Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,763
|
Post by Chris M on May 3, 2008 0:04:30 GMT
I don't know the area well, but from what I've read on this thread I don't see why Whitechapel couldn't be rebuilt to a layout similar to Leytonstone, which seems to be a pretty flexible station.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on May 3, 2008 0:07:00 GMT
Why is it not possible? Planners are there for a reason?
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on May 3, 2008 1:11:47 GMT
Hmmm. When Leytonstone was rebuilt (in purely historical terms) there was an ethops [1] to keep things moving for the punter, now, sadly, it is all to do with money, rather than the common good - Graff-Baker would be spitting feathers!
[1] nice typo, even if I say so myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on May 3, 2008 11:13:14 GMT
I don't get why everyone's pointing to cost as a driving issue - the problem seems to be that with the width available at Whitechapel, each island wouldn't be wide enough to have escalators in the middle and still leave a decent amount of space either side.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,763
|
Post by Chris M on May 3, 2008 11:49:46 GMT
going by rough measurements taken from Google's satelite images, at Leytonstone you have a side platform, two tracks an island platform a single track and a bit of unused space in a site that is approximately 75 ft (22.8 m) wide.
At Whitechapel you have a single track, an island platform, two tracks, and island platform and two tracks in a site that is approximately 100ft (30.5m) wide.
The latter therefore seems perfectly wide enough for a layout like Leytonstone. Certainly on the side platform you wouldn't get two escalators side by side, but you would have space for an up and a down escalator (and possibly an adjacent fixed stairway) at opposite ends of the platform.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2008 13:04:52 GMT
I pretty much agree with Colin's sentiments.
As a further thought, in the absence of some serious rebuilding of all the approaches, the four platforms at Whitechapel are needed as during the peaks the tight curves and overlaps and consequent speed restrictions mean that alternate trains (pretty much) use alternate platforms, to facilitate one train being able to arrive whilst it's predecessor departs. (One signaller who just uses one platform eachway, generates notable tail backs !)
Frankly, such a loss of facillities as suggested just to put in a couple of escalators seems to me to be excessive waste ! Since Crossrail hasn't even started yet, it should be redesigned so escalators appear elsewhere ! Anyway, room is found for the steps to the ELL on the platforms (as well as fenced in steps upto some walkway ... what is up there ??) , so i don't see why the escalators can't be likewise positioned further along !
Somewhere would need to exist to short trip H & C trains destined for West Ham but running late.
Perhaps a small emergency detrainment platform could exist in the siding at West Ham to avoid the delays caused by ensuring a full detrainment in the through platform.
I'd suggest Plaistow would need keeping as a service requirement reversing point.
Overall I'd say we need a lot more operational flexibility, not a lot less !
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on May 4, 2008 19:19:14 GMT
(as well as fenced in steps upto some walkway ... what is up there ??) LU staff accommodation AFAIK.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2008 21:54:27 GMT
How long will the eastern arm of the District Line be likely to be cut off while this work is going on?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2008 21:56:55 GMT
going by rough measurements taken from Google's satelite images, at Leytonstone you have a side platform, two tracks an island platform a single track and a bit of unused space in a site that is approximately 75 ft (22.8 m) wide. At Whitechapel you have a single track, an island platform, two tracks, and island platform and two tracks in a site that is approximately 100ft (30.5m) wide. The latter therefore seems perfectly wide enough for a layout like Leytonstone. Certainly on the side platform you wouldn't get two escalators side by side, but you would have space for an up and a down escalator (and possibly an adjacent fixed stairway) at opposite ends of the platform. Leytonstone was built before recent safety requirements (some of which were introduced after the Kings X fire). This requires new platforms to be built sufficiently wide for the expected volume of passengers (taking into account delays), and with fire exits close to each platform end. |
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Jun 29, 2008 0:30:47 GMT
Went to the service control "time to talk" event last week,we went over the upgrades with the senior upgrade manager,apparently the two centre platforms at Whitechapel are being given over to Crossrail the SSL will use the two outer roads and there will definitely be a reversing facility at West Ham.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2008 8:15:39 GMT
I think the centre platforms being 'given over to Crossrail' means for construction passenger access to Crossrail, as mentioned above. There certainly won't be Mile End style cross-platform interchange, as it would be physically impossible to get Crossrail to District level in the short space between Liverpool Street and Whitechapel while keeping a sensible geometry. It would be like an Alton Towers ride if they did though, great fun! :-)
|
|
