| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
Mortimer wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 14:35:42 on Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Mortimer remarked: Is it all down to how close the platforms for the two lines are at the relevant interchange station? Makes a huge difference, yes. Fair enough. I don't know all the stations well enough to know which platforms are close together at each one. That's one thing that the Underground map doesn't tell you. Agree, that should really be shown in some way on the tube map. It is very useful to know. Cross-platform or other same level interchanges (there are more of them, but these are some I remember right now and have used/tested myself): Oxford Circus: Victoria - Bakerloo Baker Street: Jubilee - Bakerloo Finsbury Park: Piccadilly - Victoria Highbury & Islington: Victoria - NR to/from Moorgate Acton Town, Hammersmith and Barons Court: Piccadilly - District Earl's Court: All District branches Mile End: Central - District/Hammersmith & City New Cross: East London - Southbound NR New Cross Gate: East London - Southbound NR Gloucester Road: Eastbound District to clockwise Circle Euston: Northern (via Bank) - Victoria Stockwell: Northern - Victoria Kennington: Northern via Bank - Northern via Ch X Wembley Park and Finchley Road: Jubilee - Metropolitan Poplar: Different DLR branches West India Quay: Between DLR towards Bank/Tower GW/Stratford. Also of course between different sub-surface lines on most stations around the Circle Line, although some could be rather complicated and not necessarily without using footbridges, such as Edgware Road and High Street Kensington. Try to avoid changing at: Green Park Charing Cross to/from Bakerloo Waterloo between Northern and Jubilee (x-posted to uk.t.london) -- Olof Lagerkvist ICQ: 724451 Web: http://here.is/olof |
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
I would change "avoid Green Park" into "avoid changing to or from the
Piccadilly at Green Park" |
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
I would change "avoid Green Park" into "avoid changing to or from the
Piccadilly at Green Park". I'm not exactly sure what to avoid at Bank, but most of the changes there seem quite awful. More cross-platform: Highbury and Islington: Northern City Line and Victoria. |
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
On 4 Sep, 21:30, sweek wrote:
I would change "avoid Green Park" into "avoid changing to or from the Piccadilly at Green Park". I'm not exactly sure what to avoid at Bank, but most of the changes there seem quite awful. Seconded that Jub - Vic at Green Park is OK. At Bank, avoid District to Central and DLR to Central. District to DLR and District to Northern are OK. Northern to Central is tolerable. Not sure about how the W&C fits into things, since I've pretty much never needed to use it... -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
On 4 Sep, 21:17, Olof Lagerkvist wrote:
Agree, that should really be shown in some way on the tube map. It is very useful to know. My attempt, as mentioned by Roland: http://tinyurl.com/238mn2 - Moor Park is incorrectly shown as cross-platform - East London is incomplete and therefore blanked out - Heathrow could be more sensible U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
In message , at 20:17:13 on Tue, 4
Sep 2007, Olof Lagerkvist remarked: Try to avoid changing at: Green Park They really messed that up when they built the Victoria Line! Warren St isn't much better. Charing Cross to/from Bakerloo Of course, the Bakerloo platforms were once a completely separate station called Trafalgar Square - and with its own street level entrances. All they did was join them up with a long foot tunnel. Waterloo between Northern and Jubilee Northern and Bakerloo are close; Jubilee is far from both. -- Roland Perry |
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
On Sep 4, 10:15 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:17:13 on Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Olof Lagerkvist remarked: Try to avoid changing at: Green Park They really messed that up when they built the Victoria Line! Warren St isn't much better. 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 plans for Crossrail do not include any cross-platform interchanges. OTOH, the huge tunnels make changing at London Bridge more pleasant than most other LU interchanges involving a similar distance. |
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:17:13 on Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Olof Lagerkvist remarked: Try to avoid changing at: Charing Cross to/from Bakerloo Of course, the Bakerloo platforms were once a completely separate station called Trafalgar Square - and with its own street level entrances. All they did was join them up with a long foot tunnel. The problem with this today is that on the current tube map the Bakerloo Line is drawn in a way that easily gives the impression that changing at Charing Cross is easier than at Embankment or Waterloo, when actually changing Bakerloo to/from anything else named Charing Cross includes a much longer walk. Waterloo between Northern and Jubilee Northern and Bakerloo are close; Jubilee is far from both. Correct. Should have been "Waterloo between Northern/Bakerloo and Jubilee", or better "Waterloo: to/from Jubilee". -- Olof Lagerkvist ICQ: 724451 Web: http://here.is/olof |
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
"John B" wrote At Bank, avoid District to Central and DLR to Central. District to DLR and District to Northern are OK. Northern to Central is tolerable. Not sure about how the W&C fits into things, since I've pretty much never needed to use it... It's quite a trek between W&C and anything else, though W&C to DLR is tolerable. The interchange subway starts off using the bit of tunnel that was bored when the W&C was built, in which the tunnelling shield was abandoned. The subway passes through the remains of it. Peter |
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
On Sep 4, 10:33 pm, brixtonite wrote:
On Sep 4, 10:15 pm, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 20:17:13 on Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Olof Lagerkvist remarked: Try to avoid changing at: Green Park They really messed that up when they built the Victoria Line! Warren St isn't much better. 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. 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...? -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
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. |
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:33:44 -0700, brixtonite wrote:
Try to avoid changing at: Green Park They really messed that up when they built the Victoria Line! Warren St isn't much better. 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). |
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
In article .com, John
B writes 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. But why didn't they go for x-platform at Green Park and Warren Street...? Green Park is due to simple geometry: get a map and remember that the Piccadilly is running under Piccadilly with the station under the intersection with Dover Street. Now try to construct a route with reasonable curvature that gives you cross-platform interchange. It's just not practical. Warren Street was deliberate. In the early 1960s there was much more traffic on the Charing Cross branch of the Northern than the Bank branch. Therefore the interchanges with the Victoria were deliberately arranged to encourage people on to the Bank branch and not to use the CX one, thus evening up the flows somewhat. In hindsight that may seem the wrong decision, but we have 40 years more data to work on. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
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. From KGX there are only two stations on the Charing X branch that cannot be reached on either another direct line from KGX or by taking the Victoria to Oxford Circus and using the cross-platform transfer to the Bakerloo Line there. Of these two stations, Goodge Street is pretty close to Warren Street, and Tottenham Court Road is pretty close to Holborn or Leicester Square. -- Michael Hoffman |
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
Olof Lagerkvist wrote:
The problem with this today is that on the current tube map the Bakerloo Line is drawn in a way that easily gives the impression that changing at Charing Cross is easier than at Embankment or Waterloo, when actually changing Bakerloo to/from anything else named Charing Cross includes a much longer walk. Also it would be useful to know those stations which although distinct are actually quite close together. For example, Lancaster Gate on the Central Line is quite close to Paddington so you might save time walking to / from there rather than changing at Notting Hill Gate. Bayswater and Queensway are another pair, as are Tower Hill and Fenchurch Street. -- John Youles Norwich England UK |
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
In article ,
Michael Hoffman wrote: From KGX there are only two stations on the Charing X branch that cannot be reached on either another direct line from KGX or by taking the Victoria to Oxford Circus and using the cross-platform transfer to the Bakerloo Line there. Of these two stations, Goodge Street is pretty close to Warren Street, and Tottenham Court Road is pretty close to Holborn or Leicester Square. Much as I hate to do this... Mornington Crescent! |
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, 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. Indeed. 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? If you look at the maps on John's site: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...9/ltkxplan.gif http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/ltkxiso.gif You can see that it wouldn't have been *that* hard to provide crossplatform interchange with the Northern line at KX. With the tunnels swapped round as at Euston, this would be a handy way to get to the City from the northern reaches of the Victoria; you can make this change at Euston, but it involves going a whole two more stops! I think Vic to CX at Euston would also have been doable, using a similar strategy as was used for Vic to Bank: recycle the existing southbound CX platform for the northbound Vic, and build two entirely new platforms for the southbound CX and Vic, underneath the New Ticket Hall. Here's a map of what was actually done: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...9/lteuston.gif Having cross platform interchange at Euston with the Bank branch seems a whole lot less useful than what could have been done. As Clive pointed out, one of the goals was to get people off the CX branch and onto the Vic, so this probably made sense at the time. I still think it was shortsighted. tom -- Nullius in verba |
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
Sarah Brown wrote:
In article , Michael Hoffman wrote: From KGX there are only two stations on the Charing X branch that cannot be reached on either another direct line from KGX or by taking the Victoria to Oxford Circus and using the cross-platform transfer to the Bakerloo Line there. Of these two stations, Goodge Street is pretty close to Warren Street, and Tottenham Court Road is pretty close to Holborn or Leicester Square. Much as I hate to do this... Mornington Crescent! I haven't seen such a skillful use of Johnson's Cross-Platform Gambit since 1985. But if there were a cross-platform interchange, I expect it would be southbound and you'd still miss Mornington Crescent. -- Michael Hoffman |
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
On Sep 5, 7:19 am, Michael Hoffman wrote:
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. From KGX there are only two stations on the Charing X branch that cannot be reached on either another direct line from KGX or by taking the Victoria to Oxford Circus and using the cross-platform transfer to the Bakerloo Line there. Of these two stations, Goodge Street is pretty close to Warren Street, and Tottenham Court Road is pretty close to Holborn or Leicester Square. -- Michael Hoffman- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Which is why it was rather annoying when the Charing X branch was closed for engineering works and they chose to have the Northern platforms at KXSP closed on the same weekend! |
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
|
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
|
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)
|
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
"Jim Brittin" [wake up to reply] wrote in message m... 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. London Bridge was rebuilt in 1923-4. Could this be when it was removed? tim |
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
On Sun, 9 Sep 2007, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
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. I do, and can tell you North and Common are both still narrow island platforms. South isn't. Don't know about anything south of there. tom -- The few survivors on ousfg's side ended up in a monastery of immortal monks who yearned for a life better than street-fighting social groups, learning to grow extra hands and feet on the way to immortality. -- Lyndsey Pickup |
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
On 9 Sep, 15:54, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 9 Sep 2007, Colin Rosenstiel wrote: 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. I do, and can tell you North and Common are both still narrow island platforms. South isn't. Don't know about anything south of there. tom Clapham North and Clapham Common are the only two surviving subterranean true island platforms on the whole Underground network. I'm not someone who gets disconcerted by such things normally, but I must admit I still find it a bit odd to be on those narrow platforms when both a northbound and southbound train hurtle in to the station at the same time. Probably something to do with the likely possibility of me having just imbibed a Piña Colada. I'm tempted to say they're worth a visit, though I'd think that some of you might want to do something else having gone as far as Clapham. You could always indulge in "a moment of madness" if that is your wont ;-) |
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
On Sep 9, 4:22 pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 9 Sep, 15:54, Tom Anderson wrote: On Sun, 9 Sep 2007, Colin Rosenstiel wrote: 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. I do, and can tell you North and Common are both still narrow island platforms. South isn't. Don't know about anything south of there. tom Clapham North and Clapham Common are the only two surviving subterranean true island platforms on the whole Underground network. I'm not someone who gets disconcerted by such things normally, but I must admit I still find it a bit odd to be on those narrow platforms when both a northbound and southbound train hurtle in to the station at the same time. Probably something to do with the likely possibility of me having just imbibed a Piña Colada. I'm tempted to say they're worth a visit, though I'd think that some of you might want to do something else having gone as far as Clapham. You could always indulge in "a moment of madness" if that is your wont ;-)- There are some on the "sub-surface" lines though, and plenty above ground. I don't really understand why it seems more dangerous underground than on the surface, given that the only additional escape route above ground is still the other side of the tracks. If it's just the narrowness of the platforms that matters, then that's fair enough. Has anyone got figures on the width of island platforms all around LU? |
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article .com, John B writes 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. But why didn't they go for x-platform at Green Park and Warren Street...? Green Park is due to simple geometry: get a map and remember that the Piccadilly is running under Piccadilly with the station under the intersection with Dover Street. Now try to construct a route with reasonable curvature that gives you cross-platform interchange. It's just not practical. Quite - having cross-platform interchange would have introduce a massive kink into the Victoria line, which would have gone against it's 'fast and straight' philosophy. Warren Street was deliberate. In the early 1960s there was much more traffic on the Charing Cross branch of the Northern than the Bank branch. Therefore the interchanges with the Victoria were deliberately arranged to encourage people on to the Bank branch and not to use the CX one, thus evening up the flows somewhat. In hindsight that may seem the wrong decision, but we have 40 years more data to work on. And has already been pointed out, cross-platform interchange at Oxford Circus with the Bakerloo means passengers for Charing Cross, Embankment and Waterloo can use that line to get to those destinations (though of course the Bakerloo station at Charing X is really underneath Trafalgar Square and is thus a short subterranean trek away from the mainline station). Warren Street (Vic) is very close to Goodge Street (Northern) - so most passengers can quite reasonably use that station instead. Which leaves Tottenham Court Road as the only central area destination with a more awkward interchange at Euston or Warren Street. Going south, for any destination from Stockwell southwards passengers should stay on the Victoria line, so that leaves Kennington and Oval as the only other two destinations where one must make a more awkward change. Of course a fundamental issue is that the Oxford Circus cross-platform goodness isn't at all apparent on the Tube map. |
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
On 9 Sep, 16:33, MIG wrote:
On Sep 9, 4:22 pm, Mizter T wrote: On 9 Sep, 15:54, Tom Anderson wrote: On Sun, 9 Sep 2007, Colin Rosenstiel wrote: 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. I do, and can tell you North and Common are both still narrow island platforms. South isn't. Don't know about anything south of there. tom Clapham North and Clapham Common are the only two surviving subterranean true island platforms on the whole Underground network. I'm not someone who gets disconcerted by such things normally, but I must admit I still find it a bit odd to be on those narrow platforms when both a northbound and southbound train hurtle in to the station at the same time. Probably something to do with the likely possibility of me having just imbibed a Piña Colada. I'm tempted to say they're worth a visit, though I'd think that some of you might want to do something else having gone as far as Clapham. You could always indulge in "a moment of madness" if that is your wont ;-)- There are some on the "sub-surface" lines though, and plenty above ground. I don't really understand why it seems more dangerous underground than on the surface, given that the only additional escape route above ground is still the other side of the tracks. If it's just the narrowness of the platforms that matters, then that's fair enough. Has anyone got figures on the width of island platforms all around LU? I believe one of the problems at Angel (and presumably elsewhere) was that the platforms got quite crowded. I guess the passenger numbers at the Claphams aren't so severe - nonetheless I bet that the staff at both stations are very much on the ball when it comes to monitoring the situation. No figures for platform width, I can only offer links to some photos... Clapham Common http://www.flickr.com/photos/aderowbotham/87781920/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/hedgiecc/265147613/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicohogg/388308347/ Clapham North http://www.flickr.com/photos/ollycourtney/232075853/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/wetwebwork/150244846/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/wetwebwork/150245689/ And the other benefit of Clapham North is that it makes you wiser... http://www.flickr.com/photos/68521817@N00/865518114/ |
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
On Sep 9, 4:53 pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 9 Sep, 16:33, MIG wrote: On Sep 9, 4:22 pm, Mizter T wrote: On 9 Sep, 15:54, Tom Anderson wrote: On Sun, 9 Sep 2007, Colin Rosenstiel wrote: 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. I do, and can tell you North and Common are both still narrow island platforms. South isn't. Don't know about anything south of there. tom Clapham North and Clapham Common are the only two surviving subterranean true island platforms on the whole Underground network. I'm not someone who gets disconcerted by such things normally, but I must admit I still find it a bit odd to be on those narrow platforms when both a northbound and southbound train hurtle in to the station at the same time. Probably something to do with the likely possibility of me having just imbibed a Piña Colada. I'm tempted to say they're worth a visit, though I'd think that some of you might want to do something else having gone as far as Clapham. You could always indulge in "a moment of madness" if that is your wont ;-)- There are some on the "sub-surface" lines though, and plenty above ground. I don't really understand why it seems more dangerous underground than on the surface, given that the only additional escape route above ground is still the other side of the tracks. If it's just the narrowness of the platforms that matters, then that's fair enough. Has anyone got figures on the width of island platforms all around LU? I believe one of the problems at Angel (and presumably elsewhere) was that the platforms got quite crowded. I guess the passenger numbers at the Claphams aren't so severe - nonetheless I bet that the staff at both stations are very much on the ball when it comes to monitoring the situation. No figures for platform width, I can only offer links to some photos... Clapham Commonhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/aderowbotham/87781920/http://www.flickr.com/photos/hedgiecc/265147613/http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicohogg/388308347/ Clapham Northhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/ollycourtney/232075853/http://www.flickr.com/photos/wetwebwork/150244846/http://www.flickr.com/photos/wetwebwork/150245689/ And the other benefit of Clapham North is that it makes you wiser...http://www.flickr.com/photos/68521817@N00/865518114/ From those photos, they do seem to be narrower than, say, Edgware Road. Would be interesting to have figures though. |
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
In article m,
(Mizter T) wrote: On Sep 9, 4:22 pm, Mizter T wrote: Clapham North and Clapham Common are the only two surviving subterranean true island platforms on the whole Underground network. Have the Glasgow island platforms gone now? No figures for platform width, I can only offer links to some photos... Clapham Common http://www.flickr.com/photos/aderowbotham/87781920/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/hedgiecc/265147613/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicohogg/388308347/ Clapham North http://www.flickr.com/photos/ollycourtney/232075853/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/wetwebwork/150244846/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/wetwebwork/150245689/ Hmm. The yellow lines seem much closer to the platform edge than usual. Is that because the platforms are so narrow? And the other benefit of Clapham North is that it makes you wiser... http://www.flickr.com/photos/68521817@N00/865518114/ chuckle -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
|
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article m, (Mizter T) wrote: On Sep 9, 4:22 pm, Mizter T wrote: Clapham North and Clapham Common are the only two surviving subterranean true island platforms on the whole Underground network. Have the Glasgow island platforms gone now? St Enoch has been rebuilt and IIRC one more station (Buchanan Street?), all other still have island platforms. -- Olof Lagerkvist ICQ: 724451 Web: http://here.is/olof |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:47 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk