|
|
Post by will on Jun 17, 2016 21:14:15 GMT
In recent years TfL have concentrated upon increasing train frequencies, however once trains have reached 34-36 trains per hour, there's not much wriggle room to increase this to even 40 tph.... you need to enable sufficient station dwelling times to allow passengers to alight and board after all !! IMO the next step, once line frequencies improve, will be to extend train lengths and consequently platforms.... and hey, if you're going to extend a platform by one car length, economies of scale dictate that you might as well increase them by two, or even three car lengths if you can !! They after upgrading signals and trains to increase capacity will eventually be forced into increasing the size of stations. They will have to increase the number of escalators and lifts as well as the size of the platforms - width and well as length to allow people to more around more but particularly to get people off trains and out of the station to manage dwell times.
They will have to increase the length of trains and obviously at the same time platforms. The Victoria line - the only line that's closest to achieving full upgrade status has almost reached its limits operationally and in terms of capacity and while soon it will have an extra train every half hour in the peaks (36 tph) this will do very little even in the short term to alleviate overcrowding. Building more Crossrail lines 1 - in the pipeline, 2 - likely to open 2030 ish wont be enough as they will largely serve new areas particularly Crossrail 2 serving south west London rather than being built to relieve tube lines.
with another 400 million people predicted to use the tube in 10 years time it may not be long before we see line shutdowns for months even years to increase platform lengths from 8 cars to 9,10 maybe even 11.
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Jun 17, 2016 21:15:19 GMT
A possible solution for Stratford is for eastbound trains currently calling at platforms 6 and 8 to be relocated - either above or (more likely) deep below - with a wide island between them plus side platforms on the outside.
Then the trackbed used by eastbound Central Line trains (for platform 6) could become a side platform for westbound trains that currently call at platform 5, with these now also opening their doors on both sides. Regular passengers would soon learn from which side of the train to alight according to their planned destination.
The present platform 8 would become a 'special use' platform, for use as required at times of disruption and at the weekends when periodic maintenance sees platforms 9 / 10 / 10a being closed.
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris W on Jun 17, 2016 21:29:59 GMT
with another 400 million people predicted to use the tube in 10 years time it may not be long before we see line shutdowns for months even years to increase platform lengths from 8 cars to 9,10 maybe even 11. I don't think we're talking abut 10 years you know.... more like 75-100... when I'm long gone  As for 400 million..... which party political broadcast have you been listening to... ??!!  |
|
|
|
Post by will on Jun 17, 2016 21:32:46 GMT
with another 400 million people predicted to use the tube in 10 years time it may not be long before we see line shutdowns for months even years to increase platform lengths from 8 cars to 9,10 maybe even 11. I don't think we're talking abut 10 years you know.... more like 75-100... when I'm long gone As for 400 million..... which party political broadcast have you been listening to... ??!! I'm slightly ashamed to say - mutters quietly Evening Standard - Don't judge me  |
|
|
|
Post by Chris W on Jun 17, 2016 21:47:22 GMT
I'm slightly ashamed to say - mutters quietly Evening Standard - Don't judge me aaahhhhhh explains it..... Mind you I think you've still misquoted them..... They didn't mention "million".... I think it was " trillion".... they just didn't report which galaxy they were coming from  |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Jun 17, 2016 21:56:14 GMT
I'm slightly ashamed to say - mutters quietly Evening Standard - Don't judge me aaahhhhhh explains it..... Mind you I think you've still misquoted them..... They didn't mention "million".... I think it was " trillion".... they just didn't report which galaxy they were coming from If they are coming from that far they are unlikely to have any Earth money to pay the fare for their journey. Maybe though TfL will accept payment in precious metals - gold, silver, etc?? Or will the visitors have a replicator, so be able to create money out of thin air? Simon |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744 
|
Post by class411 on Jun 17, 2016 22:32:21 GMT
aaahhhhhh explains it..... Mind you I think you've still misquoted them..... They didn't mention "million".... I think it was " trillion".... they just didn't report which galaxy they were coming from If they are coming from that far they are unlikely to have any Earth money to pay the fare for their journey. Maybe though TfL will accept payment in precious metals - gold, silver, etc?? Cold pressed latinium - it's got to be cold pressed latinium. Unless, of course, they happen to have a couple of kilo's of crystalline dilithium. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 17, 2016 23:32:56 GMT
A possible solution for Stratford is for eastbound trains currently calling at platforms 6 and 8 to be relocated - either above or (more likely) deep below - with a wide island between them plus side platforms on the outside. Then the trackbed used by eastbound Central Line trains (for platform 6) could become a side platform for westbound trains that currently call at platform 5, with these now also opening their doors on both sides. Regular passengers would soon learn from which side of the train to alight according to their planned destination. The present platform 8 would become a 'special use' platform, for use as required at times of disruption and at the weekends when periodic maintenance sees platforms 9 / 10 / 10a being closed. Simon It would have to be immensely deep to get under the DLR tracks to Stratford International and then all you get is a load of vertical interchange being needed making congestion even worse for a lot of people. The only short term hope is that Crossrail reduces interchange at Stratford but I am sceptical about that as there will be great temptation for *more* people to head to Stratford to specifically catch Crossrail. That will help no one but it'll be completely understandable. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,772
|
Post by Chris M on Jun 18, 2016 0:07:27 GMT
We had a RIPAS thread not too long ago about major works at Stratford where some of these ideas (iirc) are discussed in a bit more detail.
