On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 16:58:56 +0000, Basil Jet <basil@spamspamspam.com>
wrote:
On 2017\12\09 16:39, Recliner wrote:
Diamond Geezer reminds us that Crossrail opens in a year's time, but for >>> its first 12 months will consist of fhree separate services with
inconvenient connections where they meet. So if you want to use Crossrail >>> to get from, say, Harold Wood to Heathrow, you'll have to change twice,
with each change involving a change of levels and some walking that Roland >>> will rant about:
http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/crossrail-1.html
So at opening Abbey Wood will get a train every 4 minutes,
falling to every 5 minutes when the Shenfield branch connects.
So, it seems.
The phased introduction of Elizabeth Line services has been planned
this way for some time. Roger Ford wrote about it several months
back. IIRC a continental operator advised the operators to ensure the >central, and suburban, sections run each run smoothly, as separate
sections, before introducing the thru service.
Smooth Operator Nigel is just catching up.
On 2017\12\09 16:39, Recliner wrote:
Diamond Geezer reminds us that Crossrail opens in a year's time, but for
its first 12 months will consist of fhree separate services with
inconvenient connections where they meet. So if you want to use Crossrail
to get from, say, Harold Wood to Heathrow, you'll have to change twice,
with each change involving a change of levels and some walking that Roland >> will rant about:
http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/crossrail-1.html
So at opening Abbey Wood will get a train every 4 minutes,
falling to every 5 minutes when the Shenfield branch connects.
Smooth Operator Nigel is just catching up.
Please don't edit the subject, it breaks threading.
On 2017\12\09 23:52, Recliner wrote:
Anna Noyd-Dryver <Anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
e27002 aurora <adrianhudson@sprintmail.com> wrote:
Smooth Operator Nigel is just catching up.
Yes, this isn't new news, I'm sure I've been aware of this for a year or >>> two at least?
I agree, but thought it was worth drawing attention to Diamond Geezer's
latest post on the subject. I'm sure not everyone realises that when
Crossrail finally opens in a year's time, it will actually consist of three >> separate services with inconvenient connections between them. The real,
connected-up Crossrail is still two years away.
I appreciated your post. It was the first time I have heard it spelled
out that the three services will all be called Elizabeth Line, as
opposed to one Elizabeth Line and two TfL Rail services, which would
have been a lot less confusing IMO.
On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 03:25:25 +0000, Basil Jet <basil@spamspamspam.com>
wrote:
On 2017\12\09 23:52, Recliner wrote:
Anna Noyd-Dryver <Anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
e27002 aurora <adrianhudson@sprintmail.com> wrote:
Smooth Operator Nigel is just catching up.
Yes, this isn't new news, I'm sure I've been aware of this for a year or >>>> two at least?
I agree, but thought it was worth drawing attention to Diamond Geezer's
latest post on the subject. I'm sure not everyone realises that when
Crossrail finally opens in a year's time, it will actually consist of three >>> separate services with inconvenient connections between them. The real,
connected-up Crossrail is still two years away.
I appreciated your post. It was the first time I have heard it spelled
out that the three services will all be called Elizabeth Line, as
opposed to one Elizabeth Line and two TfL Rail services, which would
have been a lot less confusing IMO.
Basil, I think you are right about that. TfL Rail is nicely generic.
Just calling the Central Section the Elizabeth Line until thru running
begins would have worked well.
In message <eao13d1m28rj96560dlt3rsb22d9gq0if4@4ax.com>, at 08:15:01 on
Wed, 13 Dec 2017, Neil Williams <spam_neil@pacersplace.org.uk> remarked:
If the objective is to please people getting off the Victoria Line at >>>Euston, and walking to the MML platforms from there, rather than getting >>>off the Victoria Line at Kings Cross for the MML platforms, then I think >>>we can discount them as a target audience of any relevance at all.
Not everyone is arriving at St Pancras from the Victoria Line. Other >>methods of transport are available. You can't please all of them; you
take from one and give to another.
The vas majority have to walk "further" to get to the MML platforms.
Victoria Line passengers are simply the ones most disadvantaged.
Only a handful of people approaching from the NNW (through a side door) >won't. If there was indeed some kind of "balancing" of need taking
place, it wouldn't be so bad. But there isn't.
TfL's facilities known as Kings Cross/St Pancras station are a
convoluted horrible mess of which TfL should be thoroughly ashamed.
Even though the station is advertised as "step free", anyone with
walking difficulties would have a hard time negotiating the distances >underground.
OTOH, above ground, the NR Kings Cross improvements, undertaken during
the period when Network Rail was private,
are a magnificent blending
of old and new to create a very pleasant and functional station.
The contrast could not be more stark.
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 10:26:29 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
In message <p0thv0$16uo$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:57:53 on Thu, 14 Dec
2017, boltar@cylonHQ.com remarked:
The station at Waterloo is going to be under the Charing Cross LineAnybody arriving at King's Cross St Pancras Underground station is equally >>>>badly off, unless they arrive on the Metropolitan (etc) platforms.
Other cities do their best to make sure the interchange between lines is as >>>short as possible. In London we seem to deliberately do the opposite. The >>>new thameslink platform at St P, the jubilee line at waterloo which seems to >>be
half a mile from anything else and requires a travalator are good examples. >>
beneath Waterloo East; rather than under the old Eurostar platforms and >>north end of the concourse. I don't know the specific reason for this.
As an aside - I wonder why the lines at waterloo were never linked to the >charing X line at waterloo east? They're at the same level and can't be more >than 50 metres apart at closest approach. It would have created a south river >line following the river (more or less) from richmond out to gravesend.
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:14:31 +0000 (UTC), boltar@cylonHQ.com wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 10:26:29 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
In message <p0thv0$16uo$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:57:53 on Thu, 14 Dec >>>2017, boltar@cylonHQ.com remarked:
beAnybody arriving at King's Cross St Pancras Underground station is equally >>>>>badly off, unless they arrive on the Metropolitan (etc) platforms.
Other cities do their best to make sure the interchange between lines is as >>>>short as possible. In London we seem to deliberately do the opposite. The >>>>new thameslink platform at St P, the jubilee line at waterloo which seems to
half a mile from anything else and requires a travalator are good examples. >>>The station at Waterloo is going to be under the Charing Cross Line >>>beneath Waterloo East; rather than under the old Eurostar platforms and >>>north end of the concourse. I don't know the specific reason for this.
As an aside - I wonder why the lines at waterloo were never linked to the >>charing X line at waterloo east? They're at the same level and can't be more >>than 50 metres apart at closest approach. It would have created a south river >>line following the river (more or less) from richmond out to gravesend.
Strangely LT/LRT/TfL have regressed. When they built the Victoria
Line back in the 1960s they made interchange so easy. Amid Beeching,
and the general decline during that period, the Victoria Line shines
as a real achievement.
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:21:31 +0000
e27002 aurora <adrianhudson@sprintmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:14:31 +0000 (UTC), boltar@cylonHQ.com wrote:
As an aside - I wonder why the lines at waterloo were never linked to the >>>charing X line at waterloo east? They're at the same level and can't be more >>>than 50 metres apart at closest approach. It would have created a south river
line following the river (more or less) from richmond out to gravesend.
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:21:31 +0000
e27002 aurora <adrianhudson@sprintmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:14:31 +0000 (UTC), boltar@cylonHQ.com wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 10:26:29 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
In message <p0thv0$16uo$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:57:53 on Thu, 14 Dec
2017, boltar@cylonHQ.com remarked:
beAnybody arriving at King's Cross St Pancras Underground station is equally
badly off, unless they arrive on the Metropolitan (etc) platforms.
Other cities do their best to make sure the interchange between lines is as
short as possible. In London we seem to deliberately do the opposite. The >>>>> new thameslink platform at St P, the jubilee line at waterloo which seems to
half a mile from anything else and requires a travalator are good examples.
The station at Waterloo is going to be under the Charing Cross Line
beneath Waterloo East; rather than under the old Eurostar platforms and >>>> north end of the concourse. I don't know the specific reason for this.
As an aside - I wonder why the lines at waterloo were never linked to the >>> charing X line at waterloo east? They're at the same level and can't be more
than 50 metres apart at closest approach. It would have created a south river
line following the river (more or less) from richmond out to gravesend.
Strangely LT/LRT/TfL have regressed. When they built the Victoria
Line back in the 1960s they made interchange so easy. Amid Beeching,
and the general decline during that period, the Victoria Line shines
as a real achievement.
One can only assume that what makes construction easier for the engineers
and maybe saves a few weeks or months, takes priority over what will make life
easier for hundreds of millions of passengers over the next couple of centuries.
Apparently, the Victoria line was subsequently criticised for inadequate capacity in the stations, so the JLE was designed to have large, high capacity stations, even though this meant some platforms were well
separated from others in the station. Some were OK (Canada Water, Canning Town, Stratford, Westminster, West Ham), others less so (Waterloo, London Bridge, Canary Wharf).
Strangely LT/LRT/TfL have regressed. When they built the Victoria
Line back in the 1960s they made interchange so easy. Amid Beeching,
and the general decline during that period, the Victoria Line shines
as a real achievement.
On 2017\12\14 15:29, Recliner wrote:
Apparently, the Victoria line was subsequently criticised for inadequate
capacity in the stations, so the JLE was designed to have large, high
capacity stations, even though this meant some platforms were well
separated from others in the station. Some were OK (Canada Water, Canning
Town, Stratford, Westminster, West Ham), others less so (Waterloo, London
Bridge, Canary Wharf).
What's wrong with Canary Wharf JLE station? It's usually considered the line's architectural highlight?
On 2017-12-14, Basil Jet <basil@spamspamspam.com> wrote:
On 2017\12\14 15:29, Recliner wrote:
Apparently, the Victoria line was subsequently criticised for inadequate >>> capacity in the stations, so the JLE was designed to have large, high
capacity stations, even though this meant some platforms were well
separated from others in the station. Some were OK (Canada Water, Canning >>> Town, Stratford, Westminster, West Ham), others less so (Waterloo, London >>> Bridge, Canary Wharf).
What's wrong with Canary Wharf JLE station? It's usually considered the
line's architectural highlight?
The escalators down to the platform are exceptionally wide (large dead
space between the two in each group) due to the structural supports down
the middle of the platform. (I assume structural - if it's architectural >'look and feel' then someone should be shot)
This means that although the platform floor area is large, there's >surprisingly little space to stand and people getting to the bottom of
the escalator can find it hard to move away from the end - to the extent
that sometimes they have to hold people back from getting on to the
escalator at all.
On 2017\12\14 11:21, e27002 aurora wrote:
Strangely LT/LRT/TfL have regressed. When they built the Victoria
Line back in the 1960s they made interchange so easy. Amid Beeching,
and the general decline during that period, the Victoria Line shines
as a real achievement.
It's not so strange. Deep piled buildings were rare when the Victoria
Line was built, and the restriction against tunnelling beneath buildings >which existed when the earlier lines were built had been repealed,
so
the Victoria Line planners had freedom like no-one before or since.
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:44:33 +0000 (UTC)
Tim Woodall <news001@woodall.me.uk> wrote:
On 2017-12-14, Basil Jet <basil@spamspamspam.com> wrote:
On 2017\12\14 15:29, Recliner wrote:
Apparently, the Victoria line was subsequently criticised for inadequate >>>> capacity in the stations, so the JLE was designed to have large, high
capacity stations, even though this meant some platforms were well
separated from others in the station. Some were OK (Canada Water, Canning >>>> Town, Stratford, Westminster, West Ham), others less so (Waterloo, London >>>> Bridge, Canary Wharf).
What's wrong with Canary Wharf JLE station? It's usually considered the
line's architectural highlight?
The escalators down to the platform are exceptionally wide (large dead >>space between the two in each group) due to the structural supports down >>the middle of the platform. (I assume structural - if it's architectural >>'look and feel' then someone should be shot)
This means that although the platform floor area is large, there's >>surprisingly little space to stand and people getting to the bottom of
the escalator can find it hard to move away from the end - to the extent >>that sometimes they have to hold people back from getting on to the >>escalator at all.
True, I found that when I worked there. It could be chaos in rush hour if
a train was delayed.
Also there's the plain fact that canary wharf station is a massive waste of >space. You don't need ceilings 60 foot high in a tube station, they could have >put 3 or 4 floors in to use for other things that would be a benefit to the >area and bring in revenue for LU. As it is its just cathdral sized dead space >that benefits no one other than the architects to say "Look what we did!".
On 2017-12-14, Basil Jet <basil@spamspamspam.com> wrote:
On 2017\12\14 15:29, Recliner wrote:
Apparently, the Victoria line was subsequently criticised for inadequate >>> capacity in the stations, so the JLE was designed to have large, high
capacity stations, even though this meant some platforms were well
separated from others in the station. Some were OK (Canada Water, Canning >>> Town, Stratford, Westminster, West Ham), others less so (Waterloo, London >>> Bridge, Canary Wharf).
What's wrong with Canary Wharf JLE station? It's usually considered the
line's architectural highlight?
The escalators down to the platform are exceptionally wide (large dead
space between the two in each group) due to the structural supports down
the middle of the platform. (I assume structural - if it's architectural 'look and feel' then someone should be shot)
On 15.12.17 8:44, Tim Woodall wrote:
On 2017-12-14, Basil Jet <basil@spamspamspam.com> wrote:
On 2017\12\14 15:29, Recliner wrote:
Apparently, the Victoria line was subsequently criticised for inadequate >>>> capacity in the stations, so the JLE was designed to have large, high
capacity stations, even though this meant some platforms were well
separated from others in the station. Some were OK (Canada Water, Canning >>>> Town, Stratford, Westminster, West Ham), others less so (Waterloo, London >>>> Bridge, Canary Wharf).
What's wrong with Canary Wharf JLE station? It's usually considered the
line's architectural highlight?
The escalators down to the platform are exceptionally wide (large dead
space between the two in each group) due to the structural supports down
the middle of the platform. (I assume structural - if it's architectural
'look and feel' then someone should be shot)
Can we expect Crossrail's escalators to set any sort of records, such as
the longest or shortest in Western Europe?
hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 15.12.17 8:44, Tim Woodall wrote:
On 2017-12-14, Basil Jet <basil@spamspamspam.com> wrote:
On 2017\12\14 15:29, Recliner wrote:
Apparently, the Victoria line was subsequently criticised for inadequate >>>>> capacity in the stations, so the JLE was designed to have large, high >>>>> capacity stations, even though this meant some platforms were well
separated from others in the station. Some were OK (Canada Water, Canning >>>>> Town, Stratford, Westminster, West Ham), others less so (Waterloo, London >>>>> Bridge, Canary Wharf).
What's wrong with Canary Wharf JLE station? It's usually considered the >>>> line's architectural highlight?
The escalators down to the platform are exceptionally wide (large dead
space between the two in each group) due to the structural supports down >>> the middle of the platform. (I assume structural - if it's architectural >>> 'look and feel' then someone should be shot)
Can we expect Crossrail's escalators to set any sort of records, such as
the longest or shortest in Western Europe?
I doubt it, but some Crossrail stations will have a lot of them.
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:04:59 +0000 (UTC), boltar@cylonHQ.com wrote:
Also there's the plain fact that canary wharf station is a massive waste of >>space. You don't need ceilings 60 foot high in a tube station, they could >haveIt is easier and quicker to dig a big hole and build within in than to >construct a maze of tunnels as done in older Underground stations. In
put 3 or 4 floors in to use for other things that would be a benefit to the >>area and bring in revenue for LU. As it is its just cathdral sized dead space >>that benefits no one other than the architects to say "Look what we did!".
the case of Canary Wharf, much of the hole was already there in the
form of the West India dock. The current construction doesn't appear
to necessarily prevent addition of further internal floors/levels if
wanted at some time in the future.
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 18:28:36 +0000
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:04:59 +0000 (UTC), boltar@cylonHQ.com wrote:
Also there's the plain fact that canary wharf station is a massive waste of >>> space. You don't need ceilings 60 foot high in a tube station, they could >> haveIt is easier and quicker to dig a big hole and build within in than to
put 3 or 4 floors in to use for other things that would be a benefit to the >>> area and bring in revenue for LU. As it is its just cathdral sized dead space
that benefits no one other than the architects to say "Look what we did!". >>>
construct a maze of tunnels as done in older Underground stations. In
the case of Canary Wharf, much of the hole was already there in the
form of the West India dock. The current construction doesn't appear
to necessarily prevent addition of further internal floors/levels if
wanted at some time in the future.
Can't see that happening, at least not easily. There's too much structural clutter. Extra floors should have been designed in from the start. A wasted opportunity IMO.
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 18:28:36 +0000
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:04:59 +0000 (UTC), boltar@cylonHQ.com wrote:
Also there's the plain fact that canary wharf station is a massive waste of >>> space. You don't need ceilings 60 foot high in a tube station, they could >> haveIt is easier and quicker to dig a big hole and build within in than to
put 3 or 4 floors in to use for other things that would be a benefit to the >>> area and bring in revenue for LU. As it is its just cathdral sized dead space
that benefits no one other than the architects to say "Look what we did!". >>>
construct a maze of tunnels as done in older Underground stations. In
the case of Canary Wharf, much of the hole was already there in the
form of the West India dock. The current construction doesn't appear
to necessarily prevent addition of further internal floors/levels if
wanted at some time in the future.
Can't see that happening, at least not easily. There's too much structural clutter. Extra floors should have been designed in from the start. A wasted opportunity IMO.
On 18/12/2017 10:08, boltar@cylonHQ.com wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 18:28:36 +0000
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:04:59 +0000 (UTC), boltar@cylonHQ.com wrote:
Also there's the plain fact that canary wharf station is a massive waste ofIt is easier and quicker to dig a big hole and build within in than to
space. You don't need ceilings 60 foot high in a tube station, they could >>> have
put 3 or 4 floors in to use for other things that would be a benefit to the
area and bring in revenue for LU. As it is its just cathdral sized dead >space
that benefits no one other than the architects to say "Look what we did!". >>>>
construct a maze of tunnels as done in older Underground stations. In
the case of Canary Wharf, much of the hole was already there in the
form of the West India dock. The current construction doesn't appear
to necessarily prevent addition of further internal floors/levels if
wanted at some time in the future.
Can't see that happening, at least not easily. There's too much structural >> clutter. Extra floors should have been designed in from the start. A wasted >> opportunity IMO.
Is it known that such a design could have met requirements for smoke >dispersal and bomb blast resistance? It is after all a high profile
location. And there were sound reasons why ordnance - and firework! - >factories had strong walls and weak rooves.
On 18/12/2017 10:08, boltar@cylonHQ.com wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 18:28:36 +0000
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:04:59 +0000 (UTC), boltar@cylonHQ.com wrote:
Also there's the plain fact that canary wharf station is a massive waste ofIt is easier and quicker to dig a big hole and build within in than to
space. You don't need ceilings 60 foot high in a tube station, they could >>> have
put 3 or 4 floors in to use for other things that would be a benefit to the
area and bring in revenue for LU. As it is its just cathdral sized dead >space
that benefits no one other than the architects to say "Look what we did!". >>>>
construct a maze of tunnels as done in older Underground stations. In
the case of Canary Wharf, much of the hole was already there in the
form of the West India dock. The current construction doesn't appear
to necessarily prevent addition of further internal floors/levels if
wanted at some time in the future.
Can't see that happening, at least not easily. There's too much structural >> clutter. Extra floors should have been designed in from the start. A wasted >> opportunity IMO.
What are you going to use the extra floors for?
On 18/12/2017 10:08, boltar@cylonHQ.com wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 18:28:36 +0000
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:04:59 +0000 (UTC), boltar@cylonHQ.com wrote:
Also there's the plain fact that canary wharf station is a massive waste ofIt is easier and quicker to dig a big hole and build within in than to
space. You don't need ceilings 60 foot high in a tube station, they could >>> have
put 3 or 4 floors in to use for other things that would be a benefit to the
area and bring in revenue for LU. As it is its just cathdral sized dead space
that benefits no one other than the architects to say "Look what we did!". >>>>
construct a maze of tunnels as done in older Underground stations. In
the case of Canary Wharf, much of the hole was already there in the
form of the West India dock. The current construction doesn't appear
to necessarily prevent addition of further internal floors/levels if
wanted at some time in the future.
Can't see that happening, at least not easily. There's too much structural >> clutter. Extra floors should have been designed in from the start. A wasted >> opportunity IMO.
What are you going to use the extra floors for?
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:50:08 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/12/2017 10:08, boltar@cylonHQ.com wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 18:28:36 +0000
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:04:59 +0000 (UTC), boltar@cylonHQ.com wrote:
Also there's the plain fact that canary wharf station is a massive waste ofIt is easier and quicker to dig a big hole and build within in than to >>>> construct a maze of tunnels as done in older Underground stations. In
space. You don't need ceilings 60 foot high in a tube station, they could >>>> have
put 3 or 4 floors in to use for other things that would be a benefit to the
area and bring in revenue for LU. As it is its just cathdral sized dead >> space
that benefits no one other than the architects to say "Look what we did!".
the case of Canary Wharf, much of the hole was already there in the
form of the West India dock. The current construction doesn't appear
to necessarily prevent addition of further internal floors/levels if
wanted at some time in the future.
Can't see that happening, at least not easily. There's too much structural >>> clutter. Extra floors should have been designed in from the start. A wasted >>> opportunity IMO.
What are you going to use the extra floors for?
Yeah, tricky one, what could thousands of square feet of floor space be used for in a major financial district + shopping area.... hmmm....
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 13:46:05 |
| Calls: | 6,645 |
| Files: | 12,190 |
| Messages: | 5,326,920 |