|
Post by mrjrt on Jan 4, 2008 16:23:09 GMT
The other thing that you can do with tube extensions into the south are speed up the overground rail services, as adding additional tracks there would be very expensive given the demand of land; running in tube would be much cheaper. If you were to run an extension under one of the lines to Clapham or Norwood Junctions you would then alter the metro services to being semi-fasts, giving more capacity and better service for those living further away from the central area. Pretty much mirroring the relationship that the London midland stops at Watford and Harrow have with the Bakerloo. Additionally, you move some of the Rail-to-Tube congestion away from the London terminals, as well as diffuse it among many stations, as the passengers could already be on the tube by the time they get to the central area if they stay on the tube (as it's unlikely it would serve the same terminal as the existing metro services).
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Jan 4, 2008 16:47:14 GMT
What about this cross river tram to Peckham-a short term solution perhaps!
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Jan 20, 2008 14:01:21 GMT
What about an extension from Kennington after the Northern Line split? Surely that's possible, a high density area, and after the split and frequency upgrade there should be spare capacity on that line. There is not much point in extending the Underground into south London, because of the intensive network of National Rail tracks. Indeed, that is why the Underground does not do much south of the Thames. And, for the distances involved, tube trains would probably not be suitable. I'm sorry but I never understand why people are against improved transport links out of principle. Anyone who has ever been part of the commute from any part of south london (whether on the SE, Southern or SWT networks) you'll understand how much need there is for alternative routes into the centre. It's easy to look at a map and think south london is well served but even with seemingly high frequencies (24tph+ out of Waterloo, Victoria/London Bridge and Cannon St/Charing X/London Bridge divided into their respective inner suburban routes) the following factors come into play: - few routes on the relatively dense network actually receive long trains at high frequencies
- the density of the network has resulted in conflicting junctions which limits flexibility and capacity (esp on Southern & Southeastern)
- there are competing demands from longer distance services which compound the above
- the central termini have limited capacity to cope with more services
- plans to increase Thameslink services and ELLX are evidence of the insufficient existing capacity into the central area
In addition there are also huge flows by bus from inner south london to the city, west end and beyond comprised of people who would happily get on a faster tube if it were a practical option for them. Compared with the richness of the tube network in NW london it's shocking that big areas like Lewisham, Peckham, Camberwell, Streatham and Dulwich are not served. It would be interesting to see a survey of the onward destinations of people who come off the tube at Brixton, Elephant & Castle, Canada Water and Kennington. Essentially I think any tube extensions further south of the river would be pretty well used from day one, and would justify the investment. Why is it that people are prepared to believe projects are justified when they are backed by corporations but not when there is genuine public demand?
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jan 20, 2008 21:18:45 GMT
It's easy to look at a map and think south london is well served but even with seemingly high frequencies (24tph+ out of Waterloo, Victoria/London Bridge and Cannon St/Charing X/London Bridge divided into their respective inner suburban routes) the following factors come into play<snip> Hoo yuss. I had no idea, until I moved out here & travelled in a few times by train - it's pants! I kind of assumed, having lived in Camden Town, Sluff & Morden, that it was equally well-served all over the Smoke. Not so. You mention the inner suburban routes; because there's so many of them the service frequency out of the mainline stations gets seriously diluted. A train every half hour isn't good enough in London! I know the original reason why there are so few tube routes south of the Thames was because it was different geology, harder to tunnel through - but presumably engineering has managed to get beyond this issue now? Why is it that people are prepared to believe projects are justified when they are backed by corporations but not when there is genuine public demand? Cash If they decided to go for it, who would initially pay? Certainly each time they think about new lines/extensions the Guvmint throws toys about how it wouldn't benefit the rest of the country and it would be a disproportionate investment, yada yada. Get corporations to pay, or at least contribute, and people (non-Londoners) won't whinge as much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2008 23:22:28 GMT
I doubt we'll ever see the Tube having a major extension now. Just endless crossrail type lines built ti mainline spec.
