|
|
Post by mrjrt on Jul 2, 2006 13:28:55 GMT
I've recently started a new job, and as such now travel the Thameslink route daily, and this has piqued my interest in the network and it's widened lines heritage. First up, does anyone know why the widened lines stopped at Moorgate and never carried on to Liverpool street to allow suburban services a through route? I wish Euston had received a connection too, (i.e. the overrun tunnels in that direction had been finished) but thats understandable I guess. Given the significance placed on the Thameslink/TL2000 route, does anyone else think that the Snow Hill tunnel should get an upgrade to four tracks? Having the great northern services routed through it is going to put a lot more pressure on the central bottleneck. Even if it wasn't immediately planned I would have thought that they'd have provided a construction space in the new St. Pancras Thameslink for two more platforms and tracks (or at the very least, passing loops), given the heavy service it will receive. Sitting on the train one day I took a look at a bus map of London and it's rail termini, and postulated about links between them after realising that crossrail was just another thameslink in essence. First up were the suburban services into Euston and it's distance from the KX/SP transport hub, and I thought that an option could be to route the silverlink county service further around the NLL route and then down to the thamelink network where it crosses the MML, which would also enable it to serve the new station. If the Liverpool St. link was also built this would of course almost mandate an upgrade of the SH tunnel, but I guess that goes without saying. Another idea I saw was Paddington to Victoria. Most of the route would be under Hyde park, which would probably make the work orders of magnitude cheaper. I guess there could also be an argument for a Euston-Charing X link, perhaps with a link from the line into Waterloo to CX to increase the viability of the route. I can see this link reducing pressure on the northern line quite dramatically. One last passing thought, does anyone know why the Central line veers so far away from the logical route at both ends? The eastern end seems like a perfect alignment to reach fenchurch street, but no, it veers off northwest to meet Liverpool street instead. In the west it veers north because of the need to serve the white city exhibition (and Olympics?). The original planned route took it down along the expected course to gunnersbury. Why was this route abandoned in favour of flying out north west to ruislip? There I go again with the ramblings it would seem.  |
|
|
|
Post by cdr113 on Jul 3, 2006 21:17:51 GMT
Is Red Ken not proposing many of these termini links using fast (on street) trams rather than expensive rail links...another part of the masterplan to remove traffic from central london and relieve pressure on some of the tube lines...Thinking about it, I'm sure London must be one of few European capitals not to have retained its trams...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2006 3:12:36 GMT
I've recently started a new job, and as such now travel the Thameslink route daily, and this has piqued my interest in the network and it's widened lines heritage. First up, does anyone know why the widened lines stopped at Moorgate and never carried on to Liverpool street to allow suburban services a through route? I wish Euston had received a connection too, (i.e. the overrun tunnels in that direction had been finished) but thats understandable I guess. The Widened Lines stopped at Moorgate because that was where the original route stopped back in the 1860s. When the Met began to extend to Aldgate and around to Mark Lane it simply decided not to extend the Widened Lines, I suppose. As for the Widened Lines reaching Euston, it wasn't necessary - the LNWR already had access to the city via Broad Street, owned by the NLR (who were owned by the LNWR). Therefore a connection to the Widened Lines was not a requirement (and neither was a station at Euston itself!) Given the significance placed on the Thameslink/TL2000 route, does anyone else think that the Snow Hill tunnel should get an upgrade to four tracks? Having the great northern services routed through it is going to put a lot more pressure on the central bottleneck. Even if it wasn't immediately planned I would have thought that they'd have provided a construction space in the new St. Pancras Thameslink for two more platforms and tracks (or at the very least, passing loops), given the heavy service it will receive. The Snow Hill tunnel is over a century old and passes through the most densely populated part of the City, making it fantastically expensive to upgrade it to four tracks. The St. Pancras Thameslink box was to have had four platforms, allowing for overtaking of services, but lack of money prevented it. Signalling and longer trains are the only way out now. Sitting on the train one day I took a look at a bus map of London and it's rail termini, and postulated about links between them after realising that crossrail was just another thameslink in essence. First up were the suburban services into Euston and it's distance from the KX/SP transport hub, and I thought that an option could be to route the silverlink county service further around the NLL route and then down to the thamelink network where it crosses the MML, which would also enable it to serve the new station. If the Liverpool St. link was also built this would of course almost mandate an upgrade of the SH tunnel, but I guess that goes without saying. This is too complicated - when you begin interlinking all of the old networks with one another, you invite the risk of importing and propagating delays - Thameslink already suffers from this, where a delayed MML train impacts on a Thameslink service which affects a London Bridge terminator which delays a Charing Cross train..... Another idea I saw was Paddington to Victoria. Most of the route would be under Hyde park, which would probably make the work orders of magnitude cheaper. I guess there could also be an argument for a Euston-Charing X link, perhaps with a link from the line into Waterloo to CX to increase the viability of the route. I can see this link reducing pressure on the northern line quite dramatically. Again, still too complicated. Existing transport links can probably handle this. One last passing thought, does anyone know why the Central line veers so far away from the logical route at both ends? The eastern end seems like a perfect alignment to reach fenchurch street, but no, it veers off northwest to meet Liverpool street instead. In the west it veers north because of the need to serve the white city exhibition (and Olympics?). The original planned route took it down along the expected course to gunnersbury. Why was this route abandoned in favour of flying out north west to ruislip? The Central London Railway went to Liverpool Street and Broad Street, primarily because it was a major traffic generator and secondarily because the GER management permitted the CLR to use the station buildings so long as no foul air was emitted from the tunnels. As for White City, the current dogleg in the tracks was due to the original Wood Lane depot layout and the old Wood Lane station. underground-history.co.uk/woodlane.php is quite instructive. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2006 7:14:42 GMT
In my opinion, linking different suburban networks via a Crossrail/Thameslink/RER style system is not a good idea. Firstly the operations would be too complicated, if a train on network was delayed, it would cause knock on delays to the other network. The maximum frequency would be circa 24tph, and given the likelyhood of trains being delayed, this may not be realistically achievable. Given the volume of passengers that could catch a suburban train, delay of a few minutes could result in overcrowding in underground platforms. The stations and tunnels would have to be large enough for suburban stock, thus construction costs would be huge.
My idea, would be to built high frequency (33-34tph), medium profile, self-contained metro lines along the routes needed to relieve overcrowding (e.g along the route of Chelney/Crossrail Line 2 for starters). A Japanese style linear motor metro would be suitable for this, as the tunnels can be made smaller than for mainline trains, thus reducing construction costs. Station platforms would be shorter, thus again reducing construction costs. The route would be more flexible, as linear motored trains allow for steeper gradients, and sharper bends. As the system is self-contained, and of simple end to end operation, it should be very reliable when compared to a Crossrail/RER style line.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Jul 4, 2006 20:06:43 GMT
The Widened Lines stopped at Moorgate because that was where the original route stopped back in the 1860s. When the Met began to extend to Aldgate and around to Mark Lane it simply decided not to extend the Widened Lines, I suppose. I did a bit of digging, and a few things suggested that Liverpool St. didn't actually exist when the lines were laid, and in fact was built where it is to provide good interchange with the underground. I guess they couldn't spring for a widened lines extension As for the Widened Lines reaching Euston, it wasn't necessary - the LNWR already had access to the city via Broad Street, owned by the NLR (who were owned by the LNWR). Therefore a connection to the Widened Lines was not a requirement (and neither was a station at Euston itself!) I got all sorts of conflicting history on the planning of Euston, some of which suggested it was originally supposed to be built where Kings Cross now stands, and other that suggest it was to be built slightly east of where St. Pancras now stands, but a strange falling out with the Kings Cross folks led to them building it where it is. I guess I hadn't taken the lines' primary purpose as being access to the city rather than through services. The Snow Hill tunnel is over a century old and passes through the most densely populated part of the City, making it fantastically expensive to upgrade it to four tracks. Quite. I never claimed it would be cheap, but may become necessary at some point. They may just have to have double decker tunnels if they can't increase the width. The St. Pancras Thameslink box was to have had four platforms, allowing for overtaking of services, but lack of money prevented it. Signaling and longer trains are the only way out now. I wasn't aware of that as I haven't seen it anywhere, good to know the planners at least had the right idea, even if the bean counters cut the party short. Better a viable station than none at all. This is too complicated - when you begin interlinking all of the old networks with one another, you invite the risk of importing and propagating delays - Thameslink already suffers from this, where a delayed MML train impacts on a Thameslink service which affects a London Bridge terminator which delays a Charing Cross train..... Perhaps. But south of Cricklewood there are six tracks with room for more in places. As the services run largely segregated, I don't see it being that much of a problem. The Thameslink trains occasionally use the fast MML lines and vice versa, but I've only seen that a couple of times, one of which was when the fast Elstree tunnel had overrunning engineering work. Again, still too complicated. Existing transport links can probably handle this. Perhaps, but would you have said the same about the Thameslink route in 1980 if someone had proposed it? It's all about making new journeys feasible. Good direct commuter services from west to south west London could well be useful. Though I suppose there is the west London line nearby, but of course, that doesn't take you termini to termini. The Central London Railway went to Liverpool Street and Broad Street, primarily because it was a major traffic generator and secondarily because the GER management permitted the CLR to use the station buildings so long as no foul air was emitted from the tunnels. Fair enough, much as expected. As for White City, the current dogleg in the tracks was due to the original Wood Lane depot layout and the old Wood Lane station. underground-history.co.uk/woodlane.php is quite instructive. Yeah, I figured the spur was just that, a spur to serve the depot and the exhibition, the main line could quite happily have gone on its original course. I'm sure some maneuvering by the mainline railway the central connected with had some part to play in the matter if I remember correctly. |
|
