London's Elizabeth Line's disjointed introduction
 

On 2017\12\14 15:29, Recliner wrote:

Apparently, the Victoria line was subsequently criticised for inadequate
capacity in the stations, so the JLE was designed to have large, high
capacity stations, even though this meant some platforms were well
separated from others in the station. Some were OK (Canada Water, Canning
Town, Stratford, Westminster, West Ham), others less so (Waterloo, London
Bridge, Canary Wharf).

What's wrong with Canary Wharf JLE station? It's usually considered the
line's architectural highlight?

London's Elizabeth Line's disjointed introduction
 

On 2017\12\14 11:21, e27002 aurora wrote:

Strangely LT/LRT/TfL have regressed. When they built the Victoria
Line back in the 1960s they made interchange so easy. Amid Beeching,
and the general decline during that period, the Victoria Line shines
as a real achievement.

It's not so strange. Deep piled buildings were rare when the Victoria
Line was built, and the restriction against tunnelling beneath buildings
which existed when the earlier lines were built had been repealed, so
the Victoria Line planners had freedom like no-one before or since.

London's Elizabeth Line's disjointed introduction
 

On 2017-12-14, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\12\14 15:29, Recliner wrote:

Apparently, the Victoria line was subsequently criticised for inadequate
capacity in the stations, so the JLE was designed to have large, high
capacity stations, even though this meant some platforms were well
separated from others in the station. Some were OK (Canada Water, Canning
Town, Stratford, Westminster, West Ham), others less so (Waterloo, London
Bridge, Canary Wharf).

What's wrong with Canary Wharf JLE station? It's usually considered the
line's architectural highlight?

The escalators down to the platform are exceptionally wide (large dead
space between the two in each group) due to the structural supports down
the middle of the platform. (I assume structural - if it's architectural
'look and feel' then someone should be shot)

This means that although the platform floor area is large, there's
surprisingly little space to stand and people getting to the bottom of
the escalator can find it hard to move away from the end - to the extent
that sometimes they have to hold people back from getting on to the
escalator at all.

I'm not sure quite what could have been done differently - escalators
between the supports rather than beside them - but I've got no idea
whether there's space to make this possible.

In fact, because of the limited circulating space when it's busy in the
evening, the departing trains are rarely 'rammed full' as there's a
limited number who manage to get on before the doors close. As I only do
one stop when taking the tube from here I'd like to be last on and I
don't mind being a bit cramped but that doesn't always work the way I
want.

London's Elizabeth Line's disjointed introduction
 

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:44:33 +0000 (UTC)
Tim Woodall wrote:
On 2017-12-14, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\12\14 15:29, Recliner wrote:

Apparently, the Victoria line was subsequently criticised for inadequate
capacity in the stations, so the JLE was designed to have large, high
capacity stations, even though this meant some platforms were well
separated from others in the station. Some were OK (Canada Water, Canning
Town, Stratford, Westminster, West Ham), others less so (Waterloo, London
Bridge, Canary Wharf).

What's wrong with Canary Wharf JLE station? It's usually considered the
line's architectural highlight?

The escalators down to the platform are exceptionally wide (large dead
space between the two in each group) due to the structural supports down
the middle of the platform. (I assume structural - if it's architectural
'look and feel' then someone should be shot)

This means that although the platform floor area is large, there's
surprisingly little space to stand and people getting to the bottom of
the escalator can find it hard to move away from the end - to the extent
that sometimes they have to hold people back from getting on to the
escalator at all.

True, I found that when I worked there. It could be chaos in rush hour if
a train was delayed.

Also there's the plain fact that canary wharf station is a massive waste of
space. You don't need ceilings 60 foot high in a tube station, they could have
put 3 or 4 floors in to use for other things that would be a benefit to the
area and bring in revenue for LU. As it is its just cathdral sized dead space
that benefits no one other than the architects to say "Look what we did!".

London's Elizabeth Line's disjointed introduction
 

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:04:59 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:44:33 +0000 (UTC)
Tim Woodall wrote:
On 2017-12-14, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\12\14 15:29, Recliner wrote:

Apparently, the Victoria line was subsequently criticised for inadequate
capacity in the stations, so the JLE was designed to have large, high
capacity stations, even though this meant some platforms were well
separated from others in the station. Some were OK (Canada Water, Canning
Town, Stratford, Westminster, West Ham), others less so (Waterloo, London
Bridge, Canary Wharf).

What's wrong with Canary Wharf JLE station? It's usually considered the
line's architectural highlight?

The escalators down to the platform are exceptionally wide (large dead
space between the two in each group) due to the structural supports down
the middle of the platform. (I assume structural - if it's architectural
'look and feel' then someone should be shot)

This means that although the platform floor area is large, there's
surprisingly little space to stand and people getting to the bottom of
the escalator can find it hard to move away from the end - to the extent
that sometimes they have to hold people back from getting on to the
escalator at all.

