|
|
Post by sarah607 on Jan 10, 2009 22:42:21 GMT
hi all
i think it would be better the charing cross branch opened again.
does any one else think the same?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tubeboy on Jan 10, 2009 23:05:48 GMT
Why send trains to a place no one wants to go, and decrease the level of service on the extension which is very busy. Welcome to the forum Sarah, no offence, but your starting threads [topics] which are already on the forum, just search a little bit and you will find loads more than you want to know.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2009 0:37:59 GMT
Ideally yes, I'd like to see all the disused parts of the London Underground brought back into use. However in reality many compromises are necessary. There were reasons these places closed originally which are probably still valid now.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Jan 11, 2009 4:24:20 GMT
On the occassions that trains need to reverse at Green Park, it would be useful if they could at least set down at CX so that punters could catch NR services onwards.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Jan 11, 2009 10:56:58 GMT
But sadly the upkeep costs are to high to justify. There is also excellent interchange with the Bakerloo at Baker Street and Waterloo for Charing Cross.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2009 20:29:29 GMT
Plus the Jubbly also serves London Bridge and Southwark; ideal also for NR services.
|
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Jan 11, 2009 20:43:48 GMT
Welcome to the forum Sarah, no offence, but your starting threads [topics] which are already on the forum, just search a little bit and you will find loads more than you want to know. To be fair, you do have to search a fair bit to answer the question Sarah has posted. I know sometimes it gets a bit monotonous having similar questions posted, but let's remember the newbie to our family won't always have time to sift through everything before that first post. Personally, I think there is a very good reason why everything has been left intact at Charing Cross - and I don't think it stops at health and safety of train operators who have to take empty trains there. One day, with ATO and increased line capacities, maybe such locations will be able to reopen without removing the service to the main line. |
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jan 11, 2009 23:05:25 GMT
I think it should be re-opened, but only when the line is suspended past Green Park, as you can't use the interchanges at Southwark or London Bridge. If you ran extra trains to Charing Cross, you would still have less trains on the extension than if the station stayed closed, even with ATO, as it would also increase the line capacity of the extension.
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jan 11, 2009 23:24:50 GMT
Is it true about the escalators serving the Jubilee platforms being life-expired? Aside from that, coupled with the third platform at Stanmore there is a relatively stable WTT matrix that can be drawn up that (for example) every train that uses platform 2 at Stanmore does a short trip to Charing Cross and back. However, it is a fair while since I processed this particular bit of 'WTT dreaming', so I might be mis-remebering - it could be that the displaced Willesden Green reversers pay a visit into Charing Cross on their way South after going to Stanmore (which they wouldn't previously have done). Trouble with this is could the passengers see the use of every 6th train going to a station that no other train serves or could they be educated?  . Could T fL cope with the logistics of explaining that not every train goes the full way heading back into zone 1? I supose it is a matter of education if this pipe dream ever happens (there may need to be a slight tinkering with the 'homes' at Green Park on the NB - probably the recommissioning of A240 (more expense). Reopening Charing Cross is a lovely pipe-dream, but the benefits (in terms of timetable robustness, service delivery) seem pretty miniscule compared to the costs involved in recommissioning. |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,310
|
Post by Colin on Jan 11, 2009 23:40:29 GMT
Is it true about the escalators serving the Jubilee platforms being life-expired? It is my understanding that the escalators would indeed require replacement if that part of the station were ever re-opened. |
|
|
|
Post by setttt on Jan 11, 2009 23:51:03 GMT
Only the stairs and handrails remain, everything underneath has been removed.
