing, a bit like the M25 expansions. Go on, tell me that's helped, because it hasn't really has it? M25 hold ups are just as bad as they ever were as usage has exceeded the expansion several times, even as the works were completed. There are far too many people in London and rising. That's the problem, and if someone can't address it then London's condemned to total gridlock in the future. Answers (sensible, affordable ones) on a postcard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 17:11:04 GMT
The next step is to run more trains closer together up to the maximum permitted by ELL core section signalling which is an absolute maximum of 19 tph. On the Clapham SLL branch frequency is restricted by junctions and interworking with other TOCs services, as indeed it is beyond NCG. The costs of infrastructure changes required to go to 6 or even 8 car trains would be very considerable and at present do not feature in short (5 year) to medium (10 year) term TfL planning. However, after 2027 there is, perhaps, a possibility.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 18:24:44 GMT
The fact is that you'll never ever keep up with demand for rail travel in London until you spot and counter the "elephant in the room" which is the exponential growth of people moving to the area whose needs cannot be met. You could make the trains 16 carriages long if platforms and signalling permitted but it would eventually be useless. What would you do when that configuration became saturated? Double the length of the trains further, quadruple the existing tracks, make aslefshrugged work 20 hour shifts?....... There's not sufficient money to do this, and even if there were, sooner or later it would achieve nothing, a bit like the M25 expansions. Go on, tell me that's helped, because it hasn't really has it? M25 hold ups are just as bad as they ever were as usage has exceeded the expansion several times, even as the works were completed. There are far too many people in London and rising. That's the problem, and if someone can't address it then London's condemned to total gridlock in the future. Answers (sensible, affordable ones) on a postcard. Well just imagine how bad things will have been if the M25 had never been built! Still- I think the argument about reducing London's population growing is a deep one- possibly not for this forum. As it could entail a wild range of controversial topics not (directly) transport related such as EU membership....
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Apr 10, 2014 18:51:21 GMT
The fact is that you'll never ever keep up with demand for rail travel in London until you spot and counter the "elephant in the room" which is the exponential growth of people moving to the area whose needs cannot be met. You could make the trains 16 carriages long if platforms and signalling permitted but it would eventually be useless. What would you do when that configuration became saturated? Double the length of the trains further, quadruple the existing tracks, make aslefshrugged work 20 hour shifts?....... There's not sufficient money to do this, and even if there were, sooner or later it would achieve nothing, a bit like the M25 expansions. Go on, tell me that's helped, because it hasn't really has it? M25 hold ups are just as bad as they ever were as usage has exceeded the expansion several times, even as the works were completed. There are far too many people in London and rising. That's the problem, and if someone can't address it then London's condemned to total gridlock in the future. Answers (sensible, affordable ones) on a postcard. Well just imagine how bad things will have been if the M25 had never been built! Still- I think the argument about reducing London's population growing is a deep one- possibly not for this forum. As it could entail a wild range of controversial topics not (directly) transport related such as EU membership.... Ah, but you see the M25 would have been sufficient, as would the rail network if the population had been kept stable. It wasn't. Now, don't for one minute assume that I'm speaking from some xenophobic position as I'm not. Regardless of where the people come from I don't really care. It's the numbers that are relevant here, not the point of origin. There are too many for the area concerned and I'm so glad I got out when I did. Governments should find ways of redistributing jobs to other parts of the country, not trying to stick their fingers uselessly in the dyke chasing targets that can never be met in London. Seriously, how would you deal with the current transport shortfall? Sent from my iPad
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 19:15:27 GMT
Well just imagine how bad things will have been if the M25 had never been built! Still- I think the argument about reducing London's population growing is a deep one- possibly not for this forum. As it could entail a wild range of controversial topics not (directly) transport related such as EU membership.... Ah, but you see the M25 would have been sufficient, as would the rail network if the population had been kept stable. It wasn't. Now, don't for one minute assume that I'm speaking from some xenophobic position as I'm not. Regardless of where the people come from I don't really care. It's the numbers that are relevant here, not the point of origin. There are too many for the area concerned and I'm so glad I got out when I did. Governments should find ways of redistributing jobs to other parts of the country, not trying to stick their fingers uselessly in the dyke chasing targets that can never be met in London. Seriously, how would you deal with the current transport shortfall? Sent from my iPad I wasn't assuming you were xenophobic at all! I was just mentioning the most common thing that people attribute London's (and the UK's) relatively fast growing population too! I think it'd would take a lot to revive the rest if the UK without harming London. Manufacturing is gone and won't come back to Britain till you can pay workers £1 an hour or less to work in a factory like you can in China, India, etc..! Also most countries are facing similar issues with their capital cities!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 10, 2014 23:12:03 GMT
