There was much on the news last night about the £500M revamp at
Victoria and the increse in capacity. Surely you can only increase
capacity buy increasing the frequency of trains or increasing the
carrying capacity or have I missed something.

Kevin

wrote:

There was much on the news last night about the £500M revamp at
Victoria and the increse in capacity. Surely you can only increase
capacity buy increasing the frequency of trains or increasing the
carrying capacity or have I missed something.

Kevin

I had the same thought - I think there are only four platforms for
Victoria and Circle/District. and most people won't want Victora
southbound...

M.

marcb wrote:
wrote:

There was much on the news last night about the £500M revamp at
Victoria and the increse in capacity. Surely you can only increase
capacity buy increasing the frequency of trains or increasing the
carrying capacity or have I missed something.

Kevin

I had the same thought - I think there are only four platforms for
Victoria and Circle/District. and most people won't want Victora
southbound...

M.
I don't know about the District/Circle but the Victoria lines platforms
are already packed to overflowing. How is increasing the passenger
tunnel capacity going to help. I would have thought that £500M would
have been better spent incresing train length to give extra capacity
which would also help in loading unloading times therefore increasing
frequency.

Kevin

wrote in message
ups.com...

marcb wrote:
wrote:

There was much on the news last night about the £500M revamp at
Victoria and the increse in capacity. Surely you can only increase
capacity buy increasing the frequency of trains or increasing the
carrying capacity or have I missed something.

Kevin

I had the same thought - I think there are only four platforms for
Victoria and Circle/District. and most people won't want Victora
southbound...

M.
I don't know about the District/Circle but the Victoria lines platforms
are already packed to overflowing. How is increasing the passenger
tunnel capacity going to help. I would have thought that £500M would
have been better spent incresing train length to give extra capacity
which would also help in loading unloading times therefore increasing
frequency.

I don't know if this is in the current plan, but the original
congestion busting proposal is to have a second platform
on the opposite side to separate the joining/alighting pax
flows

tim

tim (moved to sweden) wrote:

I don't know if this is in the current plan, but the original
congestion busting proposal is to have a second platform
on the opposite side to separate the joining/alighting pax
flows

And then open the doors on both sides?

I think they would have to open the doors on the get off side a couple
of seconds before the get on side. That way people will manage to get
off the correct side.

Tim

"Tim Bray" wrote in message
.. .
tim (moved to sweden) wrote:

I don't know if this is in the current plan, but the original
congestion busting proposal is to have a second platform
on the opposite side to separate the joining/alighting pax
flows

And then open the doors on both sides?

I think they would have to open the doors on the get off side a couple of
seconds before the get on side.

This is what happens in Munich.
There are anouncements on the train to alight from the
correct (by name) side. Regular travellers don't do it
wrong twice though, if you do get off the wrong side you
find yourself stuck on a platform with only down escalators
and no obvious way to get to another level (there are some
stairs but there are no signs to them)

That way people will manage to get off the correct side.

hopefully

tim

Tim Bray wrote:
tim (moved to sweden) wrote:

And then open the doors on both sides?

I think they would have to open the doors on the get off side a couple
of seconds before the get on side. That way people will manage to get
off the correct side.

Tim

Are they planning to have platform edge doors? Separate 'on' and 'off'
platforms is a good idea, but platforms on both sides of the track
would mean having a conductor rail below the platform edge; would that
be allowed these days without PEDs? Come to that, would any new or
rebuilt platform be allowed without them now that the JLE has set the
precident?

wrote in message
ups.com...

marcb wrote:
wrote:

There was much on the news last night about the £500M revamp at
Victoria and the increse in capacity. Surely you can only increase
capacity buy increasing the frequency of trains or increasing the
carrying capacity or have I missed something.

Kevin

I had the same thought - I think there are only four platforms for
Victoria and Circle/District. and most people won't want Victora
southbound...

M.
I don't know about the District/Circle but the Victoria lines platforms
are already packed to overflowing. How is increasing the passenger
tunnel capacity going to help. I would have thought that £500M would
have been better spent incresing train length to give extra capacity
which would also help in loading unloading times therefore increasing
frequency.

London Underground can't increase length (despite the election promises of
the new Conservative MP for Putney) because the length of the platforms in
subsurface tunnels is fixed. To lengthen all the platforms would either be
prohibitivly expensive, or take so long as to take generations to actually
build.

The only ways to increase capacity a
i) more trains
ii) improvements to track and signalling to allow them to run closer
together, thereby increasing the number of passengers carried per unit time.
iii) redesign trains to get more people on each one, i.e. adjusting the
balance of seats to standing space, and positioning the seats to take up
least space.
iv) schemes (such as the extra platforms proposed at Victoria) to help (ii)
by decreasing station dwell times.

What seems to be proposed for Victoria is a very clever solution to
*station* overcrowding. As I understand it, in itself it won't affect train
capacities.

Michael

In article ,
(Michael Hopkins) wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

marcb wrote:
wrote:

There was much on the news last night about the £500M revamp at
Victoria and the increse in capacity. Surely you can only increase
capacity buy increasing the frequency of trains or increasing the
carrying capacity or have I missed something.

I had the same thought - I think there are only four platforms for
Victoria and Circle/District. and most people won't want Victora
southbound...

I don't know about the District/Circle but the Victoria lines platforms
are already packed to overflowing. How is increasing the passenger
tunnel capacity going to help. I would have thought that £500M would
have been better spent incresing train length to give extra capacity
which would also help in loading unloading times therefore increasing
frequency.

London Underground can't increase length (despite the election
promises of the new Conservative MP for Putney) because the length of
the platforms in subsurface tunnels is fixed. To lengthen all the
platforms would either be prohibitivly expensive, or take so long as
to take generations to actually build.

Much as it might pain me to agree with her, the new MP for Putney is
not wrong. The District Line ran 8-car Q, CP and R stock trains until
the 1970s. The platforms, give or take a bit of selective door opening,
are all long enough, except between High St Ken and Edgware Road where
shorter trains have always been used. So, if the eventual D stock
replacements were 8 car length (car lengths as C and earlier stocks)
there would be a worthwhile increase in capacity.

The only ways to increase capacity a
i) more trains
ii) improvements to track and signalling to allow them to run closer
together, thereby increasing the number of passengers carried per unit
time.
iii) redesign trains to get more people on each one, i.e. adjusting the
balance of seats to standing space, and positioning the seats to take
up least space.
iv) schemes (such as the extra platforms proposed at Victoria) to help
(ii) by decreasing station dwell times.

What seems to be proposed for Victoria is a very clever solution to
*station* overcrowding. As I understand it, in itself it won't
affect train capacities.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Michael Hopkins) wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

marcb wrote:
wrote:

There was much on the news last night about the £500M revamp at
Victoria and the increse in capacity. Surely you can only increase
capacity buy increasing the frequency of trains or increasing the
carrying capacity or have I missed something.

I had the same thought - I think there are only four platforms for
Victoria and Circle/District. and most people won't want Victora
southbound...

I don't know about the District/Circle but the Victoria lines platforms
are already packed to overflowing. How is increasing the passenger
tunnel capacity going to help. I would have thought that £500M would
have been better spent incresing train length to give extra capacity
which would also help in loading unloading times therefore increasing
frequency.

London Underground can't increase length (despite the election
promises of the new Conservative MP for Putney) because the length of
the platforms in subsurface tunnels is fixed. To lengthen all the
platforms would either be prohibitivly expensive, or take so long as
to take generations to actually build.

Much as it might pain me to agree with her, the new MP for Putney is
not wrong. The District Line ran 8-car Q, CP and R stock trains until
the 1970s. The platforms, give or take a bit of selective door opening,
are all long enough, except between High St Ken and Edgware Road where
shorter trains have always been used. So, if the eventual D stock
replacements were 8 car length (car lengths as C and earlier stocks)
there would be a worthwhile increase in capacity.

Fair point, but that would involve re-arranging the timetable/line
permutations because of Wimbleware, so if you're throwing that kind of idea
around, I guss anything's possible!

Michael