|
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
In message
"R.C. Payne" wrote: Graeme Wall wrote: In message "Lüko Willms" wrote: Am Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:50:54 UTC, schrieb Graeme Wall auf uk.railway : And speaking some other language than German might be an advantage when the sales personnel originates from a country whose language you master. As for your last paragraph, I speak rather less Turkish than German. Well, the salesperson might have migrated from Pakistan, Sri Lanka, or India... If I put a smiley on the end, would it make it more obvious that I was cracking a slight (very slight!) joke? You know what they say about the German sense of humour... Not true IME, not even the Prussians who are renowned for not having one. It can tend towards the practical joke end of the spectrum. -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
Roland Perry wrote
I'm disappointed they aren't doing the rowing in Nottingham - I could have walked to the venue! I was under the impression that the Row course at Holme Point(?) was not up to standard and a NEW facility needed to be brought into use. I think its to do with the average wind speed over the course being in the main more than that allowed. I could be talking a load of old ****** -- dave hill |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
In message , at
23:23:42 on Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Tom Anderson remarked: I remain a supporter of the 2012 Games, I think it'll do a lot of good in a great many different ways. I'm disappointed they aren't doing the rowing in Nottingham - I could have walked to the venue! Yeah, well Nottingham didn't win the Olympic competition, did it, London did! Neither did Weymouth, but that's where the sailing is going to be. Seems odd to decide to build a brand new rowing lake in the congested London suburbs when we already have an Olympic sized one (and the National Centre) at Nottingham. -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
In message , at 16:09:41 on
Wed, 26 Mar 2008, dave hill remarked: I'm disappointed they aren't doing the rowing in Nottingham - I could have walked to the venue! I was under the impression that the Row course at Holme Point(?) was not up to standard and a NEW facility needed to be brought into use. MRD applies. -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
In message , Roland Perry
writes Seems odd to decide to build a brand new rowing lake in the congested London suburbs when we already have an Olympic sized one (and the National Centre) at Nottingham. Its hardly brand new - Eton's rowing lake opened some years ago and hosted the 2006 World Rowing Championships, as I recall. -- Paul Terry |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
In message , at 17:16:42 on Wed, 26 Mar
2008, Paul Terry remarked: Seems odd to decide to build a brand new rowing lake in the congested London suburbs when we already have an Olympic sized one (and the National Centre) at Nottingham. Its hardly brand new - Eton's rowing lake opened some years ago and hosted the 2006 World Rowing Championships, as I recall. Fair enough. I was sure they were building a new lake near Slough. I must have misheard. -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, John B wrote:
On 26 Mar, 11:50, Graeme Wall wrote: Generally, you don't have to know the local language to buy something, gestures of yes and no, indicating numbers by figures or the amount of money would be enough. And speaking some other language than German might be an advantage when the sales personnel originates from a country whose language you master. As for your last paragraph, I speak rather less Turkish than German. Oddly enough, I've just successfully purchased six months' supply of contact lenses [at 1/3 of UK opticians' prices for the same brand made in the same US factory. Can we wind up that cartel next please?], some groceries and toiletries, and a toasted sandwich - all from people who speak Turkish and no English. What was in the sandwich? tom -- GOLDIE LOOKIN' CHAIN [...] will ultimately make all other forms of music both redundant and unnecessary -- NTK |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 23:23:42 on Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Tom Anderson remarked: I remain a supporter of the 2012 Games, I think it'll do a lot of good in a great many different ways. I'm disappointed they aren't doing the rowing in Nottingham - I could have walked to the venue! Yeah, well Nottingham didn't win the Olympic competition, did it, London did! Neither did Weymouth, but that's where the sailing is going to be. Yes, and i'm still annoyed about that. What exactly is wrong with the Thames estuary, i ask? Apart from the ships. tom -- GOLDIE LOOKIN' CHAIN [...] will ultimately make all other forms of music both redundant and unnecessary -- NTK |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote:
On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson wrote: The Jubilee? To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network. Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that that's exactly a high-capacity route itself. True. All of which could be done without the tunnel, for a fraction of the price. And without increasing any capacity from the termini to where people work/shop/go out/etc, which is the whole point of the current iteration of the project. Entirely agreed. But the point i was making in the text that's been snipped is that the Crossrail project doesn't deliver significant increases in capacity outside central London, and none that couldn't be provided much more cheaply. Again, could be done without the tunnel. And where do you plan to build the extra platforms at Paddington and Liverpool Street? Liverpool Street isn't limited by platform capacity, it's limited by capacity through the station throat. Rebuilding that is entirely possible, although of course not trivial. I don't know about Paddington, i have to confess. But since all we're talking about is lengthening trains, why do we need more platforms? Do we know how much of the budget is for this? My understanding was that Oxford Circus wasn't going to be rebuilt; the Crossrail station would be essentialy separate. It thus has a slightly marginal effect on overcrowding - the people relieved onto Crossrail will no longer be clogging the place up, but plenty of other people will. No idea about TCR. Slightly marginal? The two Crossrail stations adjacent to Oxford Circus will have enormous entrances at the ends nearest to it, exactly to attract the crowds away without overcrowding the actual Oxford Circus area. In theory at least they're hoping to attract away a lot more passengers. If you're going into Oxford Circus to get on the Victoria line, this isn't going to make any difference whatsoever. The new bit being added, however enormous, will only decongest the existing station to the extent that they can abstract passengers away from the Central line. tom -- GOLDIE LOOKIN' CHAIN [...] will ultimately make all other forms of music both redundant and unnecessary -- NTK |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Mar 26, 9:17*am, Mizter T wrote:
On 26 Mar, 05:59, The Real Doctor wrote: On 25 Mar, 22:15, Tony Polson wrote: Dan G wrote: On Mar 25, 1:37 pm, Tony Polson wrote: Dan G wrote: I think the real rub of Crossrail is that for £16bn you could have pretty much every other project one would want on the rest of the English network -- Weald re-openings, East-West routes, lots of electrification, old alignments and useful chords reopened, lots of railfrieght interchanges etc. All that would benefit more people in more places than Crossrail ever will. Complete tosh. Please explain. No point lecturing to the deaf. And that, Dan, is all you'll get, I'm afraid. Irritating, isn't it. I'm guessing that Mr Polson doesn't think £16bn would cover the cost of all these other projects, but as he hasn't deemed it necessary to clarify himself when asked politely Behavior many of us are used to seeing. We have learned to ignore it. |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
"Peter Masson" wrote in message ... "Neil Williams" wrote It is vastly cheaper to rent than buy on a monthly basis in many places these days. Certainly, in Milton Keynes one would pay about £500 per month to rent a one-bed flat but £700-800 per month to purchase it using a repayment mortgage. The main reason for this is that there is a glut of rental property on the market. Given the limited amount of property, this will necessarily cause purchase prices to rise. If the owners of buy to rent property start to think that property sale prices have stopped rising they will sell and invest the money elsewhere - this will increase the stock of sale property and bring prices down, lets' hope so :-) tim while reducing the stock of rental property pushing rental costs up. Peter |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On 26 Mar, 20:43, Tom Anderson wrote:
Oddly enough, I've just successfully purchased six months' supply of contact lenses [at 1/3 of UK opticians' prices for the same brand made in the same US factory. Can we wind up that cartel next please?], some groceries and toiletries, and a toasted sandwich - all from people who speak Turkish and no English. What was in the sandwich? Indeterminate meat. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Mar 26, 6:53*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote: On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson wrote: The Jubilee? To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network. Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that that's exactly a high-capacity route itself. There will also be the East London Line extension feeding passengers in at Whitechapel. These passengers who would currently goto London Bridge for the Jubilee line. True. All of which could be done without the tunnel, for a fraction of the price. And without increasing any capacity from the termini to where people work/shop/go out/etc, which is the whole point of the current iteration of the project. Entirely agreed. But the point i was making in the text that's been snipped is that the Crossrail project doesn't deliver significant increases in capacity outside central London, and none that couldn't be provided much more cheaply. But it is the central London section that needs the capacity, as the Underground can not distribute passengers arriving from the mainline. How much cheaper would it be to provide the extra capacity across London without the joining the lines to the west and east? Passengers taken off, for example, the Central line at Liverpool Street / Stratford will give more capacity for passengers from the West Anglia lines. Again, could be done without the tunnel. And where do you plan to build the extra platforms at Paddington and Liverpool Street? Liverpool Street isn't limited by platform capacity, it's limited by capacity through the station throat. Rebuilding that is entirely possible, although of course not trivial. I don't know about Paddington, i have to confess. But since all we're talking about is lengthening trains, why do we need more platforms? Paddington has at least three platforms that are of limited length (12-14, plus 11 which shares the country end track with the entrance to platform 12). If you lengthen the trains to 8 or 10 coaches, I don't think that any of these platforms can cope. Liverpool Street also suffers from some of the same problems, with platforms 16-18 limited to 8 coaches. At both locations, the trains serving these platforms will be the ones sent down the crossrail tunnels. Do we know how much of the budget is for this? My understanding was that Oxford Circus wasn't going to be rebuilt; the Crossrail station would be essentialy separate. It thus has a slightly marginal effect on overcrowding - the people relieved onto Crossrail will no longer be clogging the place up, but plenty of other people will. No idea about TCR. Slightly marginal? The two Crossrail stations adjacent to Oxford Circus will have enormous entrances at the ends nearest to it, exactly to attract the crowds away without overcrowding the actual Oxford Circus area. In theory at least they're hoping to attract away a lot more passengers. If you're going into Oxford Circus to get on the Victoria line, this isn't going to make any difference whatsoever. The new bit being added, however enormous, will only decongest the existing station to the extent that they can abstract passengers away from the Central line. The difference in getting to the Victoria line is that it will be easier to enter the station. It will also mean that Oxford Circus doesn't need to be expensively rebuilt to add capacity for entrance / exit. |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
In message
John B wrote: On 26 Mar, 20:43, Tom Anderson wrote: Oddly enough, I've just successfully purchased six months' supply of contact lenses [at 1/3 of UK opticians' prices for the same brand made in the same US factory. Can we wind up that cartel next please?], some groceries and toiletries, and a toasted sandwich - all from people who speak Turkish and no English. What was in the sandwich? Indeterminate meat. Meat from a named animal costs extra I suppose. -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On 26 Mar, 18:53, Tom Anderson wrote: On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote: On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson wrote: The Jubilee? To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network. Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that that's exactly a high-capacity route itself. You've a point about North Kent / south east London commuters who are likely to already be interchanging with the DLR at Greenwich or Lewisham. However Lewisham/Greenwich - Canary Wharf DLR trains are rammed during the rush hour, not least with many passengers who are making such an interchange. Interchange to Crossrail at Abbey Wood would be an option for some of these passengers. Note that as well as London to Dartford stopping services, Abbey Wood is also served by Charing X to Gillingham (via Rochester and Chatham) trains. These do also stop at Lewisham, so interchange is indeed available with the overcrowded DLR there (note that these trains also stop at Woolwich Arsenal). However the South London RUS makes clear that Lewisham station is badly struggling to reliably handle the number of trains that currently stop there - if this service could be diverted away from Lewisham that would definitely be of very significant benefit. (Passengers would also have the option of changing to the DLR at Woolwich Arsenal for other Docklands destinations.) I've absolutely no idea if what I'm about to suggest is remotely feasible, but if more trains from Kent were to stop at Abbey Wood then this would provide some relief for the Jubilee line by removing a number of passengers who arrive at London Bridge then 'double-back' on the Jubilee to the Docklands. |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:58:46 GMT, Martin Edwards
