Michael Bell writes
Rather than very expensively create NEW, it might be much
better value to make best use of what ALREADY IS. Things like create
interchange at the dozens of places in London where lines cross
without any interchange at all or stations just too far apart to be
really "the same place" the remnant of the railway politics of the
19th century. Places like :-

* The crossing of the North London line with the Northern
line. A pair of underground stations to be dug out. Simple
but expensive!
[...]
It all looks possible, and VERY worthwhile.

And where is the extra capacity to shift all those extra passengers
going to be found?

--
Dave

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 07:13:55 +0100 in uk.transport.london, Michael
Bell tapped out on the keyboard:

In article , david stevenson
wrote:
nmtop40 wrote:

It's a connecting line around London we need, not more lines going
through the middle of it.

Can you point me to the traffic survey that came to this conclusion?
(The bit about not needing more lines through the middle)

It wasn't just guesswork, was it?


My thought exactly. I fear it wasn't even guesswork. I fear it
was people who looked at a map and drew lines on it and said "wouldn't
it be nice...." (like Hollywood films of WWII generals, planning their
strategy by stabbing at maps with their cigars. Real generals were
more professional) and that's the crossrail plan. I hear that a
Parliamentary committee judged that Crossrail was "poor value for
money"

I have seen commentators criticise national railway projects,
such as the West Coast Modernisation, as "a black hole", and I thought
it was shamefully obvious that this was a narrow London interest which
thought that money was only well spent in London, and wanted West
Coast modernisation to be stopped, so that the money could be diverted
to the likes of Crossrail.

Rather than very expensively create NEW, it might be much
better value to make best use of what ALREADY IS. Things like create
interchange at the dozens of places in London where lines cross
without any interchange at all or stations just too far apart to be
really "the same place" the remnant of the railway politics of the
19th century. Places like :-

* The crossing of the North London line with the Northern
line. A pair of underground stations to be dug out. Simple
but expensive!

* Putney and East Putney. Join them with a Birmingham
airport-type shuttle? That cost £10M for 1Km, (wow!) and the trackbed
was already in existence.

* At the crossing of more routes than I can list just
west of Old Oak Common depot, roof over the whole area with a
concrete slab, build flats, offices, etc on top of it, which
could be sold for a tidy sum, and connecting stations beneath it.

It all looks possible, and VERY worthwhile.

Michael Bell

There's enormous potential for interchanges in South London - Penge,
Brockley, and where the SE lines to Victoria cross over the lines to
Waterloo spring to mind.

--
John Youles Norwich England UK
j dot y.o.u.l.e.s at n.t.l.w.o.r.l.d dot c.o.m
http://www.ukip.org/

"Bob Adams" wrote in message
...
In message , John
writes
By the way what has happened to the Dome?

It is still there and continues to be as popular as it ever was.

What's it used for these days?

It's a connecting line around London we need, not more lines going
through the middle of it.

I disagree completely. A major reason why rail is not used more in
this country is that journeys via London are a complete pain in the
neck. For example I am travelling from Norwich to Torquay shortly
which entails dragging luggage from Liverpool Street to Paddington.
The ideal, which will never happen, is a megastation in the middle of
London where all the inter-city services connect.


In the 19th century the railway companies made a plan to
have a huge central London station, but Parliament stepped in and
forced them to stop at the edge of the city centre and join them
all using the circel line. It would be a very different London
today if that had not happened. Would it have been better? An
interesting question!.

Michael Bell

--

In article , Dave
wrote:
Michael Bell writes
Rather than very expensively create NEW, it might be much
better value to make best use of what ALREADY IS. Things like create
interchange at the dozens of places in London where lines cross
without any interchange at all or stations just too far apart to be
really "the same place" the remnant of the railway politics of the
19th century. Places like :-

* The crossing of the North London line with the Northern
line. A pair of underground stations to be dug out. Simple
but expensive!
[...]
It all looks possible, and VERY worthwhile.

And where is the extra capacity to shift all those extra passengers
going to be found?



************************************************


With an improvement like this, I should think that most of the
increase in traffic will be outside the peak, because :-

* People make the work journey they have to make, no matter
how inconvenient.

* If they can make their work journey shorter by using one
of the links I propose, then they will cut out rail miles.

* Mostly the current layout does not hinder journeys into
and out of the city centre, this reform will make it easier to move
jobs out of the city centre.

BUT :-

* Out of peak hours people's journeys are mostly not into
and out of the city centre, they are cross-suburban, and the links I
propose will these journeys very much more convenient.

Michael Bell

--

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:21:26 +0100 CJG wrote:
}
} By the way what has happened to the Dome?
}
} A tragic waste of something new and different which people didn't really
} understand because it wasn't square with windows, a door and chimney
} pot?

But it _has_ got a chimney pot!

To the left of the pic on
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sta...ur/default.stm

} I think its going to be turned into a sports ground or Wembley Arena
} type place.

That's one of several suggestions - and a good one. But no one so far
has the money for it.

Matthew
--
Il est important d'être un homme ou une femme en colère; le jour où nous
quitte la colère, ou le désir, c'est cuit. - Barbara

http://www.calmeilles.co.uk/

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:10:25 +0100 John Youles wrote:
} On 14 Jul 2003 14:15:59 -0700 in uk.transport.london,
} (nmtop40) tapped out on the keyboard:
}
} Matthew Malthouse wrote in message ...
} At least that's what the Evening Standard headline said. I only had time
} to skim the first couple of pars and the only other point I saw was that
} it was unlikely to be complete in time for a possible Olympics in 2012
} in part because enabling legislation was unlikely before next year.
}
} Matthew
}
} presumably this is the E/W line through the middle of London.
}
} But is it really really necessary?
}
} It's a connecting line around London we need, not more lines going
} through the middle of it.
}
} I disagree completely. A major reason why rail is not used more in
} this country is that journeys via London are a complete pain in the
} neck. For example I am travelling from Norwich to Torquay shortly
} which entails dragging luggage from Liverpool Street to Paddington.
} The ideal, which will never happen, is a megastation in the middle of
} London where all the inter-city services connect.

How about a deep tube that just connected the larger termini leaving
intermediate traffic to the existing Circle?

Matthew
--
Il est important d'être un homme ou une femme en colère; le jour où nous
quitte la colère, ou le désir, c'est cuit. - Barbara

http://www.calmeilles.co.uk/

In message , Steve Moore
writes
What's it used for these days?

One weekend soon its being used for a music festival to promote racial
equality. Free entry. Just turn up.
--
CJG

On 14 Jul 2003 14:15:59 -0700, (nmtop40) wrote:

[crossrail]

presumably this is the E/W line through the middle of London.
But is it really really necessary?

Yes I think it is necessary because the areas it will serve are already
on lines at maximum capacity with a forecast for more usage growth.
Unless you propose to move development (and existing businesses) out of
central london permanently then people need to be able to travel there
in large and increasing numbers.

We are still debating the value of 1 line when Paris has 5 and Berlin
has completely renovated its own version - the S Bahn. Try using the
Paris RER in the rush hour and then try to imagine how a bad a state the
Metro would be in if it was trying to carry even 50% of the RER
passengers. It would not work and London will not work unless we adopt
the same "can do and must do" philosophy that the French seem to have
towards public transport investment.

On top of Crossrail you need to have a strategy for each main line out
of London that will expand capacity as well as improving interchange to
other lines that intersect with them. We fleetingly had the prospect of
the line upgrade option until the SRA decided it had no money, didn't
want 20 year franchises and somehow thought squeezing more and more out
of the current capacity is a viable long term option.

It's a connecting line around London we need, not more lines going
through the middle of it.

I agree with the orbital line idea in addition to Crossrail and I think
it could be done relatively cheaply if people employed some imagination
as to the execution of the concept.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

In article , Paul Corfield
writes
On 14 Jul 2003 14:15:59 -0700, (nmtop40) wrote:

[crossrail]


It's a connecting line around London we need, not more lines going
through the middle of it.

I agree with the orbital line idea in addition to Crossrail and I think
it could be done relatively cheaply if people employed some imagination
as to the execution of the concept.
People in favour of crossrail often quote people wanting to travel from
the GE lines to Paddington - but how many want to? Surely lots want to
travel from GE to Waterloo/Victoria - I do quite often, and others want
to go to go from Marylebone to London Bridge.

I commute to Kings Cross from the GE - it would probably ease my travel
a bit, but I am not convinced by the plan - given the number of people
or orbit the M25 I can see advantages in an orbital line linking key
interchanges.

--
John