Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 11, 3:11*pm, lonelytraveller
wrote: On Mar 7, 8:36*pm, mark townend wrote: See my proposals here - http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf -- Mark 1. What exactly does swapping things at Aldgate achieve? Circle line trains still cross the H&C tracks, so you haven't resolved any conflict issues. Agreed but the conflict between H&C and terminating Met at Aldgate is removed from there. The larger capacity of 4 Met platforms at the Moorgate terminus coupled with the independent approach and departure tracks provided by the 4 tracking means that trains can have a longer layover and can be better regulated in both crossing the Westbound H&C/Circle flow at the west end of the station and merging them back in east of Farringdon. And what does the district line need extension to Aldgate for - that bit of the circle isn't that busy, its not like there are loads of people who need to get to that bit of the city via the district line. Based on no Metropolitan terminators remaining there, 2 platforms would become spare. These could be abandoned and removed completely or become reversing sidings for stabling 1 or 2 spare District/Circle sets. Yet another possibility would be to run the 'circle' as a 'U' between Aldgate and Edgware Rd, filling the paths given up on the the north side with additional H&Cs, and removing all the junction conflicts at the Liverpool Street end of Aldgate. And theres some structural supports right in the middle of where your tracks would go. Fair enough. Not insurmountable but adding expense. 2. Why curtail the Met line at Moorgate? It may be connected by crossrail to liverpool street, but thats still a massive walk - virtually the same distance as it is on the surface. Its really not the same thing as a platform at liverpool street. Agreed its a fair walk, but at least covered, and the shorter walk to the Crossrail platforms themselves, rather than all the way through to LS main line would suffice for many suburban GE destinations. A very large number of people take the Met line to the city. The main SSL line stations on the north side of the city are Moorgate, Liverpool Street, and Aldgate - cutting it off at Moorgate would massively inconvenience thousands of people. Perhaps they could change or walk a little further. It might be a price worth paying for greater dependability. 3. Why use the former thameslink route from farringdon? It won't relieve congestion / increase capacity, because there's still only the existing amount of track between Baker Street and Farringdon, so there's still the same number of trains having to fit into that track. The main benefit of the bigger terminal and 4 track approach is in regulating movements through the junctions at either end of the double track section to maximise its actual delivered capacity and smooth flow. The need to immediately turn all peak Aldgate terminators often leads to convoys of westbound Mets queuing to get through platform 2 at Baker Street, delaying following Circle/H&Cs. So why not just branch off at moorgate? Branching from farringdon just seems like a very thinly disguised excuse for reusing those tracks, without any genuine justification behind it. 4. Paddington. Why? Theres that expensive new ticket hall above platforms 16 & 15, with lifts direct to platform. Moving the main line to a seperate platform means expensive new lifts have to be built, just to keep the station's newly built disabled access. Fair enough, I haven't been to Paddigton for over 2 years and wasn't aware of that development. 5. Edgware Road - why have platform 5 the westbound through platform? You've got an expensive change to the junction - why not just have platform 4 the westbound through platform, as it is now, and have platform 5 as a new terminating platform? To keep the terminating platforms in the middle whilst allowing for an overlap overrun spur so Westbound can arrive with signalling delay. Creating a new platform, just means that you've got rid of cross- platform interchange. Which removes interchange entirely for disabled passengers. That's not a good thing. Why would you willingly do that? Probably worth looking at lifts on all platforms. Also, the sidings are already removed. There's a big new electricity supply thing being built there, with a "green wall", so your platform 5 would be a massively expensive demolition job, with a replacement for the new electricity supply thing, which has only just been built, having to be rebuilt again. For what reason would you do that? 6. How does the new tunnel at Baker Street get past building foundations? It would have to go under the Baker Street station building - which is quite big, so must have fairly deep foundations. That doesn't preclude a deeper tunnel, but how would a passenger get to platform x? How would you put in the access? One of the few practical options would be to put escalators / lifts in instead of the existing eastbound platform and track - but then you couldn't have the siding you've suggested, and you'd also risk the ire of English Heritage for altering the appearance of that part of the station (which is one of the oldest in the world). But you couldn't have it coming from the existing underground concourse area either, because there isn't any room on the southern concourse wall, and having access from the northern wall would be peverse. So that really leaves I suppose the area around the existing entrance to the eastbound platform, but then you'd be restricting access to that platform again, and English Heritage would again be against you for harming the appearance. You could gut the gents toilet, and use the space to provide the access route, but that's a bit off to the side, which wouldn't be good from a pedestrian flow point of view. And you'd **** off people who needed one. I suppose you could shorten platform 1, and use the space at the southern end, but that might run into strutural problems, as its near the wall of the surface building, several other walls, and some trackside buildings that english heritage may well regard as important. And its quite out of the way from the rest of the platform - its a bit hidden, which isn't good for passengers. You could perhaps massively rebuild the southern ticket office (the one south of the westbound platform), so that it provides access to the new platform, but if you are going to do that, then it would be much more convenient for passengers if the new tunnel ran directly under the existing tracks, rather than round to the north. And that area isn't exactly convenient - the bridge is very low-ceilinged, and narrow, so its not a good idea to have even more people using it. Some excellent points. As with all projects, detailed design would have many to overcome many heritage and station access issues. Most of your proposals seem like they'd be massively expensive vanity projects, for zero actual benefit. You are entitled to your opinions! |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Circle Line up the spout again | London Transport | |||
Circle Line "closing" from 2009? | London Transport | |||
Circle Line train amber lights | London Transport | |||
Circle Line reliability | London Transport | |||
Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District? | London Transport |