The fact is that you'll never ever keep up with demand for rail travel in London until you spot and counter the "elephant in the room" which is the exponential growth of people moving to the area whose needs cannot be met. You could make the trains 16 carriages long if platforms and signalling permitted but it would eventually be useless. What would you do when that configuration became saturated? Double the length of the trains further, quadruple the existing tracks, make aslefshrugged work 20 hour shifts?....... There's not sufficient money to do this, and even if there were, sooner or later it would achieve nothing, a bit like the M25 expansions. Go on, tell me that's helped, because it hasn't really has it? M25 hold ups are just as bad as they ever were as usage has exceeded the expansion several times, even as the works were completed. There are far too many people in London and rising. That's the problem, and if someone can't address it then London's condemned to total gridlock in the future. Answers (sensible, affordable ones) on a postcard. Clearly there are a load of transport options still available to the authorities to bolster capacity. Yes money would have to be found but we're not exactly a small third world economy. Compared to Tokyo London's transport system is positively under-resourced so lots could be done. The bigger issues are probably outside the scope of this board such as housing, economic development and the extent of "free market" vs "direction" when it comes to how and what bits of London develop. Do you decentralise or do you encourage further clustering of similar businesses in areas that are already busy? The other factor is the very strong relationship between transport development and other development being encouraged. That's definitely one aspect of the M25 effect plus new infrastructure suddenly making previously difficult journeys much easier. We see that with London Overground (partly encouraged by the lines appearing on the Tube Map). Don't be surprised if West Anglia lines and Romford - Upminster suddenly become busier if / when they appear on the tube map. The population point is important but people don't come to London for the sake of it. They come because of wealth, opportunity and the availability of employment. People suffer the crowding, congestion and sheer expense because they're ambitious to improve themselves and the life chances of their present or future families. Until London ceases to be a source of "economic pull" then we can expect to see population growth. Only the crazy housing market may put a brake on London's population growth.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Apr 11, 2014 1:17:09 GMT
Its worth remembering that London's population has been previously higher than it supposedly it now, but whether transport usage has been is unclear. Certainly the tube is carrying more people than at any time in its history, but that this is spread slightly more evenly across its hours of opperation (the morning peak is far less concentrated than 50 years ago), and with fewer, slower, and shorter trains on some lines. Perhaps you might be able to comment on the bus side snoggle? I know Peter Hendy menetioned recently that during the last tube strike they managed to eclipse for the first time the total number of buses running since 1958 (presumably before the then bus strike). Does this translate to ridership though? As a comparison does it include/exclude country routes and Green Line, and, further, what about trolleybuses? Even comparing red buses like for like isn't straightforward because the running area has shrunk. It makes an interesting point though - if London has had a larger population previously and managed its transport system with far less infrastrucure than now, how can it not be expected to do so in the future? I posit that this is because more people are having to use public transport, and more frequently, implying that fewer people live in places appropriate to where their lives are centered. The question then becomes why this is so. And the answer to that must surely be because of decreased densification taking place after the war, and the subsequent pricing out and social cleansing of the less affluent and more labourious workers from inner London. This must surely imply that, at some level, local political policy is to blame for exascerbating capacity problems. And if thats the case, perhaps by changing the social and wealth based demographic breakdown of London it can also be reversed or mitigated?
|
|
|
Post by bicbasher on Apr 11, 2014 7:57:00 GMT
If you look at the types of people using rail in comparison to buses, you see the low paid have moved over to the bus network and in some cases are having to commute on two or maybe three buses into central London as the rail fares are too expensive. I don't think this has helped by TfL scrapping point to point season tickets on London Overground services.
However, if you're fortunate to have an employer who offers a season ticket loan, deducted monthly from your salary, that does help.
