|
|
Post by revupminster on Aug 13, 2012 10:10:33 GMT
deleted
|
|
|
|
Post by revupminster on Aug 13, 2012 10:20:00 GMT
I agree that if you build a new rail line or road, development follows. The DLR has been a two edged sword. On the Isle of Dogs development followed very quickly but in the Royal Docks and Silvertown after 25 years it is still underdeveloped. Extention to Dagenham Dock will only provide minimal relief to C2C. With Crossrail coming into the Royals this area will have three rail lines so maybe development will take off. The A13 improvements have only allowed longer distance commuting. The East London river crossing should have been built 30 years ago and they are still only tinkering with this area. The Blackwell bridge above the Blackwell tunnels seems to have been abandoned.
|
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Aug 13, 2012 20:44:33 GMT
have been down to the warehouse complexes near Dagenham Dock station recently. A lot of development is already there.
The EL2 bus is carrying good loads for much of the way.
Think a DLR extension could be a catalyst for the area.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2012 23:04:06 GMT
As a frequent user of the Victoria Line between KX and Victoria (and vice-versa), I am puzzled as to why Crossrail2 is planned to have stops at Victoria, Euston AND King's Cross ? All three stations are on the existing Victoria Line, and if Euston were omitted, the new line could then in effect become a 'fast' version of the VL. Passengers on Crossrail 2 for Green Park, Oxford Circus, Warren Street and Euston could still reach those stations with a single change of train at Victoria or Kings Cross, and the 'fast VL' would take passengers between the two London termini with only one intermediate stop (at Tottenham Court Road), compared to the present four. It should be obvious, but passengers on Crossrail 2 - as shown in this diagram - wanting Oxford Circus are going to face a change of train at TCR anyway, so why not encourage them to make that change at KX or Victoria ? I can see the logic of Crossrail 2 calling at either Euston or King's Cross, but not both.
Speaking of logic, what is the rationale behind the planned interchange at Essex Road? I don't see any merit in it at all. Passengers from the Alexandra Palace end of the line who want to reach Old Street, Moorgate and stations south of there on the Northern Line would just as easily be able to do so by changing at Angel. Similarly, a call at Essex Road may well provide a link to Highbury & Islington, but that's of limited benefit when Hackney & Dalston passengers can go direct on the Overground, Seven Sisters passengers can go direct on the VL, Wood Green travellers use the Piccadilly and hop onto the VL via cross-platform exchange at Finsbury Park. And those from Alexandra Palace have a direct link on the First Capital Connect lines from Hertford North / WGC. A stop at Essex Road should not even be considered, imho.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Aug 17, 2012 13:23:26 GMT
^^^ Thank you - exactly the points I've been making for aaaages!
|
|
|
|
Post by fleetline on Aug 18, 2012 7:37:29 GMT
I think your missing a rather big point here. HS2. The main reason behind the justification of the line is dealing with all those passengers HS2 is expected to start generating in 2033 when the second phase is built.
Also note that the regional scheme doesn't actually include a link to King's Cross. The station at Euston St Pancras is a doubled ended one (like all new stations) that sits between the two stations.
Only the Metro version (a Victoria Line clone and relief line) has stops for both.
If you can't see the point of stopping at both St Pancras/Euston and Victoria with the connections both stations will offer then I'm afraid I'm not sure how to explain it to you.
The whole point of such a massive investment is that you maximum the benefits which on a scheme like this in Central London isn't running non stop and missing huge interchanges.
As for Essex Road, what about interchanging? The Northern Line is very busy already and any ability to move people by alternate means is a good thing. And as for Alexandra Palace branch at Essex Road, so no-one exits the station at Essex Road that would use the new line. The NCL is limited to six car trains and is already mental in peak. Giving the locals the ability to use the trains to commute is a old idea.
I think you missed the point about London growing so much it needs new capacity to allow people to move around the city. Isn't London expected to grow population size by the size of Leeds by the time we build HS2 phase 1? You cannot accommodate that level of growth by simply building express Tube. Besides the poor business case this makes, not every one wants to go from Victoria to King's Cross, there are other stations on the line and people will want to use both station to reach their destination.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2012 16:08:07 GMT
I think your missing a rather big point here. HS2. The main reason behind the justification of the line is dealing with all those passengers HS2 is expected to start generating in 2033 when the second phase is built. Also note that the regional scheme doesn't actually include a link to King's Cross. The station at Euston St Pancras is a doubled ended one (like all new stations) that sits between the two stations. Only the Metro version (a Victoria Line clone and relief line) has stops for both. If you can't see the point of stopping at both St Pancras/Euston and Victoria with the connections both stations will offer then I'm afraid I'm not sure how to explain it to you. You misunderstood, I think. I am favour of it stopping at Victoria, and again at either St Pancras/Euston OR King's Cross. Just not all three !The whole point of such a massive investment is that you maximum the benefits which on a scheme like this in Central London isn't running non stop and missing huge interchanges. As for Essex Road, what about interchanging? The Northern Line is very busy already and any ability to move people by alternate means is a good thing. And as for Alexandra Palace branch at Essex Road, so no-one exits the station at Essex Road that would use the new line. The NCL is limited to six car trains and is already mental in peak. Giving the locals the ability to use the trains to commute is a old idea. I think you missed the point about London growing so much it needs new capacity to allow people to move around the city. Isn't London expected to grow population size by the size of Leeds by the time we build HS2 phase 1? You cannot accommodate that level of growth by simply building express Tube. Besides the poor business case this makes, not every one wants to go from Victoria to King's Cross, there are other stations on the line and people will want to use both station to reach their destination. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2012 16:27:50 GMT
I think you missed the point about London growing so much it needs new capacity to allow people to move around the city. Isn't London expected to grow population size by the size of Leeds by the time we build HS2 phase 1? You cannot accommodate that level of growth by simply building express Tube. But a balance has to be struck, surely, between having enough stations to make convenient interchanges, and having so many stations/interchanges that too many people pour onto the new route and it becomes overcrowded from it's first day of operation. Essex Road tips the balance toward the latter, for no great benefit - in fact, it's a dis-benefit. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2012 6:56:45 GMT
I would assume that Essex Road is planned to be served to:
1) Take pressure of the Victoria Line by allowing NCL passengers wanting access the West End to transfer to CRR2 instead of Victoria Line.
2) Improve public transport to the Essex Road area.
|
|
|
|
Post by madandy on Aug 20, 2012 8:46:25 GMT
I think you missed the point about London growing so much it needs new capacity to allow people to move around the city. Isn't London expected to grow population size by the size of Leeds by the time we build HS2 phase 1? You cannot accommodate that level of growth by simply building express Tube. But a balance has to be struck, surely, between having enough stations to make convenient interchanges, and having so many stations/interchanges that too many people pour onto the new route and it becomes overcrowded from it's first day of operation. Essex Road tips the balance toward the latter, for no great benefit - in fact, it's a dis-benefit. My argument with Crossrail 1 is that it is designed to pour loads of wealthy commuters from the Home Counties into London.... the sort of people who milk all the benefits of London whilst contributing nothing, while, unlike a new tube line London's are still left very bereft of additional travel ling options. In road term it would be like having a motorway built across London with only three interchanges thus being of little use to the average London motorist by virtue of the fact that you have to come from far out to gain any overall benefit. Crossrail 2 should extend to zone5/6 at each end but be built as a tube ine regarding frequency of stops or take over main lines. One other thing is the way how, like the Jubilee Line extension, it seems to hit a glass be forced Northwards while South East London remains so cut off. Even Thameslink stubbornly refuses to serve point East of the A23 corridor and the Northern Line Extension to Battersea..... what Battersea FFS when that is only three stops in a direction where there are Underground Lines within a short bus ride...... and then there is London Overground which hits New Cross then reverts to a Western bias, |
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on Aug 20, 2012 14:09:10 GMT
My argument with Crossrail 1 is that it is designed to pour loads of wealthy commuters from the Home Counties into London.... the sort of people who milk all the benefits of London whilst contributing nothing If they are working in London, and its making them wealthy enough they can commute from the Home Counties, then London (and the UK's economy) is benefitting. I see the latest RAIL says TfL's timetable for CR2 is broadly based on an application for construction powers by 2019, a decision by 2021, opening by 2033. Apparently the cost of the metro option would be around £9-11bn with a BCR of 1.4-1.6, whereas the Crossrail option would cost £13-16bn but with a higher BCR of 2.2-2.5 Chris |
|
|
|
Post by revupminster on Aug 20, 2012 14:19:39 GMT
Crossrail to the East only serves Brentwood and Shenfield outside the London area so London commuters will benefit. It's main benefit is to relieve pressure on Stratford and Liverpool St as commuters will not have to change.
The south eastern extention of the Jubilee Line was abandoned with the descision not to build any more 12ft diameter tubes. The Crossrail extention southeast was to mitigate the loss of the Jubilee extention. Extending the DLR to Barbican/Farringdon has come to the front because of this. The Northern line extention to Battersea is unlikely ever to be built unless it was paid for entirely by developers.
|
|
|
|
Post by madandy on Aug 20, 2012 16:23:55 GMT
If Crossrail only serves Shenfield and Brentwood to the East then that confirms my point that it is a scheme aimed at improving services for wealthy out of London commuters whilst those within Greater London will still have to change at Liverpool street.. Why should those in Romford and Ilford be second classed? I hardly think the diameter of tubes relates to where they go but this intention to use crossrail 2 to relieve the Victoria Line is in fact somewhat hilarious because the Victoria Line was supposed to relieve the Northern and Piccadilly Lines so 30 years on they'll not doubt be looking to relieve Crossrail 2? Your comment that the Northern Line Extension is only likely to be built unless paid for by developers pushes even further my view that these new lines are not built for Londoners anymore but for outsiders. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2012 19:20:23 GMT
If Crossrail only serves Shenfield and Brentwood to the East then that confirms my point that it is a scheme aimed at improving services for wealthy out of London commuters whilst those within Greater London will still have to change at Liverpool street.. Why should those in Romford and Ilford be second classed?
I hardly think the diameter of tubes relates to where they go but this intention to use crossrail 2 to relieve the Victoria Line is in fact somewhat hilarious because the Victoria Line was supposed to relieve the Northern and Piccadilly Lines so 30 years on they'll not doubt be looking to relieve Crossrail 2?
Your comment that the Northern Line Extension is only likely to be built unless paid for by developers pushes even further my view that these new lines are not built for Londoners anymore but for outsiders.
No the trains go as far as Shenfield and serve every station from Stratford to Shenfied, could you not be bothered to read any of the background material?
All stations on the Great Western line will also have direct access to the westend and the city, so I don't see how people from Greater London are not benefiting. Also why all the hatred of people in the home counties? Do you think they are richer than Londoners and therefore should not be served by public transport.
Last time checked house prices were higher in London and a lot of people on ordinary wages live various new towns around London because that is what they can afford.
Since the Victoria line was built in the late 60's London has grown somewhat so that is maybe why it's full.
The line to Battersea if built will be funded by levy on new flats built on land near the new stations. Why do people moving in to new flats not count as Londoners? If you live in London then surely you are a Londoner. Is there some special purity test?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2012 23:23:51 GMT
I would assume that Essex Road is planned to be served to: 1) Take pressure of the Victoria Line by allowing NCL passengers wanting access the West End to transfer to CRR2 instead of Victoria Line. 2) Improve public transport to the Essex Road area. If Crossrail 2 calls at Essex Road, passengers wanting access to the West End would, I agree, have the option you suggest. However, for that to be a viable choice, there is an important point to consider. At the moment, southbound NCL passengers can change to the Victoria Line at Finsbury Park or at Highbury & Islington. Changing at FP does, however, involve walking down a flight of stairs from the National Rail platform, then down a longer spiral staircase to reach the tube platform. Most seasoned travellers who know the route well eschew this option, in favour of a much easier cross-platform connection at H&I, even though it means enduring an additional NCL stop at Drayton Park. Given the walking time at FP, the number of people heading for the Picadilly there as well, the change-at-Highbury option adds very little to the overall journey time and if you had a seat, you get to stay in a seat, so it's more comfortable. For travellers to the West-End to seriously consider remaining on the NCL train for a further stop (to Essex Road), a similar cross-platform exchange would need to be on offer. No sane person would add to their journey time in order to access an inferior interchange that required a greater amount of walking, surely? Now take a look at Google maps for the real geographic locations of Dalston, Essex Road and Angel stations, as opposed to the schematic map we all know and love. The NCL passes through Essex Road under the A1200, on a roughly NW-SE axis. Crossrail 2 would travel from Dalston to Angel on a roughly NE-SW axis, needing a slight curve northward to pass under Essex Road station at right-angles to the NCL. For an NCL-CR2 interchange to be cross-platform (and thus an attractive alternative to hopping onto the Victoria Line at H&I), the CR2 line would need some unwieldy curves before and after the platform faces that are surely NOT part of the planned route. Even were the NCL-CR2 interchange to be built as a cross-platform affair, the maths don't add up. Would you a) change at Highbury and reach Oxford Circus and points west thereof with four intermediate stops (and no further changes) or b) travel an extra stop to Essex Road, go three - possibly four* - stops to Tottenham Court Road, and then have to change (again) to the Central Line ? I still hold the view that calling at Essex Road will provide no benefit, even for those travelling into London from Dalston and places beyond. If Moorgate is their destination, calling at Essex Road could enable them to reach it with one change and one intermediate stop at Old Street. However, if Essex Road were omitted, they could just as easily change at Angel, and also reach it with just the one intermediate stop at Old Street !! *if calling at both Kings Cross and a double-ended Euston/St Pancras |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Aug 20, 2012 23:45:50 GMT
But that would once again create the crazy situation of a metro line passing underneath the spot of a metro station without platforms being provided.
London needs more connectivity, yet whats even more worrying is that ever since the victoria line, new interchanges have become worse; more convoluted, practically cross platform options, etc.
Its not a question of CBR or pennypinching or second guessing future means of use; London is at the point now where if you build it, they will come. Personally I'm in favour of more stations and interchanges because of tactical reasons. The Jubilee was built ultra-sized to future proof it, however whenever it shuts down a large part of london becomes tubeless. Now if Angel had a fire alarm, people from the northeast of CR2 might instead change at KX to go towards Moorgate, KX might become overcrowded, domino effect, etc etc. Or, it might just be busy enough to ensure people have a miserable journey and a headache. Knowing that a taxpayer/farepayer funded stop on the route at Essex Road was ommitted because it wasn't considered to provide enough benefit would now look embarrissing.
Bottom line: require redundancy, build it, or provide enough enabling works to allow it to be build realistically later.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2012 0:18:38 GMT
But that would once again create the crazy situation of a metro line passing underneath the spot of a metro station without platforms being provided.. On that basis, would you argue that a Victoria Line station should be built where the Picadilly Line crosses it, at Manor House ? Even though it would slow the journey for VL passengers, and serve only to duplicate the interchange available one station earlier, at Finsbury Park. The cost of providing an interchange has to be weighed against just how little benefit it may bring, surely ? |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Aug 21, 2012 7:07:04 GMT
Victoria line platforms might have been provided, had spending not been as restricted, as part of a plan to build straight tunnels for the Piccadilly to Manor House. However, point taken  I was more refering to interchanges where a simple linear duplication of options isn't provided, eg Shoreditch High Street or Brixton. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2012 18:08:58 GMT
A question just occured thanks to another thread, where would the depots be for the Metro scheme, is there anywhere large enough between Chelsea and Clapham or north of King's Cross?
Wimbledon was marked down for the original Chelney Line and will serve the south end of the Regional scheme but the proposed depot for the other end is now the Olympic Park and is no longer on the route. I guess there must be some space north of Waltham Cross but I don't really know that area.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2012 9:58:55 GMT
A question just occured thanks to another thread, where would the depots be for the Metro scheme, is there anywhere large enough between Chelsea and Clapham or north of King's Cross? Wimbledon was marked down for the original Chelney Line and will serve the south end of the Regional scheme but the proposed depot for the other end is now the Olympic Park and is no longer on the route. I guess there must be some space north of Waltham Cross but I don't really know that area. I wondered the same thing. Options from mild to ridiculous below for both old and potential new CRR2 routes: Take over Wimbledon NR depot (at surface)- but where will the NR trains live? Stewarts Lane (at surface or underground) - but not on the via Kings Road route, and would make some NR trains homeless. Eton Manor (olympics coach park) (underground) Lordship Recreation Ground (underground) Various Upper Lea Valley Development sites (surface or underground with buildings above) - many of sites to be redeveloped for business and housing appears to currently be light industrial/warehouse land - depot could be at surface with new developments above a la White City and Hong Kong MTR depots. Before anyone questions underground depots. They would be cut and cover construction are not that uncommon. Underground Depots can be found in London (White City), most Bucharest Metro depots (the most recent being under a stadium), Montreal, Paris, Tokyo, and Singapore. Storing more trains outside of depots also needs to be looked at if depot space is short. For example, Paris Metro typically stores most trains in the sidings beyond the terminus stations, with only trains requiring maintenance and checks stored in the depot. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2012 3:15:37 GMT
I think you'll find that the Eton Manor coach park is actually part of Hackney Marsh, the East Marsh to be precise, and there are written guarantees from the LDA, etc, that this will be restored to football pitches after the Games. Any suggestion otherwise would be met with strong opposition from the locals and the thousands who play football there.
The White City sidings, of which I am very familiar, were only possible because of the Westfield development, if that hadn't gone ahead we'd still be using the old surface level sidings they replaced.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2012 11:10:41 GMT
I think you'll find that the Eton Manor coach park is actually part of Hackney Marsh, the East Marsh to be precise, and there are written guarantees from the LDA, etc, that this will be restored to football pitches after the Games. Any suggestion otherwise would be met with strong opposition from the locals and the thousands who play football there. An underground depot would allow eventual restoration of football pitches, but would also result in many years of it being a big hole in the ground during construction. Underground, or surface depots with buildings above could be built as part of housing developments in the Upper Lea Valley. Interested to know if anyone has any better ideas for potential depot sites along a CRR2 metro route? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2012 15:20:45 GMT
I have been thinking about this and it seems to me that the efforts of the DfT and TfL needs to focused on reducing the numbers of commuters from outside London needing to use the main terminus stations and the underground lines.
To this end the regional Crossrail 2 appears to fit the requirements. Not only does it connect Victoria Station to Euston, St Pancras and Kings Cross (through the Kings Cross/St Pancras underground station). It also connects commuters from North East and South West of London directly to Crossrail 1 and the Thameslink network.
This will reduce the need for these people to use the underground network which should significantly reduce the amount of people using the Victoria Line but will also help to reduce the amount of people that need to use the underground network, from the terminus stations served, to get to work.
For the Victoria line that could mean that it could be extended north up the Chingford line and south from Brixton with the possibility of branched East to the Hainault loop or the Epping branch of the Central Line and West to the Wimbledon Branch of the District line or to Barnes and connecting to the South West Trains commuter Services (possibly taking over or sharing the Hounslow loop line).
From there if similar Crossrail/Thameslink lines were also built connecting Waterloo to Euston stations and Fenchurch Street to Marylebone stations then this would allow extensions to the Bakerloo and Northern (Charing Cross branch) lines with possible reductions in the overcrowding on the Hammersmith & City, Metropolitan, Circle and District Lines.
I do realise that all this would take a long time and it is unlikely that I would see all of this built. However in the long term it would help the people of London reclaim the London Underground for there own use and move much of the commuter traffic onto other lines.
I have been thinking about this and it seems to me that the efforts of the DfT and TfL needs to focused on reducing the numbers of commuters from outside London needing to use the main terminus stations and the underground lines.
To this end the Regional Crossrail 2 appears to fit the requirements. Not only does it connect Victoria Station to Euston, St Pancras and Kings Cross (through the Kings Cross/St Pancras underground station). It also connects commuters from North East and South West of London directly to Crossrail 1 and the Thameslink network.
This will reduce the need for these people to use the underground network which should significantly reduce the amount of people using the Victoria Line but will also help to reduce the amount of people that need to use the underground network, from the terminus stations served, to get to work.
For the Victoria line that could mean that it could be extended north up the Chingford line and south from Brixton with the possibility of branched East to the Hainault loop or the Epping branch of the Central Line and West to the Wimbledon Branch of the District line or to Barnes and connecting to the South West Trains commuter Services (possibly taking over or sharing the Hounslow loop line).
From there if similar Crossrail/Thameslink lines were also built connecting Waterloo to Euston stations and Fenchurch Street to Marylebone stations then this would allow extensions to the Bakerloo and Northern (Charing Cross branch) lines with possible reductions in the overcrowding on the Hammersmith & City, Metropolitan, Circle and District Lines.
I do realise that all this would take a long time and it is unlikely that I would see all of this built. However in the long term it would help the people of London reclaim the London Underground for there own use and move much of the commuter traffic onto other lines.
|
|
I was more refering to interchanges where a simple linear duplication of options isn't provided, eg Shoreditch High Street or Brixton.
