Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
London Hauptbahnhof
I was in Berlin recently and of course took some time to admire the new
Hauptbahnhof. Reading up about it, I discovered that pre-WW2, Berlin had the same situation as London regarding mainline termini, i.e. a number of them in a circle around the city, depending on which part of the country you were travelling to. As part of reunification, a decision was made to build a Berlin Hauptbahnhof where all mainline trains to the city would halt. My question is, was something similar ever considered for London in the immediate postwar period? The area where the Barbican now is was flattened, so would it have been possible for the lines from Euston, King's Cross/St Pancras, Moorgate, Fenchurch Street, Cannon Street/London Bridge and Waterloo to have been extended somehow to build a London "Hauptbahnhof" on a site in that area? I know it would have left out Victoria & Paddington, and would have meant a lot of demolition, but the postwar nationalisation period would seem to have been the natural time for such a big project if the idea were ever mooted. Patrick |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
London Hauptbahnhof
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
London Hauptbahnhof
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
London Hauptbahnhof
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
London Hauptbahnhof
In message . com, D7666
writes Are there any web sites with plans drawings etc of this ? As I mentioned yesterday, I have posted a scan of the published plan on my website: http://www.musonix.com/maps/map001.jpg -- Paul Terry |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
London Hauptbahnhof
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
London Hauptbahnhof
On 24 Oct 2006 08:40:15 -0700, Earl Purple wrote:
London Bridge is not a terminus. In the same way that Paddington isn't a terminus? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
London Hauptbahnhof
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
London Hauptbahnhof
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
London Hauptbahnhof
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, 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. Right - this spreads interchange out, rather than having massive traffic in a small number of places. 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? A single London Central station has no benefits and huge disbenefits. I'd say 'no benefits' is a bit harsh: it would be much cheaper to build one Great Central Station than N-squared mini-interchanges. I reckon it'd make sense to handle the long-distance lines like this, but to put the suburban lines into a system like you describe, RER style. IIRC, there were moves to build something like a London Central in the Victorian era, but they were blocked by parliament, who didn't like the idea of smelly steam trains rushing around in their beautiful city. tom -- see im down wid yo sci fi crew |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|