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jan 11, 2009 23:54:02 GMT
Curious - I've seen photographs within the past year of the stationary escalators still in situ - I'll happily be corrected on this though.
|
|
|
|
Post by setttt on Jan 12, 2009 0:01:23 GMT
Curious - I've seen photographs within the past year of the stationary escalators still in situ - I'll happily be corrected on this though. The escalator stairways are still there, yes, but my understanding is all the machinery underneath has been removed so it is now just a fixed stairway, rather like the lifts cars at Aldwych are still in situ but secured at the top landing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2009 0:44:55 GMT
Yep, the escalators are still there, but most of the parts have been cannibalised to keep other escalators going. In any case they were due to be replaced the year before the JLE opened, but since the platforms were to close they were left for the extra year. So yes, they would definitely need replacing!  I think a better plan for the re-opening of these platforms would be the DLR extension, but that's for another forum. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jan 12, 2009 17:04:23 GMT
Didnt make myself clear on my previous post. When for whatever reason an eastbound Green Park terminator is created (ie, wont be going towards Waterloo, Southwark and London Bridge) it should be allowed to let passengers off at CX to aliviate overcrowding at Green Park, and allow them to make easier onwards journeys. However, its all about money at the end of the day, and the thread has drawn to a natural conclusion.  |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Jan 12, 2009 20:22:25 GMT
Aside from that, coupled with the third platform at Stanmore there is a relatively stable WTT matrix that can be drawn up that (for example) every train that uses platform 2 at Stanmore does a short trip to Charing Cross and back. However, it is a fair while since I processed this particular bit of 'WTT dreaming', so I might be mis-remebering - it could be that the displaced Willesden Green reversers pay a visit into Charing Cross on their way South after going to Stanmore (which they wouldn't previously have done). Trouble with this is could the passengers see the use of every 6th train going to a station that no other train serves or could they be educated? . Could T fL cope with the logistics of explaining that not every train goes the full way heading back into zone 1? I supose it is a matter of education if this pipe dream ever happens (there may need to be a slight tinkering with the 'homes' at Green Park on the NB - probably the recommissioning of A240 (more expense). Reopening Charing Cross is a lovely pipe-dream, but the benefits (in terms of timetable robustness, service delivery) seem pretty miniscule compared to the costs involved in recommissioning. My "theory" however thinly I have looked into it, was based on the fact that with decent signalling and ATO, trains could (in theory) be one behind the other, and to lose the odd train to Charing Cross would in fact free up the "extension." And as you rightly say, it may not be an ex-Stanmore train that runs only as far as Charing Cross. When Charing Cross closed, I suppose it did remove the last proper Zone 1 terminus, but in terms of trains terminating within Zone 1, there are a few other locations - Aldgate and Edgware Road for 2 examples. And on the Met, Baker Street trains terminate even further from the perceived "centre" of town. Maybe it's the fact that now, rather than being a signaller "in charge" of the Jubbly, I am a controller in charge of a proper railway, that I can see the logic and propose such plans ;D |
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jan 12, 2009 22:12:44 GMT
Maybe it's the fact that now, rather than being a signaller "in charge" of the Jubbly, I am a controller in charge of a proper railway, that I can see the logic and propose such plans ;D Couldn't agree more - however I've got no connection whatsoever with the UndergrounD: which frees me from some of the entrenched ideas about timetable formation! It helps having a library full of WTT/TTN esoterica. Beats sudoku anyday. ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by rrbs on Jan 13, 2009 12:35:15 GMT
The busiest bit of the Jub is London Bridge to Canary Wharf - so why terminate sb trains at CX???
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Jan 13, 2009 12:40:02 GMT
The busiest bit of the Jub is London Bridge to Canary Wharf - so why terminate sb trains at CX??? Not every one - just the occasional one. It would enhance the timetabler's black art of 'service robustness' <spit>. |
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Jan 13, 2009 13:15:56 GMT
The busiest bit of the Jub is London Bridge to Canary Wharf - so why terminate sb trains at CX??? While London Bridge - Canary Wharf is busy, it isn't the busiest bit. Swiss Cottage - Baker Street is busier. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2009 20:05:16 GMT
I think it would be great to re-open the Charing Cross (CC) branch. For oen thing, it would provide those poor passengers who use the lien from Green Park onwards with a chance of getting a seat on those traisn starting at CC the way they used to before the extenison opened. I used to travel that old part of the line regularly and remember the sharp downward nosedive in terms of quality of journey (crowding, delays etc) that occured once the extensionsion opened.
