castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 829
|
Post by castlebar on Dec 8, 2011 19:15:39 GMT
The lower map is very interesting. It seems to indicate a reversal at Twickenham before heading off down the Shepperton branch.
Wonderful news!! The Shepperton branch gets a crap service because all but a couple of peak journeys a day are sent the circuituous long way around, whereas pax would love to have a proper train service from say Hampton to Twick, Richmond & Putney. So bring it on!! If somebody from SWT is reading this, PLEASE take note!
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Ben on Dec 8, 2011 22:20:28 GMT
With that line thickness and scale, I'd suggest that its representing the current triangle instead of anything different. I'm not sold on either map. Course it'll work; London is too busy for it not to! But the whole thing now looks like one idea with many different ideas bolted on. Its hardly coherant and cant be as the core is still 20 years old and the rest at most one year. Abe one said on here in relation to '74s scheme of taking the Aldwych branch : . I count three dog-legs in the first option, and thats just to incorporate an existing bit of tunnel that isnt even built yet! Please could someone post a link thats not to transportxtra? Unfortunately its a subscription site  |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 8, 2011 23:25:44 GMT
Can two parallel branches between Hackney and Tottenham be viable? Surely people would prefer the full frequency on one line rather than two branches so close together: have to guess which station to go to - much cheaper to build the single branch.
As for the Fulwell triangle - can trains terminate at Twickenham from the west? I would suggest Shepperton to Waterloo services divert via Richmond, with Crossrail running to Shepperton via Kingston (both 4tph please!). The direct service between Kingston and Richmond would be lost - change at Fulwell would be necessary, but it is currently usually better to use the much more direct No 65 bus. We do need a direct service from Twickenham to Kingston though - the only through bus service, the 281, goes via Fulwell,still following the tramlines which were taken up in 1932.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 829
|
Post by castlebar on Dec 9, 2011 8:10:26 GMT
The new map certainly indicates Twickenham terminators from the west - obviously another map drawn by somebody without any local knowledge!
But Shepperton branch pax are desperate for a proper train service to Twick, Richmond & Putney, At the moment, many prefer to take their cars for the journey or part of it at least. Barking madness that most services use the southern chord instead. Loss of revenue to SWT must be significant
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 10, 2011 0:57:11 GMT
But Shepperton branch pax are desperate for a proper train service to Twick, Richmond & Putney, Barking madness that most services use the southern chord instead. I suspect the reason they go that way is to maintain 4tph on the line through Kingston - which is barely adequate for the number of passengers using it. In any case, I doubt they could squeeze two Shepperton services an hour onto the route via Richmond, let alone the extra Kingston loop trains that would be needed to restore the 4tph. As you say, people travelling from Shepperton, Hampton, etc to Twickenham, Richmond etc can drive (or bus) over to Feltham. If the trains ran via Richmond, those wanting destinations on the Wimbledon route would not have that option - the small matter of the River Thames and the continuing saga of Walton Bridge (which has had a succession of temporary structures since it was damaged in WW2), lies between you and Weybridge, and being in Surrey rather than Greater London the buses are much thinner on the ground too. |
|
|
|
Post by etr220 on Dec 10, 2011 10:41:08 GMT
But Shepperton branch pax are desperate for a proper train service to Twick, Richmond & Putney, Barking madness that most services use the southern chord instead. I suspect the reason they go that way is to maintain 4tph on the line through Kingston - which is barely adequate for the number of passengers using it. Yes - and also keep up the service level on the main line (through Wimbledon) - this came in 1916, with electrification: before then most Shepperton services ran via Richmond. |
|
|
|
Post by mikebuzz on Dec 11, 2011 23:32:32 GMT
 This is much more interesting. Again we have a core route but with fewer stations in the core because of their size. The tunnel would start at Wimbledon and then divert to Tooting Broadway, where it could intercept traffic from the Southern end of the Northern Line, before going back to Clapham Junction. At the Northern end it is even more creative and reminds me of the two eastern branches of Crossrail 1. The line diverges into two tunnels at Angel, Yes most interesting. Tooting Bec plus the assumed no Picc Circus and one station for King's X St. P. The Euston St. Pancras designation, even for the regional option that would cover King's Cross is also interesting. i would imagine in future Euston tube will become Euston St Pancras and perhaps the 2 international stations will be styled this way. Without reading too much into the map I wonder if the Hackney branch will curve via Hoxton? Whatever I too feel it has too many dog legs. Are a Chelsea Town Hall station and NL pick-up necessary when the route could go Wimbledon-clapham Junction-Grosvenor Road-Victoria? It would also allow CR2 to have a more gentle curve between Victoria and Euston St. P and interchange at Bond Street Crossrail instead. I won't even comment on the ridiculous double up between Angel and Seven Sisters/Tottenham Hale. Ally Pally-Euston St. Pancras is going to be a bit of a detour compared to existing services too. The metro option too would probably be better off going Angel-Hoxton-Hackney but I don't have a solution for the mess south of Victoria unless either the King's Road section or clapham Junction are dropped. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisvandenkieboom on Dec 12, 2011 15:18:29 GMT
But dropping King's Road would make it lose the Chelsea part. But Alexandra Palace is nice; but it'll likely use NCL infrastructure instead of Northern Heights |
|
|
|
Post by mikebuzz on Mar 6, 2012 16:09:57 GMT
|
|
