| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Connectivity
Couldn't they just destroy the scissors crossover, and replace it with
one on the site of the current White City station when the southern replacement is finished? |
Connectivity
Kensington olympia must be the most random station in the world
|
Connectivity
lonelytraveller wrote:
Kensington olympia must be the most random station in the world Really? It's therefore an amazing coincidence that this randomly located station actually found itself not only in Kensington but also right next door to Olympia. I always thought that was deliberate, but according to you it was just chance. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Connectivity
Richard J. wrote:
Really? It's therefore an amazing coincidence that this randomly located station actually found itself not only in Kensington but also right next door to Olympia. I always thought that was deliberate, but according to you it was just chance. Erm isn't the tube station actually in Hammersmith & Fulham? (The through line is the bondary.) |
Connectivity
Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
Richard J. wrote: Really? It's therefore an amazing coincidence that this randomly located station actually found itself not only in Kensington but also right next door to Olympia. I always thought that was deliberate, but according to you it was just chance. Erm isn't the tube station actually in Hammersmith & Fulham? (The through line is the bondary.) I think you're right. Not such an amazing coincidence after all. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Flying terminus was Connectivity
In article , Tom
Anderson writes The discussion says that something called a '4-track relay terminal with a 2-track relay' used to exist at Park Row on the New York subway. No idea what that is, but the poster seemed to be impressed. I asked a knowledgeable friend. Firstly, it wasn't on the Subway but on the erstwhile Brooklyn Bridge Railway, at the Manhattan end. Turning it into UK terms, the layout would be: ####D#### /--------------\ |------* ####A#### \ \-----------\ /--*---- X /-----------/ \--*---- |------* ####D#### / \--------------/ ####A#### The platforms marked D were for departing passengers and A for arriving ones. The X is a simple diamond crossing without slips. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
Connectivity
Richard J. wrote:
Tim Roll-Pickering wrote: Richard J. wrote: Really? It's therefore an amazing coincidence that this randomly located station actually found itself not only in Kensington but also right next door to Olympia. I always thought that was deliberate, but according to you it was just chance. Erm isn't the tube station actually in Hammersmith & Fulham? (The through line is the bondary.) I think you're right. Not such an amazing coincidence after all. Just because it's in LB Hammersmith & Fulham and not RB Kensington & Chelsea doesn't mean it's not in Kensington. It is just off Kensington High Street. After all, if Bromley can be in "Kent"... -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Connectivity
lonelytraveller wrote:
West Ruislip - Connecting this station up to a new station on the metropolitan would mean that you could make the connection to Uxbridge quite easily, rather than needing to use local transport instead, or having to go via acton, which is ridiculous. This area is far from densely populated, and a new station would never pass any cost-benefit analysis. If you're travelling from the Central line to Uxbridge, the proposed Park Royal interchange may help - but otherwise, the demand isn't really there. West Ruislip is very close to the metropolitan/piccadilly line, which is why I have never understood why the other lines don't have an interchange station here, since it makes journeys between the lines particularly awkward. As I said before - the population is really dense enough to justify an extra station, as the area to the south is just fields! As for an interchange, it probably wouldn't facilitate enough journeys to make it worthwhile constructing platforms on the Met (and inconveniencing Met passengers with the extra journey time). If anything, it would probably be worth more to potential Chiltern passengers travelling to Uxbridge or Harrow, rather than to Met/Central interchange passengers. It wouldn't be that convenient an interchange either - it would be a good 5-minute walk from the platforms at West Ruislip to the Met. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Flying terminus was Connectivity
