|
|
Post by anthonyfendall on Jun 6, 2012 21:39:26 GMT
Interestingly, the Chief Engineer in charge of constructing the line remarked that he couldn't understand why they hadn't spent "the million sovs" necessary to project the line properly to Bank anyway; there was no technical reason for not doing so, and no one seems to know why it stopped short where it did. Isn't the central line right next to it, at exactly the same level (give or take a yard or so). Its so close that you could straighten the westbound central line platform by putting the tracks and platform the other way round, and accessing the new platform by just stepping through a new door in the existing waterloo & city interchange corridor (but I'm not saying do this - the corridor is probably too narrow to cope with the extra traffic). If it was extended, it would need to dive immediately. It can't go due east, because it either hits the northern line concourse, or the northern line itself, or the northern line escalators. Remember, when you walk from the central line to the northern line, you go down about 1.5 floors, and then there's a corridor and concourse, then there's the northern line right beneath that - there isn't enough room to thread the waterloo and city under the central line. It can only really dive quite steeply, and turn north (there's enough distance for this, provided it cuts under the building on the corner of princes street - the one opposite the bank of england), going under the west end of the central line platforms. I don't think it can go over the central line, because it would probably be to close to the old emergency stairs (from the central line). So the only way to extend the Waterloo & City east, rather than north, would be to completely abandon the existing platforms and take a new route entirely from as far back as mansion house station. And to thread through to the east, you'd still need to either go so deep that you're under the DLR (which would be a very sharp dive, and difficult to reach - escalators would be huge, emergency stairs would be of hampstead sorts of height, and geologically risky), or cut through the piled foundations of the rothschild skyscraper (which is admittedly ugly enough to be demolished despite its newness), and other buildings. |
|
|
|
Post by anthonyfendall on Jun 6, 2012 22:30:17 GMT
Anyhow, my ideal extension includes a station at Blackfriars. Even though it offers no benefit at the moment, I just felt like putting it down for its Thameslink connection, and also because the line already passes directly underneath. I like the idea of Blackfriars. But the line has a sharp right hand turn at the north west corner of Blackfriars station. Platforms can't sensibly be south, because that goes under the river, so it would need to be to the east. Looking at the swing, it would need to start somewhere just beyond the east end of the circle line - conveniently there are fire exit passages here already, which saves alterations to the platform itself, but you'd have to cut under the horrific BT building, which might be tricky, because its a major telecomms exchange. North from Bank.... Shoreditch High Street (connection to London Overground and Central Line) Weaver's District (at junction of Queensbridge Road and Hackney Road, named after local ward - nice reference to history) South Hackney (connection to London Fields Station, but new name actually represents area - located between LF station and junction of Mare Street and Well Street) That's slightly more direct than the original poster's proposal, but you'd still run into the same foundations/huge building/archaeology problems between aldgate and bank, and you'd still not be offering much that the mainline isn't between hackney and the city. Wouldn't it be better to take come from the west end if you're going up the lea valley, since then you're offering something substantially new that the mainline isn't? The line would then split. One branch would head north, emerge above ground, and take over the line to Chingford: Clapton
Walthamstow St James Street
Wathamstow Central
Wood Street
Highams Park
ChingfordThe line would then split. One branch would head north, emerge above ground, and take over the line to Chingford: So what would the Victoria line do once it stops being so congested (after a relief line is built, like the Chelney)? - its built towards the Chingford line, and is only just below the tracks at its current terminus. The other branch would head north, emerge above ground and head to Enfield Town: And what happens to the rest of the existing line beyond Edmonton Green? Because I can't see Stanstead to Edmonton Green being a viable route on its own. Why not go to Cheshunt as well? South from Waterloo, the line would head for: ... VauxhallNine Elms
(the top two stations would take the place of the Northern Line extension stations from Kennington, which I think should go to Camberwell, Dulwich and Croydon)I'm so very not alone in agreeing with that. I think a certain organisation might have an issue with a sub surface line passing to close to their Vauxhall HQ though (they have a 6 in their common nick name). But I don't see why the line can't rise up to viaduct level, cross the mainline on a bridge (containing the platforms), and then descend again south of/at the bus station, in the style of the DLR (there must be some comparable gradients on the waterloo & city line, given that it goes under the river but has platforms at ground level at waterloo). It could always cling to the viaduct until there's a suitable place/distance. Mortlake
...
Richmond
...
Whitton I'm not sure this branch is a good idea. The mainline keeps goes at least to windsor, so the tracks would be still used by other traffic - this is the shorter route, so should be given over to the longer distance traffic. Barnes Bridge
....
Brentford
...
Feltham
(dive back underground)
Heathrow Terminal 4
Heathrow Terminals 1, 2 & 3
Heathrow Terminal 5 I've thought this route would work for a while now. I'm not sure about terminal 4 though. They seem to be re-organising Heathrow into Heathrow East (current "2", to replace 1 & 2, and probably replace 3 with a couple of satellite terminals) and Heathrow West ("5"). I think given the way that's going, Terminal 4 would probably end up being replaced by another airside satellite (with an airside shuttle connecting it to Heathrow East), or just becoming a freight terminal, especially as its so awkward for the tube now. It may however face dire competition from the faster Crossrail service From central london, certainly, although that's no better than the Heathrow Express, which has the same route and tracks (at least, as far as Paddington). But from the south west, this would potentially be a better route. People might take a short cut down the mainline as far as Feltham, depending on the speed, but having to then interchange at feltham would bring a slight regeneration benefit to feltham itself. And this travels through more upmarket housing areas - the kind of places that people who frequently travel abroad are more likely to live. |
|
|
|
Post by gericalo on Jul 12, 2012 12:09:12 GMT
Personally, i's like to see the W & C connected to the Northern City line at Moorgate and then connected to the old Northern Heights line to Alexandra Palace at Finsbury Park. I'm not so familiar with the options to the south of Waterloo so no real preferences.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Jul 12, 2012 13:16:58 GMT
Given the need to relocate the stations at both ends of a very short line is there really much advantage in reusing the bit in the middle as against a whole new line?
|
|
|
|
Post by revupminster on Jul 12, 2012 15:24:45 GMT
Tube extentions in 12' diameter tubes are very unlikely. I still doubt the Northern line will be extended. It was one of the reasons the Jubilee souteast extention was abandoned despite the steplate junction being built and why the DLR extention to Farringdon has come to the fore.
|
|
indbmtirt
East London and Jubilee Fan
Posts: 133
|
Post by indbmtirt on Oct 5, 2012 9:16:50 GMT
The most likely scenario for the line is platform doors and unmanned trains. I agree with you revupminster. To enhance safety on an extension like this, platform doors need to be installed for safety measures and to improve station airflow. |
|
indbmtirt
East London and Jubilee Fan
Posts: 133
|
Post by indbmtirt on Oct 5, 2012 9:18:42 GMT
Tube extentions in 12' diameter tubes are very unlikely. I still doubt the Northern line will be extended. It was one of the reasons the Jubilee souteast extention was abandoned despite the steplate junction being built and why the DLR extention to Farringdon has come to the fore. And I also agree with you again - the only way to bore through the tunnels is to relocate the travelators, causing in station closures. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Mar 8, 2013 22:32:26 GMT
Bank - Fenchurch Street - Aldgate - Shoreditch High Street alignment is a bit twisty and turny! Twisty and turny sounds fun ! |
|
|
|
Post by dw54 on Mar 16, 2013 9:58:37 GMT
If the W&C were to be connected at its eastern end through to another line (whether Central or GN&C) such that trains could access a substantial depot, then the existing depot at Waterloo could be abandoned and the space used to rearrange and extend terminal platforms. In doing so, a cross-over would be installed at the throat, and 6 or 7 car tube trains worked..
Should the Aldwych branch be extended, it too could share the new terminal while it remained a shuttle. Indeed, that link could be sufficient to displace the W&C depot without extensions at Bank. That would mean probably 5 car trains with smart safety systems at Bank (ATO, ATP, overspeed arresters, etc). Aldwych would need to be escalator connected to Temple via Kings College, per the scuppered plan referred to above, and have new wheelchair and general access lifts from its existing street entrance.
I have suggested in line with previous Crossrail 3 proposals, a line connecting the Watford DC lines from north of Euston, underneath Eversholt St then straight down under Southampton Row to Holborn Kingsway. To add that traffic would exceed the capacity of a reworked W&C Waterloo station, at which point a new station would need to be provisioned. From that point, trains via Aldwych could be 8-car (or longer) tube stock, though would start at 7-car Bakerloo. The southbound track ex Aldwych could be connected to the Bakerloo, but only if there was capacity - otherwise it seems that relocating the platforms under the Waterloo International Platforms might be the way forward. (BTW the XR3 concept I have floated involves using Tube stock throughout the route to Watford Junction, and sees the Bakerloo terminating for the most part at Queens Park. XR3 tube frequencies would be maintained up to Harrow & Wealdstone, and 4tph or more north of there. More trains would reverse at Wembley Central, Stonebridge Park and Willesden Junction. All stations between Euston and WJ would be reworked to have platforms exactly matching tube car floor height.)
DW down under
|
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on Apr 1, 2013 15:51:15 GMT
I have another idea for a W&C extension. This is probably the simplest idea by far. That is to build a connecting line from one end to the nearest tube line. This would solve disruption with cranes.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Apr 1, 2013 16:51:43 GMT
I have another idea for a W&C extension. This is probably the simplest idea by far. That is to build a connecting line from one end to the nearest tube line. This would solve disruption with cranes. There are various ways this could be done, for example burrowing the short distance to London Road (Bakerloo) depot, or extending the Aldwych branch to a junction with the W&C under the IMAX roundabout, or a connection between the W&C and the Central west of Bank station. Any of these might be possible, (especially if they are single track non-passenger carrying links like the "Kings Cross loop" connecting the Picc and Northern), but could the cost be justified, just for stock movements? So far the twenty vehicles have each been craned in twice, and out once, in their twenty-year careers. Assuming they last as long as their predecessors (the 1940 stock reached their half century, and even the original 1898 stock got to forty, outliving all the later "Gate" stock on other tube lines*), we might expect one more heavy refurbishment before they are life-expired. That's a total of six more movements for each car - of which the last may have to be by lorry anyway. Digging a tunnel for an average of one four-car train each way every three years or so isn't likely to stack up financially - even if W&C stock meets the loading gauge, and signalling requirements, of whichever line it is connected to. I do indeed wonder how the cost of digging the Kings Cross loop was justified - when was it built? (* their longevity may be partly explained by the five and a half days a week service operated on the W&C, (and the very much reduced offpeak service) and also the fact that the rolling stock was not exposed to the elements.) |
|
Chris M
chatter
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 9,816
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 1, 2013 18:00:25 GMT
Given the need to relocate the stations at both ends of a very short line is there really much advantage in reusing the bit in the middle as against a whole new line? This is a point that keeps getting overlooked when talking about W&C extensions. Particularly when you take into account other factors, such as
- The restricted gauge - a new line could be mainline gauge (or potentially even larger if it doesn't need to take over existing routes) for increased capacity
- The capital costs of relocating the existing stations - probably not much different (if at all) to the costs of just building new ones.
- The economic and other costs of the disruption caused by closing the line while you rebuild both ends - including increased overcrowding on the diversionary routes
It seems very likely for approximately the same cost and similar or less disruption you could have either:
- An extended W&C line; or
- The existing W&C line and a new longer distance, larger gauge, higher capacity line that is not constrained by the W&C's routing.
I know which I would choose. |
|
|
|
Post by mikebuzz on Apr 1, 2013 19:28:17 GMT
Given the need to relocate the stations at both ends of a very short line is there really much advantage in reusing the bit in the middle as against a whole new line? This is a point that keeps getting overlooked when talking about W&C extensions. Particularly when you take into account other factors Actually I find it is frequently mentioned by those who dismiss doing anything with the line, and whenever I get the opportunity I point out the advantages of using 2 existing small bore tunnels between Waterloo and the City as opposed to trying to thread through 2 new 16' tunnels in such a crowded and obstacle-ridden area. Clearly its this very advantage that is being overlooked rather than the assumption that there isn't one. Ironically its the naysayers who usually waste no time in trying to dismiss extension etc on the basis of subterranean stuff in the way. Double standards. Another possible advantage is further expansion of Bank station. If you can quadruple capacity by extending why would you want to spend so much more (if you can find a good way through at all) just so you can further increase it by 30%. Doesn't make sense. But 2 new central area tunnels will add to the cost. Any decent extension is going to involve new stations not expanded old ones anyway and your point is moot. Ditto the disruption of building a new line - especially one that might try to avoid the existing one and its stations just to avoid disruption. How much closure for a couple of step plate junctions to the new stations I wonder? So in summary I would say extending instead of replacing equals lower costs, similar disruption and most importantly doesn't get thrown out because of all the foundations and sewers it can't avoid. |
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Apr 1, 2013 20:12:07 GMT
mikebuzz - the question of extending the W&C has been (some would say) extensively discussed in the GN&C and RIPAS threads over the last fortnight or so. The case for extending it rests on the ability to adapt the existing stations and tunnels relatively cheaply, otherwise a new line altogether would be better. In NSE days, we looked carefully at the case for extending to at least LST, which was technically possible, according to my engineering colleagues. A further extension to Spitalfields (new station perhaps to be paid for by English Partnerships) and on to the Lea valley slow lines, for which there was a good business case according to LU, was also a possibility. The stations at Bank and Waterloo can take five cars with relatively small adaptations, six cars if - as would any way be necessary - the depot at Waterloo was replaced, and the Bank travelator was replaced by escalators in the present stairway. Extension beyond Waterloo is complicated by the angle at which the line terminates. However, if a sweeping SE to W curve could be buil, extension to Clapham Junction would be desirable but only if the prospective passenger load could be split with say the extension of the Northern from Battersea as well. GH
|
|
Chris M
chatter
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 9,816
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 2, 2013 3:48:22 GMT
Actually I find it is frequently mentioned by those who dismiss doing anything with the line, and whenever I get the opportunity I point out the advantages of using 2 existing small bore tunnels between Waterloo and the City as opposed to trying to thread through 2 new 16' tunnels in such a crowded and obstacle-ridden area. Clearly its this very advantage that is being overlooked rather than the assumption that there isn't one. Ironically its the naysayers who usually waste no time in trying to dismiss extension etc on the basis of subterranean stuff in the way. Double standards. Another possible advantage is further expansion of Bank station. Whether you extend the W&C or built a new line, you still have to thread it through all the sewers and foundations. With a new line you aren't constrained by the position (in either plan or elevation) of the existing tunnels and the W&C can continue to do what it currently does. If you can quadruple capacity by extending why would you want to spend so much more (if you can find a good way through at all) just so you can further increase it by 30%. Doesn't make sense. Your figures are what does not make sense! If an extended line can carry +400% relative to the current W&C then any new line would give approximately +600% relative to the same baseline (the existing 100% + another 100% for the duplicated capacity and +400% for the capacity generated by extensions at one or both ends). But 2 new central area tunnels will add to the cost. Any decent extension is going to involve new stations not expanded old ones anyway and your point is moot. Actually it makes the point even more valid: 1 new station costs £X million, so the new stations on an extension cost £2X million and give you 2 stations. 2 new stations on a new line also cost £2X million, but for that you get 4 stations (2 new and 2 existing). Ditto the disruption of building a new line - especially one that might try to avoid the existing one and its stations just to avoid disruption. How much closure for a couple of step plate junctions to the new stations I wonder? No, the existing line would not need to be shut to build a new line that didn't connect with it. Step plate junctions I'd guess would be a couple of weeks closure if they could be built simultaneously (no idea), double that if they can't. New stations will require the same number of closures of the existing stations whether they are built for an extension or a new line, so that's irrelevant. A new line would serve both Waterloo and Bank if that alignment was the one that was needed. It would only not serve either station if a different alignment better suited the traffic (e.g. if a substantial amount of the traffic arriving at Bank then travels on to say St Paul's, then a new Waterloo to St Paul's alignment would relieve the existing W&C). So in summary I would say extending instead of replacing equals lower costs, similar disruption and most importantly doesn't get thrown out because of all the foundations and sewers it can't avoid. The important point you are missing is that for spending approximately the same amount of money on a new line you get the benefits 2 lines in terms of capacity and resilience. The only saving reusing a portion of the W&C is a short section of plainline tunnel in the middle of the route, which is the cheapest bit (and step plate junctions are more expensive than plainline, reducing the benefit). The only problematic sewers and foundations are at Waterloo station, Bank station and in the City - which all have to be dealt with by an extended W&C anyway. In summary you cannot economically have an extended W&C with new stations at Bank and/or Waterloo and/or new tunnelling between the two stations. Without them you are struggling with capacity for all the extra passengers the extension brings. |
|