Cross boundary routes are also very attractive to commuters as they're cheaper (with Oyster PAYG) than the average local bus service
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 11, 2014 20:27:25 GMT
Ben - I can't find any info on patronage levels for the 1950s. Courtesy of Ken Glazier's excellent book on London Buses in the 1950s there is info on fleet sizes for LT (as a whole). I've set out 1950 and 1953 values below - 1953 was the peak vehicle year. I assume Sir Peter Hendy was referring to the total PVR in making his comparison. Clearly TfL's geographic area of responsibility is rather smaller than LT's was in 1953. | 1950 | 1953 | Central Buses | 5,304 | 6,090 | Trams | 650 | 0 | Trolleybuses | 1,607 | 1,604 | Country Buses | 913 | 1,016 | Green Line | 254 | 308 | Grand Total | 8,728 | 9,018 |
Fleet sizes declined after 1953 and the composition between divisions obviously changed over the years as a result of significant policy changes. Reading Ken's introduction he cited some amazing service frequencies in operation in the 1950s - way ahead of what we have now. Journeys, though, were typically more local and shorter distance but changes to housing policy and mass movement of people away from inner London to suburbs and New Towns changed the pattern and volume of trips. Green Line grew but Central Buses' ridership fell. Social and economic factors like car ownership, better roads and the arrival of television all changed the nature of demand on offer for LT. Ken remarked that it was not until the mid 1950s that LT actually realised that much of its patronage was slumping as a result of wider changes. The bus network was largely centred on trunk routes in the Central Buses area whereas today we have a much denser network and a hierarchical structure of routes to cover radial, "orbital", local and feeder to rail type journeys. We have more routes run with smaller buses that can reach estates and places previously well off the bus network. It's not really comparable IMO. I am not convinced that the 1950s tells us very much about how we can cope with increasing population pressures today and in to the future. We are also seeing big technological chanages but that is not keeping people at home in the evenings! Further car ownership is not the great "be all and end all" that it was in the 50s and 60s. Cost pressures, congestion, traffic and parking restraint and environmental concerns weigh differently with younger people these days and there are growing numbers of "no car" households in London. These households walk, cycle or use public transport hence why some bits of the transport network are so busy. Not sure if any of that takes the debate forwards but there you go.
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Apr 12, 2014 18:40:10 GMT
Whilst using the core section of the line today it became clear that things like narrow platforms and stairs at the stations mean that more than five cars would be impossible.
In addition Wapping is next to the Thames tunnel, you can see Rotherhithe from Canada Water etc etc
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2014 11:15:04 GMT
Its worth remembering that London's population has been previously higher than it supposedly it now, but whether transport usage has been is unclear. Certainly the tube is carrying more people than at any time in its history, but that this is spread slightly more evenly across its hours of opperation (the morning peak is far less concentrated than 50 years ago), and with fewer, slower, and shorter trains on some lines. Perhaps you might be able to comment on the bus side snoggle? I know Peter Hendy menetioned recently that during the last tube strike they managed to eclipse for the first time the total number of buses running since 1958 (presumably before the then bus strike). Does this translate to ridership though? As a comparison does it include/exclude country routes and Green Line, and, further, what about trolleybuses? Even comparing red buses like for like isn't straightforward because the running area has shrunk. It makes an interesting point though - if London has had a larger population previously and managed its transport system with far less infrastrucure than now, how can it not be expected to do so in the future? I posit that this is because more people are having to use public transport, and more frequently, implying that fewer people live in places appropriate to where their lives are centered. The question then becomes why this is so. And the answer to that must surely be because of decreased densification taking place after the war, and the subsequent pricing out and social cleansing of the less affluent and more labourious workers from inner London. This must surely imply that, at some level, local political policy is to blame for exascerbating capacity problems. And if thats the case, perhaps by changing the social and wealth based demographic breakdown of London it can also be reversed or mitigated? In 1939 London had a bigger population than we have now. However not many people got a job in Greenford when they lived in Stratford! I'd say people tended to travel much less than we do now. I know bus usage plummeted in the 1950s with the advent of the car that meant many had the chance to avoid public transport.Also the tube seemed to be in decline around the 1970s/80s. To be fair many commuters aren't poor- especially if you can avoid to buy a season ticket to/from London from a commuter town such as Woking!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2014 11:18:22 GMT
Whilst using the core section of the line today it became clear that things like narrow platforms and stairs at the stations mean that more than five cars would be impossible. In addition Wapping is next to the Thames tunnel, you can see Rotherhithe from Canada Water etc etc Well maybe we need to look at segregating LO tracks from the rest of NR and freight so a higher frequency can be acheived
|
|