wrote: Mike Roebuck wrote: On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:24:50 +0000, Jane Sullivan wrote: In message , Neil Williams writes On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:58:47 +0000, Jane Sullivan wrote: And if those employees lost their jobs, then that would take several billion pounds out of the local economy of the south-east and, by extension, Britain. But why would they lose their jobs if Crossrail didn't happen? They'd lose their jobs if the financial centre of Europe moved out of London to Frankfurt. So - learn German and move to Frankfurt. Lower cost of + higher standard of living for the sake of making a little linguistic effort. You'd need to learn German and then learn Rhineland German. No - my German is fluent, and I learned it mostly in Hamburg. I never needed to learn Hessisch as well to communicate when I was in Frankfurt-am-Main. |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On 26 Mar, 18:53, Tom Anderson wrote:
Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that that's exactly a high-capacity route itself. But if you're coming from Finchley or wherever, you can easily switch from using the Jubilee at London Bridge to Crossrail at Moorgate. I think the same applies to passengers coming from most places west of Docklands. Entirely agreed. But the point i was making in the text that's been snipped is that the Crossrail project doesn't deliver significant increases in capacity outside central London, and none that couldn't be provided much more cheaply. I don't disagree. Liverpool Street isn't limited by platform capacity, it's limited by capacity through the station throat. Rebuilding that is entirely possible, although of course not trivial. I don't know about Paddington, i have to confess. But since all we're talking about is lengthening trains, why do we need more platforms? Crossrail is expected to release significant capacity at Liverpool Street for other services, even if its own route isn't seeing a big increase. And there's quite a few more trains west of Paddington planned, which would require platforms Paddington doesn't have. If you're going into Oxford Circus to get on the Victoria line, this isn't going to make any difference whatsoever. The new bit being added, however enormous, will only decongest the existing station to the extent that they can abstract passengers away from the Central line. Again, it depends where you're ultimately going. Yes Crossrail is useless if your destination is actually on the Bakerloo and Victoria (except Paddington of course), but if you're changing to some other line than there's possibly a way to do the same journey using Crossrail. Farringdon in particular is going to have direct trains to places you might currently reach from Victoria or King's Cross, as Thameslink 2000 will be complete. U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
Mizter T wrote:
On 26 Mar, 18:53, Tom Anderson wrote: On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote: On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson wrote: The Jubilee? To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network. Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that that's exactly a high-capacity route itself. You've a point about North Kent / south east London commuters who are likely to already be interchanging with the DLR at Greenwich or Lewisham. However Lewisham/Greenwich - Canary Wharf DLR trains are rammed during the rush hour, not least with many passengers who are making such an interchange. Interchange to Crossrail at Abbey Wood would be an option for some of these passengers. Note that as well as London to Dartford stopping services, Abbey Wood is also served by Charing X to Gillingham (via Rochester and Chatham) trains. These do also stop at Lewisham, so interchange is indeed available with the overcrowded DLR there (note that these trains also stop at Woolwich Arsenal). However the South London RUS makes clear that Lewisham station is badly struggling to reliably handle the number of trains that currently stop there - if this service could be diverted away from Lewisham that would definitely be of very significant benefit. (Passengers would also have the option of changing to the DLR at Woolwich Arsenal for other Docklands destinations.) Certainly off peak, the Gillingham trains these days seem to go via Greenwich rather than Blackheath and Lewisham. Not sure about the rush hour, though. Robin |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
Am Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:16:55 UTC, schrieb Mike Roebuck
auf uk.railway : So - learn German and move to Frankfurt. You'd need to learn German and then learn Rhineland German. No - my German is fluent, and I learned it mostly in Hamburg. I never needed to learn Hessisch as well to communicate when I was in Frankfurt-am-Main. Neither did I after living for more than three decades here. And it is really not needed. More than a quarter of the city's population is of foreign descent, and among young people this percentage is even higher. Cheers, L.W. |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On 26 Mar, 16:42, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:09:41 on Wed, 26 Mar 2008, dave hill remarked: I'm disappointed they aren't doing the rowing in Nottingham - I could have walked to the venue! I was under the impression that the Row course at Holme Point(?) was not up to standard and a NEW facility needed to be brought into use. MRD applies. Mornington Crescent. Jonn |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
"dave hill" wrote in message
... Roland Perry wrote I'm disappointed they aren't doing the rowing in Nottingham - I could have walked to the venue! I was under the impression that the Row course at Holme Point(?) was not up to standard and a NEW facility needed to be brought into use. I think its to do with the average wind speed over the course being in the main more than that allowed. I could be talking a load of old ****** *Holme Pierrepont*, which was used for the World Championships in 1975 and 1986. In those days a course with 6 racing lanes, and one lane to the start, was the standard. These days the authorities want 8 racing lanes so that they can choose the fairest 6, and they also want a separate return lake to get to the start, and those are what Dorney provides. -- David Biddulph |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, John B wrote:
On 26 Mar, 20:43, Tom Anderson wrote: Oddly enough, I've just successfully purchased six months' supply of contact lenses [at 1/3 of UK opticians' prices for the same brand made in the same US factory. Can we wind up that cartel next please?], some groceries and toiletries, and a toasted sandwich - all from people who speak Turkish and no English. What was in the sandwich? Indeterminate meat. Hang on. Istanbul. 'Toasted sandwich'. Indeterminate meat. Own up John, it was a kebab, wasn't it? tom -- 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0 -- AACS Licensing Administrator |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Andy wrote:
On Mar 26, 6:53*pm, Tom Anderson wrote: On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote: On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson wrote: The Jubilee? To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network. Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that that's exactly a high-capacity route itself. There will also be the East London Line extension feeding passengers in at Whitechapel. These passengers who would currently goto London Bridge for the Jubilee line. Oh, i see. So, Kent - New Cross Gate - Whitechapel - Canary Wharf? They'll make two changes and a sort of spiral round Docklands? True. All of which could be done without the tunnel, for a fraction of the price. And without increasing any capacity from the termini to where people work/shop/go out/etc, which is the whole point of the current iteration of the project. Entirely agreed. But the point i was making in the text that's been snipped is that the Crossrail project doesn't deliver significant increases in capacity outside central London, and none that couldn't be provided much more cheaply. But it is the central London section that needs the capacity, as the Underground can not distribute passengers arriving from the mainline. How much cheaper would it be to provide the extra capacity across London without the joining the lines to the west and east? Passengers taken off, for example, the Central line at Liverpool Street / Stratford will give more capacity for passengers from the West Anglia lines. Absolutely. Sorry that i haven't really made myself clear about all this - i think Crossrail's a good idea (although not as good an idea as some other options which were dismissed - but that's another story), i just think it's misleading to say it'll increase capacity on the lines it's assimilating. Again, could be done without the tunnel. And where do you plan to build the extra platforms at Paddington and Liverpool Street? Liverpool Street isn't limited by platform capacity, it's limited by capacity through the station throat. Rebuilding that is entirely possible, although of course not trivial. I don't know about Paddington, i have to confess. But since all we're talking about is lengthening trains, why do we need more platforms? Paddington has at least three platforms that are of limited length (12-14, plus 11 which shares the country end track with the entrance to platform 12). If you lengthen the trains to 8 or 10 coaches, I don't think that any of these platforms can cope. Liverpool Street also suffers from some of the same problems, with platforms 16-18 limited to 8 coaches. At both locations, the trains serving these platforms will be the ones sent down the crossrail tunnels. Right. Problems which could be solved without recourse to a tunnel. Do we know how much of the budget is for this? My understanding was that Oxford Circus wasn't going to be rebuilt; the Crossrail station would be essentialy separate. It thus has a slightly marginal effect on overcrowding - the people relieved onto Crossrail will no longer be clogging the place up, but plenty of other people will. No idea about TCR. Slightly marginal? The two Crossrail stations adjacent to Oxford Circus will have enormous entrances at the ends nearest to it, exactly to attract the crowds away without overcrowding the actual Oxford Circus area. In theory at least they're hoping to attract away a lot more passengers. If you're going into Oxford Circus to get on the Victoria line, this isn't going to make any difference whatsoever. The new bit being added, however enormous, will only decongest the existing station to the extent that they can abstract passengers away from the Central line. The difference in getting to the Victoria line is that it will be easier to enter the station. Yes, yes, but the extent to which it does that is only the extent to which you take passengers off the Central, that's what i'm saying. It will also mean that Oxford Circus doesn't need to be expensively rebuilt to add capacity for entrance / exit. It might. It probably will still need it! tom -- 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0 -- AACS Licensing Administrator |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote:
On 26 Mar, 18:53, Tom Anderson wrote: Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that that's exactly a high-capacity route itself. But if you're coming from Finchley or wherever, you can easily switch from using the Jubilee at London Bridge to Crossrail at Moorgate. I think the same applies to passengers coming from most places west of Docklands. Ah, that's a good point, i hadn't thought of that. Crossrail also eliminates the Essex - Stratford - Docklands traffic, did anyone mention that? Not that this is the crowded bit of the Jubilee. Liverpool Street isn't limited by platform capacity, it's limited by capacity through the station throat. Rebuilding that is entirely possible, although of course not trivial. I don't know about Paddington, i have to confess. But since all we're talking about is lengthening trains, why do we need more platforms? Crossrail is expected to release significant capacity at Liverpool Street for other services, even if its own route isn't seeing a big increase. I'm very slightly dubious about this. Where are the trains run using this capacity going to run to? More trains on the GE fasts? More WA trains? And there's quite a few more trains west of Paddington planned, which would require platforms Paddington doesn't have. Okay, i thought it was path-for-path. There will be more actual trains under Crossrail? If you're going into Oxford Circus to get on the Victoria line, this isn't going to make any difference whatsoever. The new bit being added, however enormous, will only decongest the existing station to the extent that they can abstract passengers away from the Central line. Again, it depends where you're ultimately going. Yes Crossrail is useless if your destination is actually on the Bakerloo and Victoria (except Paddington of course), but if you're changing to some other line than there's possibly a way to do the same journey using Crossrail. The orientation of the lines at Oxford Circus makes this difficult, though; east is east and northeast is northeast, etc, to a large extent. Farringdon in particular is going to have direct trains to places you might currently reach from Victoria or King's Cross, as Thameslink 2000 will be complete. That's a very good point. Plus, if you take the Bakerloo to get a train at Paddington, you might have a single seat (or half square metre of floor) all the way home. Is TLnK getting Victoria trains? I haven't been keeping up, i have to confess. tom -- 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0 -- AACS Licensing Administrator |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.
Adrian Even if its 5 times more expensive than 5 new tube lines through central london? |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
It will be a faster way to get _thru_ London, instead of just _into_
London. Cheers, L.W. Who exactly needs to go through london that quickly, everyone in kent/ france can already get through via CTRL/St Pancras - and its only a couple of stops round the tube if they want to get to paddington/ euston [and vice versa]. So that only leave the people in Anglia, but north & central Anglia can access kings cross, so that's really just the people in essex, which is hardly significant in the scale of cross- london travel. |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Mar 25, 8:56 am, Jane Sullivan
wrote: In message , Charles Ellson writes Nowadays the whole point might be that with modern technology there is no longer a need for a physical centre as there was in the past when the City of London was full of messengers running around with negotiable documents. I work in IT in the finance industry, at Canary Wharf - The transport links are abysmal, and during the rush hours trains are always overcrowded. - I have "modern technology" links at home (Broadband and phone) and I am allowed to work from home occasionally (i.e. not all the time, and there has to be a good reason). - It is much easier and more convenient to do my job in the office. - Yes, you can have meetings via conference call over the phone, but it is much better to get everyone together in an office. - It is far easier to get things from a colleague by going to their desk and having a quiet chat than by phoning them. - My clients on the trading desks are not allowed to do their jobs from home. This is a regulatory requirement. - Lastly and most importantly - you can't have a drink with your colleagues and clients after work if you're all working from home. -- Jane British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the gardenhttp://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html There's lots of nice houses in the docklands. If you choose to live miles away from where you work, the commute is your own fault. |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
But Crossrail includes 8 underground stations, most with two entrances
(doubling many of the costs), the rebuilding of several miles of Great Western Main Line including two grade-separated junctions (Heathrow and Acton Yard), the electrification of 11 miles of GWML (requiring the rebuilding of about ten bridges in Slough), rebuilding a of a fair bit of GEML, rebuilding of ca. 30 stations (about half will be completely demolished) and so on. It's a much larger project. Yes, so they could reduce the costs by doing it at tube guage, and having single entrances for the stations, and raising the level it runs at through farringdon so that they can re-use the tracks for the moorgate branch of thameslink. |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Mar 25, 9:53 am, "Grumpy Old Man"
wrote: The Real Doctor wrote: On 24 Mar, 23:10, Adrian wrote: On Mar 24, 4:00 pm, Dan G wrote: Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme? *Why* is it costing so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects? In part it will cost a lot because it will be (or should be) engineered to a very high standard. The Jubilee Line extension is a pointer in that respect. But it is predicted to cost more than five times as much as the Jubilee Line extension ... You have clearly never lived in a city where good spacious (1,000 sq ft per person) affordable housing is available to middle class workers. Or, enjoyed one where a normal comfortable journey to work is 40 minutes or less. And how many people do you think will find good, spacious, affordable housing as a result of this line. It'll knock quarter of an hour, tops, off the journey onto London - are those fifteen minutes really deterring millions from moving to good, spacious, affordable housing? Ian The only way to get good, spacious, affordable housing in Britain is to have a smaller population. It's gone up 50% in the past hundred years. The housing crisis is more about the fact that everyone wants to live in their own home now, while before people were content to have their entire family live in the upstairs floor of a standard victorian terrace house. |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Mar 25, 10:27 am, "BH Williams" wrote:
"Lüko Willms" wrote in message ... Am Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:00:56 UTC, schrieb Dan G auf uk.railway : Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme? I didn't. But I have some thoughts about this: *Why* is it costing so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects? Comparing just the length of the cross-London tunnel with the length of the HS1 London tunnel and wondering why the same length of tunnel can be much more costly to build -- does make sense only when one wants to see the cost of the tunnel as only the cost of boring it, by meter or kilometer. But there may be a lot of utility lines ond other uses of the underground to be removed before one can go on boring; also London Crossrail is planned to have more stations, and underground stations, which in itself would be more expensive than the one Stratford Int'l box, plus interchanges with existing underground and train stations. That is a lot of extra work, which makes the London Crossrail tunnel more expensive to build than the London HS1 tunnel with the one open station in its middle. Just my two cents... Cheers, L.W. More to do with the very deep foundations of tall buildings in Central London than utilities. In comparison, the tunnelling for CTRL2 and JLE were relatively unimpeded by such constraints. The gradient profile should be 'interesting' as a result of this. Brian Instead of going along oxford street, which is quite filled with building foundations, they should continue through hyde-park to hyde- park-corner, and then take the old fleet-line route via charing cross/ aldwych, and then along kingsway, routes which already have tube lines under them. |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On 27 Mar, 23:59, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Andy wrote: On Mar 26, 6:53 pm, Tom Anderson wrote: On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote: On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson wrote: The Jubilee? To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network. Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that that's exactly a high-capacity route itself. There will also be the East London Line extension feeding passengers in at Whitechapel. These passengers who would currently goto London Bridge for the Jubilee line. Oh, i see. So, Kent - New Cross Gate - Whitechapel - Canary Wharf? They'll make two changes and a sort of spiral round Docklands? ITYM New Cross as opposed to New Cross Gate - NX being the potential interchange point for people coming in from some parts of Kent, though of course only so many trains actually stop there, others charge through non-stop en route to London Bridge. Of course the above route via Whitechapel is a nonsense for those headed to the Docklands. If they were using the ELLX they'd head to Canada Water and then pile on the (already crowded) Jubilee line one stop to Canary Wharf. Given that it's just one stop in a way one could say that the overcrowding isn't that big an issue for these passengers - unless of course the Jubilee trains are so crowded that no more people could actually get on board them. And of course Crossrail will relieve this by taking passengers currently using the Jubilee from central London to get to the Docklands and instead putting them on Crossrail trains to the new Isle of Dogs station next to Canary Wharf (and indeed beyond to Custom House). |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Mar 27, 11:59*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Andy wrote: On Mar 26, 6:53*pm, Tom Anderson wrote: On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote: On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson wrote: The Jubilee? To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network. Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that that's exactly a high-capacity route itself. There will also be the East London Line extension feeding passengers in at Whitechapel. These passengers who would currently goto London Bridge for the Jubilee line. Oh, i see. So, Kent - New Cross Gate - Whitechapel - Canary Wharf? They'll make two changes and a sort of spiral round Docklands? No, not Kent, London Bridge is not purely served by South Eastern, but by Southern as well. The ELLX will run West Croydon and Crystal Palace to Whitechapel giving passengers one stop on Crossrail to Docklands. North Kent will be served by changing at Abbey Wood, as others have suggested. There will also be the possibility of Thameslink passengers changing at Farringdon from the south. True. All of which could be done without the tunnel, for a fraction of the price. And without increasing any capacity from the termini to where people work/shop/go out/etc, which is the whole point of the current iteration of the project. Entirely agreed. But the point i was making in the text that's been snipped is that the Crossrail project doesn't deliver significant increases in capacity outside central London, and none that couldn't be provided much more cheaply. But it is the central London section that needs the capacity, as the Underground can not distribute passengers arriving from the mainline. How much cheaper would it be to provide the extra capacity across London without the joining the lines to the west and east? Passengers taken off, for example, the Central line at Liverpool Street / Stratford will give more capacity for passengers from the West Anglia lines. Absolutely. Sorry that i haven't really made myself clear about all this - i think Crossrail's a good idea (although not as good an idea as some other options which were dismissed - but that's another story), i just think it's misleading to say it'll increase capacity on the lines it's assimilating. But can we agree that it will provide extra capacity at the terminii where the current trains will be removed? On top of any possible increase in the lines that it serves directly. Again, could be done without the tunnel. And where do you plan to build the extra platforms at Paddington and Liverpool Street? Liverpool Street isn't limited by platform capacity, it's limited by capacity through the station throat. Rebuilding that is entirely possible, although of course not trivial. I don't know about Paddington, i have to confess. But since all we're talking about is lengthening trains, why do we need more platforms? Paddington has at least three platforms that are of limited length (12-14, plus 11 which shares the country end track with the entrance to platform 12). If you lengthen the trains to 8 or 10 coaches, I don't think that any of these platforms can cope. Liverpool Street also suffers from some of the same problems, with platforms 16-18 limited to 8 coaches. At both locations, the trains serving these platforms will be the ones sent down the crossrail tunnels. Right. Problems which could be solved without recourse to a tunnel. But at what proportion of the cost? To add a double track railway junction at each end of the Crossrail tunnels is considerable easier than fitting extra platforms / new layouts into the existing sites. The junctions can be placed where there is room without the expense of buying the land etc. You only need to look at the costs that seem to be involved in adding just one platform at King's Cross. The point is that the extra capacity is needed in central London and this can only be provided by building a tunnel. Do we know how much of the budget is for this? My understanding was that Oxford Circus wasn't going to be rebuilt; the Crossrail station would be essentialy separate. It thus has a slightly marginal effect on overcrowding - the people relieved onto Crossrail will no longer be clogging the place up, but plenty of other people will. No idea about TCR. Slightly marginal? The two Crossrail stations adjacent to Oxford Circus will have enormous entrances at the ends nearest to it, exactly to attract the crowds away without overcrowding the actual Oxford Circus area. In theory at least they're hoping to attract away a lot more passengers. If you're going into Oxford Circus to get on the Victoria line, this isn't going to make any difference whatsoever. The new bit being added, however enormous, will only decongest the existing station to the extent that they can abstract passengers away from the Central line. The difference in getting to the Victoria line is that it will be easier to enter the station. Yes, yes, but the extent to which it does that is only the extent to which you take passengers off the Central, that's what i'm saying. It will also mean that Oxford Circus doesn't need to be expensively rebuilt to add capacity for entrance / exit. It might. It probably will still need it! Well, as it is already the busiest underground station, without a National Rail interchange, I would hope that it will be able to cope for a few years with a sizeable percentage of Central line passengers removed. tom -- 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0 -- AACS Licensing Administrator |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On 28 Mar, 00:06, Tom Anderson wrote:
I'm very slightly dubious about this. Where are the trains run using this capacity going to run to? More trains on the GE fasts? More WA trains? West Anglia: "On the Great Eastern route, it has been assumed that a 6 tph service would operate in the peak period between Gidea Park and Liverpool Street. On the West Anglia route via Hackney Downs, an additional 6 tph are assumed to operate following the opening of Crossrail. " http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk...%20Pattern.pdf And the first lot of trains mean a net increase in service on the Shenfield route. Okay, i thought it was path-for-path. There will be more actual trains under Crossrail? Interesting question. I think the peak provision remains the same but they'll be running more trains off peak. Sounds like it shouldn't be a problem, but AIUI due to freight and the platforms at Paddington being taken up by intercity services which are busy all day, there's not capacity to run it at the moment. Is TLnK getting Victoria trains? I haven't been keeping up, i have to confess. Not directly, but Victoria and London Bridge/Blackfriars serve a lot of the same places. U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On 28 Mar, 01:48, Andy wrote: On Mar 27, 11:59 pm, Tom Anderson wrote: On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Andy wrote: On Mar 26, 6:53 pm, Tom Anderson wrote: On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote: On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson wrote: The Jubilee? To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network. Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that that's exactly a high-capacity route itself. There will also be the East London Line extension feeding passengers in at Whitechapel. These passengers who would currently goto London Bridge for the Jubilee line. Oh, i see. So, Kent - New Cross Gate - Whitechapel - Canary Wharf? They'll make two changes and a sort of spiral round Docklands? No, not Kent, London Bridge is not purely served by South Eastern, but by Southern as well. The ELLX will run West Croydon and Crystal Palace to Whitechapel giving passengers one stop on Crossrail to Docklands. North Kent will be served by changing at Abbey Wood, as others have suggested. There will also be the possibility of Thameslink passengers changing at Farringdon from the south. (I think Tom was getting somewhat confused between NX and NXG but anyway...) Though for those travelling via the ELLX to Canary Wharf from points south I find it difficult to believe that anyone would do anything other than change onto the Jubilee at Canada Water - going via Whitechapel and Crossrail would entail staying on the ELLX for three extra stops. Though for those coming from points north on the ELLX then a change at Whitechapel onto Crossrail will be an attractive choice, and will also provide some relief to the Jubilee line this way - though to some degree that may well be relief from the new demands that the completed ELLX will place on the Jubilee at Canada Water. The via Crossrail at Whitechapel option will also be good for those using the ELLX from either points north or south who're heading to Custom House. |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Mar 28, 9:12*am, Mizter T wrote:
On 28 Mar, 01:48, Andy wrote: On Mar 27, 11:59 pm, Tom Anderson wrote: On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Andy wrote: On Mar 26, 6:53 pm, Tom Anderson wrote: On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote: On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson wrote: The Jubilee? To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network.. Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that that's exactly a high-capacity route itself. There will also be the East London Line extension feeding passengers in at Whitechapel. These passengers who would currently goto London Bridge for the Jubilee line. Oh, i see. So, Kent - New Cross Gate - Whitechapel - Canary Wharf? They'll make two changes and a sort of spiral round Docklands? No, not Kent, London Bridge is not purely served by South Eastern, but by Southern as well. The ELLX will run West Croydon and Crystal Palace to Whitechapel giving passengers one stop on Crossrail to Docklands. North Kent will be served by changing at Abbey Wood, as others have suggested. There will also be the possibility of Thameslink passengers changing at Farringdon from the south. (I think Tom was getting somewhat confused between NX and NXG but anyway...) Though for those travelling via the ELLX to Canary Wharf from points south I find it difficult to believe that anyone would do anything other than change onto the Jubilee at Canada Water - going via Whitechapel and Crossrail would entail staying on the ELLX for three extra stops. I was kind of forgetting Rotherhithe, Wapping and Shadwell on the ELLX, however, the first two stations are very close together and close to Canada Water!! The Crossrail station at Isle of Dogs will be on the other side of Canary Wharf (it will be under West India Dock between Canary Wharf and West India Quay, to the east of the West Indix Quay DLR station ) from the Jubilee station and the extra time spent on the ELLX train would be made up for any passengers heading to the Northern side of the offices here. Though for those coming from points north on the ELLX then a change at Whitechapel onto Crossrail will be an attractive choice, and will also provide some relief to the Jubilee line this way - though to some degree that may well be relief from the new demands that the completed ELLX will place on the Jubilee at Canada Water. The via Crossrail at Whitechapel option will also be good for those using the ELLX from either points north or south who're heading to Custom House. |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
Tom Anderson wrote:
And there's quite a few more trains west of Paddington planned, which would require platforms Paddington doesn't have. Okay, i thought it was path-for-path. There will be more actual trains under Crossrail? There have to be. Extending the line makes the existing line desirable to more punters - if it didn't, there would be little point in extending the line in question. |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On 28 Mar, 01:24, Tom Anderson wrote:
Oddly enough, I've just successfully purchased six months' supply of contact lenses [at 1/3 of UK opticians' prices for the same brand made in the same US factory. Can we wind up that cartel next please?], some groceries and toiletries, and a toasted sandwich - all from people who speak Turkish and no English. What was in the sandwich? Indeterminate meat. Hang on. Istanbul. 'Toasted sandwich'. Indeterminate meat. Own up John, it was a kebab, wasn't it? Yes, -ish. Although it wasn't a doner, and it came in a bread roll rather than a pitta... -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
Andy wrote: On Mar 28, 9:12�am, Mizter T wrote: On 28 Mar, 01:48, Andy wrote: On Mar 27, 11:59 pm, Tom Anderson wrote: On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Andy wrote: (snip) There will also be the East London Line extension feeding passengers in at Whitechapel. These passengers who would currently goto London Bridge for the Jubilee line. Oh, i see. So, Kent - New Cross Gate - Whitechapel - Canary Wharf? They'll make two changes and a sort of spiral round Docklands? No, not Kent, London Bridge is not purely served by South Eastern, but by Southern as well. The ELLX will run West Croydon and Crystal Palace to Whitechapel giving passengers one stop on Crossrail to Docklands. North Kent will be served by changing at Abbey Wood, as others have suggested. There will also be the possibility of Thameslink passengers changing at Farringdon from the south. (I think Tom was getting somewhat confused between NX and NXG but anyway...) Though for those travelling via the ELLX to Canary Wharf from points south I find it difficult to believe that anyone would do anything other than change onto the Jubilee at Canada Water - going via Whitechapel and Crossrail would entail staying on the ELLX for three extra stops. I was kind of forgetting Rotherhithe, Wapping and Shadwell on the ELLX, however, the first two stations are very close together and close to Canada Water!! The Crossrail station at Isle of Dogs will be on the other side of Canary Wharf (it will be under West India Dock between Canary Wharf and West India Quay, to the east of the West Indix Quay DLR station ) from the Jubilee station and the extra time spent on the ELLX train would be made up for any passengers heading to the Northern side of the offices here. Sorry Andy but I just don't buy that. Crossrail may have many benefits but this is not going to be one of them. Even if we take a worst case scenario that Rotherhithe and Wapping might have to close at some point in the more distant future if there is some plan for longer trains on the ELLX, the extra distance and journey time from Canada Water to Whitechapel (with at least one stop at Shadwell) just doesn't compare to a direct trip under the Thames from Canada Water to Canary Wharf on the Jubilee. Passengers are not going to choose to introduce this extra dogleg into their journey, especially given the very easy interchange offered at Canada Water. I also simply don't agree with your argument that the location of the Isle of Dogs Crossrail station will be so advantageous that some passengers will wish to choose it over the Jubilee line station - the tube station really is hardly any distance away so only the *most* stupid and lazy would possibly factor in these few saved paces and decide to build there commute around that. Of course passengers traveling via the ELLX and the Jubilee will benefit indirectly from Crossrail as it'll take the strain off the overcrowded Jubilee line by removing passengers from points west. I don't think it likely that Thameslink passengers from the south will pass through London Bridge and go up to Farringdon for Crossrail rather than changing to the Jubilee from London Bridge, though this will certainly look like a good move for those coming from the Wimbledon/Sutton loop (or other similar south London suburban start points if the Thameslink service gets rejigged). Even if the interchange at Farringdon is very easy, Crossrail will be of benefit directly or indirectly (through relief of overcrowding) for many Docklands commuters no doubt, but I don't think it's that great an idea to try and shoehorn all potential Docklands- bound journeys into somehow making use of Crossrail! |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Mar 28, 12:54Â*pm, Mizter T wrote:
Andy wrote: On Mar 28, 9:12�am, Mizter T wrote: On 28 Mar, 01:48, Andy wrote: On Mar 27, 11:59 pm, Tom Anderson wrote: On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Andy wrote: (snip) There will also be the East London Line extension feeding passengers in at Whitechapel. These passengers who would currently goto London Bridge for the Jubilee line. Oh, i see. So, Kent - New Cross Gate - Whitechapel - Canary Wharf? They'll make two changes and a sort of spiral round Docklands? No, not Kent, London Bridge is not purely served by South Eastern, but by Southern as well. The ELLX will run West Croydon and Crystal Palace to Whitechapel giving passengers one stop on Crossrail to Docklands. North Kent will be served by changing at Abbey Wood, as others have suggested. There will also be the possibility of Thameslink passengers changing at Farringdon from the south. (I think Tom was getting somewhat confused between NX and NXG but anyway...) Though for those travelling via the ELLX to Canary Wharf from points south I find it difficult to believe that anyone would do anything other than change onto the Jubilee at Canada Water - going via Whitechapel and Crossrail would entail staying on the ELLX for three extra stops. I was kind of forgetting Rotherhithe, Wapping and Shadwell on the ELLX, however, the first two stations are very close together and close to Canada Water!! The Crossrail station at Isle of Dogs will be on the other side of Canary Wharf (it will be under West India Dock between Canary Wharf and West India Quay, to the east of the West Indix Quay DLR station Â*) from the Jubilee station and the extra time spent on the ELLX train would be made up for any passengers heading to the Northern side of the offices here. Sorry Andy but I just don't buy that. Crossrail may have many benefits but this is not going to be one of them. Even if we take a worst case scenario that Rotherhithe and Wapping might have to close at some point in the more distant future if there is some plan for longer trains on the ELLX, the extra distance and journey time from Canada Water to Whitechapel (with at least one stop at Shadwell) just doesn't compare to a direct trip under the Thames from Canada Water to Canary Wharf on the Jubilee. Passengers are not going to choose to introduce this extra dogleg into their journey, especially given the very easy interchange offered at Canada Water. I also simply don't agree with your argument that the location of the Isle of Dogs Crossrail station will be so advantageous that some passengers will wish to choose it over the Jubilee line station - the tube station really is hardly any distance away so only the *most* stupid and lazy would possibly factor in these few saved paces and decide to build there commute around that. I think that you would be surprised that the number of passengers who will do anything to avoid the tube!! I'm not saying it will be a large number of people taking that route, but it won't be zero either. Of course passengers traveling via the ELLX and the Jubilee will benefit indirectly from Crossrail as it'll take the strain off the overcrowded Jubilee line by removing passengers from points west. I don't think it likely that Thameslink passengers from the south will pass through London Bridge and go up to Farringdon for Crossrail rather than changing to the Jubilee from London Bridge, though this will certainly look like a good move for those coming from the Wimbledon/Sutton loop (or other similar south London suburban start points if the Thameslink service gets rejigged). Even if the interchange at Farringdon is very easy, I wasn't really thinking of the Thameslink passengers from the Brighton / Croydon - London mainline, who as you say have alternatives. I was thinking of the Wimbledon / Sutton loop (or wherever in the future) passengers. Farringdon is only be a few minutes from Blackfriars and connections will certainly be easier to Docklands than they currently for the non London Bridge Thameslink passengers. Crossrail will be of benefit directly or indirectly (through relief of overcrowding) for many Docklands commuters no doubt, but I don't think it's that great an idea to try and shoehorn all potential Docklands- bound journeys into somehow making use of Crossrail! |
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On 28 Mar, 14:22, Andy wrote: On Mar 28, 12:54 pm, Mizter T wrote: Andy wrote: On Mar 28, 9:12�am, Mizter T wrote: (snip) Though for those travelling via the ELLX to Canary Wharf from points south I find it difficult to believe that anyone would do anything other than change onto the Jubilee at Canada Water - going via Whitechapel and Crossrail would entail staying on the ELLX for three extra stops. I was kind of forgetting Rotherhithe, Wapping and Shadwell on the ELLX, however, the first two stations are very close together and close to Canada Water!! The Crossrail station at Isle of Dogs will be on the other side of Canary Wharf (it will be under West India Dock between Canary Wharf and West India Quay, to the east of the West Indix Quay DLR station ) from the Jubilee station and the extra time spent on the ELLX train would be made up for any passengers heading to the Northern side of the offices here. Sorry Andy but I just don't buy that. Crossrail may have many benefits but this is not going to be one of them. Even if we take a worst case scenario that Rotherhithe and Wapping might have to close at some point in the more distant future if there is some plan for longer trains on the ELLX, the extra distance and journey time from Canada Water to Whitechapel (with at least one stop at Shadwell) just doesn't compare to a direct trip under the Thames from Canada Water to Canary Wharf on the Jubilee. Passengers are not going to choose to introduce this extra dogleg into their journey, especially given the very easy interchange offered at Canada Water. I also simply don't agree with your argument that the location of the Isle of Dogs Crossrail station will be so advantageous that some passengers will wish to choose it over the Jubilee line station - the tube station really is hardly any distance away so only the *most* stupid and lazy would possibly factor in these few saved paces and decide to build there commute around that. I think that you would be surprised that the number of passengers who will do anything to avoid the tube!! I'm not saying it will be a large number of people taking that route, but it won't be zero either. You make a good point there, there are a sizeable number of people who wish to avoid the tube, especially when it's busy, even if it is for just one stop. I suppose against that I'd say that Crossrail should relieve the overcrowding Jubilee line somewhat, and indeed Crossrail could get just as busy as the Jubilee. Though there will be those who'd always prefer to travel in a full sized carriage rather than a tube sized one, even if it is similarly busy. The other factor I hadn't really though about was people trying to get seats. Those heading back home could conceivably travel via Crossrail and Whitechapel in the hope that they'd be more likely to pick up a seat on an ELLX train there rather than joining the scrum at Canada Water. Whether they'd be many free seats remaining on a rush-hour southbound ELLX after the City commuters got on board at Shoreditch High Street remains to be seen! Of course passengers traveling via the ELLX and the Jubilee will benefit indirectly from Crossrail as it'll take the strain off the overcrowded Jubilee line by removing passengers from points west. I don't think it likely that Thameslink passengers from the south will pass through London Bridge and go up to Farringdon for Crossrail rather than changing to the Jubilee from London Bridge, though this will certainly look like a good move for those coming from the Wimbledon/Sutton loop (or other similar south London suburban start points if the Thameslink service gets rejigged). Even if the interchange at Farringdon is very easy, I wasn't really thinking of the Thameslink passengers from the Brighton / Croydon - London mainline, who as you say have alternatives. I was thinking of the Wimbledon / Sutton loop (or wherever in the future) passengers. Farringdon is only be a few minutes from Blackfriars and connections will certainly be easier to Docklands than they currently for the non London Bridge Thameslink passengers. Crossrail will be of benefit directly or indirectly (through relief of overcrowding) for many Docklands commuters no doubt, but I don't think it's that great an idea to try and shoehorn all potential Docklands- bound journeys into somehow making use of Crossrail! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk