|
|
Post by danrodson on May 26, 2012 15:13:58 GMT
I had the idea recently for a new tube line resurrecting the idea of the "Fleet Line" before it became the Jubilee line. I don't know about the complete line but from the City, and this is just a prototype at the minute, I had the following stations:
City Thameslink
St Pauls
Bank
Fenchurch Street
Tower Hill / Gateway
Wapping
Canary Wharf
North Greenwich
West Silvertown
London City Airport
Gallions Reach
Thamesmead Central
Thamesmead North
This gives City Thameslink and Fenchurch Street a proper tube connection, whilst at long last ending the complete isolation of Thamesmead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on May 26, 2012 15:39:46 GMT
Goody, haven't seen anything in RIPaS for a while. Let's begin the minute scrutiny (and please let's leave out our own ideas in this thread).
First of all, is this supposed to be complete fantasy, or something that should be seriously considered? Because that affects how everybody sees it.
Let's go with 'seriously considered' shall we? I'd like to say that having three stations Bank-Fenchurch Street-Tower Gateway is a bit excessive - they are all pretty close, Fenny Street and Tower Gateway especially so. Perhaps consider cutting this down to one station, to save on costs (and dwell times).
Terminating in the city isn't really the best idea; see: Bakerloo Line. They've been trying to extend that for years, with no success. Seeing as it is the 'Fleet Line', using the section Charing Cross to Green Park (and accompanying tunnels, including 800m from Charing Cross to near Aldwych) seems like a no-brainer. Now though, you're still in the heart of London. If you wanted to save costs, which is always a good plan, you could stop here, or you could extend the line up to somewhere else. My personal favourite is the Wimbledon Branch, though I'd also put up Uxbridge (via the Met), Uxbridge (via the Picc) or any District Branch, or possibly Heathrow in the sky.
Alfie
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 3,624
|
Post by Ben on May 26, 2012 16:45:58 GMT
Like the basic routing; chance for another camden-esque between Canary Wharf and NG  As for the stations around the City.... If you go for a couple of double ended stations, From Charing Cross onwards I'd personally hazard Aldwych, City "Thameslink/St Brides", "St. Pauls", "Cannon Street/Monument", "Fenchurch Street/TH-TG", "Vaughaun Way-Kennet Street", "Wapping (right under the thames with an enterance on southern bank at Rotherhithe street"). Interesting choice of alignment through the royals. I think it was the River Line North that went to Beckton before Thamesmead, whereas South went Woolwich - Thamesmead. Might I suggest though that if you are to lack a connection to the NR system south of the Thames near Woolwich you continue the line one stop further to Dagenham Dock station? A good observation overall. |
|
|
|
Post by rapidtransitman on May 27, 2012 2:13:22 GMT
I'd continue the line west from Green Park under that big house to Victoria. Given the number of other connections at Green Park, an interchange between the Fleet & that station wouldn't be necessary. Victoria's a very busy station in all aspects, so is the best choice as the next westbound station. After that I'd go southish & take over one of the commuter lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by danrodson on May 27, 2012 18:01:49 GMT
Ben I was going on the pretence that the Dagenham Dock DLR extension will be built before this, meaning that passengers in Dagenham Dock can just change for this line at Gallions Reach, meaning that going from Thamesmead to Dagenham Dock is kind of pointless. I was thinking more of extending it further into Bexley, as it is officially the worst London Borough for transport! So I was thinking more for it to go from Thamesmead North to Belvedere, then to Erith and Slade Green, before terminating at Crayford.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on May 27, 2012 19:31:53 GMT
How about westwards?
|
|
|
|
Post by rationalplan on Jun 3, 2012 21:11:52 GMT
Heres my choice for a new East West lines. Hammersmith - Ilford. Hammersmith, High st Ken, Albert Hall, Knightsbridge, Victoria, Charing Cross, Aldwych, Ludgate Circus, Liverpool street, Shoreditch, Bethnal Green, Victoria Park (Roman Road) QE Park south of the new stadium, Stratford and then replace all the railway stations between Stratford and Illford, allowing Shenfield services to run semi fast. goo.gl/maps/QHyzIt provides relief to the District, Picadilly Central and part of Crossrail which will be full coming from the East. |
|
|
|
Post by danrodson on Jun 5, 2012 0:03:23 GMT
rationalplan this is supposed to be about a Fleet Line to Thamesmead, please stay on topic or post in a new thread!
|
|
|
|
Post by rationalplan on Jun 6, 2012 0:36:29 GMT
Sorry, I thought the Fleet line should actually go under Fleet street. My route from Charing Cross to Ilford pretty much follows the route suggested for extending the Jubilee line in the Central London Rail study, way back in the eighties before Canary Wharf was thought of.
