|
Post by snoggle on Jun 13, 2016 20:50:34 GMT
The issue is not immigration. The issue is that London has a massive economy which naturally pulls people in from a wide area. How long have we had intensive main line commuting flows from beyond Greater London? - many many decades. This suggests a long standing "pull" factor from the City of London and other major sectors (broadcasting, government, the Arts, hospitality, higher education institutions). In more recent times the City has expanded hugely and we now have other sectors growing like technology businesses, medical R&D. Unless we are going to adopt Communist central planning you can't tell business where to go. It goes where there are natural advantages like affordable office space / land, support services, skills / expertise, a dynamic labour market, supportive local authorities. There are also agglomeration advantages of common businesses co-locating to aid business development. Private sector business will go where the advantages are. If we want business to grow elsewhere in the country then create the necessary skills in the current and future labour force, engage with business as what their land needs are etc. It can be done - witness the car industry. The other dynamic from the scale of day to day business and inward commuting flows is that supports a lot of retail and food businesses - people need to eat and people to shop. You only need to see the growth of things like sole trader street food businesses to see how this works. The influx over many decades of immigrants from all over the place has also encouraged a dynamic food culture and that gets swapped about etc. Therefore you get more businesses and they need supplies and that grows yet more businesses. It's a small thing in the overall picture but something I am particularly aware of - I like nice food. There are similar stirrings in places like Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle and Birmingham but not on the scale of London. Again it can be done and it needs encouragement (across all sorts of sectors).
|
|
|
Post by Chris W on Jun 13, 2016 21:02:52 GMT
If we take Crossrail as an example of improvements that can be made. The current life expired class 315s have a capacity of 431 per 4 car unit, which represents a maximum of 862 per 8-car train. In comparison the replacement 9-car class 345 trains (with no need to have two internal cabs taking up space), will be able to deal with approx 1500 passengers. The article in the hyperlink refer to 10 carriage trains, however car length specifications have changed (increased to 23m), meaning that although the cars reduced in number, the train length remained the same overall.
Currently services operate at approximately 2 every 10 minutes (gaps of 3 min and 7 mins) between Liverpool Street and Gidea Park, with every other service reaching Shenfield. Post upgrade to Crossrail it is anticipated that trains will no longer terminate at Gidea Park with 12 trains per hour. This represents effectively no change, however it does not take into account services that join at Whitechapel from the Abbey Wood branch (24 trains per hour across the central London route out west). Number CrunchingTherefore the potential maximum number of passengers per hour between Gidea Park* / Shenfield to Liv St. increases from: TfL Rail* = 10,344 Crossrail = 18,000 This represents a potential increase of 42.5% in passengers the line can carry. Through London, the Central and northern Circle will be alleviated and Crossrail Mk 2 will similarly relieve Northern, Victoria and SWT Metro routes when it comes online around 2033-35, a few years before I retire ... that is the first time I've ever referred to my retirement in my life !!!
I fear for 2040 onwards without more lines appearing unless.... as I referred to in an earlier post... working patterns change significantly !!
|
|
|
Post by will on Jun 13, 2016 21:19:37 GMT
Other than replacing signalling systems, introducing new faster higher capacity trains and expanding/rebuilding stations is there anything else they can reasonably do?
Have they ever lengthened platforms - would be useful on all lines particularly the Northern, Piccadilly and Waterloo and City Lines. Naturally this would cost large sums of money and take time but it would be worth it if it was practical and when new trains are eventually introduced they could be 8+ cars long. Recently they have had those smallish tunnel excavators used to create cross passages in creating new station cross passages that could be used.
