Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
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. 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. Again, could be done without the tunnel. And where do you plan to build the extra platforms at Paddington and Liverpool Street? 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. U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Mar 26, 12:11*am, 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. Indeed, why do you think that TfL bought forward the lengthening of the Jubilee line trains to seven cars by several years. It was because the Waterloo / London Bridge - Docklands section was already getting overcrowded. The Crossrail service from the Abbey Wood will take a fair part of that burden. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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). |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Crossrail could bankrupt London - says Ken Livingstone
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, 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: 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. Yes. But i'm still going to maintain that it's capacity that can't be used, because the bottleneck is not the terminal capacity! Unless you mean capacity for passengers rather than trains, in which case you're quite right. 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? At what proportion of umpty-billion pounds? A pretty small one. 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. The capacity increase is going to come from longer, not more, trains. Extra platforms or whatever would not be needed; existing ones would need to be extended. This is not free, but it's also not expensive, at least on the Crossrail scheme of things. I would certainly agree that if you are going to build a cross-central-London tunnel, you should connect it to some routes outside the centre, though. I'm not arguing for a Paddington-to-Liverpool Street mini-Crossrail. I'm just saying that the capacity increase outside the centre of London will be small, and nothing that couldn't be achieved much more cheaply without Crossrail. tom -- Change happens with ball-flattening speed. -- Thomas Edison |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Ken Livingstone Polluting the Planet | London Transport | |||
KEN LIVINGSTONE: RACIST | London Transport | |||
London population not increasing as much as Ken Livinstone says | London Transport | |||
A big Thank You to Ken Livingstone | London Transport | |||
Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension | London Transport |