On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 wrote:

Or, come to that, the Bartlett School of Planning RER plans?

The what? That one passed me by. If you can't find it online, give me some
details and i'll see if i can turn anything up at UCL.

tom

--
No Hype Just Science

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 wrote:

Or, come to that, the Bartlett School of Planning RER plans?

The what? That one passed me by. If you can't find it online, give me some
details and i'll see if i can turn anything up at UCL.


I'm pretty sure it came out of Bartlett. There was a map I saw a few
years back, which showed various of the mainline railways joined up -
but haven't seen a copy online for a long time now.

Am afraid I don't remember much else about it, except that one of the
lines excluded was rather bizarrely the Liverpool Street-Shenfield
line.

Jonn

In message , Paul Terry
writes
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.)

Engineering works in the Dining Rooms have been completed ahead of
schedule and I can confirm that Charing Cross (and indeed Cannon Street
and Blackfriars) would have gone. The report has a strange fascination
or obsession with removing Thames railway bridges but adding a new
Charing Cross Road Bridge.

I hadn't really considered them being "replaced" by underground
equivalents, looking at the deep level railway tubes as being London
Underground rather than a form of Crossrail (or S-Bahn, if you see what
I mean) but that does seem to be the case.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

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

Mizter T wrote:
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 don't think you've framed the argument quite right there - it's not
that public transport links should be provided to airports because we
want people to fly more - we want to provide PT links to airports
because we want people to drive less. The airports are there and aren't
going away, so the best approach is to stave off explosive car (and
taxi) traffic growth for access to them, as poor PT links to the airport
will result in increased private traffic in the city itself.

Whilst you are right that better transport to the airport will
potentially result in more air travel from the airport, some judgment
must be made as to what level of air traffic growth would have taken
place anyway (with access to the airport by car/taxi). I don't imagine
that airport access concerns play very strongly on people's minds when
they decide to take a flight - just look at Ryanair's success, despite
dropping people off at tiny airports in the middle of nowhere.

For shorter journeys where a train alternative is available, if PT were
not available to the airport, rather than thinking therefore that they
must go by train, it is more likely that they will consider driving or
taking a taxi to the airport.

In fact, I'm constantly amazed by how much people are taken in by the
shockingly misleading headline fares from some budget airlines. The idea
that "I can get to Paris for a pound!" has bamboozled many into
forgetting about not only the additional charges, but also the costs of
airport access at both ends. If people don't think about that, then PT
access considerations to airports will be very low on the list when it
comes to deciding to fly in the first place.

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.

I totally agree with you. Flying has brought large benefits and
disbenefits in one package, just like widespread car travel - but whilst
people can see, hear and smell the negative effects of high levels of
car traffic, many of the negative effects of air travel are either
confined to communities around airports or are basically invisible - so
people just don't care. People are increasingly concerned about
environmental issues and climate change - but I hardly ever hear anyone
express any concern over their or others' decision to fly.

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

Ian Jelf wrote on 25 Oct 2006:

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 then wrote on 27 Oct 2006:

Engineering works in the Dining Rooms have been completed ahead of
schedule

Amazing! Not only have you beaten the schedule, but you now have at
least one additional dining room.

Please, please, get a job at Metronet!

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:23:50 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

Ian Jelf wrote on 25 Oct 2006:

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 then wrote on 27 Oct 2006:

Engineering works in the Dining Rooms have been completed ahead of
schedule

Amazing! Not only have you beaten the schedule, but you now have at
least one additional dining room.

Please, please, get a job at Metronet!

LOL!
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

In message . com,
writes

Are there maps of those proposals online anywhere?

I can't find them anywhere so, for those interested, I have scanned my
copy of the 1943 Railway proposals map and put it online at:

http://www.musonix.com/maps/map001.jpg

--
Paul Terry

In message , Ian Jelf
writes

The report has a strange fascination or obsession with removing Thames
railway bridges but adding a new Charing Cross Road Bridge.

I hadn't noticed that before, but you are right - and it looks as though
the railway bridges into Blackfriars and Cannon Street would also have
become road bridges.

I hadn't really considered them being "replaced" by underground
equivalents, looking at the deep level railway tubes as being London
Underground rather than a form of Crossrail (or S-Bahn, if you see what
I mean) but that does seem to be the case.

Indeed so. I have put a scan of the map on the WWW at:
http://www.musonix.com/maps/map001.jpg

--
Paul Terry

Paul Terry wrote:

In message . com,
writes

Are there maps of those proposals online anywhere?


I can't find them anywhere so, for those interested, I have scanned my
copy of the 1943 Railway proposals map and put it online at:

http://www.musonix.com/maps/map001.jpg

Very interesting. Interesting that they for example were planning a
direct connection between Victoria and Paddington because even today
there is still no really good and fast north-south cross Hyde Park and
Kensington direct connection, for example Victoria -
Paddington/Marylebone. Circle Line, or Victoria-Bakerloo with change at
Oxford Circus, are ok but it takes 15-20 minutes...

Also, the route Charing Cross - Aldwych - Blackfriars - Canon Street -
Tower - Wapping - (rest of ELL) - New Cross/Gate seems to be quite like
the "Fleet Line" phase 2 route planned in the 70's to be built in the
late 80's.

--
Olof Lagerkvist
ICQ: 724451
Web: http://here.is/olof

Paul Terry wrote:

One of the loopier (literally) ideas emanating out of County Hall was
the LCC's post-war plan (concocted in 1943) for four mainline railway
loops in deep-level tunnels that would link existing terminii.

One (starting from Bermondsey) passed through London Bridge and
Waterloo, then crossed the Thames beneath Westminster Bridge and
returned through Charing Cross, Blackfriars, Cannon Street and back out
round to London Bridge.

Another ran roughly under the N, E and S parts of the Circle line - but
when it got to Victoria cut straight up under Hyde Park to get to
Paddington.

The other two linked various parts of these two main loops.


Are there any web sites with plans drawings etc of this ?

--
Nick