I happened to go to South Kensington mid afternoon on a Saturday not too long back, and the SSR platforms were very busy then. It made me wonder whether it would be possible to rebuild the disused outer platforms so people could exit both sides of a train, the outer one for exit only the inner one primarily for interchange to the Picc. However, I'm not sure if the ticket hall could safely cope with people arriving there faster than they currently do.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jun 18, 2016 6:05:52 GMT
with another 400 million people predicted to use the tube in 10 years time . As for 400 million..... which party political broadcast have you been listening to... ??!! The Standard article doesn't say that there will be 400 million extra people, but 400 million extra passenger (journeys) a year. Not the same thing at all. The article cites a current population of 8.8 million and 1.3 billion journeys this year, implying the average Londoner makes about three Tube journeys a week. If the increase of the population from 8.8m to 10.2m projected in the article happens, that is 1.4 million extra people. If they also do three journeys a week that's about 200 million extra journeys a year. But as most of the incomers will be coming here t6o work, they are more likely to use the Tube, so 200 million is probably an underestimate. |
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Jun 18, 2016 6:31:46 GMT
Rolling stock the bottleneck.. The slam door 305s used to disgorge at an amazing rate. Agree the 315s were designed for a less intensive age when traffic was reducing year on year.
Has anyone noticed the increasing numbers using platforms 9-10; not just for alighting to interchange or go to Canary Wharf, but to travel into London?
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744
|
Post by class411 on Jun 18, 2016 7:13:50 GMT
As for 400 million..... which party political broadcast have you been listening to... ??!! The Standard article doesn't say that there will be 400 million extra people, but 400 million extra passenger (journeys) a year. Not the same thing at all. Indeed. These statistics are all but meaningless, although they sound as if they mean something to anyone who does not think about what they have heard. e.g. The tube carries x million passengers a year. (Ignoring the question of whether or not that includes SSL's). Does that mean: 1) That x million individual people use the tube in a year? 2) That there are x million station entries per year? 3) That there are x/2 million station entries per year (to estimate the sum of daily passenger numbers)? And when they talk about journeys per day, are they talking about the number of times passengers get on and off a train, or are they making an estimate of the number of actual end-end journeys made. Or even return journeys. People hear these figures and think 'ooh, what a lot", without having any way of knowing to what they actually refer. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jun 18, 2016 7:25:47 GMT
Other things which might skew the numbers.
Not all Tube passengers are residents of London.
Some of those extra journeys will be on the Northern Line extension and Croxley link.
Are Crossrail journeys included in that estimate? (Including those that were previously not counted when operated by Anglia)?
