|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 15, 2013 22:15:53 GMT
@innocentabroad - actually, I was merely looking at the available bus timetables for the relevant corridor (the exercise was a quick and dirty estimate, and if one was serious about spending the cash, there would need to be the usual detailed studies)- I agree with you that there a number of corridors where buses are as quick door to door (it's some time since I used to commute from Belsize park to Mornington crescent so I bow to your recent knowledge), and I think - not a popular view on this forum - that buses are a much under-appreciated mode. In fact, when the W&C was closed for refurbishment and the 800 bus took over, we looked carefully at the timings of the replacing bus and, allowing for access time to the platforms, the bus was faster - but then it had the advantage of using one of the least congested river crossings. On the other hand, Waterloo to Victoria Street, which I used to do daily until very recently, was noticeably slower via Westminster than via Lambeth, not least because of the extraordinary number of traffic lights between Parliament Square and the Horseferry Road crossroads. Indeed, it was almost always quicker to walk between Westminster station and, say, the Army and Navy stores. Horses for courses.
To turn to your general point. the commercial speed of the tube is about 18-20 mph, and buses are probably about 6-12 mph, depending on the road, but given the time to access the platforms, bus has an advantage for short hops. That tends to be offset by the lower frequency of many bus routes and their general unreliability. In the case of the Bakerloo extension, I would be surprised if the bulk of the traffic that used the tube were to be short hop.
BTW it's interesting to note that the speed of central London road traffic hasn't varied significantly since horsebus days...
|
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 16, 2013 15:45:36 GMT
@innocentabroad - sad person that I am, your comment prompted me to look at the timetabled journey times between BP and Mornington Crescent - I see that the 08.06 168 from BP is due at MC (not a timing point) at c08.21, whereas the 08.06 Northern is due at 08.13 1/2, which makes the tube about twice as fast but doesn't allow for the need to access/surface from the platforms. Adding in a couple of minutes for that at each end would make the tube only about 1.5 times faster. [Service intervals are almost identical]. Must do some other comparisons but over longer journeys when I have the time...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2013 17:28:36 GMT
@innocentabroad - sad person that I am, your comment prompted me to look at the timetabled journey times between BP and Mornington Crescent - I see that the 08.06 168 from BP is due at MC (not a timing point) at c08.21, whereas the 08.06 Northern is due at 08.13 1/2, which makes the tube about twice as fast but doesn't allow for the need to access/surface from the platforms. Adding in a couple of minutes for that at each end would make the tube only about 1.5 times faster. [Service intervals are almost identical]. Must do some other comparisons but over longer journeys when I have the time... The journey I make is actually the other way round (i.e. towards Belsize Park) and both stations are on the opposite side of the road from my points of arrival and destination. |
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Jun 26, 2013 12:21:54 GMT
So let me ask the historians, why does the Bakerloo continue to E&C? Is it an effective interchange? Could it be an effective interchange? It shouldn't be forgotten that, as well as the interchanges with the Northern Line and what is now Thameslink, Elephant & Castle is a major interchange with road services. Up until the abandonment of the tramways in 1952, it was the major intersection on the London tramway network, with services heading out all over South London. In the "Brief History" series, the extension from Waterloo to E&C was proposed in 1899 and opened on 5/8/1906. It doesn't give a reason for the extension to E&C, (well it is a BRIEF history) but as previously commented on gives a like to the South London tram work system. In 1931 as part of the "new works" programme, an extension to Camberwell was proposed "....with the ultimate object of providing a base to serve south-east London." This was abandoned post war as was the Northern Line extensions to Bushy & Ally Pally. My copy was bought in 1973, and it states the Fleet Line(now the Jubilee Line) was proposed to be extended from Green Park to ".....Ludgate Circus, Fenchurch Street and Lewisham." I do remember reading somewhere that one of the reasons for the abandonment to Camberwell was the high water table in the ground. But as we know that can be overcome by freezing the ground ala Vauxhall on the Victoria Line. |
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,968
|
Post by towerman on Jun 28, 2013 14:52:34 GMT
Wasn't the original idea for the Fleet/Jubilee to go as far out as Orpington?
|
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jun 28, 2013 16:52:34 GMT
Never saw that.
The terminal at Lewisham was going to be at low level in the area occupied by the bus park now.
Any options for links could well be limited by the proposed extension of the shopping centre into this area.
The bus park will move to the west of the station.
|
|
