North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 25, 2010 12:41:51 GMT
More due to the fact that each additional station on a line slows down the trains considerably as you have less track for acceleration/braking and you have to stop for passengers. The net effect is a reduction in theoretical carrying capacity on the train line - which is the exact opposite of what people want. But following that line of argument, Crossrail wouldn't have any stations between Paddington and Liverpool Street. Yet it does, so wouldn't whatever the reason for those stations is apply similarly to the Waterloo & City too? There's no benefit for people travelling between Blackfriars and Bank - it's only a short walk. I can see more benefit for those travelling from Waterloo to Blackfriars, but that in itself is still only a 10 to 15 minute walk. There's no interchange benefit as anyone going from Bank can use the District & Circle lines direct from Monument, and to reach these lines from Waterloo can be done via the Bakerloo or Northern Lines. Anyone wanting to change to Thameslink can just as easily travel via King's Cross. And on top of all of this the W&C Line is already full to capacity in the peaks anyway. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2010 12:53:50 GMT
What does a Blackfriars addition have to do with widening the line?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2010 13:01:38 GMT
There's no benefit for people travelling between Blackfriars and Bank - it's only a short walk. Its quite a long walk actually. Its the difference between being able to visit places in Ludgate during your lunch hour, and not having enough time. I can see more benefit for those travelling from Waterloo to Blackfriars, but that in itself is still only a 10 to 15 minute walk. The distance between Waterloo and London Bridge is only a 10 to 15 minute walk, but they still built Southwark Station on the Jubilee line. And that's not even useful for interchange; there's no station on the Blackfriars mainline, and even if there was, Southwark is sited too far away for it to be a timely interchange, and Waterloo East already has access to Waterloo, right next to Waterloo Jubilee line station. There's no interchange benefit as anyone going from Bank can use the District & Circle lines direct from Monument, and to reach these lines from Waterloo can be done via the Bakerloo or Northern Lines. Except that via the Bakerloo/Northern line its a roundabout route with one interchange, and one further intermediate station, taking up much more time than a direct route. Anyone wanting to change to Thameslink can just as easily travel via King's Cross. Its a huge walk from King's Cross tube lines to the Thameslink platforms. Its a massive deviation if you're in the bank area, or travelling from the east / north east. And many central Kent trains on Southern, and the Sutton Loop trains on Thameslink, will terminate at Blackfriars, on a route that does not pass through London Bridge. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2010 13:04:27 GMT
What does a Blackfriars addition have to do with widening the line? Someone commented that the line passes close to the piers of Blackfriars bridge, which might make widening difficult. It was then suggested that this might also perhaps be the reason why a station at Blackfriars is always dismissed out of hand without discussion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2010 13:07:42 GMT
I think the arguments for skipping Blackfriars are valid.
|
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Sept 25, 2010 16:53:04 GMT
It might be different on more recent trains, but I'm sure if you took out seats on a 92TS you'd simply expose lots of components and equipment which are placed underneath. Clearly it's now possible to position all this under the floor as the S Stock show, but I'm not sure this is possible on Tube Stock yet, and certainly not back in c.1990.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 25, 2010 18:02:26 GMT
. Few people that come into Waterloo will want to go to Blackfriars. I do, and so do the large army of others trudging along Roupell Street every morning. (It would help if TfL ran any buses from Waterloo to Blackfriars). But I don't think a W&C stop at Blackfriars is the answer: apart from anything else, longer trains would be needed if you expect anyone to be able to get on at Blackfriars. What would help, and reduce overcrowding at Bank, would be an entrance to the west end of the W&C platforms from Mansion House station. I'm not sure what the horixzontal distance would be, but it can't be much more than that of the existing Travolator. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2010 9:57:20 GMT
I do, and so do the large army of others trudging along Roupell Street every morning. (It would help if TfL ran any buses from Waterloo to Blackfriars). But I don't think a W&C stop at Blackfriars is the answer: apart from anything else, longer trains would be needed if you expect anyone to be able to get on at Blackfriars. You kinda stepped on your own argument here  Surely if people will leave the train at the new Blackfriars station - there will be some space on the train afterwards? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2010 12:38:16 GMT
But won't it be filled up?
|
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Sept 26, 2010 16:37:21 GMT
I might be putting my foot in it here but this is my suggestion.
a) Under part of Queen Victoria Street the W&C is directly beneath the District and Circle lines.
b) More capacity is required on the Jubilee line between Docklands and Waterloo.
My suggestion is to extend the W&C beneath the District & Circle lines as far as Tower Hill then beneath the LT&S Fenchurch Street line/DLR to Docklands or possibly Stratford. The existing Bank terminus would become a stabling point for the extra stock required. Stations could be one between Cannon Street and Monument with connections to both the District/Circle lines and the Northern, and Fenchurch Street and Stepney with a connection to the Jubilee line for stock transfers etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2010 20:18:37 GMT
But won't it be filled up? Doubt it  |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 26, 2010 21:01:27 GMT
I do, and so do the large army of others trudging along Roupell Street every morning. (It would help if TfL ran any buses from Waterloo to Blackfriars). But I don't think a W&C stop at Blackfriars is the answer: apart from anything else, longer trains would be needed if you expect anyone to be able to get on at Blackfriars. You kinda stepped on your own argument here Surely if people will leave the train at the new Blackfriars station - there will be some space on the train afterwards? Sorry, I didn't make myself clear: yes, tghere are certainly many people who could use a link between Blackfrairs and Waterloo - even the river bus service is one way only, as it's part of a loop! But not many people will use it from Blackfriars to Bank, or vice versa: the District Line (or 388 bus if you're going no further) do the job. It's passengers going towards Waterloo who'll be unable to get on at Blackfriars. |
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Sept 27, 2010 11:41:48 GMT
I might be putting my foot in it here but this is my suggestion. a) Under part of Queen Victoria Street the W&C is directly beneath the District and Circle lines. b) More capacity is required on the Jubilee line between Docklands and Waterloo. My suggestion is to extend the W&C beneath the District & Circle lines as far as Tower Hill then beneath the LT&S Fenchurch Street line/DLR to Docklands or possibly Stratford. The existing Bank terminus would become a stabling point for the extra stock required. Stations could be one between Cannon Street and Monument with connections to both the District/Circle lines and the Northern, and Fenchurch Street and Stepney with a connection to the Jubilee line for stock transfers etc. I'd imagine you'd get more capacity by sending the District out from Tower Hill taking over the DLR route out to Poplar. Maybe then running it to Dagenham Dock, or the Crossrail branch to Abbey Wood/Dartford. That would leave the DLR at least with Lewisham (Catford?/Beckenham Junction?) to Bow (Hackney?) and Stratford International to Woolwich Arsenal, and run alongside from Poplar to Canning Town (or if the District can't make that curvature, Royal Victoria/Custom House). (Send the Met out to Upminster to keep service levels up on the existing route). Bingo, you get your DLR to Victoria, in a way (Poplar to Victoria would be served, anyway). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2010 19:46:41 GMT
At the risk of sending this to RIPAS... MRJRT I'd send the District down the Bexleyheath Line instead ;D *cough*
|
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Sept 27, 2010 21:37:01 GMT
At the risk of sending this to RIPAS... MRJRT I'd send the District down the Bexleyheath Line instead ;D *cough* Yeah...I figured it was already veering that way so I'd get my usual oar in beforehand. I shan't continue unless it does actually end up there though. ...but you'd have a bit of a trick getting the District to Bexleyheath! (besides...I'm sending the Bakerloo there  ) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2010 7:15:55 GMT
Imagine working in Bond Street and living in Leytonstone as a friend of mine does. Crossrail 1 will probably make her commute three times as fast. I don't see why. Crossrail won't be going to Leytonstone. The extra time needed to interchange with Crossrail, which won't be as frequent as the Central line, especially on the branches at the end, and the extra distance needed to walk in the absurdly huge stations, will cancel out any advantage. For instance, the Central Line would greatly increase its capacity and speed if all stations in Zones 1 and 2 that do not provide an interchange with other lines were closed. And frankly, if it weren't for Crossrail 1 now happening I would actually be in favour of that. Even if it means that my nearest station would be closed too. Wouldn't that make the interchange stations absurdly overcrowded, now that they'd have to take all the passengers that formerly used the intermediate stations, as well.? On my daily commute I pass 12 stations that I don't have to get off and serve me no purpose, just delays. 45 minutes underground to travel 12KM as the crow flies. It isn't compulsory to live 12KM away from where you work. You choose to live there, and just because the other stations serve you no purpose, doesn't mean they don't serve anyone else. For the Waterloo & City I don't see why you would sacrifice the line's greatest appeal, its speed and direct connection, for a station that would provide hardly any benefit, just annoyance. The difference in speed would be a minute and a half. Thats really very negligable on the scale of a commute involving a line passing through Clapham Junction. Few people that come into Blackfriars will want to go to Waterloo, they will just get a train there in the first place People who work at Ludgate and commute from the SW, for example, would not be able to get any other train there in any reasonably direct way. It also reduces the pressure at bank for people to interchange from the District line, who currently have to walk down an absurdly long route through the station. I think these obsessions with changing the W&C come from people who only look at the Tube map and think that it would be nice to draw new lines on it. I think its more to do with the line physically abruptly ending when it would be more useful for it to physically continue anywhere beyond its current end points. |
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Sept 28, 2010 10:54:50 GMT
I might be putting my foot in it here but this is my suggestion. a) Under part of Queen Victoria Street the W&C is directly beneath the District and Circle lines. b) More capacity is required on the Jubilee line between Docklands and Waterloo. My suggestion is to extend the W&C beneath the District & Circle lines as far as Tower Hill then beneath the LT&S Fenchurch Street line/DLR to Docklands or possibly Stratford. The existing Bank terminus would become a stabling point for the extra stock required. Stations could be one between Cannon Street and Monument with connections to both the District/Circle lines and the Northern, and Fenchurch Street and Stepney with a connection to the Jubilee line for stock transfers etc. I'd imagine you'd get more capacity by sending the District out from Tower Hill taking over the DLR route out to Poplar. Maybe then running it to Dagenham Dock, or the Crossrail branch to Abbey Wood/Dartford. That would leave the DLR at least with Lewisham (Catford?/Beckenham Junction?) to Bow (Hackney?) and Stratford International to Woolwich Arsenal, and run alongside from Poplar to Canning Town (or if the District can't make that curvature, Royal Victoria/Custom House). (Send the Met out to Upminster to keep service levels up on the existing route). Bingo, you get your DLR to Victoria, in a way (Poplar to Victoria would be served, anyway). Extending the District over the DLR route to Poplar is not a viable option as the District/Circle lines are to capacity anyway and this would cause more problems to the western end of the District especially around Earls Court. My suggestion was intended to relieve the congestion on the District line by providing a limited stop service parallel to that line and also easing overcrowding on the Jubilee from Waterloo to Docklands. Such a line would serve a similar purpose to the western end of the Piccadilly. The line could then perhaps join the Jubilee line to Stratford after serving Docklands and be incorporated into that line. Dagenham Dock is another possible terminus, or even as far as Rainham? |
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Sept 28, 2010 12:04:23 GMT
Extending the District over the DLR route to Poplar is not a viable option as the District/Circle lines are to capacity anyway and this would cause more problems to the western end of the District especially around Earls Court. My suggestion was intended to relieve the congestion on the District line by providing a limited stop service parallel to that line and also easing overcrowding on the Jubilee from Waterloo to Docklands. Such a line would serve a similar purpose to the western end of the Piccadilly. The line could then perhaps join the Jubilee line to Stratford after serving Docklands and be incorporated into that line. Dagenham Dock is another possible terminus, or even as far as Rainham? Okey dokey, thread split! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2010 17:43:26 GMT
That link crossed the concourse on the level and so wouldn't be even remotely acceptable to today's H&S guardians. Why not? The DLR at Stratford Regional (to Stratford International) crosses the concourse in the most obstructive way possible. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,762
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 10, 2010 18:19:01 GMT
Well obviously a bridge could be built over it, but I get the impression that the link at Waterloo was effectively a level crossing (I don't know whether this is correct or not though).
|
|
slugabed
Zu lang am schnuller.
Posts: 1,480
|
Post by slugabed on Oct 10, 2010 18:23:06 GMT
That link crossed the concourse on the level and so wouldn't be even remotely acceptable to today's H&S guardians. Why not? The DLR at Stratford Regional (to Stratford International) crosses the concourse in the most obstructive way possible. Time to employ the top-hat-and-flag man once more! |
|
slugabed
Zu lang am schnuller.
Posts: 1,480
|
Post by slugabed on Oct 10, 2010 18:28:03 GMT
Well obviously a bridge could be built over it, but I get the impression that the link at Waterloo was effectively a level crossing (I don't know whether this is correct or not though). Yes it was,but I think the rails were laid into the stone floor like a tramway,and trains were indeed guarded across the concourse. I've seen pictures of it somewhere....can anyone find one? I will try to hunt one down. |
|
|
|
Post by ducatisti on Oct 10, 2010 18:59:00 GMT
It was right accross the concourse and it went onto the bridge that is underneath the aluminium-clad walkway to waterloo east (you can see it from outside). There is a pic in the Ian Allan book about the main line from Waterloo to Portsmouth. Even in the 19th century the railway inspectorate had their reservations about it...
|
|
|
|
Post by nickf on Oct 10, 2010 19:04:12 GMT
Well obviously a bridge could be built over it, but I get the impression that the link at Waterloo was effectively a level crossing (I don't know whether this is correct or not though). Yes it was,but I think the rails were laid into the stone floor like a tramway,and trains were indeed guarded across the concourse. I've seen pictures of it somewhere....can anyone find one? I will try to hunt one down. There is a photo in 'Waterloo to Woking', Middleton Press. Also a proposal to reinstate it in 'London Termini Past & Present' by Vic Mitchell, Middleton Press |
|
)