Look at Hackney-Chelsea, thats been eaten up by the Crossrail bug.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2008 10:41:40 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2008 10:55:59 GMT
If I remember right that page is out dated as the consultation closed during the summer (as it says in the link) and the management of the project even over to the Crossrail team (seeing as they had so much experience with safeguarding a line) after the new 2007 safeguarding limits were decidied upon (the reason for the consultation as the original was 1991, this was an update). Its was under the banner Crossrail 2 for awhile but now it seems to have dropped that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2008 8:32:36 GMT
The other thing that you can do with tube extensions into the south are speed up the overground rail services, as adding additional tracks there would be very expensive given the demand of land; running in tube would be much cheaper. I doubt it: tube railways are very expensive. Think of the cost of the JLE.
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Jan 23, 2008 12:53:33 GMT
I large part of that I suspect was the ransom-enabling nature of the millennium deadline.
AFAIK, the tunnelling itself is (relatively) low cost - it's the stations that cost a fortune. Compare the cost of tunnelling vs. the cost of a land grab along a transport corridor through central south London.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jan 23, 2008 18:05:59 GMT
The JLE overran by quite a bit. In part this had to do with it using similar methods to the HEx tunnels. To quote A W Mansar in the foreward of "Tube trains under London":
"There have been many who, over the years, have advocated the building of tunnels large enough to take stock of main line gauge but whenever the facts have been re-examined the same conclusion has always been reached, that as value for money, in terms of passenger capacity against capital cost, the tube of the order 12 feet in diameter is the most attractive porposition for the London conditions."
I would argue that this principal still largely holds, but tube tunnels have slowly been increasing in size over the past 50 years. From a standard of 11' 8¼" to just over 12' for the Victoria line for ventilation reasons (could someone provide the exact size for me, I'd be very curious!), and God knows what for the JLE (again, does anyone know what this is exactly?).
As tunnel size increases, the spoil to remove increases quadraticaly, so the cost goes up a lot.
I do agree with mrjrt though, it probably is the stations which cost more than the tunnelling. With the JLE the stations were designed to be dramatic and stunning and huge. A lot of money could be saved perhaps by having something more austere yet just as functional.
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Jan 23, 2008 20:54:18 GMT
Reopening the stations on the line from Elephant to Loughborough Junction would help fill the gap, and wouldn't cost to much. A Bakerloo extension to Peckham (and beyond), going roughly along the CRT route with one, two or even three stations (though they are expensive) would bisect what's left of the big area.
Northern from Kennington can go to Denmark Hill (possibly extending beyond via East or North Dulwich), via Camberwell, but I feel that Streatham Common via Brixton, Streatham Hill and Streatham (go along the A23 from Oval), with some gap filling stations - one between Brixton and Streatham Hill, and maybe one north of Brixton filling the gap between Brixton and Oval on the A23 and Stockwell and Camberwell on an E-W Axis - would be better
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Jan 29, 2008 14:33:54 GMT
I noticed a sign at Angel today saying in the morning peak they've just started running all northbound* Bank branch trains to High Barnet/MHE. Is this the beginning of a split, or just some short-term operational reason?
(* not southbound though. I started my journey on a HB-CX)
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Jan 29, 2008 17:43:23 GMT
The JLE overran by quite a bit. In part this had to do with it using similar methods to the HEx tunnels. To quote A W Mansar in the foreward of "Tube trains under London": "There have been many who, over the years, have advocated the building of tunnels large enough to take stock of main line gauge but whenever the facts have been re-examined the same conclusion has always been reached, that as value for money, in terms of passenger capacity against capital cost, the tube of the order 12 feet in diameter is the most attractive porposition for the London conditions." I would argue that this principal still largely holds, but tube tunnels have slowly been increasing in size over the past 50 years. From a standard of 11' 8¼" to just over 12' for the Victoria line for ventilation reasons (could someone provide the exact size for me, I'd be very curious!), and God knows what for the JLE (again, does anyone know what this is exactly?). As tunnel size increases, the spoil to remove increases quadraticaly, so the cost goes up a lot. I do agree with mrjrt though, it probably is the stations which cost more than the tunnelling. With the JLE the stations were designed to be dramatic and stunning and huge. A lot of money could be saved perhaps by having something more austere yet just as functional. Does anyone know why the JLE stations are so huge? I find it ridiculous that JLE stations have literally hundreds of rooms and yet some signal equipment rooms were located off LU station premises. I have been told that the reason for this is that no room could be found on the stations though I'm not sure that I believe that. I cannot see a reason why an SER is located off the railway unless it has something to do with not extending LU's air main to the JLE, using local compressors instead although presumably every station has a local compressor.
|
|