Public transport has always been awful; and over the past couple of years
I've noticed that more and more often I'm squashed inside a bus or train,
with hardly enough room to breathe, because the company decided to cancel
earlier buses or trains without notice, and without making any alternative
arrangements.

Because I believe that this gross-overcrowding is a serious risk to public
health and safety, I've created a petition at
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/sardines/ asking for action to be taken to stop
this gross-overcrowding.

Therefore, if anyone else here shares my concerns, please co-sign the
petition, and if possible, please pass the message along to a few friends.

Jonathan

On 19 Jul, 02:28, "Jonathan" wrote:
Public transport has always been awful; and over the past couple of years
I've noticed that more and more often I'm squashed inside a bus or train,
with hardly enough room to breathe, because the company decided to cancel
earlier buses or trains without notice, and without making any alternative
arrangements.

If there was a decent tube system in south london some of the pressure
would be taken off the overground trains. But the amount of overground
lines has always been used as an excuse for not further extending the
tube south of the river rather than thinking the services could
complement each other. The its-difficult-to-tunnel excuse no longer
holds water in the 21st century so I guess the only obstacle now would
be money as it ever was - we have tight fisted victorians to thank for
the piddly mainline loading gauge meaning we can't have double deck
trains , and the frankly farcical loading gauge on the deep level tube
lines.

B2003

wrote:
On 19 Jul, 02:28, "Jonathan" wrote:
Public transport has always been awful; and over the past couple of
years I've noticed that more and more often I'm squashed inside a
bus or train, with hardly enough room to breathe, because the
company decided to cancel earlier buses or trains without notice,
and without making any alternative arrangements.

If there was a decent tube system in south london some of the pressure
would be taken off the overground trains. But the amount of overground
lines has always been used as an excuse for not further extending the
tube south of the river rather than thinking the services could
complement each other. The its-difficult-to-tunnel excuse no longer
holds water in the 21st century so I guess the only obstacle now would
be money as it ever was - we have tight fisted victorians to thank for
the piddly mainline loading gauge meaning we can't have double deck
trains , and the frankly farcical loading gauge on the deep level tube
lines.

It still doesn't make sense to build Tube lines in South London though,
because that would involve expensive wheelchair-accessible stations which
would leave the existing surface stations underused or closed. I think it
would be cheaper to build underground express lines from the edge of
London - say from east of Esher to south of Tottenham Hale via new deep
platforms at Kingston, Earls Court/West Brompton, Bond Street, and
Euston/Kings Cross ( and possibly four-track the line from Tottenham Hale to
Cheshunt) for through dual-voltage services from Portsmouth etc to Stansted
etc. - and then hand the existing surface lines to LOROL and flood them with
6-30 tph metro services.

It still doesn't make sense to build Tube lines in South London though,
because that would involve expensive wheelchair-accessible stations which
would leave the existing surface stations underused or closed. I think it

I don't follow your reasoning. Why would wheelchair access in new tube
stations force the closure of overground stations? And a couple of new
tube lines is hardly going to have all the commuters from the whole of
south london abandoning southern region in droves and more than the
northern line in clapham means no one uses clapham junction. It would
just take the pressure off the lines a bit.

would be cheaper to build underground express lines from the edge of
London - say from east of Esher to south of Tottenham Hale via new deep
platforms at Kingston, Earls Court/West Brompton, Bond Street, and
Euston/Kings Cross ( and possibly four-track the line from Tottenham Hale to
Cheshunt) for through dual-voltage services from Portsmouth etc to Stansted
etc. - and then hand the existing surface lines to LOROL and flood them with
6-30 tph metro services.

Isn't that what thameslink is supposed to be in theory , albeit to
luton and gatwick airports not stansted?

B2003

On Jul 20, 9:24*pm, wrote:
It still doesn't make sense to build Tube lines in South London though,
because that would involve expensive wheelchair-accessible stations which
would leave the existing surface stations underused or closed. I think it

I don't follow your reasoning. Why would wheelchair access in new tube
stations force the closure of overground stations? And a couple of new
tube lines is hardly going to have all the commuters from the whole of
south london abandoning southern region in droves and more than the
northern line in clapham means no one uses clapham junction. It would
just take the pressure off *the lines a bit.


No one in Clapham would use National Rail at Clapham Junction because
it is too far away. Clapham Junction and Clapham Common (for example)
stations have different catchment zones. A better example would be to
compare Clapham North and Clapham High Street, which do serve the same
area. I think that you will find that the Northern line is much busier
than the National Rail service here, as it is at Brixton, where the
Victoria is much busier than National Rail. Maybe not enough to close
the National Rail stations, but enough to mean it is not worthwhile
lengthening trains etc.

In article
,
() wrote:

And a couple of new tube lines is hardly going to have all the
commuters from the whole of south london abandoning southern region
in droves and more than the northern line in clapham means no one
uses clapham junction. It would just take the pressure off the lines
a bit.

It's no surprise that Clapham Junction isn't used by people in Clapham.
It's not in Clapham; it's in Battersea.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article
,
() wrote:

The its-difficult-to-tunnel excuse no longer holds water in the
21st century

So we have new geology in the 21st century? What's changed pray?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 19 Jul, 21:48, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article
,

() wrote:
The its-difficult-to-tunnel excuse no longer holds water in the
21st century

So we have new geology in the 21st century? What's changed pray?

Tunnelling technology , what do you think? The channel tunnel was
built through dozens of miles of water bearing chalk under the sea so
I don't think the "its nasty chalk not clay" really cuts it any more
as an excuse not to build tunnels in south london.

B2003

In article
,
() wrote:

On 19 Jul, 21:48, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article

,

() wrote:
The its-difficult-to-tunnel excuse no longer holds water in the
21st century

So we have new geology in the 21st century? What's changed pray?

Tunnelling technology , what do you think? The channel tunnel was
built through dozens of miles of water bearing chalk under the sea so
I don't think the "its nasty chalk not clay" really cuts it any more
as an excuse not to build tunnels in south london.

Huh? Chalk has pretty similar tunnelling characteristics to clay. It's
the sand in south London that's hopeless. Look at how they built the JLE.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Jul 20, 11:25 pm, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article
,



() wrote:
On 19 Jul, 21:48, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article

,

() wrote:
The its-difficult-to-tunnel excuse no longer holds water in the
21st century

So we have new geology in the 21st century? What's changed pray?

Tunnelling technology , what do you think? The channel tunnel was
built through dozens of miles of water bearing chalk under the sea so
I don't think the "its nasty chalk not clay" really cuts it any more
as an excuse not to build tunnels in south london.

Huh? Chalk has pretty similar tunnelling characteristics to clay. It's
the sand in south London that's hopeless. Look at how they built the JLE.

Chalk , sand , whatever. Point is theres nothing that can't be
tunnelled through now as long as they money is available. If they
think sand is an issue they should go ask the Egyptions how they built
the cairo metro.

B2003