|
Crossrail's disjointed introduction
|
Crossrail's disjointed introduction
|
London's Elizabeth Line's disjointed introduction
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:14:31 +0000 (UTC), wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 10:26:29 +0000 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:57:53 on Thu, 14 Dec 2017, remarked: Anybody arriving at King's Cross St Pancras Underground station is equally badly off, unless they arrive on the Metropolitan (etc) platforms. Other cities do their best to make sure the interchange between lines is as short as possible. In London we seem to deliberately do the opposite. The new thameslink platform at St P, the jubilee line at waterloo which seems to be half a mile from anything else and requires a travalator are good examples. The station at Waterloo is going to be under the Charing Cross Line beneath Waterloo East; rather than under the old Eurostar platforms and north end of the concourse. I don't know the specific reason for this. As an aside - I wonder why the lines at waterloo were never linked to the charing X line at waterloo east? They're at the same level and can't be more than 50 metres apart at closest approach. It would have created a south river line following the river (more or less) from richmond out to gravesend. 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. |
Crossrail's disjointed introduction
|
Crossrail's disjointed introduction
|
Crossrail's disjointed introduction
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:56:31 +0000
Mike Bristow wrote: In article , wrote: As an aside - I wonder why the lines at waterloo were never linked to the charing X line at waterloo east? They were. The line was taken up in 1911, according to https://www.londonreconnections.com/...waterloo-link/ A lost opportunity. Could have been the south london version of crossrail (ish). |
London's Elizabeth Line's disjointed introduction
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:21:31 +0000
e27002 aurora wrote: On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:14:31 +0000 (UTC), wrote: On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 10:26:29 +0000 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:57:53 on Thu, 14 Dec 2017, remarked: Anybody arriving at King's Cross St Pancras Underground station is equally badly off, unless they arrive on the Metropolitan (etc) platforms. Other cities do their best to make sure the interchange between lines is as short as possible. In London we seem to deliberately do the opposite. The new thameslink platform at St P, the jubilee line at waterloo which seems to be half a mile from anything else and requires a travalator are good examples. The station at Waterloo is going to be under the Charing Cross Line beneath Waterloo East; rather than under the old Eurostar platforms and north end of the concourse. I don't know the specific reason for this. As an aside - I wonder why the lines at waterloo were never linked to the charing X line at waterloo east? They're at the same level and can't be more than 50 metres apart at closest approach. It would have created a south river line following the river (more or less) from richmond out to gravesend. 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. One can only assume that what makes construction easier for the engineers and maybe saves a few weeks or months, takes priority over what will make life easier for hundreds of millions of passengers over the next couple of centuries. |
London's Elizabeth Line's disjointed introduction
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:46:51 +0000 (UTC), wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:21:31 +0000 e27002 aurora wrote: On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:14:31 +0000 (UTC), wrote: As an aside - I wonder why the lines at waterloo were never linked to the charing X line at waterloo east? They're at the same level and can't be more than 50 metres apart at closest approach. It would have created a south river line following the river (more or less) from richmond out to gravesend. They were, once - until 1911, but it required a moveable bridge section of the concourse to reach platforms in the main Waterloo station that were East of the connection. It was taken out of service because it was rarely used. |
London's Elizabeth Line's disjointed introduction
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:21:31 +0000 e27002 aurora wrote: On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:14:31 +0000 (UTC), wrote: On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 10:26:29 +0000 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:57:53 on Thu, 14 Dec 2017, remarked: Anybody arriving at King's Cross St Pancras Underground station is equally badly off, unless they arrive on the Metropolitan (etc) platforms. Other cities do their best to make sure the interchange between lines is as short as possible. In London we seem to deliberately do the opposite. The new thameslink platform at St P, the jubilee line at waterloo which seems to be half a mile from anything else and requires a travalator are good examples. The station at Waterloo is going to be under the Charing Cross Line beneath Waterloo East; rather than under the old Eurostar platforms and north end of the concourse. I don't know the specific reason for this. As an aside - I wonder why the lines at waterloo were never linked to the charing X line at waterloo east? They're at the same level and can't be more than 50 metres apart at closest approach. It would have created a south river line following the river (more or less) from richmond out to gravesend. 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. One can only assume that what makes construction easier for the engineers and maybe saves a few weeks or months, takes priority over what will make life easier for hundreds of millions of passengers over the next couple of centuries. 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). |
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
|
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. |
London's Elizabeth Line's disjointed introduction
On 18/12/2017 10:08, wrote:
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. Is it known that such a design could have met requirements for smoke dispersal and bomb blast resistance? It is after all a high profile location. And there were sound reasons why ordnance - and firework! - factories had strong walls and weak rooves. -- Robin reply-to address is (intended to be) valid |
London's Elizabeth Line's disjointed introduction
On 18/12/2017 10:08, wrote:
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. What are you going to use the extra floors for? -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
London's Elizabeth Line's disjointed introduction
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:50:08 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 18/12/2017 10:08, wrote: 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. What are you going to use the extra floors for? More shopping! There are 4 floors of shops and restaurants (1, 0,-1,-2) currently open above the E*******h line station in Crossrail Place with a 5th floor (-3) of currently closed of space which I assume will open next year. I think the ticket hall is -4 with the platforms at -5 The empty shops on -3 were briefly accessible when there were a series of light installations in them as part of Winter Lights. It seems there is a fresh set in Jan 2018 - https://canarywharf.com/arts-events/...er-lights-2018 |
London's Elizabeth Line's disjointed introduction
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:45:42 +0000
Robin wrote: On 18/12/2017 10:08, wrote: 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. Is it known that such a design could have met requirements for smoke dispersal and bomb blast resistance? It is after all a high profile No idea, but couldn't be any worse than the skyscraper I worked in there. The emergency stairs had a choke point on the 1st floor. An appalling design and whoever approved it should've been sacked. location. And there were sound reasons why ordnance - and firework! - factories had strong walls and weak rooves. I doubt you could get much stronger walls than a former dock! |
London's Elizabeth Line's disjointed introduction
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:50:08 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote: On 18/12/2017 10:08, wrote: 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. What are you going to use the extra floors for? Yeah, tricky one, what could thousands of square feet of floor space be used for in a major financial district + shopping area.... hmmm.... |
London's Elizabeth Line's disjointed introduction
On 18/12/2017 14:22, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:50:08 +0000 Graeme Wall wrote: On 18/12/2017 10:08, wrote: 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. What are you going to use the extra floors for? Yeah, tricky one, what could thousands of square feet of floor space be used for in a major financial district + shopping area.... hmmm.... That you can only access through the ticket barrier… -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk