Transport policy in the 1960s
 

On Mar 28, 10:59*am, Toby wrote:
I appreciate this is slightly off-topic, but might be of interest to
some of you here anyhow. This interesting mini-documentary tells us a
lot about town and transport planning in London in the 1960s and 70s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUEHWhO_HdY

In my view, we had a very near miss. I do think things are better now:
Crossrail, TL2000, *etc., *projects I think that were virtually
inconceivable two generations ago..

OTOH much 1950s planning for London was on the mark. By the mid
sixries we had the Victoria Line. It should have been followed by
the
Chelsea to Hackney line.

It certainly should have been followed by the Chelsea to Hackney line and would have been had we not had Britain's first anti-London government.

Harold Wilson's government took the view that London could look after itself and transferred money and jobs from London to the Provinces. For example, they moved The Royal Mint from London to Wales. Apparently it did not matter if people in London were thrown out of work. As part and parcel of that policy, the Chelsea/Hackney line was postponed.

Obviously, nearly fifty years later, London has changed so much that a purely Chelsea/Hackney line would be a wasted opportunity. Eastwards the line should be extended to Leyton Midland Road and Leytonstone Underground Station and from Chelsea should be extended to Clapham Junction and possibly Tooting Broadway and Tooting.

In my opinion a properly extended Chelsea/Hackney line would be far more beneficial to London than Crossrail.

Transport policy in the 1960s
 

"1506" wrote

OTOH much 1950s planning for London was on the mark. By the mid
sixries we had the Victoria Line. It should have been followed by
the
Chelsea to Hackney line.

Both were recommended in the 1946 Abercrombie Report, as as the River Line,
which, in a heavily amended form, has become the Jubilee Line.

Peter

Transport policy in the 1960s
 

"Robin9" wrote in message
[color=blue][i]
'1506[_2_ Wrote:
;119050']On Mar 28, 10:59*am, Toby
wrote:

OTOH much 1950s planning for London was on the mark. By the mid
sixries we had the Victoria Line. It should have been followed by
the Chelsea to Hackney line.
It certainly should have been followed by the Chelsea to Hackney line
and would have been had we not had Britain's first anti-London
government.

Harold Wilson's government took the view that London could look after
itself and transferred money and jobs from London to the Provinces.
For example, they moved The Royal Mint from London to Wales.
Apparently it did not matter if people in London were thrown out of
work. As part and parcel of that policy, the Chelsea/Hackney line was
postponed.

Obviously, nearly fifty years later, London has changed so much that a
purely Chelsea/Hackney line would be a wasted opportunity. Eastwards
the line should be extended to Leyton Midland Road and Leytonstone
Underground Station and from Chelsea should be extended to Clapham
Junction and possibly Tooting Broadway and Tooting.

In my opinion a properly extended Chelsea/Hackney line would be far
more beneficial to London than Crossrail.

That may well be, but in the absence of the strong business pressure
that wanted and would part-fund Crossrail 1 (to get from Canary Wharf to
Heathrow), it's less likely to be funded. In any case, it's hard to
imagine that it will proceed until after HS2 (which itself will not
start until after Crossrail 1), so it won't arrive for at least another
20 years.

Transport policy in the 1960s
 

On Mar 28, 10:57 am, Robin9 wrote:[color=blue][i]
'1506[_2_ Wrote: ;119050']On Mar 28, 10:59*am, Toby
wrote:

OTOH much 1950s planning for London was on the mark. By the mid
sixries we had the Victoria Line. It should have been followed by
the Chelsea to Hackney line.

It certainly should have been followed by the Chelsea to Hackney line
and would have been had we not had Britain's first anti-London
government.

And yet, much of inner London remains socialist.

Harold Wilson's government took the view that London could look after
itself and transferred money and jobs from London to the Provinces. For
example, they moved The Royal Mint from London to Wales. Apparently it
did not matter if people in London were thrown out of work. As part and
parcel of that policy, the Chelsea/Hackney line was postponed.

Remember the "Relocation of Offices Bureau?

Obviously, nearly fifty years later, London has changed so much that a
purely Chelsea/Hackney line would be a wasted opportunity. Eastwards the
line should be extended to Leyton Midland Road and Leytonstone
Underground Station and from Chelsea should be extended to Clapham
Junction and possibly Tooting Broadway and Tooting.

Routes can always be extended. Perhaps the bigger issue is that now
Chelsea to Hackney would not be build as a tube gauge line. There is
always the possibility of extension to SR territory. OTOH, there was
an intention for Chelney to take over the Wimbledon Branch of the
District Line.

In my opinion a properly extended Chelsea/Hackney line would be far more
beneficial to London than Crossrail.

Maybe, but the perceived need, and it is a real one, is relief of the
Central Line.

I agree. I live in Leyton by the way. That is why both a Hackney/Chelsea line and the Victoria Line should be extended to Leytonstone.

Transport policy in the 1960s
 

On Sun, 3 Apr 2011, 1506 wrote:

On Mar 28, 10:57 am, Robin9 wrote:

In my opinion a properly extended Chelsea/Hackney line would be far more
beneficial to London than Crossrail.

Maybe, but the perceived need, and it is a real one, is relief of the
Central Line.

Yes. I read the various east-west studies a few years ago, and the common
theme was congestion relief in the Essix [1] - City - Oxford Circus
corridor. The current plan won't do much for congestion east of Liverpool
Street, because it adds neither track nor trains (alright, it adds track
between Liverpool Street and Stratford - but is there any plan to use the
capacity released on the surface line?), but it should help enormously
between Stratford and Oxford Street.

Where things are a bit woolier are what happens west of Oxford Circus. If
relieving congestion was the priority, the route would echo the Victoria
line going southwest, as that's the most congested corridor on the other
side of Oxford Circus, and then take over some of the SWML services into
Waterloo, which are again highly congested. It's easy enough to look at a
map and see sensible stops along the way - Victoria, Clapham Junction,
perhaps Hyde Park Corner, perhaps somewhere along Queenstown Road.

However, that route was rejected in favour of Paddington and points west.
I've never been able to find a really good justification for this; the
studies consistently indicate a higher benefit to the southwest route. I
suspect that it's been driven by a regeneration agenda, which has induced
a certain amount of fudging in the studies (eg IIRC, one study costed the
southwest route as going in tunnel all the way to Wimbledon, when i don't
think it needs to go much further than Clapham Junction, making it look
rather more expensive than it needed to).

Still, if we do eventually get Crossrail 2 / Chelsea-Hackney, then that
will presumably go in that general direction.

tom

[1] The part of London between the City and the M25. As opposed to Essex,
which is a county which lies between the M25 and the North Sea.

--
The Vikings' commitment to metal is absolute, and it is this unshakeable
resolve to bring their metal to the people that will possibly make
Vikings of Steel the most important band ever. -- Mr Gig

Transport policy in the 1960s
 

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
rth.li...

Yes. I read the various east-west studies a few years ago, and the common
theme was congestion relief in the Essix [1] - City - Oxford Circus
corridor. The current plan won't do much for congestion east of Liverpool
Street, because it adds neither track nor trains (alright, it adds track
between Liverpool Street and Stratford - but is there any plan to use the
capacity released on the surface line?), but it should help enormously
between Stratford and Oxford Street.

There will still be residual services on the slow lines to/from Liverpool St
in the peaks, Crossrail doesn't replacement all of the existing service, so
the total number of trains into Liverpool St (ie high and low level
conbined) should be somewhat greater than now.
The Network Rail 2nd gen RUS for London and the SE covers the subject, and
suggests that 8 current services are removed in the high peak hour to make
room for the 12 Crossrail.

There are also some loosely worded plans to make more use of the West Anglia
routes into Liverpool St. Ideally the trains from the Lea Valley into
Stratford would be increased and run through to the terminus, but they are
on the wrong side of the mainlines.

Paul S

Transport policy in the 1960s
 

There are also some loosely worded plans to make more use of the West
Anglia routes into Liverpool St. Ideally the trains from the Lea Valley
into Stratford would be increased and run through to the terminus, but
they are on the wrong side of the mainlines.

Paul

Is there no reason why you couldn't add a couple of platforms for Hackney-
bound trains in the centre of L'pool St? Or are the tracks actually
segregated in some way?

Also - is there any spare capacity on the Lea Valley lines? I thought it
was 'full' until it was doubled up and/or the level crossings sorted?

Transport policy in the 1960s
 

On Sun, 3 Apr 2011, Paul Scott wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
rth.li...

Yes. I read the various east-west studies a few years ago, and the
common theme was congestion relief in the Essix [1] - City - Oxford
Circus corridor. The current plan won't do much for congestion east of
Liverpool Street, because it adds neither track nor trains (alright, it
adds track between Liverpool Street and Stratford - but is there any
plan to use the capacity released on the surface line?), but it should
help enormously between Stratford and Oxford Street.

There will still be residual services on the slow lines to/from
Liverpool St in the peaks, Crossrail doesn't replacement all of the
existing service, so the total number of trains into Liverpool St (ie
high and low level conbined) should be somewhat greater than now. The
Network Rail 2nd gen RUS for London and the SE covers the subject, and
suggests that 8 current services are removed in the high peak hour to
make room for the 12 Crossrail.

Is that something that couldn't be done without Crossrail? IIRC at
Liverpool Street the constraint is the station throat; putting the
Crossrail trains in the pipe should ease things there, so i suspect the
answer is yes.

Also, 12 Crossrail in the peak hour? I thought 16tph were going to
Shenfield?

There are also some loosely worded plans to make more use of the West
Anglia routes into Liverpool St. Ideally the trains from the Lea Valley
into Stratford would be increased and run through to the terminus, but
they are on the wrong side of the mainlines.

Exactly. It's going to be oddly quiet between Pudding Mill Lane and
Liverpool Street for a while.

tom

--
what is a state but a gang? -- Martin