On Tue, 24 May 2005, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article , Tom Anderson writes The discussion says that something called a '4-track relay terminal with a 2-track relay' used to exist at Park Row on the New York subway. No idea what that is, but the poster seemed to be impressed. I asked a knowledgeable friend. Firstly, it wasn't on the Subway but on the erstwhile Brooklyn Bridge Railway, at the Manhattan end. Turning it into UK terms, the layout would be: ####D#### /--------------\ |------* ####A#### \ \-----------\ /--*---- X /-----------/ \--*---- |------* ####D#### / \--------------/ ####A#### The platforms marked D were for departing passengers and A for arriving ones. Wow. I can't even begin to figure out what the capacity of that would be! Do trains drive on the left in the US, then? The X is a simple diamond crossing without slips. Is the entirety of railway terminology invented purely to wind me up? :) I'm guessing a diamond crossing is just where two pairs of rails cross; switching to line-per-rail mode: \ \ / / \ \ / / \ \ / / \ X / \ / \ / X X / \ / \ / X \ / / \ \ / / \ \ / / \ \ Is that right? If so, what's a slip? tom -- an optical recording release. copyright digitally mastered. ., |
Flying terminus was Connectivity
On Tue, 24 May 2005, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article , Tom Anderson writes The discussion says that something called a '4-track relay terminal with a 2-track relay' used to exist at Park Row on the New York subway. No idea what that is, but the poster seemed to be impressed. ####D#### /--------------\ |------* ####A#### \ \-----------\ /--*---- X /-----------/ \--*---- |------* ####D#### / \--------------/ ####A#### I've just realised how to build a terminal with arbitarily high capacity, provided you don't mind making your passengers choose between an equally arbitrary number of platforms: +-[--------+-]-\ ### / [ ### / ] \----- -----+ [ -----+ ] /---- \ [ \ ] / +-[--------+-]-/ n Where the bit in square brackets with an n at the bottom is a repeated unit (think polymers!). Trains come in from the east (and why do trains always come in from the east in these things?), run along the road at the southern edge of the structure, then pick a bay to stop in, run in on the diagonal approach road, get in, stop, exchange passengers, then pull out on the diagonal departure road, joining the main road at the northern edge and heading back out east. The point is, there are no conflicting movements, and no contention for anything except the running roads, so the terminal doesn't restrict capacity below that which the line supports (provided you can do the diverges and converges perfectly). Note that when n = 0, this is a normal single-track reversing terminal, and when n = 1, it's rather like a Sao Paulo terminal (but with more irritating platform layout). I think you have to be rather clever about the order in which bays are used to preserve even intervals between trains, though. If you replace the reversing bays with through lines, you get a multi-track loop: /-[--+-]-\ / [ / ] \ |# [ |# ] \----- |# [ |# ] /---- |# [ |# ] / \ [ \ ] / \-[--+-]-/ n Which is wider, shorter, doesn't reverse the trains and is amenable to the use of island platforms. Probably not the most sensible use of railway space, either way! tom -- an optical recording release. copyright digitally mastered. ., |
Flying terminus was Connectivity
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2005, Clive D. W. Feather wrote: In article , Tom Anderson writes The discussion says that something called a '4-track relay terminal with a 2-track relay' used to exist at Park Row on the New York subway. No idea what that is, but the poster seemed to be impressed. ####D#### /--------------\ |------* ####A#### \ \-----------\ /--*---- X /-----------/ \--*---- |------* ####D#### / \--------------/ ####A#### I've just realised how to build a terminal with arbitarily high capacity, provided you don't mind making your passengers choose between an equally arbitrary number of platforms: +-[--------+-]-\ ### / [ ### / ] \----- -----+ [ -----+ ] /---- \ [ \ ] / +-[--------+-]-/ n Where the bit in square brackets with an n at the bottom is a repeated unit (think polymers!). Trains come in from the east (and why do trains always come in from the east in these things?), run along the road at the southern edge of the structure, then pick a bay to stop in, run in on the diagonal approach road, get in, stop, exchange passengers, then pull out on the diagonal departure road, joining the main road at the northern edge and heading back out east. The point is, there are no conflicting movements, and no contention for anything except the running roads, so the terminal doesn't restrict capacity below that which the line supports (provided you can do the diverges and converges perfectly). Note that when n = 0, this is a normal single-track reversing terminal, and when n = 1, it's rather like a Sao Paulo terminal (but with more irritating platform layout). I think you have to be rather clever about the order in which bays are used to preserve even intervals between trains, though. If you replace the reversing bays with through lines, you get a multi-track loop: /-[--+-]-\ / [ / ] \ |# [ |# ] \----- |# [ |# ] /---- |# [ |# ] / \ [ \ ] / \-[--+-]-/ n Which is wider, shorter, doesn't reverse the trains and is amenable to the use of island platforms. Probably not the most sensible use of railway space, either way! I take it you've never played Transport Tycoon. You've just described a Ro-Ro station. http://www.transporttycoon.co.uk/rail2 -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Flying terminus was Connectivity
Tom Anderson and Clive Feather wrote:
The discussion says that something called a '4-track relay terminal with a 2-track relay' used to exist at Park Row on the New York subway. No idea what that is, but the poster seemed to be impressed. I asked a knowledgeable friend. Firstly, it wasn't on the Subway but on the erstwhile Brooklyn Bridge Railway, at the Manhattan end. Turning it into UK terms, the layout would be: ####D#### /--------------\ |------* ####A#### \ \-----------\ /--*---- X /-----------/ \--*---- |------* ####D#### / \--------------/ ####A#### The platforms marked D were for departing passengers and A for arriving ones. Wow. I can't even begin to figure out what the capacity of that would be! Do trains drive on the left in the US, then? No: remember Clive "turned it into UK terms". I was Cc'd on that email thread, and it turns out that the above description may not be exactly right. My interpretation of the somewhat contradictory information is that the layout actually worked *this* way: /--------------\ |------* ######### \ \ /--------------o--------- X / \--------------o--------- |------* ######### / \--------------/ This gives separate arrival and departure platforms, and also makes it impossible for two trains with passengers aboard to collide head-on on the diamond. As a further safety aid, the tracks at the right were actually gauntleted (interlaced), with two pairs of rails that diverged (if my interpretation is right) at the positions o. That is, in terms of individual rails, the layout at each o was: ------------------------------------------------- /--------------------------------- / -------------+----------------------------------- / /----------------------------- / / / / And if a particular train started from the south face of the departure platform, then it would use the south face of the departure platform all day, and also the south face of the arrival platform, staying always on the south rail of each pair. One more source of danger elimnated. The X is a simple diamond crossing without slips. Is the entirety of railway terminology invented purely to wind me up? :) I'm guessing a diamond crossing is just where two pairs of rails cross... Uh-huh. what's a slip? A slip is where one of those is combined with points so the train can change from one line to another *or* go straight across. It's expensive to build and maintain, and therefore normally used only where there are space constraints. The usual kind is a double slip, with two pairs of curved rails and four sets of points: http://www.iwsteamrailway.co.uk/pages/Civ_engineering/photos/Track%20Pack%20Apr%2004/TP%20Apr%2004%205.jpg A single slip has only one pair of curved rails, allowing 3 rather than 4 moves in each direction. Near major terminal stations, a series of slips is often used to form a layout allowing a train to cross (in one direction, say to the left) from any one to any other of a set of tracks. This example http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/photos/union_rail_tracks.jpg is the western approach to Union Station here in Toronto; note the single slip near the white post as well as the double slips. -- Mark Brader "Inventions reached their limit long ago, Toronto and I see no hope for further development." -- Julius Frontinus, 1st century A.D. My text in this article is in the public domain. |
Connectivity
lonelytraveller wrote:
Blackfriars - The Waterloo & City line passes directly beneath here, a connection to it would alleviate travel from Bank to Blackfriars (thus rendered 1 stop rather than 4) and from Blackfriars to Waterloo (currently 4 stops including interchange), assuming the frequency of the line was changed to something more similar to the other tube lines, so that it could cope with the number of passengers. A connection here would be amazingly significant to journey times from this area, and routes from more north that involve using thameslink, as well as connecting the area up much better. Waterloo to Blackfriars was my school commute, at least until a change in timetable gave me more time to enjoy a walk through the city. I would certainly have found this useful, but it would have added time to the W&C line and I honestly doubt there would be would be tolerable usage. There's already links from Thameslink to Waterloo at both London Bridge and Elephant & Castle, whilst City Thameslink provides better access for the City. Alternately, I am also surprised that they never considered a station at Holborn Viaduct on the original central line, which would also have provided such a connection, since this is quite a busy area, and the gap between St Pauls and Chancery Lane is quite large. Didn't the original St. Paul's (in its Post Office days) lift shafts come up much closer to Holborn Viaduct? Would this have been a viable additional station or would it have just overlapped? |
Connectivity
Tom Anderson wrote:
Or something, so you can do it all at Aldgate. This, however, would be awful for anyone who just wanted to head east - you'd have to choose between two platforms and hope you picked the one with the first train, whereas at present, you just have one. I'm not really sure who it would make life easier for; the stations on either side provide easier changes from the District and H&C to the Circle. Maybe, but the service on the H&C is frankly poor. Many times when I've had to travel Euston Square to Stepney Green I've found it impossible to catch a through service and instead wind up having to change two or three times using the Circle/Met (sometimes both if one stops at Moorgate), H&C and District. An integrated Aldgate station would usually allow me a single interchange rather than perpetually catching trains for two stops at a time on a through route. What i'd do, if we were going to dig up bits of the City, is rearrange Tower Hill - possibly with an extra bit of track from Minories junction - so that Metropolitan trains could terminate there instead of Aldgate. Oh, and link the station up with Fenchurch Street and Tower Gateway properly while i'm down there. Are the through platforms at Aldgate long enough to support Met trains? Otherwise I'm inclined to agree with this. |
Flying terminus was Connectivity
In article , Tom
Anderson writes I asked a knowledgeable friend. Firstly, it wasn't on the Subway but on the erstwhile Brooklyn Bridge Railway, at the Manhattan end. Turning it into UK terms, the layout would be: Or, rather, wouldn't be. Further checks showed he'd misunderstood things, and it was actually: /----------\ |-------* ######## ========================== \ /--------/ X / \--------\ |-------* ######## ========================== \----------/ where the equals signs show interlaced ("gantletted") tracks over the bridge. The necks were used for loco shunting, not the trains themselves. The idea was that the passengers travelled over *zero* sets of points. Do trains drive on the left in the US, then? No, I deliberately put it in UK layout. I'm guessing a diamond crossing is just where two pairs of rails cross; Correct. Is that right? If so, what's a slip? A connection from top-left to top-right (or bottom-left to bottom-right) of a diamond, with one rail of the connection going within the diamond. A double-slip involves both. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
Flying terminus was Connectivity
On Tue, 24 May 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote: On Tue, 24 May 2005, Clive D. W. Feather wrote: Probably not the most sensible use of railway space, either way! I take it you've never played Transport Tycoon. Could never get it recognise my sound card :(. You've just described a Ro-Ro station. http://www.transporttycoon.co.uk/rail2 Curses! I love the idea of using TT as a sort of eye-candified SIMSIG or something. It does buses too, so one could try using it to model bits of London. I understand Ken is a SimCity fan (or at least was during the interregnum), so he might be open to using it as a strategic planning tool. You might consider doing your master's project on a TT model of London. You'd be unlikely to graduate, but you'd probably make Slashdot. tom -- The revolution will not be televised. The revolution will be live. |
Flying terminus was Connectivity
Firstly, thanks to you both for the explanations.
