Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
 

In article ,
(Sarah Brown) wrote:

In article .com,
John B wrote:

Agreed that Finsbury Park, Oxford Circus, Euston and Stockwell are all
both good and clever.

But why didn't they go for x-platform at Green Park and Warren
Street...?

Or Kings Cross. It's a particular bugbear of mine that there's really
no good way for someone arriving at Kings Cross or St Pancras to get
onto the Charing Cross Branch. Surely it wouldn't have been too hard
to arrange things so that the Victoria Line interchanged with the Bank
branch at KX, and the CX branch at Euston? Having cross platform
interchange at Euston with the Bank branch seems a whole lot less
useful than what could have been done.

There were other considerations at Euston. The original City & South
London platform at Euston was an island in a wide tunnel. They were
dangerous and have all now gone except at one of the Clapham stations.

The Victoria line construction solved that, created a running connection
between the lines and a cross-platform connection in one go.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
 

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

There were other considerations at Euston. The original City & South
London platform at Euston was an island in a wide tunnel. They were
dangerous and have all now gone except at one of the Clapham stations.

Errrr.... two of the Clapham stations, surely?

Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
 

asdf wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:33:44 -0700, brixtonite wrote:

In general, it seems to me that the Victoria line was a high point in
terms of easy connexions - cross-platform interchange wherever
possible, often created thanks to considerable ingenuity. The JLE is
clearly a step backwards in this respect (notably at Waterloo) and it
seems that from now onwards the priority will always be maximising
capacity rather than convenience.

AFAIK, the problem with the JLE was that new H&S requirements meant
that all platforms had to be completely straight and level. This all
but precluded cross-platform interchanges, as it would be prohibitive
to re-align existing lines so that such platforms could be built (and
there may not have been enough unused space underground to fit the
platforms in).

An exception was allowed for Canada Water ELL, which is noticeably
sloping... the benefits of a cross-platform interchanange might have allowed
exceptions to be made elsewhere.

Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
 

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
asdf wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:33:44 -0700, brixtonite wrote:

In general, it seems to me that the Victoria line was a high point in
terms of easy connexions - cross-platform interchange wherever
possible, often created thanks to considerable ingenuity. The JLE is
clearly a step backwards in this respect (notably at Waterloo) and it
seems that from now onwards the priority will always be maximising
capacity rather than convenience.

AFAIK, the problem with the JLE was that new H&S requirements meant
that all platforms had to be completely straight and level. This all
but precluded cross-platform interchanges, as it would be prohibitive
to re-align existing lines so that such platforms could be built (and
there may not have been enough unused space underground to fit the
platforms in).

An exception was allowed for Canada Water ELL, which is noticeably
sloping... the benefits of a cross-platform interchanange might have
allowed exceptions to be made elsewhere.
That isn't a true 'cross platform interchange' of the type being discussed
though, where the running tunnels are parallel, with through connections...

Paul

Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
 

"Paul Scott" wrote

An exception was allowed for Canada Water ELL, which is noticeably
sloping... the benefits of a cross-platform interchanange might have
allowed exceptions to be made elsewhere.
That isn't a true 'cross platform interchange' of the type being discussed
though, where the running tunnels are parallel, with through
connections...

But at least rigid insistence on level track at stations didn't rule out the
interchange altogether - I don't think the ELL platforms would have gone
ahead if they had meant rebuilding a considerable stretch of the ELL to
achieve a level section.

Peter

Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
 

John Rowland wrote:
asdf wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:33:44 -0700, brixtonite wrote:
In general, it seems to me that the Victoria line was a high point in
terms of easy connexions - cross-platform interchange wherever
possible, often created thanks to considerable ingenuity. The JLE is
clearly a step backwards in this respect (notably at Waterloo) and it
seems that from now onwards the priority will always be maximising
capacity rather than convenience.
AFAIK, the problem with the JLE was that new H&S requirements meant
that all platforms had to be completely straight and level. This all
but precluded cross-platform interchanges, as it would be prohibitive
to re-align existing lines so that such platforms could be built (and
there may not have been enough unused space underground to fit the
platforms in).

An exception was allowed for Canada Water ELL, which is noticeably
sloping... the benefits of a cross-platform interchanange might have allowed
exceptions to be made elsewhere.


I thought the Victoria Line had straight platforms - narrow, though.
Ian

Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
 

Ian Patterson wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
asdf wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:33:44 -0700, brixtonite wrote:
In general, it seems to me that the Victoria line was a high point
in terms of easy connexions - cross-platform interchange wherever
possible, often created thanks to considerable ingenuity. The JLE
is clearly a step backwards in this respect (notably at Waterloo)
and it seems that from now onwards the priority will always be
maximising capacity rather than convenience.
AFAIK, the problem with the JLE was that new H&S requirements meant
that all platforms had to be completely straight and level. This all
but precluded cross-platform interchanges, as it would be
prohibitive to re-align existing lines so that such platforms could
be built (and there may not have been enough unused space
underground to fit the platforms in).

An exception was allowed for Canada Water ELL, which is noticeably
sloping... the benefits of a cross-platform interchanange might have
allowed exceptions to be made elsewhere.


I thought the Victoria Line had straight platforms - narrow, though.
Ian

They certainly aren't level - the platform at Finsbury Park is one of the
Munros.

Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
 

John Rowland wrote:

Ian Patterson wrote:

John Rowland wrote:

asdf wrote:

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:33:44 -0700, brixtonite wrote:

In general, it seems to me that the Victoria line was a high point
in terms of easy connexions - cross-platform interchange wherever
possible, often created thanks to considerable ingenuity. The JLE
is clearly a step backwards in this respect (notably at Waterloo)
and it seems that from now onwards the priority will always be
maximising capacity rather than convenience.

AFAIK, the problem with the JLE was that new H&S requirements meant
that all platforms had to be completely straight and level. This all
but precluded cross-platform interchanges, as it would be
prohibitive to re-align existing lines so that such platforms could
be built (and there may not have been enough unused space
underground to fit the platforms in).

An exception was allowed for Canada Water ELL, which is noticeably
sloping... the benefits of a cross-platform interchanange might have
allowed exceptions to be made elsewhere.



I thought the Victoria Line had straight platforms - narrow, though.
Ian


They certainly aren't level - the platform at Finsbury Park is one of the
Munros.


Both deep-level platform pairs at Finsbury Park are actually built long
before the Victoria Line and therefore it is not really a good example
of the platforms built when the Victoria Line was built.

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

Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
 

In article ,
(John Rowland) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

There were other considerations at Euston. The original City & South
London platform at Euston was an island in a wide tunnel. They were
dangerous and have all now gone except at one of the Clapham
stations.

Errrr.... two of the Clapham stations, surely?

Probably. I never go there and was writing from memory only. The last
ones to go were at Angel and London Bridge, weren't they?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
 

In article ,
says...
In article ,
(John Rowland) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

There were other considerations at Euston. The original City & South
London platform at Euston was an island in a wide tunnel. They were
dangerous and have all now gone except at one of the Clapham
stations.

Errrr.... two of the Clapham stations, surely?

Probably. I never go there and was writing from memory only. The last
ones to go were at Angel and London Bridge, weren't they?


Angel certainly, from memory London Bridge wasn't ever an island
platform.