Mayors transport vision

Rational Plan · 11 Jun 2013

The Mayor has launched his transport vision.

Lots of big projects

Jon10 said:
Boris has a timeline of projects, published today, at:

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/mayor/vision-2020/interactive-timeline

There is also an interactive map:

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/mayor/vision-2020/interactive-map

I was drawn to the remarkable image for a new Thameslink station at Brent Cross:
http://data.london.gov.uk/images/timeline/Bounds_Green_Escalators.JPG

List of potential schemes

Heavily expand Cycle hire scheme by another 2 km out from current boundaries, taking in Lewisham, Peckham, Brixton, Clapham, Chiswick, Camden, Islington and Hackney.

Finish Deep tube project, Northern line split.

Rebuild Bank and Holborn stations

Crossrail 2,

Construct a single Kings Cross/St Pancras Euston station complex.

Big Push into South London. with DLR to Bromley, Bakerloo into South East London and Victoria line to be extended (vague though as how far and I assume it could not open till after CR2 opended).

Sutton and Crystal Palace extensions for Tramlink.

Four track the West Anglia line.

Install additional crossrail stations as Woolwich and City airport.

Electrify Goblin line and extend to Barking Riverside.

The big surprise is promising to extend the Bakerloo and Victoria lines, all of this will take money and I assume a lot more tax raising powers for London.

RailUK Forums

Nym · 11 Jun 2013

Bakerloo Line will really need the DTP (NTFL) project to get a move on, 36 trains is bearly enough as it is without needing additional services... (Peak requirement is 33 trains).

Same deal on the Vic, with the 33tph, unless it is a route split so the stock requirements are unchanged, 47 trains really won't be enough, and I don't think we have much more space left at Northumberland Park for expansion.

In fact, its even the same deal on the Northern Line, there just aren't enough trains...

Bank is being re-built anyway due to mahoosive capacity constraints, Holborn is dependant on the IITT for Bank, pretty much everything is already planned that has been announced on the LUL side.

PS:
Additional 2009TS shouldn't be too much of a problem, space to store them may well be.
Additional 1995TS should still be possible, subject to legal concerns, but these where overcome for the 1996TS 7th car.

Well, think what you might on the additonal 1972TS, there is a chance of an extra FEW units coming back from Eastleigh and Acton, but any significant additional stock would need to be saught as part of the new rolling stock order, or internal cascade of other rolling stock. (92TS, 95TS, 96TS and 09TS will not fit on the Bakerloo Line)

Deerfold · 11 Jun 2013

Rational Plan said:
The big surprise is promising to extend the Bakerloo and Victoria lines, all of this will take money and I assume a lot more tax raising powers for London.

For me the big surprise was extending Tramlink, given Boris cancelled every other tram plan Ken had.

HSTEd · 12 Jun 2013

Deerfold said:
For me the big surprise was extending Tramlink, given Boris cancelled every other tram plan Ken had.

There were others? I didn't know that

DW54 · 12 Jun 2013

Rational Plan said:
The Mayor has launched his transport vision.

Lots of big projects

(SNIP)

The Mayor's 2020 Vision Statement is at:
4263da7bf3e189a68e18-826038b0dd871a0b7f03ba4eedbf81a1.r53.cf3.rackcdn.com/2020_vision_web.pdf

It starts with an amazing credibility sapping assertion:

"Exactly as promised, the new high speed Javelin lunged back and
forth, taking passengers from Kings Cross to the Games in six
minutes."

Now given that the Javelin/395s would have had to undertake a complex series of reversals via the NLL, and the North London Incline to reach Kings Cross, that is a blistering performance. I wonder if any passengers suffered whiplash during the zigzagging required? :roll:

edwin_m · 12 Jun 2013

HSTEd said:
There were others? I didn't know that

Tram plans in the Ken era, some had variations and changed with time:
- West London Tram - Shepherds Bush out along the Uxbridge Road
- Cross River Tram - Camden/St Pancras-Euston-Waterloo-Brixton/Peckham
- Also talk of an Oxford Street tram
- Tramlink extensions particularly Crystal Palace

anthony263 · 12 Jun 2013

Wasnt the west London tram dropped because of opposition by some.

I think its a shame the crossriver tram was dropped it would have been nice to see trams in central London again. That said I think the oxford street tram was a bit of a silly idea.

The tramlink extensions I do think are a good idea we only have to see how popular it has become especially the Wimbledon branch which is due to have a new 2nd platform at Wimbledon and the frequency increased to every 5 minutes. (Welsh Government take note we need something like this in Swansea )

glbotu · 12 Jun 2013

My understanding is that West London Tram was finished because of opposition by EVERYONE. The issue was that off-street running in a lot of locations around Uxbridge Road was always effectively a non-starter (around Shepherd's Bush and Southall especially), which would have meant either closing Uxbridge Road (moving cars onto other, smaller side roads) or on-street running of the trams, which would not have been much better than the existing buses. The construction works would have caused all manner of issues in the interim. This meant that pretty much every local council through which it ran was opposed to it.

I thought Cross River tram was shut down because there was no-where to build it and Oxford Street Tram was shut because where would the buses go?

Darren R · 12 Jun 2013

glbotu said:
My understanding is that West London Tram was finished because of opposition by EVERYONE. The issue was that off-street running in a lot of locations around Uxbridge Road was always effectively a non-starter (around Shepherd's Bush and Southall especially), which would have meant either closing Uxbridge Road (moving cars onto other, smaller side roads) or on-street running of the trams, which would not have been much better than the existing buses. The construction works would have caused all manner of issues in the interim. This meant that pretty much every local council through which it ran was opposed to it.

I thought Cross River tram was shut down because there was no-where to build it and Oxford Street Tram was shut because where would the buses go?

Not quite everyone was opposed to the scheme - I lived and worked in central Ealing then and I was all for it! I was managing a pub on the High Street at the time, and one day a pro-tram campaigner came in and asked me if he could take around his petition and ask the customers if they would sign it. He was very firmly of the opinion that the main opposition came in the form of the large numbers of BBC employees who lived in the area at the Ealing and Shepherd's Bush end. They were, he opined, against it because of the reduced street parking that would ensue, but being Beeb-types they had all the right contacts to make their opposition noticed. Whether there was any basis to his claims though I really couldn't say, although it seemed feasible. I seem to recall there weren't many of us who signed his petition though!

You are right though - had the scheme gone ahead it would have led to unspeakable traffic chaos for pretty much the whole of West London. Pity really seeing the rather excellent transport interchange Shepherd's Bush has since become.

Back on topic though: there are an awful lot of schemes/proposals/ideas by Boris that are best described as grandiose. How many of them have any realistic chances of fruition?

Mikey C · 13 Jun 2013

Darren R said:
Not quite everyone was opposed to the scheme - I lived and worked in central Ealing then and I was all for it! I was managing a pub on the High Street at the time, and one day a pro-tram campaigner came in and asked me if he could take around his petition and ask the customers if they would sign it. He was very firmly of the opinion that the main opposition came in the form of the large numbers of BBC employees who lived in the area at the Ealing and Shepherd's Bush end. They were, he opined, against it because of the reduced street parking that would ensue, but being Beeb-types they had all the right contacts to make their opposition noticed. Whether there was any basis to his claims though I really couldn't say, although it seemed feasible. I seem to recall there weren't many of us who signed his petition though!

You are right though - had the scheme gone ahead it would have led to unspeakable traffic chaos for pretty much the whole of West London. Pity really seeing the rather excellent transport interchange Shepherd's Bush has since become.

Back on topic though: there are an awful lot of schemes/proposals/ideas by Boris that are best described as grandiose. How many of them have any realistic chances of fruition?

Ealing would have been a mess, with parts of the main Uxbridge Road only used by trams, and all the other traffic including the many busy bus routes diverted down side streets. The problem with the scheme was that it was great if your journey involved going along the main route (Uxbridge to Ealing to Shepherd's Bush) but for everyone else, it made things worse.

Long term aspirational plans by London mayors aren't to be taken too literally, as he'll be long out of power (2016) by the time any big decisions are made, and the bext mayor will have his/her plans anyway. The Borismaster is the sort of thing a Mayor can do, as it has a relatively short lead time

Darren R · 13 Jun 2013

Mikey C said:
Long term aspirational plans by London mayors aren't to be taken too literally, as he'll be long out of power (2016) by the time any big decisions are made, and the bext mayor will have his/her plans anyway. The Borismaster is the sort of thing a Mayor can do, as it has a relatively short lead time

Which is, of course, why we (as a country) need a better system for long term transport and infrastructure planning. Even if the politician in charge - in this case BoJo - is a person with real vision, there is no political incentive to carry the plans out. Politicians are only there until the next election. Transport planning requires a much longer time scale.

warriorwarlord · 14 Jun 2013

Nym said:
Well, think what you might on the additonal 1972TS, there is a chance of an extra FEW units coming back from Eastleigh and Acton, but any significant additional stock would need to be saught as part of the new rolling stock order, or internal cascade of other rolling stock. (92TS, 95TS, 96TS and 09TS will not fit on the Bakerloo Line)

Would it have been possible to rip out the auto driver box and the safety boxes in the 67 stock and replace them for manually operated equipment from scrap C stock trains? If I recall correctly the only major difference in this reguard between the C and 67/72 stock trains are the fact they operate different models of traction motor, otherwise the systems work in the same principle.

Dstock7080 · 14 Jun 2013

You could leave the auto-boxes in situ and just disconnect them, the only difference was the type of deadmans handle used in each.

DynamicSpirit · 1 Jul 2013

Just discovered this thread and went to take a look at the plan. Most of the elements of it are in my view welcome (the most obvious exception to me being the plans for new road river crossings). However, it's clearly very aspirational. For example, it contains 'reform immigration policy' and 'reform our tax system', neither of which are things the mayor has any power over.

WinterChief · 1 Jul 2013

If your talking about converting some 67's to run on the Bakerloo then lots of modifications would have to take place, not worth it. Too expensive, lots of paperwork, labour and man hours for very little gain!

By the time the new Bakerloo extension would be drawn up, consultations, budgets announced, plans completed, tunnelling and commissioning. All this would happen in the space of 10 years and additional "EVO" trains would be ordered instead.

Extending the Victoria Line is not a very clever idea IMO, the Bakerloo line however warrants an extension.

transmanche · 1 Jul 2013

WinterChief said:
If your talking about converting some 67's to run on the Bakerloo then lots of modifications would have to take place, not worth it. Too expensive, lots of paperwork, labour and man hours for very little gain!

As an aside, weren't some of the 1967 stock cars actually 'converted' from 1972 mkII stock cars? (The Driving Motors being marshalled at the middle of two sets - and not having red ends.)

Dstock7080 · 2 Jul 2013

transmanche said:
As an aside, weren't some of the 1967 stock cars actually 'converted' from 1972 mkII stock cars? (The Driving Motors being marshalled at the middle of two sets - and not having red ends.)

Additional 4-car units were so formed from 1972 MkI Stock.
These replaced a '67 DM and T car which were then used on the outer ends of units, finally utilising their autoboxes.

Units formed:
67DM-67T-72T-72DM.
72DM-72T-67T-67DM

The '72 Is never had autoboxes, OPO equipment fitted and the deadman handles were never altered. The DM cars were effectively UNDM cars.

D365 · 2 Jul 2013

Is there a list of some sorts detailing the remaining ex-Victoria 67/72TS vehicles, location, condition etc? I read somewhere here a while back that all the 72TS 'converts' have been stored as it would be easier to 'revert' these to Bakerloo spec. Also, how much of the 72TS Mk1 fleet is in useful condition - list of these might be handy too.

Quite a grandiose vision of BoJo's there, I wonder how much of it will actually progress though - heard most of it before.

Mayors transport vision

Rational Plan

Member

RailUK Forums

Nym

Established Member

Deerfold

Veteran Member

HSTEd

Veteran Member

DW54

Member

edwin_m

Veteran Member

anthony263

Established Member

glbotu

Member

Darren R

Established Member

Mikey C

Established Member

Darren R

Established Member

warriorwarlord

Member

Dstock7080

Established Member

DynamicSpirit

Established Member

WinterChief

Member

transmanche

Established Member

Dstock7080

Established Member

D365

Veteran Member