Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2012 23:10:29 GMT
(Maybe this should go in the historical bits forum?)
Why did they build Canada Water as the interchange for the ELL, rather than passing by the south end of Rotherhithe?
|
|
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 Feb 22, 2012 13:39:45 GMT
My guess is that land to build the surface station wasn't available. Rotherhithe is a small station that wouldn't cope with the volume of traffic Canada Water sees. To build a larger station and bus station on the site of or adjacent to it would seemingly have involved the demolition of a significant number of residential properties and a primary school. The road to the station would have needed serious upgrading, which would also have required demolition given the proximity of the Rotherhithe Tunnel. The Thames Tunnel is Grade I listed, as I believe is the access shaft. I don't know how much of the station is included in the listing, but there could have been issues with any changes.
In contrast, the 1995 OS map of the area available at old-maps.co.uk shows the site of Canada Water to be empty space.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikebuzz on Feb 22, 2012 15:22:06 GMT
I wonder if Rotherhithe station will eventually close. Is it busy at all?
|
|
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 Feb 22, 2012 18:44:02 GMT
I don't know how busy it is, but I think it was promised by the mayor (although I can't remember whether it was Boris or Ken) that both Rotherhithe and Wapping stations would stay open. I think this was in the context of platform lengths though.
|
|
kabsonline
Best SSL Train: S Stock Best Tube Train: 92 Stock
Posts: 686
|
Post by kabsonline on Feb 22, 2012 19:38:21 GMT
I can't see it closing at the moment. Canada Water has been open since 1999 and Rotherhithe hasn't closed yet. Considering it was also only recently refurbished as part of London Overground I can't see it closing in the near future  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2012 19:59:26 GMT
My guess is that land to build the surface station wasn't available. Rotherhithe is a small station that wouldn't cope with the volume of traffic Canada Water sees. I had thought that, but when I was there recently, I noticed a newish cheap looking building with a giant corner shop, almost directly opposite, with a large car park in front of it. Looking on Google Street View, its a jobcentre - I guess the government a few years ago must have decided the unemployed now need crisps more than jobs. Its seems like it would be the same sort of size as Canada Water station. To build a larger station and bus station on the site of or adjacent to it would seemingly have involved the demolition of a significant number of residential properties and a primary school. I'm not sure why a bus station needs to be built there, rather than surrey quays, for example? But the school and houses aren't that special. The previous government demolished loads of schools, on a rebuilding scheme - they could have rebuilt the school at Canada Water, which is more central, and so more evenly spreads the catchment area. And the housing there is a bit nasty and dated looking; with so much redevelopment in the area, I'm sure they could find some replacement social housing adjacent, and the redevelopment afterwards would probably help with the costs. The Thames Tunnel is Grade I listed, as I believe is the access shaft. I don't know how much of the station is included in the listing, but there could have been issues with any changes. Aren't those to the north of rotherhithe though - where the round wall is in the paved area? Its not like Wapping, with the original shaft still in public use. The thing that most bothers me about missing rotherhithe though, is that its cut off from Canada Water. It feels like they are far apart when you are there. Its as if Canada Water is for the rich yuppies of Canary Wharf, and Rotherhithe is for the poor locals, and the Jubilee was deliberately aiming to cut them off, to treat the locals as if they are riff raff that need to be dissuaded from going to Canary Wharf, the City, or the Dome. So what I'd like to know is, why did they really do it? Because I know Olympia and York encouraged its construction, but I can't imagine they were quite that prejudiced against the poor. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2012 22:09:58 GMT
As well as Rotherhithe station being unsuitable for expansion for various reasons, another reason for the Jubilee Line not swerving it must be that an East-West route through Rotherhithe station would have to cross under the road tunnel a short distance east of the station, at a sufficient depth to avoid causing damage to that tunnel.
|
|
|
|
Post by messiah on Feb 22, 2012 22:22:55 GMT
If anyone cares about passengers, Rotherhithe is actually well used - the path through to Canada Water will usually take longer than waiting for an Overground train.
As for why not have built the interchange station where the Nisa is now - that is a different question. I assume a cost-benefit analysis was conducted and it came up with the new site. That cost benefit analysis will presumably have included any additional Jubilee line journey times (limited as I would expect them to be). The regeneration of wasteland near Canada Water would presumably also be one additional factor.
As for Canada Water and Rotherhithe having different catchments e.g. yuppies etc at Canada Water and the poor locals at Rotherhithe, I would say the relative affluence was lower at Canada Water due to the proximity of Deptford and South Bermondsey, and the associated bus services compared to the riverside warehouse conversions close to Rotherhithe.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Feb 22, 2012 23:19:11 GMT
AIUI Rotherhite would ironically be more suitable for expansion now than Canada Water.
On the one hand you've got a station that would need total rebuilding were lengthening required but that would result in decimation of some engineering hertiage and history. On the other hand you have a practically new station that would be even more difficult to extend/rebuild, that would require a far longer extension, and that is too modern and recent to risk massive rebuilding for the image and political repercussions.
Its a tough one to call as the former would be difficult to justify in scope terms, but the latter would reflect badly on some persons somewhere.
Did see only a few days ago an indicative map of a Jubilee line extension to Stratford that didn't have Canada Water but instead interchanged at either Rotherhithe or Surrey Docks. I suspect though this was no more than a join-the-dots excercise by a group with a vague interest at the time. See if I can find it again.
On the subject of lack of foresight, consider the City and South London. Enlarged to take regular tube trains in the 20s, one by one, half of its platforms have since then been rerouted for station capacity projects. However, in some cases replacement platforms are actually shorter than what was previously provided. Though its easy to spend imaginary money, seems shortsighted to have not built each new platform to a standard of ~425' to take 8car trains, as/when/if such a thing could ever happen in the future. Before this is shot down, I'd point to the 9car platforms at Highgate, the 8car platforms on the old Bloo to Finchley Road, Edgware Roads 8 car platforms, and the fact that the main reason for discounting 8 car platforms on the Northern inter-war was that it would requite far more platform rebuilds than the Central. The prevailing piecemeal attitude taken since somewhat negates this!
|
|
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 Feb 22, 2012 23:20:31 GMT
As well as Rotherhithe station being unsuitable for expansion for various reasons, another reason for the Jubilee Line not swerving it must be that an East-West route through Rotherhithe station would have to cross under the road tunnel a short distance east of the station, at a sufficient depth to avoid causing damage to that tunnel. I don't think that the road tunnel would cause many problems for the Jubilee Line tunnels. as it turns north east fairly soon. The tunnels would need to be south of the road tunnel, but that wouldn't be a big issue. The East London Line tunnel is already below the access to the tunnel at this point and the Jubilee Line would always need to be lower than them, so that wouldn't be an issue. Pedestrian routes to the Jubilee Line wouldn't need to be any higher than the East London Line. One other reason I've just thought of though is that the platforms at Rotherhithe are not particularly wide and widening them would probably require difficult and expensive measures to retain support for the station building above (if it couldn't be demolished). Interchange stations often experience significant bulges in passenger numbers on platforms as a train load of people move from one line to the other, whereas people arrive at a station like Rotherhithe (no major individual traffic generator) from the surface in relative dribs and drabs. Trying to accommodate the number of interchange passengers at Canada Water (where the Overground/Jubilee Line interchange is AUIU significantly more popular than predicted) would not be safe on Rotherhithe's narrow platforms so not widening would not be an option. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Feb 22, 2012 23:36:51 GMT
Indeed, Chris. Assuming lengthening were to be required as a deffinite, you couldn't not do Canada Water, whereas the fiscal cost for both would make most baulk, and result in the destruction of Rotherhithes heritage anyway. Maybe lengthen Canada Water and SDO at Rotherhithe? Who knows.
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Feb 23, 2012 0:04:16 GMT
If anyone cares about passengers, Rotherhithe is actually well used - the path through to Canada Water will usually take longer than waiting for an Overground train. Whilst true now, this wasn't the case when Canada Water opened, as the ELL service wasn't nearly as frequent all the time. Having lived in the Old Firestation, off Rotherhithe Street, during 2003-2004, both Rotherhithe and Canada Water were basically the same walk away. There never seemed to be a real split in passengers between the two stations. Both are close to both the new housing in the docks and older housing further west (Surrey Quays is also close). I think that the main consideration will have been the ease of building a station on a fresh site, rather than rebuilding an existing one, with all the additional problems this would have caused. Another consideration may have been the alignment of the Jubilee line, which lies directly underneath the ELL platforms allowing easy design of the interchange. This may not have been so easy at Rotherhithe. |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Feb 23, 2012 1:23:52 GMT
AIUI Rotherhite would ironically be more suitable for expansion now than Canada Water. On the one hand you've got a station that would need total rebuilding were lengthening required but that would result in decimation of some engineering hertiage and history. On the other hand you have a practically new station that would be even more difficult to extend/rebuild, that would require a far longer extension, and that is too modern and recent to risk massive rebuilding for the image and political repercussions. Its a tough one to call as the former would be difficult to justify in scope terms, but the latter would reflect badly on some persons somewhere. Did see only a few days ago an indicative map of a Jubilee line extension to Stratford that didn't have Canada Water but instead interchanged at either Rotherhithe or Surrey Docks. I suspect though this was no more than a join-the-dots excercise by a group with a vague interest at the time. See if I can find it again. On the subject of lack of foresight, consider the City and South London. Enlarged to take regular tube trains in the 20s, one by one, half of its platforms have since then been rerouted for station capacity projects. However, in some cases replacement platforms are actually shorter than what was previously provided. Though its easy to spend imaginary money, seems shortsighted to have not built each new platform to a standard of ~425' to take 8car trains, as/when/if such a thing could ever happen in the future. Before this is shot down, I'd point to the 9car platforms at Highgate, the 8car platforms on the old Bloo to Finchley Road, Edgware Roads 8 car platforms, and the fact that the main reason for discounting 8 car platforms on the Northern inter-war was that it would requite far more platform rebuilds than the Central. The prevailing piecemeal attitude taken since somewhat negates this! I wouldn't say half of the C&SLR platforms. On the original railway, we have King William Street (2) lost due to the line being re-routed, and Stockwell (2) lost due to the terminus re-sited. On the northern extension, we have lost London Bridge (1) due to capacity increase, Angel (1) due to replacement of island platform, and Euston (1) lost for the same reason. In the future we may also lose Bank (1). Of the 28 platforms on the C&SLR between Euston and Clapham Common, if the Bank work goes ahead we will have lost 6 of the original platforms, plus the two at King William Street. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Feb 23, 2012 3:14:27 GMT
My apologies, you're absolutely right, yes. Got a bit carried away there  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2012 17:12:31 GMT
On the northern extension, we have lost London Bridge (1) due to capacity increase, Angel (1) due to replacement of island platform, and Euston (1) lost for the same reason. In the future we may also lose Bank (1). There's also City Road (closed when the tunnels were enlarged). |
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on Feb 23, 2012 17:25:42 GMT
I wonder if Rotherhithe station will eventually close. Is it busy at all? LU usage figures from a few years ago show it was used by nearly 2 million people. When I pass through on the ELL sometimes, I almost always have seen people getting on and off there. In other words, I don't think it will close any time soon On the northern extension, we have lost London Bridge (1) due to capacity increase, Angel (1) due to replacement of island platform, and Euston (1) lost for the same reason. In the future we may also lose Bank (1). There's also City Road (closed when the tunnels were enlarged). In a different part of London, Down Street was closed for being too close to Knightsbridge, with another entrance to compensate. |
|
|
|
Post by mikebuzz on Feb 23, 2012 22:50:41 GMT
In a different part of London, Down Street was closed for being too close to Knightsbridge, with another entrance to compensate. Station proximity, level of usage or a combination of these could result in station closures, with expanded stations such as Dover Street (Green Park) and new ones such as Holborn (CL) resulting in the closures of Down Street and British Museum respectively. The Picc had very closely spaced statons between Covent Garden and South Ken - Brompton Road also shut but Covent Garden and Leicester Square have always both been busy. Sometimes the cost of upgrade during tunnel widening or escalator installation was not worthwhile on a station such as City Road or York Road which were both poorly used stations, though they'd both be busy now. Having 2 stations instead of one can be less efficient but it can be useful in spreading the load if one station would be too busy. Canada Water came up as a very busy station in the recent LOROL report. If Rotherhithe is busy then there is no way it would shut, even if trains and all other stations except Wapping were extended. |
|
|
|
Post by v52gc on Feb 24, 2012 9:05:27 GMT
