Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, John Rowland wrote:

That way a terrorist strike on a single station causes minimal
disruption.

John, are you seriously suggesting we plan transport infrastructure around
terrorism? Have you been completely taken in by what the government's told
you in the papers?

Hear hear Tom, well said.

Mizter T wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, John Rowland wrote:

That way a terrorist strike on a single station causes minimal
disruption.

John, are you seriously suggesting we plan transport infrastructure
around terrorism? Have you been completely taken in by what the
government's told you in the papers?

Hear hear Tom, well said.

Okay, that way a gas leak at a single station causes minimal disruption, and
a fire at a single station causes minimal disruption etc etc etc.

Paul Terry wrote:

So, not one central station - but a scheme that would have been at least
as costly!

A giant Merseyrail? Well, it works on Merseyside. Not cheap to build
or run, but generally a well-designed system.

Neil

John Rowland wrote:
sweek wrote:
i don't see the point in this. There is so much congestion on stations
already that we should work on actually spreading people around more
stations, not trying to centralise it. As long as the termini are
interconnected I think you're fine. And of course Crossrail schemes
can help with that as well.

Actually, it's best if all main lines passed through London, and all lines
interchanged with each other and with all tube lines, but not too many lines
interchanging at the same station. That way a terrorist strike on a single
station causes minimal disruption. A single London Central station has no
benefits and huge disbenefits.

Actually if the point is simply to interchange and that the passenger
doesn't want to go to London at all then I would suggest a couple of
decent orbital rail service. I would like one around the M25 and one
around the North/South Circular.

Someone coming from the North and going to Southampton, say, could take
their service as far as the outer orbital, then round the orbital, then
from there to Southampton. Still 2 interchanges but would reduce the
congestion in London.

Note that having such orbital services would also provide commuters
with an alternative that using their cars and would justify any
road-charging schemes for those who continued to do so anyway. The
money raised from any such road-charging schemes would then help to pay
for the cost of building and maintaining the railway.

John Rowland wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, John Rowland wrote:

That way a terrorist strike on a single station causes minimal
disruption.

John, are you seriously suggesting we plan transport infrastructure
around terrorism? Have you been completely taken in by what the
government's told you in the papers?

Hear hear Tom, well said.

Okay, that way a gas leak at a single station causes minimal disruption, and
a fire at a single station causes minimal disruption etc etc etc.

Terrorism itself is not something to plan around, but in the IRA's
heyday it only took a phone call to close a London terminal - can you
imagine how keen people would be to close a London Central?

In article ,
(John Rowland) wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, John Rowland wrote:

That way a terrorist strike on a single station causes minimal
disruption.

John, are you seriously suggesting we plan transport
infrastructure around terrorism? Have you been completely taken in
by what the government's told you in the papers?

Hear hear Tom, well said.

Okay, that way a gas leak at a single station causes minimal
disruption, and a fire at a single station causes minimal
disruption etc etc etc.

Or an overheated acetylene tank paralysing the East Coast Main Line all
the way to Peterborough and Royston?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Jeremy Parker wrote:
I think that there was a suggestion, round about 1870, that
Farringdon be such a thing. Didn't the Circle Line have broad gauge
tracks, as well as standard, at one time?

The only thing I remember about the Abercrombie plan of 1943 was that
it proposed to abolish Waterloo.

I liked its plan to have aeroplane landing strips on the roof of all
the main line terminals, for the taxi planes bringing people into
town from the long-haul airports.

This was standard thinking for some time - the French government
considered not building the first TGV line to Lyon because there would
be dozens of STOL runways on roofs across Paris allowing people to get
to and from Lyon much more quickly.


--
Dave Arquati
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

In message , Jeremy Parker
writes
The only thing I remember about the Abercrombie plan of 1943 was that
it proposed to abolish Waterloo.

Wasn't it Charing Cross that Abercrombie wanted to abolish?

(My copy of the County of London Plan is currently inaccessible due to
planned engineering works in what used to be our dining room.......)
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

Dave Arquati wrote:

Jeremy Parker wrote:
I think that there was a suggestion, round about 1870, that
Farringdon be such a thing. Didn't the Circle Line have broad gauge
tracks, as well as standard, at one time?

The only thing I remember about the Abercrombie plan of 1943 was that
it proposed to abolish Waterloo.

I liked its plan to have aeroplane landing strips on the roof of all
the main line terminals, for the taxi planes bringing people into
town from the long-haul airports.

This was standard thinking for some time - the French government
considered not building the first TGV line to Lyon because there would
be dozens of STOL runways on roofs across Paris allowing people to get
to and from Lyon much more quickly.


I'm fascinated by these postwar notions of STOLports everywhere!
Reading about the development of London City Airport it would seem that
in the 80's people were pretty certain that STOLports were going to be
big as well - but whilst LCY is doing well STOLports haven't cropped up
everywhere else as was predicted. I'm not an expert on LCY, but as it's
had a runway extension to enable it to take larger aircraft perhaps it
doesn't really qualify as a STOLport anymore. Or maybe the term just
never really caught on!

Given the environmental damage that flying does perhaps it's just as
well these ideas didn't materialise. That said the aviation industry
has managed to expand massively anyway without STOLports so perhaps it
doesn't really make much of a difference anyway.

Indeed there is a slightly contradictory view that's comes across on
this newsgroup - on the one hand public transport is approved of given
it's environmental credentials, yet people are very keen to ensure
there are good public transport links to airports so people can fly
more. An argument can be made saying that the better the public
transport links are the more people will be encouraged to fly (and fly
more often) - an argument which could particularly be made in the case
of LCY - but I've don't think I've ever read any such notions expressed
on utl.

I'm not rabidly anti-flying, but the truth is this method of transport
has significant negative effects on the environment. The problem is
people are now hooked on air travel so such arguments often cut a
little too close to the bone for some.

In message , Ian Jelf
writes

Wasn't it Charing Cross that Abercrombie wanted to abolish?

According to the map of the proposals, the line from London Bridge to
Charing Cross would have gone, along with the Thames bridges into Cannon
Street, Blackfriars and Charing Cross. However, all three would have
survived as deep-level through stations on the southern loop.

(I can't see any sign in the plan of Waterloo being demolished.)
--
Paul Terry