What next for LU? At full capacity...

[BurtonM]

Could Tower Gateway be reworked at all to allow more arrivals into the City?

 

[Busaholic]

One has to consider where people from those new stations will go - if they want to go to Bank in the morning peak, then that's problematic.

Problem 1 - if you extend to Grove Park/Bromley North all you are doing is creating a service for those areas at the expense of the Lewisham/Greenwich commuters (and those travelling from further out in South Eastern land using those places as an Interchange) who'll no longer have the capacity to board in the a.m. peak.

Problem 2 - Bromley North to Bank via Canary Wharf would take far too long for regular commuters and would be an incredibly inefficient way of getting there, only really to be considered in an emergency.

Problem 3 - DLR is already being stretched way beyond capacity and could become another Thameslink (i.e. incredibly unreliable) if TfL are not careful. It was never designed for long branches reaching out from the spine, and no amount of tweaking can negate that basic truth.

There is a reason why the Northern Line never got extended from Morden to Sutton as originally planned, and that reason is nothing to do with geology and everything to do with its inability to cope with the extra thousands of people who would attempt to use the service.

 

[Comstock]

This http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34334794 has just appeared on the BBC website. I don't understand it fully but it seems to be advocating slowing down the tube to make it less appealing to switch from road to tube?

 

[glbotu]

This http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34334794 has just appeared on the BBC website. I don't understand it fully but it seems to be advocating slowing down the tube to make it less appealing to switch from road to tube?

So, it's an interesting finding, but has to be taken with a large pinch of salt. The issue is that according to the study, by speeding up one mode of transport, it moves the bottlenecks to the interchange point. If you spread the load out more between both modes of transport, then you have fewer total bottlenecks in theory. However, they haven't actually taken into account the total capacity of the system, just distances and speeds, which means that they're missing a rather crucial modelling component. I'd be more willing to trust flow-based systems.

 

[Mojo]

So, it's an interesting finding, but has to be taken with a large pinch of salt. The issue is that according to the study, by speeding up one mode of transport, it moves the bottlenecks to the interchange point. If you spread the load out more between both modes of transport, then you have fewer total bottlenecks in theory. However, they haven't actually taken into account the total capacity of the system, just distances and speeds, which means that they're missing a rather crucial modelling component. I'd be more willing to trust flow-based systems.

It also neglects to consider a number of other factors such as:
1. The proportion of customers that drive to the station compared to use other modes
2. Other advantages of rail travel, such as reduced pollution, increased safety, etc.
3. Social mobility

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Would any parts of London benefit at all from the re-introduction of trams?

 

[glbotu]

Would any parts of London benefit at all from the re-introduction of trams?

Probably some of the outer parts, with orbital Croydon Tramlink type plans. Into Central London, trams don't have the capacity or enough of an advantage over buses. They'd still get stuck in traffic (unless you intend to demolish non-trivial quantities of Central London for extensive road-widening). Your other option then becomes segregated rights of way, which it turns out are cheaper if you put them underground. At which point, you have railways instead.

Croydon Tramlink was also a pretty special case, namely, because it had lots of places to run a tram.

1. A very underused and infrequent railway from Croydon - Wimbledon
2. Some disused lines out to Elmer's End
3. Wide (ish) road alignments around Croydon.

 

[Comstock]

Is the cross river tram absolutely dead and buried?

 

[JamesRowden]

This http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34334794 has just appeared on the BBC website. I don't understand it fully but it seems to be advocating slowing down the tube to make it less appealing to switch from road to tube?

Adding bus lanes in affected areas would seem a better solution than slowing the tube since the bus lanes should attract people to use public transport for their entire journey, subsequently increasing the effective capacity of such roads, and it should result in faster journeys than the `slow tube' idea.

 

[AM9]

.... Your other option then becomes segregated rights of way, which it turns out are cheaper if you put them underground. At which point, you have railways instead.

Of if convenient to keep part of the route on the surface, use the pre-metro model.

 

[plcd1]

Is the cross river tram absolutely dead and buried?

Not in the minds of a number of London Assembly politicians. I attended a Bus Forum where several Assembly members were present and a slightly negative comment about trams was made by a senior TfL person. To say that "lit the blue touch paper" is a mild understatement. There was a quite a ferocious response to the mildly negative comment and it was pretty clear that at least two parties harbour strong desires to see many miles of trams in London.

I doubt TfL have thrown away anything to do with Cross River Tram so work could resume on re-evaluating the business case and scheme scope if a future Mayor so wished. I doubt any of the likely candidates for Mayor from the Tories or Labour have much of a clue about trams whereas Lib Dem and Green do. Anyway housing, not transport, is likely to be the no1 election issue and that's where the priority will be between 2016 and 2020. We'll just work out we've got a transport crisis in 2020 *if* a future Mayor actually manages to build considerable numbers of new homes. :roll:

 

[SpacePhoenix]

North of the Thames, is there the room to weeve any new tube tunnels through all the existing stuff (other lines, building foundations, etc, etc) or would any new build now have to be bored underneath everything else?

 

[glbotu]

North of the Thames, is there the room to weeve any new tube tunnels through all the existing stuff (other lines, building foundations, etc, etc) or would any new build now have to be bored underneath everything else?

Well CrossRail 2 is reasonably likely to be built. They won't build any more tunnels to "Tube" gauge, because it produces much less capacity for very little cost saving, as opposed to building new full size railway lines.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Would it be worth building Crossrail 2 to be big enough for proper double decker trains or would there be some physical reason (eg having to weave between stuff underground) or would the geology not permit it?

 

[AM9]

Would it be worth building Crossrail 2 to be big enough for proper double decker trains or would there be some physical reason (eg having to weave between stuff underground) or would the geology not permit it?

The balance between conventional and double deck stock effective capacity on commuter lines has been discussed here before. Dwell times are the name of the game here, which will become apparent when the 345s and 700s enter full service in three years. The gain would be negligible in theoretical capacity even if the existing surface infrastructure could accomodate high capacity DD stock.
It's not just boring larger tunnels and lifting a few overbridges, any line penetrating the SW line network would encounter the considerable number of underbridges with above-deck trusses which effectively rule out any real increase in capacity on the lower decks. And all that is ignoring the measures needed to clear a larger gauge through shared station platforms.
The tunnel would probably be bored the same size as Crossrail which would make passive provision for DD stock (given that their expected life exceeds 100 years), but I doubt any here but the youngest members of UKR would ever travel on a DD commuter train through London in their lifetime, (re-incarnations excepted).

 

[Searchlight]

"Too far to be considered an interchange" is the answer. For moderately fit people who know what they're doing it's not too bad - a few minutes walk - but if you're less mobile or unfamiliar with the area it's a big problem.

Buses have their own problems - they're much much slower than trains, carry less people, and are affected by London's godawful traffic.

Thats why trams should replace them in central London......Where the Load Factor is high. This apart from the serious pollution issues.....Buses should be used in the suburbs and trolleybuses should be considered outside zone 2. Politically, it has always been difficult to have trams accepted in London. this opposition mainly from rich people who, never use public transport. Buses never had this opposition, so became widespread.

 

[Robertj21a]

Thats why trams should replace them in central London......Where the Load Factor is high. This apart from the serious pollution issues.....Buses should be used in the suburbs and trolleybuses should be considered outside zone 2. Politically, it has always been difficult to have trams accepted in London. this opposition mainly from rich people who, never use public transport. Buses never had this opposition, so became widespread.

If there was to be an enlightened transport-orientated Mayor, they could start investigating the possibility of trams operating over, say, the 18 or 25 bus routes - or even linking both those routes to create a long core route suitable for numerous branches in years/decades to come. The upheaval would be significant, but then so are many alternatives.

It does seem amazing to me that Boris got rid of the efficient people-moving 'Bendybus' that many other major cities use, even where they already have trams.

 

[Nym]

This http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34334794 has just appeared on the BBC website. I don't understand it fully but it seems to be advocating slowing down the tube to make it less appealing to switch from road to tube?

The BBC seem to have missed the point that on an end to end line (like the Vic for example) one very easy way to improve capacity is to slow the trains down, as you reduce the distance for dynamic overlaps and you can run the trains closer together (subject to signalling constraints of course)...

 

[SpacePhoenix]

The BBC seem to have missed the point that on an end to end line (like the Vic for example) one very easy way to improve capacity is to slow the trains down, as you reduce the distance for dynamic overlaps and you can run the trains closer together (subject to signalling constraints of course)...

I know that the Vic line uses ATO, presumably each station is a signalling section in itself, how many signalling sections will be in each length of tunnel between stations?

 

[Haydn1971]

Whilst I see a central tram system working well, it's at odds with improving the safety for huge numbers of cycles. Overall, the upheaval in building a tramway would likely to be the killer if it ran down primary shopping streets, so whilst costly capital wise, the high capacity underground train concept is probably less damaging to the retail economy than tram routes. I more Crossrail routes as the logical step in closing the poor efficiency of the older underground stations that are practically impossible to upgrade - Crossrail 3, 4, 5 ect will ultimately start replacing key underground corridors over the next century.

 

[rebmcr]

I know that the Vic line uses ATO, presumably each station is a signalling section in itself, how many signalling sections will be in each length of tunnel between stations?

It's not got signalling sections, it's moving block.

 

[Nym]

I know that the Vic line uses ATO, presumably each station is a signalling section in itself, how many signalling sections will be in each length of tunnel between stations?

Nowhere near as many as you'd think. The Vic's blocks are quite well designed...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's not got signalling sections, it's moving block.

No, it's not. The Victoria Line DTG-R uses fixed blocks...

 

[Whistler40145]

IMHO I would upgrade the stock exchange lines to passenger standard, thus giving more destinations available.

 

[Nym]

Which ones would those be then?

The single track KX loop?
GOBLIN to District Cord?
Ruislip Depot to Denham?
or
The route from the Jubilee to Bakerloo lines...?

 

[Whistler40145]

Whichever would provide useful cross line journeys, e.g. East London Line to other lines as part of the London Overground network.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If a new line was to be created covering:

* Heathrow Airport
* Gatwick Airport (maybe)
* Waterloo Station
* Victoria (covering the train and coach station)
* Paddington
* London Bridge
* Black Friars
* Kings Cross (possible covering St Pancras as well)
* Euston
* Liverpool Street
* Charing Cross
* Fenchurch Street
* Cannon Street
* Marylebone

and possibly Bank and Canary Wharf

How much pressure would that take off the existing tube and bus network?

 

[Nym]

* Heathrow Airport
Crossrail 1
* Gatwick Airport (maybe)
Thameslink
* Waterloo Station
Crossrail 2 at Clapham Jcn
* Victoria (covering the train and coach station)
Crossrail 2
* Paddington
Crossrail
* London Bridge
Thameslink
* Black Friars
Thameslink
* Kings Cross (possible covering St Pancras as well)
Thameslink and Crossrail 2
* Euston
Crossrail 2
* Liverpool Street
Crossrail
* Charing Cross
* Fenchurch Street
* Cannon Street
* Marylebone


Only four missing there from the current and likely inevitable projects...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Whichever would provide useful cross line journeys, e.g. East London Line to other lines as part of the London Overground network.

Such as?

 

[Whistler40145]

Metropolitan and District lines to Link with East London Line is one option.

Can anyone else think of which other lines would be useful to have direct connection with each other?

 

[Taunton]

It does seem amazing to me that Boris got rid of the efficient people-moving 'Bendybus' that many other major cities use, even where they already have trams.

They were a significant problem on London streets which are commonly narrower and tighter than the Continental streets compared to. They were a particular problem where two managed to be running in tandem for blocking all sorts of other traffic. They also had a rate of accidents well above what would be expected, because as they attracted a premium payment for drivers they got the most experience and otherwise accident-minimal drivers at their garage. They also developed a gross liability for passengers boarding through rear doors and not paying fares - maybe London's bus fares which are often several times what you pay for comparable journeys in Continental cities accounted for some of this.

 

[TheNewNo2]

Metropolitan and District lines to Link with East London Line is one option.

Can anyone else think of which other lines would be useful to have direct connection with each other?

Not really an option. It's a flat crossing, so significantly degrades capacity on both sides, and you'd be trying to feed it on to the busiest section of the Overground, where platforms are already in many places too short for the trains.