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 18, 2016 9:57:52 GMT
The Standard article doesn't say that there will be 400 million extra people, but 400 million extra passenger (journeys) a year. Not the same thing at all. Indeed. These statistics are all but meaningless, although they sound as if they mean something to anyone who does not think about what they have heard. e.g. The tube carries x million passengers a year. (Ignoring the question of whether or not that includes SSL's). Does that mean: 1) That x million individual people use the tube in a year? 2) That there are x million station entries per year? 3) That there are x/2 million station entries per year (to estimate the sum of daily passenger numbers)? And when they talk about journeys per day, are they talking about the number of times passengers get on and off a train, or are they making an estimate of the number of actual end-end journeys made. Or even return journeys. People hear these figures and think 'ooh, what a lot", without having any way of knowing to what they actually refer. I agree the Standard has no interest in explaining the detail behind the numbers. However TfL are usually very clear about what their statistics or forecasts cover. The Travel in London reports and accompanying spreadsheets always say what the basis of the numbers is. If people then go off and willfully mangle their meaning then that's not TfL's fault. Getting individual people "confused" with passenger journeys is a common error and, of course, can play to other narratives if people are trying to send more than one message with an article. I haven't seen the report or presentation that sets out this "vision of the future" so it's impossible to know quite what statistics / forecasts Mr Ashley was using. Doing a quick web search brings up a video of the talk which was held in Dec 2015 - good old Evening Standard only six months behind the times! However one wonders if there was a bit of "whispering in their ears" given the current context of budget and organisational reviews at TfL. Just call me an old cynic.  |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744
|
Post by class411 on Jun 18, 2016 10:10:45 GMT
Indeed. These statistics are all but meaningless, although they sound as if they mean something to anyone who does not think about what they have heard. e.g. The tube carries x million passengers a year. (Ignoring the question of whether or not that includes SSL's). Does that mean: 1) That x million individual people use the tube in a year? 2) That there are x million station entries per year? 3) That there are x/2 million station entries per year (to estimate the sum of daily passenger numbers)? And when they talk about journeys per day, are they talking about the number of times passengers get on and off a train, or are they making an estimate of the number of actual end-end journeys made. Or even return journeys. People hear these figures and think 'ooh, what a lot", without having any way of knowing to what they actually refer. I agree the Standard has no interest in explaining the detail behind the numbers. However TfL are usually very clear about what their statistics or forecasts cover. The Travel in London reports and accompanying spreadsheets always say what the basis of the numbers is. If people then go off and willfully mangle their meaning then that's not TfL's fault. Getting individual people "confused" with passenger journeys is a common error and, of course, can play to other narratives if people are trying to send more than one message with an article. I haven't seen the report or presentation that sets out this "vision of the future" so it's impossible to know quite what statistics / forecasts Mr Ashley was using. Doing a quick web search brings up a video of the talk which was held in Dec 2015 - good old Evening Standard only six months behind the times! However one wonders if there was a bit of "whispering in their ears" given the current context of budget and organisational reviews at TfL. Just call me an old cynic. Yes, I wasn't suggesting that tfL were the ones trying to (or just carelessly) misleading people. But as soon as any journalist or programme script writer gets their mits on the figures it all goes to pot. On just about every programme about the Underground they come up with at least one of these unqualified statistics. |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Jun 19, 2016 20:49:54 GMT
We had a RIPAS thread not too long ago about major works at Stratford where some of these ideas (iirc) are discussed in a bit more detail. I happened to go to South Kensington mid afternoon on a Saturday not too long back, and the SSR platforms were very busy then. It made me wonder whether it would be possible to rebuild the disused outer platforms so people could exit both sides of a train, the outer one for exit only the inner one primarily for interchange to the Picc. However, I'm not sure if the ticket hall could safely cope with people arriving there faster than they currently do. Chris, I thought that this was planned, at least for one direction (eastbound I suspect, as the access to the westbound platform is blocked by an escalator shaft). It would be a shame to lose the garden but in reality the station needs a major rebuild and funding this would likely require something being built on the airspace above - as per nearby Gloucester Road. Simon |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Jun 19, 2016 20:53:21 GMT
A possible solution for Stratford is for eastbound trains currently calling at platforms 6 and 8 to be relocated - either above or (more likely) deep below - with a wide island between them plus side platforms on the outside. Then the trackbed used by eastbound Central Line trains (for platform 6) could become a side platform for westbound trains that currently call at platform 5, with these now also opening their doors on both sides. Regular passengers would soon learn from which side of the train to alight according to their planned destination. The present platform 8 would become a 'special use' platform, for use as required at times of disruption and at the weekends when periodic maintenance sees platforms 9 / 10 / 10a being closed. Simon It would have to be immensely deep to get under the DLR tracks to Stratford International and then all you get is a load of vertical interchange being needed making congestion even worse for a lot of people. The only short term hope is that Crossrail reduces interchange at Stratford but I am sceptical about that as there will be great temptation for *more* people to head to Stratford to specifically catch Crossrail. That will help no one but it'll be completely understandable. This would make life better for interchange between eastbound Central Line and Crossrail services, and if the routes are less crowded it might still be better for passengers making other interchanges than at present. Simon |
|
|
|
Post by up1989 on Jul 2, 2016 9:36:34 GMT
I've always wondered why London hasn't had an elevated metro system through the central part of London surely it would be relatively cheaper than doing deep level tunnels and could allow to reduce the strain on the tube?
Something similar to the dlr or a people mover type system?
|
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Jul 2, 2016 10:26:25 GMT
I've always wondered why London hasn't had an elevated metro system through the central part of London surely it would be relatively cheaper than doing deep level tunnels and could allow to reduce the strain on the tube? Something similar to the dlr or a people mover type system? Instead of 'NIMBY's' we'd have NOMW-"Not Outside My Window" |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,772
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 2, 2016 11:01:17 GMT
We can't even get street-level trams in central London, which are proven technology in most cities outside Britain (and several within, including Croydon) so something as radical as this seems unlikely. Although several have been proposed - see for example Bennie Railplane and the Oxford Street Monorail from 2005. |
|
|
|
Post by up1989 on Jul 2, 2016 12:35:08 GMT
I live in Croydon and I think the tram has made life so much easier I just don't know why they don't do that in central as I can think of many roads that could accommodate it, especially as in Croydon many parts they said the road with bus/taxis in the bus lane!
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jul 2, 2016 12:53:36 GMT
I've always wondered why London hasn't had an elevated metro system through the central part of London It had the very first, in 1836. The London & Greenwich (and several later ones like the London & Blackwall - now part of the DLR- , the Waterloo extension of the LSWR, and the North London and South London railways), were built almost entirely on viaduct to avoid disrupting the street pattern below But in the City and West End, most London streets are far too narrow and twisty to accommodate an elevated railway above them, even if there had not been a proscription on railways being built, on or above the surface, within that area. (The bridge over Lydgate Hill being the only exception) |
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Jul 2, 2016 12:58:17 GMT
The Dalston Jc-Broad St line of 1865 was similar, and this barely entered the City.
|
|
|
|
Post by up1989 on Jul 2, 2016 13:11:39 GMT
I could imagine a Charing x to St. Paul's via aldwych west east & Waterloo to Camden via aldwych and Euston could be done as the roads are wide. It would alleviate some of the cross town strain. I would make sense as a tram way as the old tram tunnel at kingsway could be used, plus most of the roads have bus lanes. (Waterloo Bridge, strand, kingsway/Southampton way, Woburn & upper Woburn place.) i highly doubt it would would happen but it would save on a lot of congestion. (I was a cab driver for a number of years and those were some of the pinch points I dreaded.) |
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Jul 2, 2016 14:19:14 GMT
I live in Croydon and I think the tram has made life so much easier I just don't know why they don't do that in central as I can think of many roads that could accommodate it, especially as in Croydon many parts they said the road with bus/taxis in the bus lane! Don't forget the Croydon system utilises a lot of ex BR rail lines, and the centre of Croydon which was developed in the 1960's has new roads in the centre which allowed for the space required for tram lines. It's always amused me that people think that the tram is the answer to everything. It's still a vehicle on the road, unless it's like Blackpool or Amsterdam. My main concern is the disruption caused by the installation of the infrastructure. The Manchester system like Croydons utilises a lot of redundant or little used BR lines. |
|
|
|
Post by up1989 on Jul 2, 2016 15:21:39 GMT
That is true, I just find it crazy that london keeps on tunnelling when there are other options, but I'm not a city planner.  It would be nice to see a tram back on londons streets. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2016 15:52:31 GMT
Beware the pull of the RIPAS please (Also just a reminder that while trams were relevant to this discussion, they're generally off topic for the site and probably shouldn't be found in the RIPAS section. Ta!)
|
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Jul 2, 2016 16:08:32 GMT
Very briefly, the NY & Chicago Elevateds were able to be built above an existing city street- grid pattern, which idea for London was first suggested by Sir Christopher Wren after the Great Fire of 1666, but has never been remotely close to implementation in the subsequent 350 years. As norbitonflyer correctly states, the very first London Railway, London to Greenwich was built on viaduct. Much of it traversed what was still green farm land & market gardens. Later termini's approaches to the Capital involved vastly more demolition to property than that and eventually came with an obligation to rehouse the (mainly) poor who were dispossessed of living accommodation. The price blight on any property overlooked by an elevated railway would be today's financial burden, on top of the complicated construction costs therein, and would tend to raise the overall cost three to five-fold. So, I suspect we will remain underground. |
|
|
|
Post by up1989 on Jul 2, 2016 22:15:21 GMT
That is true, I suppose we will always be chasing capacity on the underground. This is the problem of having the most populous city in the uk. I do worry with over crowding especially coming into clapham common and clapham north with the island platforms. I can see stations like that being closed more often the more crowded London gets.
|
|
|
|
Post by will on Jul 2, 2016 22:29:18 GMT
That is true, I suppose we will always be chasing capacity on the underground. This is the problem of having the most populous city in the uk. I do worry with over crowding especially coming into clapham common and clapham north with the island platforms. I can see stations like that being closed more often the more crowded London gets. After they have picked the low hanging fruit as it were by enabling large capacity increases on the SSR after they finish rolling out the S stock and finally get the signals upgraded and introduce the NTFL it's really unclear how they are going to increase capacity other than enlarging stations  . |
|
It would be nice to see a tram back on londons streets. 
.