On Wed, 25 May 2005, Mark Brader wrote: Tom Anderson and Clive Feather wrote: The discussion says that something called a '4-track relay terminal with a 2-track relay' used to exist at Park Row on the New York subway. No idea what that is, but the poster seemed to be impressed. I asked a knowledgeable friend. Firstly, it wasn't on the Subway but on the erstwhile Brooklyn Bridge Railway, at the Manhattan end. Turning it into UK terms, the layout would be: ####D#### /--------------\ |------* ####A#### \ \-----------\ /--*---- X /-----------/ \--*---- |------* ####D#### / \--------------/ ####A#### The platforms marked D were for departing passengers and A for arriving ones. Wow. I can't even begin to figure out what the capacity of that would be! Do trains drive on the left in the US, then? No: remember Clive "turned it into UK terms". Doh. Sorry Clive! I was Cc'd on that email thread, and it turns out that the above description may not be exactly right. My interpretation of the somewhat contradictory information is that the layout actually worked *this* way: /--------------\ |------* ######### \ \ /--------------o--------- X / \--------------o--------- |------* ######### / \--------------/ This gives separate arrival and departure platforms, and also makes it impossible for two trains with passengers aboard to collide head-on on the diamond. That seems like a much better arrangement. As a further safety aid, the tracks at the right were actually gauntleted (interlaced), with two pairs of rails that diverged (if my interpretation is right) at the positions o. That is, in terms of individual rails, the layout at each o was: ------------------------------------------------- /--------------------------------- / -------------+----------------------------------- / /----------------------------- / / / / And if a particular train started from the south face of the departure platform, then it would use the south face of the departure platform all day, and also the south face of the arrival platform, staying always on the south rail of each pair. So each track was in fact four rails, of which only two were in use at once? There are two logical tracks sharing the same space? One more source of danger elimnated. How so? The X is a simple diamond crossing without slips. Is the entirety of railway terminology invented purely to wind me up? :) I'm guessing a diamond crossing is just where two pairs of rails cross... Uh-huh. what's a slip? A slip is where one of those is combined with points so the train can change from one line to another *or* go straight across. It's expensive to build and maintain, and therefore normally used only where there are space constraints. You mean not enough to build a proper curve? Proper curves being cheaper? The usual kind is a double slip, with two pairs of curved rails and four sets of points: http://www.iwsteamrailway.co.uk/pages/Civ_engineering/photos/Track%20Pack%20Apr%2004/TP%20Apr%2004%205.jpg A single slip has only one pair of curved rails, allowing 3 rather than 4 moves in each direction. Near major terminal stations, a series of slips is often used to form a layout allowing a train to cross (in one direction, say to the left) from any one to any other of a set of tracks. This example http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/photos/union_rail_tracks.jpg is the western approach to Union Station here in Toronto; note the single slip near the white post as well as the double slips. Got it. Is there some sort of encyclopedia of railway engineering that i could get hold of which would save you from these questions? tom -- The revolution will not be televised. The revolution will be live. |
Connectivity
On Wed, 25 May 2005, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote: Or something, so you can do it all at Aldgate. This, however, would be awful for anyone who just wanted to head east - you'd have to choose between two platforms and hope you picked the one with the first train, whereas at present, you just have one. I'm not really sure who it would make life easier for; the stations on either side provide easier changes from the District and H&C to the Circle. Maybe, but the service on the H&C is frankly poor. Many times when I've had to travel Euston Square to Stepney Green I've found it impossible to catch a through service and instead wind up having to change two or three times using the Circle/Met (sometimes both if one stops at Moorgate), H&C and District. That's true - a friend of mine used to live in Stepney Green, and visiting her after work, which in my case is near Euston Square, was no fun. Having the off-peak H&C end at Whitechapel doesn't help with this, either. This is not a reason to further impede interchange, though, it's a reason to improve the service - ramping up the H&C frequency, or swapping the eastern ends of the H&C and Metropolitan lines, would be a start. The tangele of flat junctions round there doesn't help, of course; maybe we should grade them all while we've got the