I've always thought the extension should have been an entirely separate line (the Millenium Line?) running from Waterloo to Startford with the old Jubilee left alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jan 13, 2009 22:32:48 GMT
I've always thought the extension should have been an entirely separate line (the Millenium Line?) running from Waterloo to Startford with the old Jubilee left alone. No other tube lines (apart from the Waterloo & City) terminate in Central London (I count Brixton and Elephant & Castle as South London), so why should the Jubilee? Having them seperate would annoy all the people that would want to go between the Jubilee and the extension. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2009 22:36:22 GMT
Elephant & Castle is considered too close to Central London - hence the Camberwell extension constantly being proposed to make more efficient use of the expensive tunnels.
|
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jan 13, 2009 23:01:06 GMT
Elephant & Castle is considered too close to Central London - hence the Camberwell extension constantly being proposed to make more efficient use of the expensive tunnels. So Elephant is a problem as it is 'too close', and then, by not joining the Jubilee with the extension, you would have had the Jubilee terminating at Charing Cross, and the extension at Waterloo, that would both be in central London, and both at busy national rail stations. I think that would be a problem. Anyway, if the extension was built seperately, someone would have thought that they should be joined, so that people using the Met and Jubilee could get to Canary Wharf easier. It makes sense to have them joined. |
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Jan 14, 2009 13:40:30 GMT
The busiest bit of the Jub is London Bridge to Canary Wharf - so why terminate sb trains at CX??? While London Bridge - Canary Wharf is busy, it isn't the busiest bit. Swiss Cottage - Baker Street is busier. Not at all doubting that SC-BS is packed but I've always wondered about how that compares to growth on the extension more recently. I wonder what a current survey of Jubilee usage would reveal. |
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Jan 14, 2009 14:39:11 GMT
I don't doubt that the Canary Wharf route is getting busier, but I don't think it's quite overtaken yet. Only Canada Water - Canary Wharf would overtake it, according to TfL predictions.
|
|
|
|
Post by stanmorek on Jan 17, 2009 16:07:08 GMT
RE: Charing Cross Escalators Jubilee platforms. Talking to L&E engineer, some of the mechanical parts have been removed and the step chains have been anchored for use as fixed stairways though he insists that at least one escalator could still be run if needed. The trusses are still in good condition and they even considered reinstalling them at another station.
It may be interesting to note that escalator step dimensions do not comply with Building Regulations for fixed stairways.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jan 17, 2009 20:30:10 GMT
Thats interesting. Is the difference that large? I don't have a copy of the metric handbook with me, so don't know what the relevant standard would be.
|
|
|
|
Post by stanmorek on Jan 17, 2009 21:50:56 GMT
Off the top of my head normally for a staircase height of a riser is 200mm with a 280-300mm going.
An escalator step is 400mm high.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2009 23:27:01 GMT
My "theory" however thinly I have looked into it, was based on the fact that with decent signalling and ATO, trains could (in theory) be one behind the other, and to lose the odd train to Charing Cross would in fact free up the "extension." Sorry, but sending some Jubilee trains to Charing X would be utter stupidity (and rather pointless). If trains were running with new signaling at 30tph, then whenever a train is sent to Charing X, a 4 minute interval would be created on the JLE. The JLE is currently crowded at 2min30sec intervals, so you can imagine what a 4 minute interval would do! To add to that, a whole train load of passengers trying to get to Canary Wharf would have to detrain at Green Park, and attempt to board the already crowded train behind it. This would result in a very overcrowded train, an overcrowded platform, and resulting closures of the whole of Green Park station due to the overcrowded platform. Do you still think it's a good idea? |
|
. Could TfL cope with the logistics of explaining that not every train goes the full way heading back into zone 1? I supose it is a matter of education if this pipe dream ever happens (there may need to be a slight tinkering with the 'homes' at Green Park on the NB - probably the recommissioning of A240 (more expense).