As to the route in suggested, it's pointless. Thamesmead is a small area of London it does not justify it's own tube line. The suburban ends of our existing lines were either former commuter rail lines or built through cheap greenfields. There needs to be an Eastern destination for the line to have enough passengers. Thamesmead is not big enough.
The Jubilee and, now, Crossrail have killed off any opportunities of threading a line through the area.
The route suggested might have some merit if the Jubilee had not been built, but it has. As it stands the line would be mostly empty City airports, where it might pick up some passengers from the airport and the DLR, but most rail commuters would have switched to Crossrail at Abbeywood. The line would be busy between the City and Canary Wharf, but it largely duplicates Crossrail again in that regard as people can do the same journey from Farringdon.
You have only two proper tube interchanges at Bank and Tower Hill, Canary Wharf is a mess for an interchange and anyway you are duplicating routes at Canary Wharf.
Bank as an interchange is not possible. Not only is a very built below narrow streets, with buildings with deep foundations, the whole station is very busy and proposed rebuilding works will just about keep pace with traffic as it stands. Also it will prove very challanging to fit anymore tunnels underneath the existing lines.
To fix the line, I would make several changes.
The line needs to go further towards the West End or other key transport interchanges. You could follow the suggested routes of the DLR extension and start the line in Victoria and follow the old proposed District Express route to Charing Cross - Aldwych - City Thameslink etc, or Kings Cross - Thameslink etc. Both relive overcrowded tube routes, the Victoria one though gives Fenchurch street passengers an easy link to the West End, plus it would be an express route to the City and Docklands from Victoria and the businesses there.
From Thameslink you could still link to the Central line at St Pauls, then a swerve southwards and miss Bank and go straight to Tower Hill/Fenchurch Street.
Another alternative would be for the line to go Victoria - Waterloo - London Bridge - Tower Hill then to Docklands. This option would provide relief to the Jubilee from the West and allow more Overground passengers to change at Canada Water. This option would also relieve the W&C to Bank and the Northern to Bank by providing another route into the City from the South.
Either way all these options provide more destinations for passengers from the east and collect more passengers towards the City and Docklands from the West.
From the City I personally not bother with a station in wapping, but if you did the best place would be along the Highway by News International, as it a big site. This would have the advantage of allowing you to close Wapping if you wanted to operate longer trains on the Overground.
After North Greenwich there is not a lot of demand for a tube line. The jubilee snagged the strongest nearest Hub, with Stratford. If you went to City airport, I'd drop Gallions reach as it seems too far North, besides they can changes at Custom House for Crossrail. I'd just go for Thamesmead West instead before going to Thamesmead Central. It's probably terminate at Abbeywood. A second branch could split after North Greenwich and head down to Charlton and then Terminate it at Kidbrooke.
Alternatively you could just forget Thamesmead and send the entire line down to Charlton and the follow the Shooters Hill Road all the way to Bexleyheath, which is a major town centre and shooters hill is a major bus route.
|
|
|
|
Post by anthonyfendall on Jun 6, 2012 10:22:35 GMT
It reads like a cross between the DLR and crossrail - except taking the Jubilee line route from Canary Wharf to Canning Town.
We already have those.
Why do we need the mixture as well?
What does it add?
|
|
|
|
Post by anthonyfendall on Jun 6, 2012 10:45:01 GMT
Heres my choice for a new East West lines. Hammersmith - Ilford. Hammersmith, High st Ken, Albert Hall, Knightsbridge, Victoria, Charing Cross, Aldwych, Ludgate Circus, Liverpool street, Shoreditch, Bethnal Green, Victoria Park (Roman Road) QE Park south of the new stadium, Stratford and then replace all the railway stations between Stratford and Illford, allowing Shenfield services to run semi fast. goo.gl/maps/QHyzIt provides relief to the District, Picadilly Central and part of Crossrail which will be full coming from the East. Between Liverpool Street and Stratford, its just the central line; what's the purpose/gain of adding it? Its a very long way for a parallel route, especially when that route will already have crossrail as a fast version. Stratford - Ilford would duplicate Crossrail; I'm not saying that's automatically a bad thing, but it does seem a little pointless if that's all it does, if its not a means to go somewhere else after. The rest reads like a DLR extension. Knightsbridge - Victoria - Charing Cross seems like an awkward deviation, just to take in a mainline terminal. Why must all new lines strive to encompass as many mainlines as possible? If you bypass a mainline, you take the bypass traffic off the existing routes through the mainline, so the effect is the same, but doesn't add the clunky detour. Its clunky on the map too. As for Hammersmith - central Kensington - Albert Hall - Knightsbridge. This seems pointless. Its clearly a straight line, but these places are relatively empty, and full of very rich people, and few poor ones, (the same kind of people that have their own transport, or reject the tube to the extent that places like Down Street, and Brompton Road, for example, became only rarely used). Hardly anyone lives at Albert Hall at all, and half of the area is a giant park; its a very expensive option just to cater for the occasional few hundred people turning up to a concert, who aren't rich enough to travel by taxi anyway. Kensington already has a station (on the circle line), and there's not much there other than an ordinary upmarket high street, so I don't think there's much advantage to another station. Plus the disruption, to a high street that expensive, would be extremely costly; the station building site purchase costs alone would be a fortune. If you push the line further south, it might be more useful and viable. Obviously you'd want to avoid duplicating the two existing lines in that area, so it would be more towards chelsea, but then that's the Chelney; it would basically be taking over part of the Chelney route. Or you could make it viable and useful if you push it north through Notting Hill - then you'd have a useful shortcut across Hyde Park, that might take a large amount of traffic off that corner of the circle line [which is currently very busy]. If you take it to Ladbroke Grove, and then say, East Acton, you'd create a very useful shortcut that might even help regenerate the poorer areas of west central london. You could even take over one of the central line branches, and provide relief by simplifying management of the central line. |
|
|
|
Post by rationalplan on Jun 6, 2012 11:27:51 GMT
The Central line between Stratford and the City is the most congested part of the system and will remain so after Crossrail, currently Crossrail does not provide enough capacity in Peak on the Shenfield line, they will still need to preovide an extra six into Liverpool street. Closing the Stations between Ilford and Stratford and having a new line provide service on that corridor would reduce demand on Crossrail in the Peak and hopefully allow all stoppers go via Crossrail, also it would allow faster journey times from stations east of Ilford.
The line between Stratford and the city serves one of most densely settle parts of inner London and is slightly to the North of the Central and District lines. Many people currently experience difficulties boarding the tube in the peak period at these stations.
As for the line about a DLR extension. I've seen many complain that the DLR into the West End is not high capacity enough. A fast line between the City and Victoria would be very busy.
There are much worse curves on the Tube, than a line going Charing Cross, Victoria, Knightsbridge. I put the line to Victoria as it is one of the most underserved mainline rail stations in London considering it's passenger numbers. Look at Kings Cross or Waterloo in comparison. a line along the strand and fleet street would be very popular in comparison to the District line.
I linked Victoria direct to Knightsbridge as it's a business and tourist hotspot. The tube station has had to be uograded there and Piccadilly is also heavily loaded. The main reason for sending the line westwards to Hammersmith as a means to solving the severe overcrowding between Hammersmith and points east on both the Piccadilly and the District.
A northern route between those two spots serves Olympia and High st Ken, allowing people to avoid changing at earls court.
There are quite a few hotels along this road as well.
The Albert Hall stop would be pretty busy as it would serve the Universities much better than South Ken.
Certainly, a line running along the edge of Hyde park would perform no worse than the Central line, which does exactly the same thing except to the North.
But you could send the line Southwards instead along the Kings Road along as it hit Fulham Broadway and Hammersmith, so that it could provide relief to the same lines. If a link could be built att Fulham broadway then the district to Wimbledon could double the number of trains and send half on the new route and half up to Earls court.
|
|
|
|
Post by rapidtransitman on Jun 6, 2012 15:25:59 GMT
Given that TfL is estimating that there will be an increase of demand for central London transportation services of 50% by 2030 (the reference is elsewhere on this board), new tube & crossrail lines will be certainly be needed. It is estimated that the abuilding Crossrail will only add 10% of such capacity. Anything that makes rail transport more efficient will need to be evaluated, especially if there are unused stations & tunnels in central London.
|
|
|
|
Post by anthonyfendall on Jun 7, 2012 4:57:26 GMT
There are much worse curves on the Tube, than a line going Charing Cross, Victoria, Knightsbridge. | Yes, but the curve would be at victoria more or less, wouldn't it; I can't see how that would work. I suppose you could come down further east and then cut under Westminster Cathedral, but I can't see that going down too well with, erm, the affected parties. I suppose you could go sw through victoria instead and then curve afterwards, but then it would need to be much sharper to get to knightsbridge. I put the line to Victoria as it is one of the most underserved mainline rail stations in London considering it's passenger numbers. I agree. Its not the going to Victoria I object to as much as the where it goes before or after - if it went charing cross - victoria - sw [clapham / chelsea] or lambeth - victoria - knightsbridge, I don't think I'd see an issue objecting. Waterloo would probably be far enough for it not to seem too sharp an angle to me. I linked Victoria direct to Knightsbridge as it's a business and tourist hotspot. Is it really a business hotspot? I thought it was mainly retail [and that ridiculously expensive block of flats]. I know Harrods gets busy, but is it enough to need two tube lines? The tube station has had to be uograded there True, but isn't that more because the previous harrods-exit endof the station was basically hardly any wider than a single passageway? Piccadilly is also heavily loaded. This is true. But won't the Chelney route, and Crossrail, deal with that? The main reason for sending the line westwards to Hammersmith as a means to solving the severe overcrowding between Hammersmith and points east on both the Piccadilly and the District. The District partly comes from the circle line at Notting Hill gate/High Street Kensington, with people staying on the line until the city. At rush hour, its jam packed by the time it even gets as far as the triangle sidings. Crossrail may cut a large portion of that out (its a marginally quicker route to the city). But a short cut to Notting Hill from Hyde Park Corner would do that too, and the more direct it is, the more traffic it will suck up (if it deviated via Knightsbridge, it would be slower, and pick up more people, so there'd be less reason to use it if you're at Notting Hill). Chelney should suck up some of the south of the wimbledon branch. And overcrowding east of victoria would be reduced by existence of the fleet line / DLR beyond there anyway, wouldn't it? A northern route between those two spots serves Olympia and High st Ken, allowing people to avoid changing at earls court. Why not go north enough that its through Notting Hill gate? Then it becomes a short cut over hyde park, and takes up the huge amount of the rush hour traffic that jam packs the circle line trains before they've even got to South Ken, let alone Victoria. There are quite a few hotels along this road as well. Yes, but aren't they nearer the "why mix with the public when you can take a cab" end of the spectrum? The Albert Hall stop would be pretty busy as it would serve the Universities much better than South Ken. Is that really that many people though - a couple of thousand or so, when Oxford Circus has thousands each hour? And do students really all turn up in one go at a rush-hour type thing? And does having to walk from Knightsbridge or High Street Ken hurt them that significantly? I'm not convinced there's that much housing that would be nearer to the Royal Albert Hall (for a start, the Royal Albert Hall takes up quite a bit of the area) Certainly, a line running along the edge of Hyde park would perform no worse than the Central line, which does exactly the same thing except to the North. I disagree: the north side has the busy tourist-residential area of Bayswater, and the office/mainline area of Paddington [in the guise of Lancaster Gate], and the inexplicably busy shopping area of Marble Arch. [/quote] The south side has Knightsbridge. Hyde Park Corner is one of the deadest places in central london (although the station is clearly used, possibly because its very convenient for buses), if you ignore the passing vehicle traffic. And the Albert Hall isn't exactly a riviting busy area either, when people aren't leaving or entering the building for a show. But neither of them would be as good as a shortcut, that went from one corner to the opposite corner. A diagonal would save people 3 intermediate stops and 1/2 interchanges. But you could send the line Southwards instead along the Kings Road along as it hit Fulham Broadway If you send it southwards on the kings road, it becomes the chelney. Which begs the question - where does the rest of the chelney go to instead, and why does your route not go there rather than the chelney? |
|
|
|
Post by rationalplan on Jun 7, 2012 14:08:41 GMT
There are not that many millionaires in SW london, a lot of well off people use the tube, the really poor use the bus. The hotels are expensive in SW london but most tourist s still use public transport London cabs are the most expensive in the world.
Classic chelny only relives earls court, severe overcrowding starts at Hammersmith, and it only really relieves the District at that point. Chelney mostly relieves the Victoria not the Piccadilly.
Besides Chelney (now crossrail 2) is unlikely to take over the Wimbledon branch of the District. It's more likely to go Wimbledon - Tooting Broadway - Clapham Junction - Victoria then onto Tootenham Court road the stations and points NE.
Chelsea at the moment is hanging by a thread. Crossrail 2 will reduce travel on the Wimbledon branch to the district, whether by enough to send more districts to Richmond and Ealing, who knows! Either way it does not solve the Problems on the Piccadilly.
Kings road needs more than one stop in Chelsea. If it went down the Kings road to as far as fulham broad way with three stations between there and Victoria that would cover the area well and a link to Hammersmith would provide a strong anchor to a local office hub.
People in Nottinghill already have a good way to get to the West and the city, it's called the Central line. Al they need is one change on to any other line for where they want to get to.
If you look at the congestion maps of the tube. The worst spots are the lines approaching the city from the east, north and south. The lines north of Kings cross and Euston and the Victoria line. The only other hot spot is the District and the SW and the Piccadilly.
The central line from the west is busy but crush loaded like it is in the east. the bakerloo is only busy between paddington and charing cross. Crossrail will ease all routes from Paddington and the central and the northern circle line.
The latest version of crossrail 2 will ease the crush on the victoria line and some of the traffic form the Northern piccadilly and southern end of the Northern, plus it will help out the wimbledon branch of the district.
The main areas of concern will still be the SW, North of Kings Cross and still all the lines east of the city, as crossrail will be crush loaded from opening. Crossrail only relives some of the pressure on the Central and Jubilee line as new development in the East end is expected to swamp any extra capacity.
|
|