True, I found that when I worked there. It could be chaos in rush hour if
a train was delayed.

Also there's the plain fact that canary wharf station is a massive waste of
space. You don't need ceilings 60 foot high in a tube station, they could have
put 3 or 4 floors in to use for other things that would be a benefit to the
area and bring in revenue for LU. As it is its just cathdral sized dead space
that benefits no one other than the architects to say "Look what we did!".

It is easier and quicker to dig a big hole and build within in than to
construct a maze of tunnels as done in older Underground stations. In
the case of Canary Wharf, much of the hole was already there in the
form of the West India dock. The current construction doesn't appear
to necessarily prevent addition of further internal floors/levels if
wanted at some time in the future.

London's Elizabeth Line's disjointed introduction
 

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 05:49:36 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2017\12\14 11:21, e27002 aurora wrote:

Strangely LT/LRT/TfL have regressed. When they built the Victoria
Line back in the 1960s they made interchange so easy. Amid Beeching,
and the general decline during that period, the Victoria Line shines
as a real achievement.

It's not so strange. Deep piled buildings were rare when the Victoria
Line was built, and the restriction against tunnelling beneath buildings
which existed when the earlier lines were built had been repealed,

IMU nothing was repealed; the shallower lines in the past involved a
far greater risk of infringing on deep foundations/basements (hence
lines following roads) and potential claims for subsidence and
similar. The land occupied by the line (at the relevant levels below
ground) could/can be obtained either by negotiated purchase or by the
associated legislation transferring ownership compulsorily.

so
the Victoria Line planners had freedom like no-one before or since.

London's Elizabeth Line's disjointed introduction
 

On 15.12.17 8:44, Tim Woodall wrote:
On 2017-12-14, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\12\14 15:29, Recliner wrote:

Apparently, the Victoria line was subsequently criticised for inadequate
capacity in the stations, so the JLE was designed to have large, high
capacity stations, even though this meant some platforms were well
separated from others in the station. Some were OK (Canada Water, Canning
Town, Stratford, Westminster, West Ham), others less so (Waterloo, London
Bridge, Canary Wharf).

What's wrong with Canary Wharf JLE station? It's usually considered the
line's architectural highlight?

The escalators down to the platform are exceptionally wide (large dead
space between the two in each group) due to the structural supports down
the middle of the platform. (I assume structural - if it's architectural
'look and feel' then someone should be shot)


Can we expect Crossrail's escalators to set any sort of records, such as
the longest or shortest in Western Europe?

London's Elizabeth Line's disjointed introduction
 

London's Elizabeth Line's disjointed introduction
 

On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 00:21:32 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

wrote:
On 15.12.17 8:44, Tim Woodall wrote:
On 2017-12-14, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\12\14 15:29, Recliner wrote:

Apparently, the Victoria line was subsequently criticised for inadequate
capacity in the stations, so the JLE was designed to have large, high
capacity stations, even though this meant some platforms were well
separated from others in the station. Some were OK (Canada Water, Canning
Town, Stratford, Westminster, West Ham), others less so (Waterloo, London
Bridge, Canary Wharf).

What's wrong with Canary Wharf JLE station? It's usually considered the
line's architectural highlight?

The escalators down to the platform are exceptionally wide (large dead
space between the two in each group) due to the structural supports down
the middle of the platform. (I assume structural - if it's architectural
'look and feel' then someone should be shot)


Can we expect Crossrail's escalators to set any sort of records, such as
the longest or shortest in Western Europe?


I doubt it, but some Crossrail stations will have a lot of them.

Judging by the Jubilee Line and elsewhere with multiple flights at
deeper stations, they would seem to have a practical limit on the
amount of lift before inviting trouble. The more steps you have then
the more metalwork you have in motion able to suffer faults so
splitting in two or three and having parallel flights reduces the
chance of losing everything in one direction.

London's Elizabeth Line's disjointed introduction
 

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 18:28:36 +0000
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:04:59 +0000 (UTC), wrote:
Also there's the plain fact that canary wharf station is a massive waste of
space. You don't need ceilings 60 foot high in a tube station, they could
have
put 3 or 4 floors in to use for other things that would be a benefit to the
area and bring in revenue for LU. As it is its just cathdral sized dead space
that benefits no one other than the architects to say "Look what we did!".

It is easier and quicker to dig a big hole and build within in than to
construct a maze of tunnels as done in older Underground stations. In
the case of Canary Wharf, much of the hole was already there in the
form of the West India dock. The current construction doesn't appear
to necessarily prevent addition of further internal floors/levels if
wanted at some time in the future.

Can't see that happening, at least not easily. There's too much structural
clutter. Extra floors should have been designed in from the start. A wasted
opportunity IMO.