|
Post by abe on Oct 19, 2011 7:29:49 GMT
The extensions to the Underground planned after the late 1920s (i.e., from the Piccadilly line northern extension onwards) all placed the stations further apart. This allowed trains to get up to higher speeds, and thus make journeys from further afield shorter (in terms of time). Frank Pick, the Underground MD, pushed hard for this, rejecting proposals for additional stations. His view was that the stations should act as focal points for the bus routes, which were also controlled by the Underground Group. This would coordinate transport and allow for better services all round.
That's the quick explanation, anyhow. Others might be able to give a more detailed reasoning, especially for the location that you mention.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Oct 14, 2011 7:48:56 GMT
3 Linking the Central to Uxbridge from Ruislip Gdns. Reduce services to W. Ruislip (stop more Chilterns there) and cut some UXB Picc services back to Ruislip. For this one, a few hundred metres of new track required. Given Chiltern's recent focus on providing a second main line to Birmingham, with significant speed increases to give journey time reductions, I can't see the idea of them adding extra stops anywhere (even though West Ruislip has an extra track though, I don't think this helps enough).
|
|
|
Post by abe on Oct 12, 2011 7:35:31 GMT
According to Underground News the Chesham branch will be joined to the 'main line' far closer to the point where it currently diverges. The third track to Chalfont will be removed, which is a shame. I'd prefer a solution which had a SB connection further north, but which retained the current crossover and connection at Chalfont. Still, time to get back on-topic.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Oct 11, 2011 11:02:13 GMT
I don't mean that - I mean how are TV cables supposed to get into a galvanized iron tube (aka, London Underground tube) There are all sorts of cable ducts throughout the Underground, linking in with the tunnels. Also, the tunnel segments aren't galvanized. (Sorry - couldn't think of any more rodent jokes, despite raccoon my brains...)
|
|
|
Post by abe on Oct 6, 2011 20:00:04 GMT
@lemmo: the information on the W&C - GN&CR link is in London's Lost Tube Schemes, pages 277-281; I'm not aware of any on-line sources.
@chris: If the Bank-Monument subway is shallow, it runs into problems of under-street utilities (and these go deeper than you would imagine). Every connection to another line will involve steps, escalators, and/or lifts - all of which have to avoid conflicting with existing tunnels. Make it deeper and it the subway clashes with the existing station tunnels. Every junction with another line means a break in the travelator, i.e., an extra machine, extra motors, etc. If the station was being designed from scratch it would make sense - but then the station wouldn't be laid out in the same way in the first place. The same would apply to many other stations as well.
Let's face it, most Underground stations have grown in a piecemeal fashion as lines are added and tweaks are made to address problems - most notably congestion. A fantasy subway to link all lines and give step-free access would be great at most central London stations. Unfortunately it just isn't possible to thread it through the existing labyrinth.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Oct 5, 2011 7:22:47 GMT
Do what to the W&C? It can't be extended eastwards; it's blocked in by the Central line (as well as the travelators and other subways). There was a lot of work done c.1913 looking at connecting the GN&CR (at Moorgate) to the W&C, which concluded that it wasn't really practical. There are too many deep basements and too many other tunnels in the area. The best that could be done was getting the GN&CR to a pair of platforms below (I think; might have been above) the W&C platforms and putting escalators between them. The problem north to Moorgate is that the Northern line tunnels are under the street, and at Moorgate the platforms would have to be either under the Northern and Northern City (i.e., very deep), or to the side, making for an awkward interchange. Add to this the new Crossrail tunnels, as well as the fact that this would duplicate the Northern line, and I really don't see the point.
With regard to a new Bank (Central) to Monument subway - isn't this pretty much what will happen when the new SB Northern line platform is built? The DLR route isn't via the DLR platforms, but a central passageway. It's not the most convenient, I freely admit, partly because of the number of escalators involved. The new SB Northern line platform will free up the old SB platform to become a wide concourse though, and not so deep, so a third route to Monument seems to be overkill. And if travelators were put in, allowing links to all the other platforms would mean a large number of short travelators, increasing the cost and reducing the benefit of putting them in at all. Now, if it was found that there was a particularly large amount of traffic between the Central line and Monument, then a direct travelator connection might be a solution, but I'm not sure if there is a straight-line route available, given the number of tunnels in the area. If the route isn't straight you start to need more travelators...
What would be useful would be a direct connection to Mansion House from the west end of the W&C platforms. If it ever happened I'd like to see how the station complex would appear on the map!
|
|
|
Post by abe on Oct 4, 2011 7:14:45 GMT
By the way, if LU is gonna reconstruct the Northern line at Bank, why won't they just do the entire station, for crying out loud? Because it would cost even more and cause even more disruption? And what else do you want done? Another thread has discussed straightening the Central line and discounted the possibility. Yes, the station is a bit of a warren, but that's just the result of new lines being added to it over the years, and new subways being constructed. There are probably very few places that extra subways could be added that would make the station easier to use. Building a new SB running tunnel and platform can be done without too much disruption - thinking back to the works at Angel - it is only the 'plumbing in' to the existing tunnels that will cause closures. This will be be for the step-plate junctions in the running tunnels, and then constructing the central concourse in the old SB platform tunnel. I can't remember how long this took at London Bridge - probably a couple of months of closure, followed by a couple more whilst finishing works were carried out overnight. Of course, if the southernmost step-plate junction is impractical for the same reasons as they had at London Bridge then the SB City branch will have to undergo a lengthier closure. The plan that is included on the consultation web page indicates that this might be the case. (For those who are unaware, when the new SB tunnel was made at London Bridge, the line needed closing because it was not possible to build a step plate junction at the north end. The junction is under the Thames, in the vicinity of the old bridge, and surveys showed that the river bed might have depressions resulting from tidal scour. The large side of a step-plate junction could have breached one of these, flooding the tunnels. Instead, the running tunnel was filled with low-density foam concrete and the new running tunnel was tunnelled directly into the old.)
|
|
|
Post by abe on Oct 4, 2011 6:53:41 GMT
The middle platform at Mansion House will become the WB line, and the current WB platform will be abandoned. I think you mean that the current EB will be abandoned and the bay will become the new EB road? tinyurl.com/698pkcnYes - my memory was playing up! Thanks for the correction.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Oct 3, 2011 10:31:56 GMT
A plan I've heard about is to make the bay road at Tower Hill double-ended, so that trains can enter from the east. No problem with that - a bit more operational flexibility - but I'm not convinced that the other change is good. The middle platform at Mansion House will become the WB line, and the current WB platform will be abandoned.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Sept 29, 2011 10:58:48 GMT
Surely, if TFL were payed to, they could put the DLR in a tunnel, say Poplar - Crossharbour, and then sell the land they use at Canary Wharf for a new tower. Also, it would be easier to create a better interchange with the Jubilee. Just an idea, probably thoroughly RIPAS. I can't see this working. You can't dive down west of Poplar because of the Limehouse Link portal. Just south of Canary Wharf the tunnels would need to pass beneath the very deep Jubilee line station box, and just to the north there is now the box for Crossrail. In practical terms you'd never make this work with the alignment and gradients required - not without starting the tunnel section a lot further north. And the depth of the station would make it unattractive for passengers.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Sept 28, 2011 14:11:01 GMT
The consultation report has been published by TfL. The weekday services will be withdrawn from December 2011.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Sept 27, 2011 7:18:40 GMT
One last thing I forgot to mention was that it is now possible to see the 2 tunnel mouth portals for Crossrail near Royal Oak, from train leaving or entering Paddington. Things are really moving on this project now. OT, but more about the portals at London Reconnections last week.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Sept 27, 2011 7:12:56 GMT
Since one person operation conversion in 1986, A stock units can only couple A to D and not A to A nor D to D (except in emergency). Given that the units are making only one final run (and not in passenger service), how much does this matter? Is there some safety-critical equipment that would not operate, or is the emergency coupling process particularly complex? Sorry if this a daft question; I'm interested to know why it is worth the time and cost of sending a unit to the Watford triangle rather than just couple them up whichever way around they are.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Sept 26, 2011 8:24:28 GMT
Over the years, research from the original plans deposited with Parliament and various authorities have given me a number of gradient diagrams. However, a couple of years ago I acquired a very large set of blueprints giving the gradients and curve radii for all the tube lines up to c.1930. The blueprints are about 40x80 cm each, bound into a book with about 35 sheets. It includes the differences between each tunnel, as there are locations where this differs. It makes for an interesting view, but because of the size and fragility I don't get them out very often.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Sept 19, 2011 8:21:39 GMT
@ricp
The deep shelter tunnels were built beneath the platform tunnels at Clapham South, Clapham Common, Clapham North, Stockwell, Goodge Street, Camden Town, and Belsize Park. On the Central line, one was built at Chancery Lane (and became the Kingsway telephone exchange after the war). Shelters were started at Oval and St Paul's, but work was not completed. In the case of Oval this was because of excessive groundwater in the layers of sand through which the shafts were being sunk.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Sept 16, 2011 7:40:14 GMT
Does anyone know who the manufacturer is and what type they are?
|
|
|
Post by abe on Sept 13, 2011 9:28:57 GMT
Ah, sorry, misunderstood your original comment. I thought that you were complaining that there *was* a hyphen. I don't use the Vic line, so haven't seen this.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Sept 13, 2011 7:29:39 GMT
now with the new timetable coming in december, watford south junction will be used much more intensively, this raises the question, i saw a video of the junction in 1992, it is different to todays one. this raises the question, when was the junction replaced and why was it replaced when the old one allowed trains to pass over it alot quicker?! Jumping back slightly (as this question doesn't seem to have been answered), the new Watford South Junction is slower for trains crossing between the local and fast lines, but has allowed the speed restriction on the local lines to be eased. At the time it was replaced very few trains crossed between the local and fast lines, so there was a clear benefit in allowing trains to and from Watford to increase their speed. I presume that the restriction on the original junction was because the points were on the curve of the local lines.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Sept 7, 2011 7:16:19 GMT
Really I wish the 1996 stock was 100% motor axled that would really give power a boost and that would cut journey times even more. Unfortunately it would heat the tunnels even more, and make the Underground even more uncomfortable in the summer months. There is no point doing this for a minor reduction in journey times that would be lost as soon as there is a slight delay on the line. And life isn't all about getting to wherever as fast as possible... sometimes it's about the journey.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Sept 7, 2011 7:11:51 GMT
Because there are almost no bits that are truly peak-hours only now? The only bit I can think of is the Northern line, Charing Cross branch at Kennington, where passengers need to know that there is no point waiting for a southbound off-peak train to Morden, but should instead travel to Kennington and change. The example you make is true, in that the trains don't run in a loop straight round through Hainault, but what passengers would actually want to make that journey. AIUI, trains run to Hainault via Woodford and via Newbury Park for most of the day now, so there is no point having a peak-hours only section at Woodford as previously. I'm not a regular Central line use though, so stand to be corrected if this isn't the case.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Sept 7, 2011 7:01:22 GMT
Passed Northwood this morning. Two cars have been taken away. The remaining two from 5136 have been redecorated - was this last night, or were they like this before they arrived?
|
|
|
Post by abe on Sept 6, 2011 11:45:53 GMT
It also annoys me that there should be a hyphen for 'left-hand' and 'right-hand' on the LED screens. But the hyphen is grammatically correct... Sorry - off-topic, I know - but I care about stuff like this!
|
|
|
Post by abe on Sept 6, 2011 8:45:26 GMT
I suppose but really the doors should be intensly tested before being delivered to LU. Probally the reason why the 2009 stock was so unreliable when first intoducted as it was not tested and was only tested on the live railway in passanger service. I think that you'll find that they were intensely tested. They are made by a company specializing in transport system doors - Faiveley - and were tested on test rigs before the first prototype train was constructed. Once the design was finalized they are then manufactured and supplied to Bombardier for installation on the trains. Given the number of doors involved, the number of trains now being operated, and the number of door operations that will be taking place every day, it is unsurprising that the odd failure will occur. Others have often mentioned the bathtub curve - those criticising the new trains would do well to read up about this before commenting further.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Sept 6, 2011 7:14:55 GMT
I think that the westward extension of the C&SLR from Euston was opposed by the Met, which saw it as a threat to its traffic running parallel. There was opposition to a proposed extension of the Bakerloo from Regent's Park to Euston on similar grounds.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Sept 1, 2011 8:50:06 GMT
I understand that sequential signalling can be switched on north of Rickmansworth. It is used during leaf-fall season, when track circuits are more likely to 'lose' trains due to the insulating layer of leaf mulch that builds up on the rails.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 31, 2011 7:33:01 GMT
The Northern line trains that I caught this morning had new line diagrams and central area diagrams featuring both types of wheelchair symbol.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 31, 2011 7:31:06 GMT
Oxford Circus had two escalators at the non-standard angle. Apparently as part of the replacement work the shafts were 'adjusted' to allow standard 30 degree escalators to be installed, as these would be cheaper. I'm not entirely clear about how it was done, other than by the removal of lots of concrete. Presumably the shaft is still at the original angle, but the new escalator isn't parallel to the shaft.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 30, 2011 7:55:50 GMT
Another change is that the map no longer seems to be made of card - it's thinner now, and looks like glossy paper.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 26, 2011 7:00:57 GMT
I feel as if TfL has done the very minimum to serve the station for a long time and are now shrugging shoulders and saying "look - no-one uses it!". This was precisely the strategy employed by BR when they wanted to close a line. The most extreme example I can think of in the London area was the Croxley Green branch - one train per day at around 06.00...
|
|
|
Post by abe on Aug 26, 2011 6:56:13 GMT
I took a train from Edgware Rd to Westminster yesterday, and the track on the refurbished section was very smooth - a lot better than I remember from previously. So there are parts of the change that can be noticed by passengers.
|
|