|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 15, 2014 18:52:10 GMT
I'll try the obvious, to save everyone else looking daft for 5:
Pere-Lachaise?
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 15, 2014 14:49:08 GMT
One last go on inset 3, Watchet Harbour, though I've never been there, just through the village on the WSR?
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 15, 2014 14:13:47 GMT
Well, I hope it's Inset 5 = Montparnasse, because that's the limit of my remembered school French stations!
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 15, 2014 14:12:14 GMT
Inset 3, Peel Harbour IOM?
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 15, 2014 11:49:41 GMT
Is inset 2 the Dundas Memorial in Edinburgh?
Is 3 in Parliament Square?
Is 5 Montmartre?
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 15, 2014 11:01:00 GMT
Inset 3,Whitby Harbour?
Location 3-Didcot Railway Centre?
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 12, 2014 19:19:51 GMT
Edinburgh-inset 2-Viscount Melville (Dundas) Memorial?
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 10, 2014 20:05:54 GMT
AW, the server's back-I was enjoying it as a game of charades!
Anyhow-is inset 2 the Scott Memorial Edinburgh?
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 9, 2014 20:52:07 GMT
Well, that makes a change from the usual La Norvege, nul points, so I'll have a celebratory licorice allsort!
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 9, 2014 19:21:32 GMT
D-Preston Road?
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 9, 2014 17:28:41 GMT
D-South Harrow?
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 9, 2014 13:25:07 GMT
B-Aldgate East
D-Tower Hill
??
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 7, 2014 21:47:10 GMT
As a native-born SE5 man, I can tell you the clue to why it wasn't built is in the name. Camber- well
Yes, it was the high water-table that scotched the 1950 proposal around 1955. There had been earlier ones in 1926, 1931 and 1939, and the initial idea from the Mayor of Camberwell was in 1912. The ground isn't that hard. That old chestnut keeps turning up, but the 100 yards or so of test bore they made sometime in the 1930's from E & C found no evidence of that, but quite a bit of H 2O, part of which is due to one of London's lost rivers or a branch thereof around Camberwell-either the Neckinger or the Effra, I believe. EDIT/UPDATE Had a look at another of Mike Horne's excellent Capital transport Series on the Jubilee. The 1939 proposal was in fact 1938 & was formally cancelled simply due to lack on money in 1952, one new siding having been put in at Stanmore depot on 1.2.52, just before the formal cancellation. And, whilst we are in that book, just take a gander at this diagram of the 1938 proposal. Now where have you & I seen this before?? Have not only left the explanatory text with the diagram, but a little of the book's text, so you can enjoy the wonderful typo-if only we could be discussing those figures, eh??
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 7, 2014 19:14:27 GMT
Look how long boring the tunnels for CR1 is taking, it wont be much quicker. Much slower - a TBM can't chew through tunnel linings as easily as virgin clay. As has been pointed out many times on the W&C board, it would be quicker and cheaper just to build a new tunnel - which has the additional bonuses that you don't have to close the original line while you do it, and you end up with two lines instead of one! No amount of weaving about will solve the problem if the gap between existing services is not big enough - not to mention the effect on services of the resulting roller coaster! Yes, and this also allows a fast/semi-fast service along that line with two tunnels and a back-up for emergencies and delays. Unfortunately, whilst cheaper may still be an option, cheap is not. TBM's cost a fortune to build and run, compared to the original Tube tunnels, with labour-intensive pick & shovels behind the Greathead shields, but still cheap labour nonetheless. That cost factor is the crux, and one reason why this consultation, like everything else, will um and arr along, whatever any or all of us believe should be the case. Modern life is complicated, I suppose!
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 7, 2014 15:19:07 GMT
No, I was suggesting they go via Beckenham Junction to Bromley North, then link up to Bromley South & continue to Hayes, rather than take over either branch & all that will involve.
Bromley South sees 6 million a year useage, Hayes 1.15 million, Bromley North 0.64 million. There are certainly few other heavy traffic areas around those parts unless one goes further, which they clearly will not consider at present.
So it may be Bromley South is the key Bromley station to link to a Tube?
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 7, 2014 13:40:12 GMT
There has been debate on how the Bakerloo should go to Bromley. I think it should go in a tunnel after Beck Junc and stop at Shortlands, Brom South, a new station on Bromley High Street, Bromley North, comes out of the tunnel and goes to Grove Park. There's also a fan-made map suggesting that there could be a branch to Bickley. Maybe take that further to Orpington and, if possible, Sevenoaks. I have also seen ideas of the Camberwell option going to Lewisham and the Old Kent Road option heading to Charlton, Greenwich and Dartford. OKR option one can be called Bricklayers Arms and station two can be Old Kent Road. From there, it can stop at South Bermondsey, Evelyn Street, Cutty Sark, Maze Hill and then to Dartford. It would come out of the tunnel after Westcombe Park. Don't see why they can't go via Bromley North to Bromley South & then on to Hayes. BN & Hayes Branch can feed into the Tube rather than be taken over. Bromley South is well-served by buses, too & is only just off the High Street. I reckon they could also run feeder park n ride buses from the intermediate stations on both those branches to reach the Tube stations-more room than at the respective termini. I agree the extension plans you mention-doubt they will, though. Remembering who it was that skewered Ken Livingstone's Fares Fair via the High Court, anything that disturbs Bromley's leafy lanes too much could be similarly sunk. Even such visionaries as you and I would need to sell it to them very carefully indeed! As to using both OKR & Camberwell, the sensible thing would be to serve both on one line, and then extend from OKR towards New Cross Gate if the area does indeed expand as predicted. You can, after all, purchase and earmark station sites well in advance.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 6, 2014 22:09:46 GMT
Trying to navigate the TfL website, it no longer seems to give the "times from this stop" unlkess you specify a destination. It suggests it should take ten minutes to get from Vauxhall to Euston (six stops) on a Sunday morning. Is this at all realistic? That's actually only 3.21 miles you travel, 20.5 mph is the average speed a Tube train travels, stops included, so it should take you 1/6.39 hours, or 9.39 minutes. On paper, at least!
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 6, 2014 10:53:29 GMT
Quite simply, none of us were there.
So good call on this one, admin!
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 5, 2014 20:38:11 GMT
I've been to Speedway once, it was at Odsal Top stadium and I couldn't understand why the middle of the track was grass. It was good fun, though the smell of petrol engines still doesn't compete with warm cylinder oil and burnt coal. Ah, but was the smell of the burger vans adequate compensation, though?
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 5, 2014 18:46:49 GMT
hmmm!
Afraid my speedway knowledge proved to be a bit too historical!
Bring back Ove Fundin, I say!
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 5, 2014 14:33:10 GMT
New Cross Gate-stairway to LO platform Northbound to ex-ELL?
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 4, 2014 20:44:43 GMT
Peckham Rye, stairwell to Inner South London Line Queens Road-bound platform.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 4, 2014 20:12:32 GMT
Peckham Rye?
Stairway to LO Clapham Junction-bound platform?
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 4, 2014 11:09:44 GMT
The original proposal was to Denmark Hill, the second to Camberwell Green. In both cases, there was no mention of depot space or sidings that end, just where a 4 or 6-platform terminus could be built to enable better turn-round than the then 3-platforms at E & C. Not sure that plan would be doable now, unless they intend to put sidings and depots down at Hayes or completely underground, in which case underneath Camberwell Green is a huge space, but how popular that would be or feasible for T/Op's?
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 2, 2014 22:14:18 GMT
It may be, this from the TfL consultation page in the link tells us more about the official line on needed(my font):
London is growing and its population is expected to exceed 10 million by 2030. This will create more demand for public transport across London. Whilst we are already investing billions of pounds, further investment is required.
Growth in southeast London is forecasted in areas such as Lewisham, Catford, New Cross and the Old Kent Road. It will also occur in parts of outer London such as Bromley.
In southeast London, public transport is also crowded in places and many of the roads are congested. Predicted population growth will further increase the pressure on the area’s rail and road networks.
To address these issues, we are considering options for extending the Bakerloo line into southeast London from its current end point at Elephant & Castle.
So, it appears to be up for consultation on the basis of future predicted population growth as much as anything.
As to how likely-well, note the map shows DLR already at Lewisham and ELL etc at New Cross Gate, so if it does start, watch it end at one of those two.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 2, 2014 20:28:23 GMT
For example, what %age of Hayes Branch passengers might want to go on to the Northern Line to Bank etc; what %age Canary Wharf on the Jube. extension from Waterloo? Or what %age might want to decant to Aldgate/Liverpool Street via the Circle? .....and how many would change at Lewisham for CX and Cannon Street Old Kent Road on the SLL may be reopened before anything starts here, so Camberwell could be the better route in terms of an area's rail needs still remaining unmet. Camberwell Thameslink might open on that timescale too. In any case, the point where the SLL meets the OKR is right at the far end of the latter, and would do little to help the Bricklayers Arms/Albany Park area which is in the middle of the transport desert. Yes, there's that Lewisham interchange as well. In an ideal world, they would cut across from Old Kent Road 1.25 or 1.33 (ie after 1, but well before 2) to Camberwell and give us bread and butter and jam. After or around about the Bricklayer's Arms interchange? I wonder what the cost difference on the proposed OKR and that amalgamation of the two would be? Going purely from the map, it appears to need slightly less railway and I assume none of the proposal for OKR is using existing NR lines?
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 2, 2014 16:11:20 GMT
The case for extending the Bakerloo (as opposed to building a new line altogether) has always rested on the fact that there is some spare capacity in the peaks. The further it is extended, obviously, the more that spare capacity is exhausted. What is not stated in the documentation that I have seen is where that balance is tipped. Without figures, it's difficult to predict, but given the scale of redevelopment south and east of E&C, there must be a serious question as to whether an extended Bakerloo could cope with the extra traffic beyond Lewisham/Catford, even after its upgrade. What we really need first is a firm commitment to identify where in SE London tubes would work, which if any overground/NR lines they could swallow wholly or partially or most usefully link to/interchange with, and then propose which lines extend or new lines are built, with a view to spreading the load across the entire LU network, because potential passenger's likeliest destinations in terms of existing LUL stations and lines or elsewhere is known to a very high level of probability. For example, what %age of Hayes Branch passengers might want to go on to the Northern Line to Bank etc; what %age Canary Wharf on the Jube. extension from Waterloo? Or what %age might want to decant to Aldgate/Liverpool Street via the Circle? This might be cart put before horse, as it stands.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 2, 2014 10:10:53 GMT
Fine in principle.
Old Kent Road on the SLL may be reopened before anything starts here, so Camberwell could be the better route in terms of an area's rail needs still remaining unmet.
Don't hold your breath, though, on any of it.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Sept 29, 2014 21:36:36 GMT
It's in the Evening Standard too, albeit with a slightly different timeline (ES say 2030 at the earliest). The normal way LU's targets slip its likely to be closer to 2030 if not beyond. A line converted for full automation with retro fitted PED's is a completely new thing to London. Could you try persuading management to make that slippage nearer to 20300, please? I presume these would be driven by computer. Which, of course, are never prone to human error. Oh, wait-what was that flesh and blood software developer I just spotted; or was it a hardware engineer?
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Sept 26, 2014 21:41:06 GMT
Is the inset near Miller's Dale, Derbyshire?
Is the link they've all had TV shows named after them?
|
|