Also on the Jubilee line Extension the platform edge doors end about 3/4 or a cars length away from the end of the platform. Its always baffled me that with a bit of reorganisation of the PEDS although not feasible now but in the future they could increase train length to 8 maybe 9 at a push cars. On the rest of the line there are only 5 deep tube stations and although these would need more major work to lengthen with the street level/cutting platforms shouldn't be too difficult to increase capacity that way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2016 21:27:42 GMT
Have they ever lengthened platforms Ever? Yes, definitely, most notably on the CLR parts of the Central and the CSLR parts of the Northern. If people are interested in this topic, feel free to start a new thread, but the point for now is simply a quick point of fact that may be useful/interesting.
|
|
|
Post by will on Jun 13, 2016 21:31:21 GMT
Have they ever lengthened platforms Ever? Yes, definitely, most notably on the CLR parts of the Central and the CSLR parts of the Northern. I knew they had but my brain wouldn't tell me where
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Jun 13, 2016 22:44:39 GMT
Ever? Yes, definitely, most notably on the CLR parts of the Central and the CSLR parts of the Northern. I knew they had but my brain wouldn't tell me where Check out the station platform walls especially on the Central Line, Holland park is a good example
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Jun 14, 2016 4:36:58 GMT
Other than replacing signalling systems, introducing new faster higher capacity trains and expanding/rebuilding stations is there anything else they can reasonably do? Have they ever lengthened platforms - would be useful on all lines particularly the Northern, Piccadilly and Waterloo and City Lines. Naturally this would cost large sums of money and take time but it would be worth it if it was practical and when new trains are eventually introduced they could be 8+ cars long. Recently they have had those smallish tunnel excavators used to create cross passages in creating new station cross passages that could be used. Also on the Jubilee line Extension the platform edge doors end about 3/4 or a cars length away from the end of the platform. Its always baffled me that with a bit of reorganisation of the PEDS although not feasible now but in the future they could increase train length to 8 maybe 9 at a push cars. On the rest of the line there are only 5 deep tube stations and although these would need more major work to lengthen with the street level/cutting platforms shouldn't be too difficult to increase capacity that way. Jubilee line trains are 8 car
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Jun 14, 2016 5:45:17 GMT
Other than replacing signalling systems, introducing new faster higher capacity trains and expanding/rebuilding stations is there anything else they can reasonably do? Have they ever lengthened platforms - would be useful on all lines particularly the Northern, Piccadilly and Waterloo and City Lines. Naturally this would cost large sums of money and take time but it would be worth it if it was practical and when new trains are eventually introduced they could be 8+ cars long. Recently they have had those smallish tunnel excavators used to create cross passages in creating new station cross passages that could be used. Also on the Jubilee line Extension the platform edge doors end about 3/4 or a cars length away from the end of the platform. Its always baffled me that with a bit of reorganisation of the PEDS although not feasible now but in the future they could increase train length to 8 maybe 9 at a push cars. On the rest of the line there are only 5 deep tube stations and although these would need more major work to lengthen with the street level/cutting platforms shouldn't be too difficult to increase capacity that way. Jubilee line trains are 8 car No Phil, they are 7 car extended from the original 6.
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Jun 14, 2016 7:05:43 GMT
Snoggle above says the issue is that LOndon has a massive economy - that is true, but is the very reason his first assertion is not true. It is about immigration, and always has been from the 17th century onwards. In the Westminster archives are the massive series of settlement examinations fro St Martin's in the Fields in the 18th century. People came to London from all over the country, and beyond, and when they fell ill, the magistrates examined them to see which was their "home" parish. When I say immigration, I do not mean EU migration, though that is now a cogent factor. People will come to London from wherever they can get to it from - with Ryanair and Eurolines it's now cheap and easy from a long way away. Provided there are no checks, that is. In the 18C the settlement laws restricted but did not prevent it. In the early 19c those laws fell into disuse, but mortality imposed its own restrictions in overcrowded London. In the later c19 we cured most of the mortality, and the population, with no contraception, increased exponentially, by both natural growth and in-migration. The railways encouraged the growth of outer LOndon; the LCC area, when created in 1889, was already far too small. In the 20s and 30s, Southern Electric and Metroland dispersed still more. Then in 1938 the Green Belt was started, and put paid to the Aldenham extension and the line beyond Chessington. London's transport has always been intimately tied up with its economy, population, its distribution, and also the controls, or lack of them, that are imposed on it......
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,724
|
Post by class411 on Jun 14, 2016 8:02:01 GMT
I have the (long term) answer!
Genetic engineering to make smaller people.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jun 14, 2016 10:36:16 GMT
Have they ever lengthened platforms - would be useful on all lines particularly the .....Waterloo and City Lines. Naturally this would cost large sums of money and take time but it would be worth it if it was practical Probably not the W&C - you might be able to do it at Bank, although it wold either block the new entrance currently under construction or require rebuilding the crossover tunnel at the other end. At Waterloo any extension of the platform towards Bank would be on a sharp curve and any extension at the other end would encroach into the depot - which could not take longer trains anyway. As with any proposals to modify the Drain, the answer is almost always that it would be cheaper to build a new line from scratch (which has the added advantage that not only can you continue to use the existing line during the building work, but you can continue to do so afterwards!).
|
|
|
Post by roman80 on Jun 14, 2016 10:43:28 GMT
Jubilee line trains are 8 car No Phil, they are 7 car extended from the original 6. Wider and longer platforms make sense if the train frequency has been maxed out. However the problem will just move to the station passageways and ticket barriers, which at some stations do not clear easily whatever the train frequency. For me, letting at least two trains go at Canary Wharf each evening before being able to get on one is normal. A wider longer platform may help. However,seeing the next Jubilee line train arrive in the platform before all passengers have cleared the platform via the escalators from the previous train is just as normal each morning. Even small stations like Putney Bridge are painful to exit each evening, and it has a second set of steps sitting idle so the remediation cost is minimal.
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Jun 14, 2016 11:38:44 GMT
Class 411 you may have a point. Try getting 56 2016-sized people on a 1950s RT bus......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 11:41:43 GMT
Not this again! London is able to accommodate 10-13 million people and all parties (excep UKIP) are signed up to accepting it and dealing with the implications. We need to build more homes at higher densities, and we're still not building enough. You should worry about the city if and when no one wants to come! The system can barely cope as it is in places, and schemes to relieve congestion will only mitigate against current excess demand, increasing population will put things back to square one. Then there's the question of whether we *want* population to increase to that level of density. I don't believe we can sustain that without a significant drop in living standards. Parts of the south-east are already at the point where day-to-day living is a more frustrating experience compared to 20 years ago. Everyone's entitled to their views, however I'd prefer a strategy to control population growth. I've been in the north-east for the last few days, it's so refreshing to be able to quickly and reliably drive from A to B without having people in the way all the time. Less hassle, less stress - much better. You seem to have given a reason not to invest in transport for the north- east, as they seem to have solved their problems with the private car. Fine, lets redirect it down here where it will certainly be used. However, from holidaying in the north of Scotland last year I'd say the roads are empty because there is next to nothing going on. If you're a motorist who sees other people as getting in the way of you and your car then you are unlikely to ever be satisfied in London. However, Snoggle gives an example of how our lives are enriched by the increasing population and there are many more.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,724
|
Post by class411 on Jun 14, 2016 11:59:59 GMT
Class 411 you may have a point. Try getting 56 2016-sized people on a 1950s RT bus...... It was, of course, intended as a joke, but afterwards I thought about it a little and realised that it would, in fact, solve a great number of humanities problems. If you could bring population growth under control, and then, over the course of a couple of centuries, gradually reduce the height of the population, we would decrease our use of resources and require less space to live in. A bit SF, but I'm pretty sure it is, or soon will be, scientifically feasible, and, apart form the not inconsiderable problem of getting people to agree that it is a good idea, I can't immediately see any downsides. Or am I losing it completely?
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Jun 14, 2016 14:35:52 GMT
If you want to be serious about this, you actually do need what snoggle thought of as Communist-style planning. To the extent of building up 4-6 areas out of Central London to the 250,000 size suburb AND with the related jobs & infrastructure within a 2-mile radius there & not in Central London, so your masses might still need new Tube lines to get into Central London to party etc. I honestly don't see how you can get out of that revitalised aspect of Tube travel, nor why people should be denied it. What this would, however, offer is that jobs are once again local, just like a lot of them used to be in Camberwell & Greenwich, when I was young. It's sort of recreating Harlow, Crawley new towns etc., but within Greater London, something like the six airports plan to replace Croydon. So, if this is remotely feasible, you would have to pick the right locations & which out of the current Designated Development Areas could be maxed up so? Old Kent Road? Barking Riverside? Or do we need new undeveloped ones like Crayford Marshes?
|
|
|
Post by will on Jun 14, 2016 15:03:29 GMT
In years to come its likely that the national rail network will have to become far more efficient than it is currently. If many of the lines in future followed what's been achieved on London Overground particularly the East London Line that runs the most frequent service (I think) as currently the service is quite poor with some stations only having 2 trains per hour.
An example of this is Brixton; Natioanl Rail usage per year 897,000 London Underground usage per year 27,220,000 using figures from 2013.
This is set to improve with the future Elizabeth Line service and soon hopefully Crossrail 2 that will take over lots of south west London Lines.
How much control do TFL have over the London Overground as presumably Network Rail own and manage the rails and signals etc. If in the future they wanted ATO installed (similar systems to those used on LUL) who would pay and could it actually be achieved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 15:16:57 GMT
How much control do TFL have over the London Overground as presumably Network Rail own and manage the rails and signals etc. If in the future they wanted ATO installed (similar systems to those used on LUL) who would pay and could it actually be achieved. ATO is due to be installed on the East London Line really quite soon. And actually a 'digital railway' including ATO is certainly planned for the National Rail network. Thameslink and Crossrail, for example, will both have ATO. Network Rail do own and operate the infrastructure. The operator (currently still LOROL I think) runs the trains, with performance targets and services specified by TfL. For more, please start a new thread.
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Jun 14, 2016 15:39:52 GMT
The operator (currently still LOROL I think) runs the trains, with performance targets and services specified by TfL. Correct, Arriva Rail London will be taking over from LOROL in November.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 14, 2016 18:24:40 GMT
How much control do TFL have over the London Overground as presumably Network Rail own and manage the rails and signals etc. If in the future they wanted ATO installed (similar systems to those used on LUL) who would pay and could it actually be achieved. ATO is due to be installed on the East London Line really quite soon. And actually a 'digital railway' including ATO is certainly planned for the National Rail network. Thameslink and Crossrail, for example, will both have ATO. Network Rail do own and operate the infrastructure. The operator (currently still LOROL I think) runs the trains, with performance targets and services specified by TfL. For more, please start a new thread.All please note, NR do not own the ELL infrastructure! Everything between New Cross Gate / SLL spur up to where it starts to run alongside the NLL is owned by TfL. Furthermore TfL own the infrastructure (but not the trackbed) from Dalston to Highbury with NR effectively being the Landlord for this bit. Operation of said ELL infrastructure is however contracted out to NR to manage as the infrastructure - just as HS1 is managed (not owned by NR). The rest of the infrastructure used by LO is both owned and managed by NR
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 18:57:51 GMT
ATO is due to be installed on the East London Line really quite soon. And actually a 'digital railway' including ATO is certainly planned for the National Rail network. Thameslink and Crossrail, for example, will both have ATO. Network Rail do own and operate the infrastructure. The operator (currently still LOROL I think) runs the trains, with performance targets and services specified by TfL. For more, please start a new thread.All please note, NR do not own the ELL infrastructure! Everything between New Cross Gate / SLL spur up to where it starts to run alongside the NLL is owned by TfL. Furthermore TfL own the infrastructure (but not the trackbed) from Dalston to Highbury with NR effectively being the Landlord for this bit. Operation of said ELL infrastructure is however contracted out to NR to manage as the infrastructure - just as HS1 is managed (not owned by NR). The rest of the infrastructure used by LO is both owned and managed by NR Ah, fair enough, thanks for the correction
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Jun 16, 2016 6:48:02 GMT
Jubilee line trains are 8 car No Phil, they are 7 car extended from the original 6. Oops got that one wrong, was thinking length, they are near enough the same length as the 8 car S stock. although not quite as the S stock will not go into Wembely Sidings, which would be useful for football.
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Jun 16, 2016 6:54:55 GMT
Was the JLE not built to accommodate 8 cars?
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jun 16, 2016 12:00:38 GMT
Was the JLE not built to accommodate 8 cars? Sort of. A 7-car 96 stock train is roughly comparable length to an 8-car train of normal length stock. Fortunately all the platforms on the original section of Jubilee Line were able to accommodate the longer trains with minimal work. This is a stroke of luck, as the likes of Swiss Cottage and SJW could easily have been built comparable to other platforms on what was then the Bakerloo Line.
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Jun 17, 2016 7:04:05 GMT
Certainly when JLE first opened with 6-car trains there was a great deal of wasted space on the platforms. and a very long walk at Stratford till you even saw the buffer stops. I take it an extra car now would be absolutely impossible without mega-expenditure?
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Jun 17, 2016 11:28:15 GMT
No Phil, they are 7 car extended from the original 6. Oops got that one wrong, was thinking length, they are near enough the same length as the 8 car S stock. although not quite as the S stock will not go into Wembely Sidings, which would be useful for football. S Stock and 1996 Stock train lengths: 117.45 m (385 ft) (S7) 133.68 m (439 ft) (S8) 124.39 m (408 ft) (1996TS - 7 car)
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,426
|
Post by Chris M on Jun 17, 2016 12:10:44 GMT
I take it an extra car now would be absolutely impossible without mega-expenditure? That depends on the station. Stratford could accommodate 1 more with relatively little expenditure I think, ditto West Ham. North Greenwich would be pricey as it might require junctions moving.
|
|
|
Post by Chris W on Jun 17, 2016 20:04:39 GMT
In recent years TfL have concentrated upon increasing train frequencies, however once trains have reached 34-36 trains per hour, there's not much wriggle room to increase this to even 40 tph.... you need to enable sufficient station dwelling times to allow passengers to alight and board after all !! Using the current TfL Rail (future Crossrail route between Shenfield and Liverpool Street as an example - I use it regularly during rush hour so am very familiar with it), the longest dwelling times are by far and above Stratford takes approx 3-5 minutes per train, with units regularly having to queue after Forest Gate the later a morning rush hour progresses. The first of the class 345s will arrive in passenger service around May 2017 (11 months time). Initially they will be 7 cars in length, however in time they will become 9 cars..... 200 metre long trains ! In comparison LU trains are much shorter: 72TS = 113.552m 73TS = 106.81m 92TS = 130m 95TS = 106.62m 96TS = 124.39m 2009TS = 133.275 D Stock = 109.47m S8 Stock = 133.68m IMO the next step, once line frequencies improve, will be to extend train lengths and consequently platforms.... and hey, if you're going to extend a platform by one car length, economies of scale dictate that you might as well increase them by two, or even three car lengths if you can !!
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Jun 17, 2016 20:52:54 GMT
The long dwell time at Stratford must be the result of 100 million people using the station pa. When a Shenfield disgorges, the 3 exits from the platform are intolerably congested already, and the platforms are too narrow - what's it going to be like with nearly 700ft long trains? Why is the country end subway not opened out as an exit to the street for passengers leaving the station? That would relieve things a bit
|
|
|
Post by Chris W on Jun 17, 2016 20:59:27 GMT
The long dwell times at Stratford relate from the congested doorways of the class 315 stock and efforts that passengers need to make to extract themselves from the furthest reaches of the cars (yes the passengers queue throughout the train as they alight). More doors per car are a necessity with the class 345s !! The platforms are busy, however at the mo, the rolling stock are the bottleneck I promise
|
|