In a different part of London, Down Street was closed for being too close to Knightsbridge, with another entrance to compensate. I think you mean Brompton Road. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2012 11:26:55 GMT
On the original railway, we have King William Street (2) lost due to the line being re-routed, and Stockwell (2) lost due to the terminus re-sited. I find it strange that it never really gets mentioned that Kennington was substantially rebuilt - not just the platforms added for the charing cross branch, but the original CSLR platforms reconstructed too. For example, the northbound platform was previously on the other side of the tracks. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2012 12:09:41 GMT
As well as Rotherhithe station being unsuitable for expansion for various reasons It was built by cut and cover methods wasn't it? That should make fiddling about relatively easy. Couldn't it just be recut, with the old walls/roof taken out, and put back in a different place, or slightly different configuration, like the old road bridge at farringdon (which is now restored, along with an old side tunnel, despite having supposedly been completely removed (temporarily) for construction reasons). For example, the tunnel could be stretched - split into segments of a few yards length, and each segment effectively shuffled along a bit, with gaps between segments filled with some modern thing / replica / concrete / marble. Then you could have doorways in the gaps between the segments, and a passage behind the wall, turning it into a moscow metro style platform, while still retaining much of original style look (especially if the gaps were mainly filled with replica brickwork). And that's only one option. another reason for the Jubilee Line not swerving it must be that an East-West route through Rotherhithe station would have to cross under the road tunnel a short distance east of the station, at a sufficient depth to avoid causing damage to that tunnel. But the ELL must already cross under the road tunnel there. And if the ELL can manage it, then the much deeper Jubilee must be able to, surely? And the Jubilee was new, and has large gaps between Canary Wharf and Bermondsey - enough room to have a fair bit of flexibility about the level in the Rotherhithe region. In other words, if the Rotherhithe road tunnel passes by there, there was probably enough design freedom available for the jubilee line to go under it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2012 12:16:49 GMT
On the one hand you've got a station that would need total rebuilding were lengthening required but that would result in decimation of some engineering hertiage and history. I'm not convinced of that. To lengthen it, you'd just lengthen it. It was cut & cover, and to lengthen it, you'd just widen the tunnel beyond it - I don't see why the existing station would need to be altered for the thing to be longer. And the engineering heritage is primarily in the brunel tunnel. Which is north of Rotherhithe - Rotherhithe isn't part of that; the tunnel and its access & construction route is to the north. Possibly the arch at the north end of the station has some historic merit, but why would that need altering? The glass bit, with the escalator, that's entirely modern. And that entrance is certainly tiny, but it doesn't have to be the main entrance in an extended station with Jubilee interchange. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2012 12:17:06 GMT
I don't know how busy it is, but I think it was promised by the mayor (although I can't remember whether it was Boris or Ken) that both Rotherhithe and Wapping stations would stay open. I think this was in the context of platform lengths though. Ken. I think there was a subtle caveat though - that the promise was for phase 1 of the ELL extension, with the implication that with the extension to Clapham Junction, or possible future lengthening, it might not remain the case. Wapping definitely should be kept open - its the only station in that area, and the ratcliffe highway really cuts the area off from Shadwell. Its also a very impressive and pretty station, inside (before you get to platform level), and that would be a great loss. |
|
|
|
Post by v52gc on Feb 25, 2012 12:26:55 GMT
But the ELL must already cross under the road tunnel there. And if the ELL can manage it, then the much deeper Jubilee must be able to, surely? (ELL doesn't go under the tunnel, it goes under the ramp) |
|
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 Feb 25, 2012 13:36:51 GMT
The road tunnel is pretty irrelevant to the railways.
The ELL runs north-south, passing under the start of the ramp to the road tunnel. As it has to get under the river, the ELL here is relatively deep.
The road tunnel ramp and JLE run roughly parallel east-east, but the road tunnel then turns towards the north-east away from the line of the Jubilee.
About the only restriction is that any new cut-and-cover north-south tunnel would have to be west of the ELL, but the chances of this happening are rather remote to say the least. I don't think there would be issues if the southbound ELL platform was widened to standard width, given the depth and that you'd only be talking a few feet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2012 15:51:03 GMT
(ELL doesn't go under the tunnel, it goes under the ramp) In which case, why couldn't the Jubilee go under the ramp as well? Its further down than the ELL, so it must be easier for it to avoid the ramp. |
|
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 Feb 25, 2012 16:47:58 GMT
As I said above, the road tunnel is basically irrelevant to the railway running tunnels. However it, and more especially the access to it, might cause problems for the larger surface building and sub-surface station passageways that would be needed to build the Canada Water-scale interchange that would be required if the JLE was routed to Rotherhithe.
The answer to the OP is that building the interchange at Rotherhithe would be more complicated, more disruptive and more expensive while not having the benefits of regenerating the former docklands area around Canada Water. When something costs more and has fewer benefits it doesn't (normally) get built in this country.
|
|