spades out :). An integrated Aldgate station would usually allow me a single interchange rather than perpetually catching trains for two stops at a time on a through route. The only thing it would allow that you can't do now is to change from Met to District; you can do Circle - H&C at Liverpool Street (or you could have waited for an H&C at Euston Square), Circle - District at Tower Hill, and H&C - District (to get past Whitechapel off-peak) at Aldgate East. My suggestion for Tower Hill would enable the Met - District change, and brutal suppression of Moorgate short-stoppers and extension of the H&C beyond Whitechapel off-peak, should patch the other issues. That said, if the integration can be done without destroying the single eastbound platform, say by building a better foot tunnel, that's fine by me. Perhaps what we need is three platforms, one on the outbound line just beyond each of the three corners of the triangle (so there's only one platform per destination), connected by huge foot tunnels. Or not. What i'd do, if we were going to dig up bits of the City, is rearrange Tower Hill - possibly with an extra bit of track from Minories junction - so that Metropolitan trains could terminate there instead of Aldgate. Oh, and link the station up with Fenchurch Street and Tower Gateway properly while i'm down there. Are the through platforms at Aldgate long enough to support Met trains? Otherwise I'm inclined to agree with this. I haven't been there in ages, but from my memory of looking at a track map, i think the platforms are islands, with the through faces a few feet away from the terminal ones, and presumably the same length, BICBW. tom -- The revolution will not be televised. The revolution will be live. |
Flying terminus was Connectivity
Mark Brader:
As a further safety aid, the tracks at the right were actually gauntleted (interlaced), with two pairs of rails that diverged (if my interpretation is right) at the positions o. That is, in terms of individual rails, the layout at each o was: ------------------------------------------------- /--------------------------------- / -------------+----------------------------------- / /----------------------------- / / / / And if a particular train started from the south face of the departure platform, then it would use the south face of the departure platform all day, and also the south face of the arrival platform, staying always on the south rail of each pair. Tom Anderson: So each track was in fact four rails, of which only two were in use at once? There are two logical tracks sharing the same space? Uh-huh. This is more commonly done in locations where clearance considerations force what would otherwise be a short section of single track on a double-track line. Here's an old image from Colwyn Bay in Wales: http://dewi.ca/trains/lcber/b039.jpg. Another use is to allow wide trains to pass a platform on a track designed for narrow trains on what would otherwise be a single track, like this one: http://image03.webshots.com/3/0/83/44/21408344mgAUFPpzaa_ph.jpg near Chicago. The corresponding rails can also be set much closer, as on this narrow Amsterdam street. You might think this was a single track at first glance: http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/nl/trams/Amsterdam/Combino/line_1/amsterdam_2001.jpg One more source of danger elimnated. How so? No possibility of the points being set wrong, routing the train into the wrong arrival platform, which most likely would already be occupied. (Similarly, in situations like the Welsh and Dutch examples, no possibility of the car going onto the wrong track and colliding head-on with another.) No possibility of points changing under the train, either. Is there some sort of encyclopedia of railway engineering that i could get hold of which would save you from these questions? Hey, what fun would that be? :-) -- Mark Brader, Toronto | "Any story that needs a critic to explain it, | needs rewriting." -- Larry Niven My text in this article is in the public domain. |
Connectivity
In article , Tim Roll-Pickering
writes Maybe, but the service on the H&C is frankly poor. Many times when I've had to travel Euston Square to Stepney Green I've found it impossible to catch a through service and instead wind up having to change two or three times using the Circle/Met (sometimes both if one stops at Moorgate), H&C and District. An integrated Aldgate station would usually allow me a single interchange rather than perpetually catching trains for two stops at a time on a through route. Absent the *extremely* rare reversal at King's Cross or Farringdon, *ALL* eastbound H&C trains call at both Euston Square and Aldgate East and are not overtaken by Circle or Met. trains en route. So you can *never* save time by doing what you say you do; you simply wait at a different place. Yes, an Aldgate interchange would allow you to take a Circle/Met. to Aldgate and then walk through long enough passages to miss the following H&C train, but I'm not sure that there's a great public benefit there. Are the through platforms at Aldgate long enough to support Met trains? No. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
Flying terminus was Connectivity
In article , I wrote:
Is that right? If so, what's a slip? A connection from top-left to top-right (or bottom-left to bottom-right) of a diamond, with one rail of the connection going within the diamond. A double-slip involves both. Once Fotopic stops acting strangely, http://davros.fotopic.net/p14923871.html should allow you to see a double-slip (one with a switch diamond). -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
Connectivity
In article , Tom
Anderson writes Are the through platforms at Aldgate long enough to support Met trains? Otherwise I'm inclined to agree with this. I haven't been there in ages, but from my memory of looking at a track map, i think the platforms are islands, with the through faces a few feet away from the terminal ones, Correct. and presumably the same length, BICBW. Not quite. It's only a matter of inches, but the curvature means that the Inner Rail platform is the shortest, while the Outer Rail one is limited by the safety margins for the diamond crossings (W/B H&C and E/B District) at each end. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
Connectivity
Tom Anderson wrote:
Maybe, but the service on the H&C is frankly poor. Many times when I've had to travel Euston Square to Stepney Green I've found it impossible to catch a through service and instead wind up having to change two or three times using the Circle/Met (sometimes both if one stops at Moorgate), H&C and District. That's true - a friend of mine used to live in Stepney Green, and visiting her after work, which in my case is near Euston Square, was no fun. Having the off-peak H&C end at Whitechapel doesn't help with this, either. It now nominally runs past there at off peak, but the through service is quite difficult to find. This is not a reason to further impede interchange, though, it's a reason to improve the service - ramping up the H&C frequency, or swapping the eastern ends of the H&C and Metropolitan lines, would be a start. The tangele of flat junctions round there doesn't help, of course; maybe we should grade them all while we've got the spades out :). Does the Aldgate - Barking section of the District have the capacity for this? I always get the impression that the Circle and attached lines just simply doesn't work as a decent service because of all the traffic and destinations. |
Transport games (was Flying terminus was Connectivity)
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2005, Dave Arquati wrote: Tom Anderson wrote: On Tue, 24 May 2005, Clive D. W. Feather wrote: Probably not the most sensible use of railway space, either way! I take it you've never played Transport Tycoon. Could never get it recognise my sound card :(. You've just described a Ro-Ro station. http://www.transporttycoon.co.uk/rail2 Curses! I love the idea of using TT as a sort of eye-candified SIMSIG or something. It does buses too, so one could try using it to model bits of London. I understand Ken is a SimCity fan (or at least was during the interregnum), so he might be open to using it as a strategic planning tool. You might consider doing your master's project on a TT model of London. You'd be unlikely to graduate, but you'd probably make Slashdot. LOL, I'm not so sure... those buses in TT never go down the streets you want them to, and have a habit of getting stuck on level crossings and getting hit by trains. And the trains can be a bit dodgy too - after all, they can go around right-angled corners! Oh, and the key issue - passengers wait at a station but they don't mind where you take them to; they all get on the first train! Apart from that, it's a brilliantly addictive game. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Transport games (was Flying terminus was Connectivity)
On Thu, 26 May 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote: On Tue, 24 May 2005, Dave Arquati wrote: Tom Anderson wrote: Probably not the most sensible use of railway space, either way! I take it you've never played Transport Tycoon. You've just described a Ro-Ro station. http://www.transporttycoon.co.uk/rail2 I love the idea of using TT as a sort of eye-candified SIMSIG or something. It does buses too, so one could try using it to model bits of London. I understand Ken is a SimCity fan (or at least was during the interregnum), so he might be open to using it as a strategic planning tool. You might consider doing your master's project on a TT model of London. You'd be unlikely to graduate, but you'd probably make Slashdot. LOL, I'm not so sure... those buses in TT never go down the streets you want them to, And this is different to London how? and have a habit of getting stuck on level crossings and getting hit by trains. Ah, that is different to London - we don't have many level crossings, so the buses have to hit bridges instead. And the trains can be a bit dodgy too - after all, they can go around right-angled corners! Hey, you're the DLR fanboy here - those little buggers routinely do manoeuvres that would make the trains at Alton Towers look like supertankers! Oh, and the key issue - passengers wait at a station but they don't mind where you take them to; they all get on the first train! I am beginning to think you have never actually used the circle line. Apart from that, it's a brilliantly addictive game. Well, people do find it hard to give up using the tube. The crucial question, though, is does Ken know the cheat code to instantly upgrade all lines to monorails? tom -- Punk's not sexual, it's just aggression. |
Flying terminus was Connectivity
Clive Feather:
Once Fotopic stops acting strangely, http://davros.fotopic.net/p14923871.html should allow you to see a double-slip (one with a switch diamond). Which is to say, an even more expensive construction than the usual double slip. Note the points where the straight rails cross. That -- which can also be done for an ordinary diamond -- is something usually done only where the angle between the two tracks is unusually shallow, as at a high-speed junction or where the tracks are also sharply curving. This location is just outside King's Cross, and I don't know why it was done there. -- Mark Brader "...out of the dark coffee-stained mugs of Toronto insane programmers throughout the world..." -- Liam Quin My text in this article is in the public domain. |
Flying terminus was Connectivity
|
Connectivity
Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
Absent the *extremely* rare reversal at King's Cross or Farringdon, *ALL* eastbound H&C trains call at both Euston Square and Aldgate East and are not overtaken by Circle or Met. trains en route. So you can *never* save time by doing what you say you do; you simply wait at a different place. True, but when the H&C line trains are often not even displayed, and even then often the Whitechapel only service is available, so getting closer to Liverpool Street is a natural move - and sometimes I have, depending on which trains are available, gone to Aldgate and legged it to Aldgate East to get the District or changed at Tower Hill for the same effect. Yes, an Aldgate interchange would allow you to take a Circle/Met. to Aldgate and then walk through long enough passages to miss the following H&C train, but I'm not sure that there's a great public benefit there. If the train were following closely enough then I reckon it would show up on the indicators. Otherwise I could get the more frequent through District service. Whilst not the greatest public benefit, a single combined Aldgate station could work better than the current one. |
Transport games (was Flying terminus was Connectivity)
On Thu, 26 May 2005 15:15:49 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:
The crucial question, though, is does Ken know the cheat code to instantly upgrade all lines to monorails? I suppose if the Underground were to be converted to monorail, it would still have a second rail, and probably a third, though. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/ps12686823.html (British Metro, Light and Miniature Rail and Trams) |
Connectivity
In message .com,
TheOneKEA writes It can have as many as you want. Heathrow T123 has 2. And the Next Train Out doohickey doesn't work right either... Actually it does - as soon as a train gets the signal to leave, the other train (assuming there is one in the platform) becomes the 'next train' and indicates as such, as the driver of that first train should now be closing the doors and be on his/her way, and all passengers arriving on the platform should be directed to the other train to allow this to happen. The fact that some drivers sit about for 2 minutes or so doesn't change the fact that they should not now be there and the other train is the 'next train out' -- Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building. You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK (please use the reply to address for email) |
Connectivity
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li... Dr No Context is talking about improving connectivity between existing lines, and he's right about that. The answer, of course, is that the cost of the improvements would sadly be disproportionate to the benefit they would bring. Except at Park Royal, apparently. (A bit late, I know) Public money will not be spent on the Park Royal interchange either. Anyway, is there any evidence that the Park Royal interchange is going to happen at all? TfL's map of London's future railways omitted it completely. I know it was part of the planning permission for the seven-block estate on the Guinness site, but are Guinness actually going to build all seven blocks? After the recent revelations about travelators on the CTRL2, I wonder what planning requirements are worth anyway. -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:30 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk