Cablecars to link close stations?
 

It seems to me that there is a great need for means to link
the dozens of pairs of stations in London and elsewhere where the
two stations are just too far apart to be considered "the same
place", and too far apart to walk conveniently between. The legacy of
the railway politics of the 19th century!

What means of transport could link such pairs? It would be
nice to have a standard thing which could be widely used.

There may be other ways of doing it, but I want to explore the
possibilities of bi-cable gondelbahnen/cableways (Sorry, I am not sure
of the English word) as used, for example, in ski-resorts.

"Bi-cable" means that the weight is carried by wheels running
on a fixed cable, and the cars are pulled along by a moving cable.

Cableways certainly have very low visual impact, just two
wires, high up, and the masts necessary to support them. That can't
be very expensive. Certainly not as expensive as the Birmingham
airport shuttle at £10M for 1Km of double route, when the track bed
already existed.

Cableways can go up and down steep gradients, that's their
function in ski resorts. Pairs of stations often have a large height
difference between them. Speed is adequate for such short distances.

I have always been struck by the fact that cable cars are
always hung well below the level of the cable. Why is that? Is it to
ensure that like pendulums, they swing slowly and don't make the
passengers sick? That will be a problem in cases where the route has
to go underground because the tunnel has to be so much bigger. But
could the difficulty be overcome? The car is fitted with rail
wheels set into the corners (ie, not increasing its total
height), where the route is of reduced height, the car is guided onto
rails which carry its weight, the hanger at the top folds down, and
the moving cable continues to pull it along.

Cable cars can be run automatically, and the number of cars
can be varied to match the level of traffic.

No doubt a lorry could be fitted inside with rails
and overhead cable so that the cars could be run into it over a
special route and taken away to be maintained at a central depot.

Is this workable?

--

Michael Bell

Cablecars to link close stations?
 

In article , Steve Naïve
wrote:
Michael Bell wrote in
:

It seems to me that there is a great need for means to link
the dozens of pairs of stations in London and elsewhere where the
two stations are just too far apart to be considered "the same
place", and too far apart to walk conveniently between. The legacy of
the railway politics of the 19th century!

Do you have examples?

Putney and East Putney.


What means of transport could link such pairs? It would be
nice to have a standard thing which could be widely used.

A bus?

Crew = costs. With the waiting time, and the traffic, they will always
be slower than a cable car.


There may be other ways of doing it, but I want to explore the
possibilities of bi-cable gondelbahnen/cableways (Sorry, I am not sure
of the English word) as used, for example, in ski-resorts.

Cable Cars (as you wrote in the subject).

Cableways can go up and down steep gradients, that's their
function in ski resorts. Pairs of stations often have a large height
difference between them. Speed is adequate for such short distances.

Do we have lots of steep gradients in London?

Again, Putney and East Putney


No doubt a lorry could be fitted inside with rails
and overhead cable so that the cars could be run into it over a
special route and taken away to be maintained at a central depot.

Is this workable?

No.


Do you mean the idea of transporting cars to a central depot is
unworkable, or the whole idea is unworkable?

--
Michael Bell

Cablecars to link close stations?
 

"Steve Naïve" wrote in message
...
Michael Bell wrote in
:

It seems to me that there is a great need for means to link
the dozens of pairs of stations in London and elsewhere where the
two stations are just too far apart to be considered "the same
place", and too far apart to walk conveniently between. The legacy of
the railway politics of the 19th century!

Taken on their own a lot of these stations *are* in good sites from the
local spatial point of view. Interchange with competitors did not figure
highly in plans of the time and I'm willing to wager journey
origin-destinations were far less diverse 100 years ago than they are in
todays car dominated cities, so a good fast way of linking such station
pairs could start to make more potential rail journeys competitive.

Do you have examples?

Many outside central London - look at a map!

South West London has good connectivity already with useful hubs like
Wimbledon, Richmond, and the Grand-daddy of interchange, Clapham Junction.
The rest of London is not so well provided for unfortunately.

What means of transport could link such pairs? It would be
nice to have a standard thing which could be widely used.

A bus?

A conventional bus can't be automated easily, mainly because it would have
to share it's route with other traffic, pedestrians cyclist etc, which
depending on congestion could result in variable journey times. A
segregated, automated system could work 'on demand', departing when required
like a taxi, and driver costs no longer become a key issue in how many
vehicles can be running at the same time. Automation also changes the
economics of optimum vehicle size.

.. . .

Cableways can go up and down steep gradients, that's their
function in ski resorts. Pairs of stations often have a large height
difference between them. Speed is adequate for such short distances.

Do we have lots of steep gradients in London?

A vehicle's *ability* to climb (perhaps quite short) steep gradients and
turn sharp corners can reduce guideway construction costs and disruption
compared to conventional railways for instance.

I recommend a visit to this excellent website covering a wide range of
Innovative Transportation Technology -

http://faculty.washington.edu/~jbs/itrans/


--
Mark Townend
http://www.maprail.com/

Cablecars to link close stations?
 

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:10:37 +0100, Michael Bell
wrote:

It seems to me that there is a great need for means to link
the dozens of pairs of stations in London and elsewhere where the
two stations are just too far apart to be considered "the same
place", and too far apart to walk conveniently between. The legacy of
the railway politics of the 19th century!
[snip]
Cableways certainly have very low visual impact, just two
wires, high up, and the masts necessary to support them. That can't
be very expensive. Certainly not as expensive as the Birmingham
airport shuttle at £10M for 1Km of double route, when the track bed
already existed.

So when I'm loaded up with luggage or shopping I'm supposed to hang from
a thread in order to move between two stations?

Oh and if you are scared of heights?

What if it is windy or wet or snowing? You too can get frozen to the
core, blown to the ground or soaked to the skin courtesy of a new form
of air travel.

Cableways can go up and down steep gradients, that's their
function in ski resorts. Pairs of stations often have a large height
difference between them. Speed is adequate for such short distances.

Do they? I don't recall there being a mountain range e.g. between
Shepherds Bush H&C and Shepherds Bush Central Line.

I'll tell you what - there are these fantastic inventions called
footpaths which allow people to walk along the ground on solid material.
If they are well maintained they are a pretty good and practical
alternative to dangling in the air.

I have always been struck by the fact that cable cars are
always hung well below the level of the cable. Why is that? Is it to
ensure that like pendulums, they swing slowly and don't make the
passengers sick? That will be a problem in cases where the route has
to go underground because the tunnel has to be so much bigger. But
could the difficulty be overcome?

Install a moving walkway.

Is this workable?

Not in the slightest.

ding next stupid idea please.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Cablecars to link close stations?
 

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:10:37 +0100, Michael Bell
wrote:

Pairs of stations often have a large height difference between them.

Do they? I don't recall there being a mountain range e.g. between
Shepherds Bush H&C and Shepherds Bush Central Line.

Whyteleafe to Upper Warlingham is a bit of a climb. A cable car there would
be quite fun, actually...

But in general, cable cars (like paternosters) are suitable for a continuous
dribble of traffic, not for the intermittent crowds that leave stations.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

Cablecars to link close stations?
 

Michael Bell wrote:

It seems to me that there is a great need for means to link
the dozens of pairs of stations in London and elsewhere where the
two stations are just too far apart to be considered "the same
place", and too far apart to walk conveniently between. The legacy of
the railway politics of the 19th century!

Is it just me who saw the thread title and thought "well, they have
them in San Francisco..."? :-)


--
James Farrar |
London, SE13 |

Cablecars to link close stations?
 

In article ,
(Michael Bell) wrote:

In article , Steve Naïve
wrote:
Michael Bell wrote in
:

It seems to me that there is a great need for means to link
the dozens of pairs of stations in London and elsewhere where the
two stations are just too far apart to be considered "the same
place", and too far apart to walk conveniently between. The legacy
of the railway politics of the 19th century!

Do you have examples?

Putney and East Putney.


What means of transport could link such pairs? It would be
nice to have a standard thing which could be widely used.

A bus?

Crew = costs. With the waiting time, and the traffic, they will always
be slower than a cable car.


There may be other ways of doing it, but I want to explore the
possibilities of bi-cable gondelbahnen/cableways (Sorry, I am not
sure of the English word) as used, for example, in ski-resorts.

Cable Cars (as you wrote in the subject).

Cableways can go up and down steep gradients, that's their
function in ski resorts. Pairs of stations often have a large height
difference between them. Speed is adequate for such short
distances.
Do we have lots of steep gradients in London?

Again, Putney and East Putney

As someone brought up in Putney I wonder why on earth anyone would want to
interchange between Putney and East Putney

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Cablecars to link close stations?
 

In article ,
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

[snip]

Do you have examples?

Putney and East Putney.

[snip]

As someone brought up in Putney I wonder why on earth anyone would want to
interchange between Putney and East Putney

That's not the point. I am thinking of people on longer journeys for
whom a change at Putney would connect two otherwise unconnectable
routes and make the overall journey much easier.

--

Michael Bell

Cablecars to link close stations?
 

In article ,
(Michael Bell) wrote:

In article ,
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

[snip]

Do you have examples?

Putney and East Putney.

[snip]

As someone brought up in Putney I wonder why on earth anyone would
want to interchange between Putney and East Putney

That's not the point. I am thinking of people on longer journeys for
whom a change at Putney would connect two otherwise unconnectable
routes and make the overall journey much easier.

Which "otherwise unconnectable routes", though?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Cablecars to link close stations?
 

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Michael Bell) wrote:

In article ,
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

[snip]

Do you have examples?

Putney and East Putney.

[snip]

As someone brought up in Putney I wonder why on earth anyone would
want to interchange between Putney and East Putney

That's not the point. I am thinking of people on longer journeys for
whom a change at Putney would connect two otherwise unconnectable
routes and make the overall journey much easier.

Which "otherwise unconnectable routes", though?

Barnes to Parsons Green for example. There are lots of journeys from SWT
stations to District Line stations where this interchange is the quickest
route.

Peter Smyth

Cablecars to link close stations?
 

In article ,
(Peter Smyth) wrote:

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Michael Bell) wrote:

In article
,
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

[snip]

Do you have examples?

Putney and East Putney.

[snip]

As someone brought up in Putney I wonder why on earth anyone would
want to interchange between Putney and East Putney

That's not the point. I am thinking of people on longer journeys for
whom a change at Putney would connect two otherwise unconnectable
routes and make the overall journey much easier.

Which "otherwise unconnectable routes", though?

Barnes to Parsons Green for example. There are lots of journeys from SWT
stations to District Line stations where this interchange is the
quickest
route.

And you have seen the origin and destination surveys showing the demand
for such journeys? I suspect that existing bus services would be quite
adequate to meet the demand.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Cablecars to link close stations?
 

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 01:17 +0100 (BST), (Colin
Rosenstiel) wrote:



As someone brought up in Putney I wonder why on earth anyone would want to
interchange between Putney and East Putney

I've done it loads of times - the train from my local station calls at
Putney and I want to change to the district line. Why would that be
so unusual?

Cablecars to link close stations?
 

In article , (K)
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 01:17 +0100 (BST), (Colin
Rosenstiel) wrote:

As someone brought up in Putney I wonder why on earth anyone would
want to interchange between Putney and East Putney

I've done it loads of times - the train from my local station calls at
Putney and I want to change to the district line. Why would that be
so unusual?

To go between which major transport nodes, though? Two stations from
Putney is Clapham Junction, a short ride from Wimbledon, the end of the
District Line. Similarly, Richmond is also on the District line. Sounds to
me like a link between the Putney stations would serve a very limited
number of links.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Cablecars to link close stations?
 

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 23:03 +0100 (BST), (Colin
Rosenstiel) wrote:

I've done it loads of times - the train from my local station calls at
Putney and I want to change to the district line. Why would that be
so unusual?

To go between which major transport nodes, though?

To go from my house to somewhere on the District line.

Cablecars to link close stations?
 

In article , (K)
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 23:03 +0100 (BST), (Colin
Rosenstiel) wrote:

I've done it loads of times - the train from my local station calls
at Putney and I want to change to the district line. Why would that
be so unusual?

To go between which major transport nodes, though?

To go from my house to somewhere on the District line.

Obviously a major traffic route then.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Cablecars to link close stations?
 

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 01:33 +0100 (BST), (Colin
Rosenstiel) wrote:


To go from my house to somewhere on the District line.

Obviously a major traffic route then.

Of course :-) There are other people who use my station (and others
on the line, of course.

Cablecars to link close stations?
 

K wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 01:33 +0100 (BST), (Colin
Rosenstiel) wrote:
To go from my house to somewhere on the District line.
Obviously a major traffic route then.
Of course :-) There are other people who use my station (and others
on the line, of course.

I'm with K on this one. I think interchanges are needed at almost all
the places in London where lines cross each other. The sort of journeys
they'd help are the ones that are short, but slow by public transport.
The most logical solution is to cycle, but in practice most people
drive.

Rightly or wrongly, many people would consider rail for these journeys
but wouldn't consider bus.

And it's far cheaper to build interchanges than lines.

Colin McKenzie

Cablecars to link close stations?
 

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 10:27:32 +0100, Colin McKenzie wrote:
I'm with K on this one. I think interchanges are needed at almost all
the places in London where lines cross each other. The sort of journeys

Indeed. H&C/Central/the line from Kensington
should all have an interchange just north of shepherds bush H&C

Cablecars to link close stations?
 

Paul Weaver wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 10:27:32 +0100, Colin McKenzie wrote:
I'm with K on this one. I think interchanges are needed at almost all
the places in London where lines cross each other. The sort of
journeys

Indeed. H&C/Central/the line from Kensington
should all have an interchange just north of shepherds bush H&C

Taking that particular point of view one stage further, most of the
infrastructure is already in place for the District Line to start at the
already segregated platforms at Clapham Junction and go over the river, past
Olympia and through a somehow resurrected link back to the old Outer Circle
line and direct quite a lot of passenger traffic on towards Paddington, as I
would imagine that quite a lot of passengers go into the centre only to go
back out on a different route. There must also be a fairly high number of
travellers who have to change anyway at Clapham Junction, so interchanging
onto LU there would probably reduce the volume heading for Victoria or
Waterloo. (Basic theory is to disperse as many as possible away fom the
centre rather than bringing them in only for them to go out again.)
Still requires a bit of fine-tuning but it could be made to work.

On the original theme of cable-cars, a light-hearted approach with a bit
more chance of success (Travelator - yes / swinging vomit-inducers - no),
why not buy up a supply of human cannons (ex circus/ Government - you
choose) and place the person in, point in the right(-ish) direction and wait
for the big bang. Payment in advance only and it's my patent! As long as
it's not the wrong kind of gunpowder it would be probably the fastest public
transport that the capital has ever seen!

Have a nice day,
Paul

Cablecars to link close stations?
 

Paul wrote:
Paul Weaver wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 10:27:32 +0100, Colin McKenzie wrote:
I'm with K on this one. I think interchanges are needed at almost
all the places in London where lines cross each other. The sort of
journeys

Indeed. H&C/Central/the line from Kensington

Presumably you mean the West London Line (WLL) from Kensington Olympia

should all have an interchange just north of shepherds bush H&C


Meaning White City? There is a plan for a new White City H&C station to
serve the new retail centre, but that's a long way from the WLL, which will
have a station near to Shepherd's Bush Central Line.

Taking that particular point of view one stage further, most of the
infrastructure is already in place for the District Line to start at
the already segregated platforms at Clapham Junction and go over the
river, past Olympia and through a somehow resurrected link back to
the old Outer Circle line

That would require reinstating the link from the WLL to Latimer Road on the
H&C, which was abandoned after being bombed in WW2. The West Cross Route
(ex-M41) and its junction to serve the White City retail centre is now in
the way.

and direct quite a lot of passenger traffic
on towards Paddington, as I would imagine that quite a lot of
passengers go into the centre only to go back out on a different
route. There must also be a fairly high number of travellers who have
to change anyway at Clapham Junction, so interchanging onto LU there
would probably reduce the volume heading for Victoria or Waterloo.
(Basic theory is to disperse as many as possible away fom the centre
rather than bringing them in only for them to go out again.)
Still requires a bit of fine-tuning but it could be made to work.

The other problem is that the WLL is an important freight route across
London, and cannot sustain a very frequent passenger service without loss of
freight paths. Also, where do your trains terminate? Paddington would be
possible eventually (post-HEx), I suppose. I doubt that there is the
terminal or line capacity further east.

I'm afraid this is an attractive and apparently simple scheme ("most of the
infrastructure is already in place") which is actually fraught with
difficulties.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Cablecars to link close stations?
 

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 14:09:45 +0000, Richard J. wrote:
Presumably you mean the West London Line (WLL) from Kensington Olympia

Possibly, it's not on the normal tube map, only the big one with all rail
links

Meaning White City? There is a plan for a new White City H&C station to
serve the new retail centre, but that's a long way from the WLL, which
will have a station near to Shepherd's Bush Central Line.

The new retail center is south of the current white city station, halfway
to the Shepherds bush H&C station. Of course Bank and Momument aren't
exactly close either.

Cablecars to link close stations?
 

(Basic theory is to disperse as many as possible away fom the centre
rather than bringing them in only for them to go out again.)
Still requires a bit of fine-tuning but it could be made to work.

That goes against the philosophy on the London-centric governments for the
past 937 years, they don't realise some people don't want to go to London!

The other problem is that the WLL is an important freight route across
London, and cannot sustain a very frequent passenger service without loss of

Why does freight need to go *across* London. I can understand it going
into london, however the freight destined for the 50 million people living
outside the Greater London area shouldn't go anywhere near London. There
should be a large (6 track?) London Orbital, channeling Channel Tunnel
traffic to Brum/The North, or Traffic to East Anglia from the South,
around from London in the same way the M25 does.

freight paths. Also, where do your trains terminate? Paddington would be
possible eventually (post-HEx), I suppose. I doubt that there is the
terminal or line capacity further east.

Sure, throw them on the circle/district/metropolitan/hammersmith and city
line :D

Coudn't you terminate underneath Paddington, next to the Bakerloo line? Or
even carry on on a tube tunnel across Marylebone, to Euston, and KX? Or
perhaps take a northern view, via Finchley Road, Camden Town, Highbury and
Islingon to Liverpool Street?

OK the tunneling would be expensive, but it would allow the majority
of tube traffic to circle London without going into zone 1.

Cablecars to link close stations?
 

"Paul" wrote in message
...

why not buy up a supply of human cannons (ex circus/
Government - you choose) and place the person in, point
in the right(-ish) direction and wait for the big bang.
Payment in advance only and it's my patent! As long as
it's not the wrong kind of gunpowder it would be probably
the fastest public transport that the capital has ever seen!

Someone submitted this idea to the "Car-Free London" competition a few years
ago. Was it you?

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

Cablecars to link close stations?
 

John Rowland wrote:

Someone submitted this idea to the "Car-Free London" competition a
few years ago. Was it you?

No, it wasn't, unfortunately - there goes my patent!
However, I do have another thought which could do with some airing - LU
services (the majority, I believe), start and finish outside the main/
central area. This means that trains block platforms out of town for crew
turnaround etc. and then pass through rather than clogging up terminal
stations. If a system similar to step-back was introduced then the accrued
dwell times savings per day would allow quite a few more services to use
those stations.
Indeed one step better is feasible at Waterloo whereby the outlay would
probably pay for itself within a short time. It would mean something on the
lines of Waterloo being a through station, at least for a couple of
platforms and the lines basically going on past the buffers, through the
main building (!) and meeting up with the Charing Cross line and out to
London Bridge, which already has terminal and pass platform arrangements.
Because the trains don't stand over and the dwell times are reduced to say
that of Clapham Junction the increase in through traffic thanks to those
savings would make quite a difference. Some standarisation of stock may be
required, but what's wrong with Dartford area services, for example,
terminating at Wimbledon or something? Guildford - New Cross, peut-être?
It could be done ...

BTW, any idea of average dwell times for comparison, i.e. Clapham Junction,
Waterloo, London Bridge?

Paul

Cablecars to link close stations?
 

The other problem is that the WLL is an important freight route
across London, and cannot sustain a very frequent passenger service
without loss of freight paths. Also, where do your trains terminate?
Paddington would be possible eventually (post-HEx), I suppose. I doubt
that
there is the terminal or line capacity further east.

Sure, throw them on the circle/district/metropolitan/hammersmith and
city line :D

Coudn't you terminate underneath Paddington, next to the Bakerloo
line? Or even carry on on a tube tunnel across Marylebone, to Euston,
and KX? Or perhaps take a northern view, via Finchley Road, Camden
Town, Highbury and Islingon to Liverpool Street?

OK the tunneling would be expensive, but it would allow the majority
of tube traffic to circle London without going into zone 1.

Bear in mind that from (West Kensington) the Cromwell Curve to South Ken the
Circle/ District already has the Piccadilly underneath. With the advances in
technology it wouldn't be an additional burden on the existing setup either.
Paul

Cablecars to link close stations?
 

"Richard J." wrote:
The other problem is that the WLL is an important freight route across
London, and cannot sustain a very frequent passenger service without loss of
freight paths.

This is the story we always get, but it needs to be unpacked. First,
considerable sections of the WLL were originally 4-track - including
Olympia station - and could be again. This would allow overtaking about
halfway along the link, if necessary.

But a lot could also be done with signalling and scheduling. It
shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to alternate freights travelling at a
constant 25-30 mph with passenger trains averaging the same speed but
reaching 60 or so and stopping 5 or 6 times. The limiting factor is
freight train length - at 30mph a half-mile long train takes a minute to
pass a point. With 2 empty blocks behind that would mean you couldn't
schedule trains to get closer than 3 minutes apart. That might mean a
timetable frequency of a train every 5 minutes or a passenger train
every 10.

As to where the trains would go, I'd favour Watford junction one way
(replacing the Silverlink DC Euston service). Extension beyond Clapham
Junction would be desirable, but I'm not sure where to.

Colin Mckenzie

Cablecars to link close stations?
 

In article , Paul
writes
On the original theme of cable-cars, a light-hearted approach with a bit
more chance of success (Travelator - yes / swinging vomit-inducers - no),
why not buy up a supply of human cannons (ex circus/ Government - you
choose) and place the person in, point in the right(-ish) direction and wait
for the big bang. Payment in advance only and it's my patent!

Will they accept Oyster?
--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk