Gary Jenkins wrote:

As an alternative to a Bakerloo extension is it feasible to hope for a
Jubilee line branch from North Greenwich in a south-easterly direction
towards Charlton. Eltham and Sidcup?

The problem is the alignment of North Greenwich station means that any
tunnel from there would have to go under the river. However, such a
tunnel could be constructed from W of the station, though the lack of a
step plate junction makes it more difficult.

This would be great for Eltham, as an elongated station (with
travelators instead of escalators) could serve both the station and the
High Street. I'm less sure about Sidcup - the residential density is
lower there, and there are already four bus routes linking it to Eltham.

Alternatively this could be a
completely new line going on northwards to Canary Wharf, Mile End and
Hackney and finishing off at Finsbury Park or Tottenham Hale.

I don't think a line that misses Central London would be worth all that
expensive tunnelling!

Gary Jenkins wrote:

I'm not sure a tube type service off peak is really needed. Moving
from four to six trains an hour, as the Strategic Rail Authority is
currently suggesting, seems to be a lot of investment for
comparatively little benefit. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of most
people to plan their journey to cope with four evenly spaced trains an
hour, at the same times past each hour. If someone does just turn up
on spec then a maximum wait of 15 mins isn't that much worse than one
of ten minutes.

Oh dear. You've made the classic mistake of people who plan these
frequencies. What you are describing is a line. What we need is a
network. As soon as your journey involves a change, 4 tph is
inadequate on short-distance services. Even if both services are 4
tph, if you have a deadline you have to plan on a 15 minute delay at
the connection - in a journey where you might only spend 15 minutes
moving. This is not the way to compete with the car.

Colin McKenzie

Gary Jenkins wrote:

I'm not sure a tube type service off peak is really needed. Moving
from four to six trains an hour, as the Strategic Rail Authority is
currently suggesting, seems to be a lot of investment for
comparatively little benefit. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of most
people to plan their journey to cope with four evenly spaced trains an
hour, at the same times past each hour. If someone does just turn up
on spec then a maximum wait of 15 mins isn't that much worse than one
of ten minutes.

Six trains an hour is not a tube style service. It is a start though.

On 14 Apr 2004, Gary Jenkins wrote:

As an alternative to a Bakerloo extension is it feasible to hope for a
Jubilee line branch from North Greenwich in a south-easterly direction
towards Charlton. Eltham and Sidcup? Alternatively this could be a
completely new line going on northwards to Canary Wharf, Mile End and
Hackney and finishing off at Finsbury Park or Tottenham Hale.

Better yet, do this, then build a curve at Finsbury Park between the
Jubilee and the Piccadilly, then one at Rayner's Lane to get on to the
Metropolitan, then hop back on to the Jubilee at Wembley Park, and bingo -
THE FIGURE-OF-EIGHT LINE!

tom

--
:-( bad :-) bad :-| good

In article ,
Michael Bell wrote:
* The cross-over of the Northern Line and the North London Line. This would
mean building two new underground stations. Simple, but expensive!

The interchange between the NLL and the Northern line - I use it
occasionally, last time being about 2 or so weeks ago - is good
enough for the traffic that currently uses it, and increasing the
number of people interchanging between the lines would increase the
pressure on the NLL... and fixing that would add to the expense (it
would probably mean making Camden Road - Stratford 4-track all the
way and/or shifting more of the frieght traffic that uses the NLL
on to the GOBLIN, which would have a negitive impact on the passenger
traffic on the GOBLIN. Which would make ME cross!)

closing East Acton, very inappropriately sited in a residential road.

Eh? Isn't it a good siting; makes it easy for people to get to the
station...

--
You dont have to be illiterate to use the Internet, but it help's.

Michael Bell wrote in message ...

How can Ken Livinstone and the CITY justify spending money to bring
more people and activity into London when they haven't done their best for
those they already have.?

Politics, IMO. Taking about huge far-reaching projects that require
multiple terms in office to complete sounds like a good reelection
strategy ;-)

Brad

Michael Bell wrote:

Guns or butter? Crossrail or cross-connections?

In the run-up to the first world war, Germans were asked to choose
between "Guns or butter", that is, between war and home comforts. They were
asked to choose guns, but at least they were told that they had a choice.
The people of London are now being asked to choose "guns" in the form of the
Crossrail project, without being told that "butter" is also a choice.

A very interesting analogy, but a very inaccurate one! Crossrail is
nothing like "guns" which only brought misery. If small improvements to
London's transport network are butter, Crossrail is pastry!

So far as I remember the Crossrail project was first mooted in the
70s, more or less as a drawing lines on a map exercise. It was justified
by saying that it would relieve congestion, though in fact all its length it
is paralleled by other routes, or simply takes them over.

What are you trying to say here? Of course Crossrail is parallelled by
other routes, but those other routes are congested. Building Crossrail
is an easy way to relieve congestion on those routes.

It is also said that it is essential to the development of London, and
here we are coming to the real truth. Most of the route mileage is outside
of London, so it can't be of any benefit to to Londoners.

Arguments that stupid are rare outside Crossrail Corporation!

Firstly, most of the new construction is under Central London. It is of
enormous benefit to London. Secondly, even if most of Crossrail were
outside of London, the benefits to London from the part inside it would
still be there. Thirdly, utilizing existing lines into neighbouring
counties would be both more useful for Londoners and more financially
viable than terminating the trains at the end of the new construction
and forcing all the passengers to change!

What it will do is bring more commuters into London, so overstuffing London,

In what way?

increasing congestion

Congestion of what?

and prices

Prices of what?

and forcing more to commute.

Enabling more people to commute and forcing them to are two completely
different things.

Not really for the benefit of Londoners! More for big business and the
CITY, to give London an even stronger grip on the South-East, as if it
needed it. Truly, guns! The current talk is fairly frank about that.

London is the reason for the success of the South East, and good
transport links are vital for the continued success of London. If you
don't like it, why don't you move up North?

There a trickle of mentions of Crossrail in the press to give the
impression that the project exists and is going to happen, but it is pie
in the sky because it is not value for money. So as not to formally abandon
the idea, the promoters don't mention the alternative, the butter, the home
comforts. That money and effort could be much better spent in another way,
obvious every day to travellers in London.

It would be far better to abolish Crossrail Corporation (the #1 enemy of
Crossrail) and make Crossrail value for money.

There are dozens of places in London where stations on different
routes are just too far apart for cross-connection, the result of the
railway politics of the 19th century and the bad planning of the 20th.

The kinds of places I am think of are :-

* The cross-over of the Northern Line and the North London Line. This would
mean building two new underground stations. Simple, but expensive!

Expensive but far from simple where the NLL is also in tunnel!

How many people do you think would use these new stations? Is it really
enough to justify the extra journey time for the rest of the users of
the Northern Line?

* Putney and East Putney stations. Both stations could demolished and a new
station built at the crossover, but it might be cheaper and better to link
the existing stations, for example with a rope-hanging cable car. Tricky but
cheap!

Not cheap at all, and whether the demand exists is doubtful.

* Create a new station on the nameless piece of land west of Old Oak
Common sidings. This would allow at least 4 routes to have interchange, and
more could be set up to call at this newly attractive interchange. By
building a platform over the lot, space could be created for housing and/or
shopping, so the cost could be offset or maybe even make a profit.

This idea may be viable. What is the status of that piece of land at the
moment?

This should be made the opportunity for some station rationalisation, for
example closing East Acton, very inappropriately sited in a residential
road. and opening a new station opposite Hammersmith Hospital; hospitals
are huge traffic generators. A major project!

Do you think the residents of East Acton should be compensated for the
loss of the tube station that was the reason for them buying houses
where they did?

To make this kind of cross-connection would allow much better use of
what there is, and make easy journeys which are now difficult. Truly home
comforts. Truly, butter!

What you're proposing is more fluff than butter! A few improvements to
interchange that (while nice for some people) would do nothing to reduce
overcrowding, and do little to speed up commuting.

Crossrail would slash over ten minutes (each way) off the commuting time
of tens of thousands of people every day. You could walk from Putney to
East Putney, or Camden Road to Camden Town, in about five minutes.

How can Ken Livinstone and the CITY justify spending money to bring
more people and activity into London when they haven't done their best for
those they already have.?

Would you rather those people and activity went to Frankfurt instead?

Aidan Stanger wrote:
Michael Bell wrote:

snip
There a trickle of mentions of Crossrail in the press to
give the impression that the project exists and is going to
happen, but it is pie in the sky because it is not value for
money. So as not to formally abandon the idea, the promoters don't
mention the alternative, the butter, the home comforts. That
money and effort could be much better spent in another way,
obvious every day to travellers in London.

It would be far better to abolish Crossrail Corporation (the #1
enemy of Crossrail) and make Crossrail value for money.

Do you mean Cross london Rail Links Ltd? In what way are CLRL the No.1
enemy of Crossrail? Whom would you get to design and develop the scheme
instead of them?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Richard J. wrote:
Aidan Stanger wrote:
Michael Bell wrote:

snip
There a trickle of mentions of Crossrail in the press to
give the impression that the project exists and is going to
happen, but it is pie in the sky because it is not value for
money. So as not to formally abandon the idea, the promoters don't
mention the alternative, the butter, the home comforts. That
money and effort could be much better spent in another way,
obvious every day to travellers in London.

It would be far better to abolish Crossrail Corporation (the #1
enemy of Crossrail) and make Crossrail value for money.

Do you mean Cross london Rail Links Ltd?

That's them.

In what way are CLRL the No.1 enemy of Crossrail?

They push up the cost while making decisions that reduce the financial
benefits. Just look at what they've done to the core section:

* They've insisted that the Canary Wharf branch be part of the core
route. While there is some merit in the idea of a Crossrail branch to
the Docklands area, it should not be a priority because they've just had
the JLE (constructed at vast expense) and because extra connectivity and
capacity could be provided with a boat service (fully under the
travelcard scheme) which would link communities north and south of the
river far better than Crossrail ever could.

* They also insisted on having the Great Eastern branch surface near
Stratford, when a GlobeTown portal (near the canal) would've been much
cheaper.


Those have added billions of pounds to the initial cost, but it gets
worse. They've based their decisions on incorrect assumptions:

* They assumed a line to Dagenham (to link with the Tilbury Line) would
have to be in tunnel until beyond Barking Creek. This was a stupid
assumption because there's plenty of room alongside the DLR (and as DLR
are planning a Dagenham branch, it would make sense for it to be
designed to be upgradable to heavy rail standards, so that Crossrail
could eventually take it over).

* They don't know the difference between suitability and optimality.
They say the trains needed for the busy core section would be unsuitable
for longer distance services because the core section needs high
acceleration and plenty of standing room while the longer services need
high top speed and seats all round. However, in reality this just means
it's suboptimal. If you accept the complications of having to have
longer trains with slightly more expensive motors, the Milton Keynes
route (terminating at Wolverton and giving Virgin Northampton) is still
extremely attractive. Longer distance passengers are generally more
profitable, and as Crossrail stations are so much more convenient than
Euston for many passengers, loadings at Watford Junction would be
balanced (allowing abolition of Virgin's pickup/setdown restrictions at
Watford Junction). Not only would the route into London from Willesden
be more direct, it would free up two tracks East of Willesden, creating
a dedicated freight route from Willesden Junction to Dalston Junction
via Primrose Hill (a grade separated crossover would be required, but
that could easily be provided N of Kings Cross).


I had thought they might improve, as their line 6 (to Kingston) didn't
look too bad. Alas, they have got worse! Take a look at some of their
more recent decisions:

* Their Docklands branch would go under the Thames at Woolwich... but
would fail to stop there! DLR have also decided to go to Woolwich and
instead of saying "STOP! There's no point spending money on your
indirect Woolwich branch because after ours opens, yours will run empty!
Try extending it to Thamesmead instead" they just took the attitude "OK,
you can have Woolwich, we'll run under a busy town center (that's one of
the biggest bus interchanges in SE London) without stopping!"

* After that, they propose that new tracks be constructed (expensively)
alongside the existing tracks all the way to Ebbsfleet. There's no
demand for services to Ebbsfleet from N of the river (where Stratford
will still be a more convenient CTRL railhead) and the benefits of extra
tracks on the North Kent line come nowhere near the cost.

* Things are just as bad at the western end. Instead of running an all
stations, they want to take over the Heathrow Express service. Not only
will a profitable service be lost, the passengers of West London will
gain nothing from Crossrail!

* Some of the trains will run through the Crossrail tunnel and terminate
at Paddington because CLRL can't figure out what to do with them.

* Meanwhile on the Great Eastern branch, they've decided to keep a ten
minute all stations service running into Liverpool Street. They seem to
have forgotten the project's original objectives.

Whom would you get to design and develop the scheme
instead of them?

The leading contender would be London Regional Metro Co.

"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message
...

Whom would you get to design and develop the scheme
instead of them?

The leading contender would be London Regional Metro Co.

I've been looking at their site, and two words come to mind: "performance
pollution". It'd be wonderful if Crossrail could act as a decent suburban
railway, and also serve longer distance routes; but it'd be an operational
nightmare if a tube frequency service in Ilford or Gidea Park could be
disrupted by a slight delay in Reading or Colchester.

Jonn