|
|
Post by stephenk on Jul 31, 2012 22:20:22 GMT
And the level crossings, 17 between Tottenham Hale and Hertford East. Add another 9 by Bishops Storford means Automantic Metro a la Victoria is out. Not if the metro is underground. It can serve upper Lea Valley destinations on a new alignment. However this alignment should only be chosen after development plans for the area are clear. |
|
|
|
Post by fleetline on Aug 1, 2012 3:19:57 GMT
Not if the metro is underground. It can serve upper Lea Valley destinations on a new alignment. However this alignment should only be chosen after development plans for the area are clear. Yes but this report is a serious attempt to push for the development of Crossrail 2. Basing it on an dream Tube railway is madness, your plan would be too expensive and not not help Liverpool Street problem out. Metro's work best over smaller distances, where as the regional scheme is designed to actually be much more. Going up the Lea Valley in tunnel that'll drive the cost up past acceptable when you factor in multiple underground stations in an easily pass the £20bn mark meaning its unaffordable and will be kicked into the long grass and left to wait another 10 years before coming back. Part of the reason the regional scheme assumes four tracking is because then the price tag of rebuilding the current stations is not on Crossrail 2's bill lower the costs and making it a cheaper win. The whole point of the metro scheme is to relief the current lines, go further out and all you'll do is overload it with passengers further out and risk doing very very little to actually solve the issues involved. |
|
|
|
Post by roythebus on Aug 1, 2012 9:58:49 GMT
Re Shepperton, it's not feasible to run more tph via Richmond due to the number of level crossings between there and Barnes.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephenk on Aug 1, 2012 10:53:08 GMT
Not if the metro is underground. It can serve upper Lea Valley destinations on a new alignment. However this alignment should only be chosen after development plans for the area are clear. Yes but this report is a serious attempt to push for the development of Crossrail 2. Basing it on an dream Tube railway is madness, your plan would be too expensive and not not help Liverpool Street problem out. Metro's work best over smaller distances, where as the regional scheme is designed to actually be much more. Going up the Lea Valley in tunnel that'll drive the cost up past acceptable when you factor in multiple underground stations in an easily pass the £20bn mark meaning its unaffordable and will be kicked into the long grass and left to wait another 10 years before coming back. Part of the reason the regional scheme assumes four tracking is because then the price tag of rebuilding the current stations is not on Crossrail 2's bill lower the costs and making it a cheaper win. The whole point of the metro scheme is to relief the current lines, go further out and all you'll do is overload it with passengers further out and risk doing very very little to actually solve the issues involved. Not necessarily. A medium profile metro would cost significantly less to tunnel per km, and stations would also be cheaper to build as they are smaller. Capacity would be only be slightly less than heavy rail due to potential operation at a higher frequency than a regional system (circa 34tph instead of 24tph). Reliability would also be higher due to lack of integration with the rest of rail network. Automated metros of 52km exist (Dubai), so your length argument is not particularly valid. Until there is a development master plan for the Upper Lea Valley, the area that needs to be covered by either solution is currently unknown. Also, will the development areas be close to existing rail lines that would be taken over by regional services? The overcrowding on the NR lines that share the tracks from Hackney to Liverpool Street are not expected to reach more than 3pax/sq m by 2031, and that is only on the Chingford Line. The other lines will have no more than 1-2pax/sq m by 2031. Hardly an issue is it? An automated metro could also be built in stages, with a more central stage relieving the Victoria Line at Euston in time for HS2 being priority. Outer stages can be progressively built as demand requires and funding is available. A regional system would have to be built in it's expensive entirety to be effective. Note that Paris relieved RER A with an automated Metro Line 14, not another RER line. Line 14 is now being extended at both ends to relieve other lines. Automated metro needs to be seriously considered rather than seemingly being dismissed as in the biased linked document. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Aug 1, 2012 20:42:24 GMT
Re Shepperton, it's not feasible to run more tph via Richmond due to the number of level crossings between there and Barnes. So run 2tph Shepperton to Waterloo via Richmond, and terminate the Kingston loop services at Twickenham |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 3,624
|
Post by Ben on Aug 1, 2012 20:45:01 GMT
I've often wondered if some District/NLL trains couldn't be extended to Shepperton, or at least to Twickenham (for the rugby) to begin. Though a fair amount would need to be built, including rebuilding Richmond and a dive under/over) the grade separation and railway land around Twickenham itself just seems so tantlising! Didn't the CLR have an ambition to run to it?
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 811
|
Post by castlebar on Aug 1, 2012 20:49:14 GMT
norbitonflyer, +1 you are spot on with that idea.
The level crossing argument is a fallacy. Don't forget, those few trains a day that do run via the (sensible) route, run at peak times.
|
|
|
|
Post by fleetline on Aug 4, 2012 20:41:03 GMT
Not necessarily. A medium profile metro would cost significantly less to tunnel per km, and stations would also be cheaper to build as they are smaller. Capacity would be only be slightly less than heavy rail due to potential operation at a higher frequency than a regional system (circa 34tph instead of 24tph). Reliability would also be higher due to lack of integration with the rest of rail network. Automated metros of 52km exist (Dubai), so your length argument is not particularly valid. But your point of an automatic metro fails to attract the funding a regional system would. Fact is Network Rail knows its going to cost a few £bn to sort out the SWML capacity issue which is what this in part attempts to solve along with creating new links in South London. Your scheme would attract a few £bn less due to much narrower focus on the results. As for captivity I ran some figures. 09ts figures taken from wiki plus some internal figures over 377's. 12 car metro unit based on some work on figures for the Desiro City rough capacity. 12 cars x 24tph = 288 carriages an hour 8 cars x 32tph = 256 carriages an hour 8 car 09ts max capacity = 1448 people 12 car 377 peak capacity = approx 1500 people 12 car metro units = approx 1500-2000 people 09ts at 32tph = 46,336 people per hour 12 car 377 at 24tph = 36,000 people per hour 12 car metro unit at 24tph = 36,000-48,000 The different wasn't as big as you'd expect but I can't move away from the fact that if you built the metro version any tunnel to relief the SWML could get is very unlikely for many years. So your going to have SWT/NR vs TfL trying to get funding for two separate projects that share a silmar routing part of the way. This is the strength of the regional scheme as something radical needs to happen on the SWML (SWT and Southern routers into London both need this more radical approach) to deal with the growth in passengers. Metro doesn't nothing for this. This is the start if said plan, plan your transport first the development around it. It's the sensible way. The big problem is the SWML as nothing short of work costing £bn's is going to fix the problems on that route. The routing a lie could take natural heads towards Liverpool Street via Central London generating traffic. Also the users of GAML hav been asking for faster long distance but metro section blocks this. It solves my issues in one go. Gettin one stage built is hard enough without increasing th amount of road blocks. But what you fail to understand is the regional scheme is automatic railway the same way Thameslink and Crossrail will be. I think the point of automatic METRO railway is being looked upon less favourably because it does so much less but costs aren't that different plus regional scheme would have partners in Network Rail and authorities further out giving a better choice than just another Tube line for London. |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Aug 5, 2012 6:29:43 GMT
tunnelling costs are not really affected by the size of the trains.
Larger trains move more people so it makes more sense to 'go large'
|
|
|
|
Post by stephenk on Aug 6, 2012 10:01:59 GMT
This is the start if said plan, plan your transport first the development around it. It's the sensible way. Which came first Canary Wharf or the Jubilee Line Extension? Ideology is often different to reality. tunnelling costs are not really affected by the size of the trains. Larger trains move more people so it makes more sense to 'go large' A few points: 1) Tunnelling costs are higher for larger profile tunnels, but not directly proportional to diameter. 2) Station costs are considerably higher for longer trains. 3) Medium profile 120m ish trains running at 34tph can carry only slightly less passenger numbers to 200m trains running at 24tph. 4) Thus the increased cost of building a large profile system is only justifiable if the benefits of a more regional train service outweigh the extra construction costs. As "FleetLine" correctly mentioned, funding models may currently support a regional system. 5) I don't have any evidence to support this, but it is likely that a automated metro would have lower operating costs than a regional system. Both types of systems have their place, but as previously mentioned an automated metro should not be easily dismissed. Don't forget that the Victoria Line (which quickly became a victim of it's own success) was originally intended to be a more regional system, but was far cheaper as a tube line*. This could swing the argument both ways though! * I'm not advocating a tube profile line, more of a medium profile system (a la Japanese/Chinese linear metros, Bombardier ART). Tube profiles are a bit 19th century. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisvandenkieboom on Aug 6, 2012 10:54:27 GMT
Better question:
Which came first, Canary Wharf or the DLR?
|
|
|
|
Post by revupminster on Aug 6, 2012 14:52:54 GMT
DLR opened 1987, Canary Wharf developement started 1987. The DLR did regenerate the Isle of Dogs but has never had the same effect in the Royal Docks which in parts is still under developed and derelict 25 years later.
|
|
|
|
Post by fleetline on Aug 8, 2012 20:08:26 GMT
Better question: Which came first, Canary Wharf or the DLR? Actually Jubilee Line came first. In the late 70's a new Jubilee extension to Beckton/Woolwich/Thamesmead could have seen an Isle Of Dogs Tube station just to the north of where Asda is with new office development around it with a view to some high rise office building providing a new local hub. So the Jubilee Line came first, DLR then Canary Wharf and finally the JLE project. Even in the late 50's and early 60's they were considering what to do with the Docklands and developments were being looked into long before Canary Wharf came along. |
|
|
|
Post by revupminster on Aug 8, 2012 21:01:30 GMT
Better question: Which came first, Canary Wharf or the DLR? Actually Jubilee Line came first. In the late 70's a new Jubilee extension to Beckton/Woolwich/Thamesmead could have seen an Isle Of Dogs Tube station just to the north of where Asda is with new office development around it with a view to some high rise office building providing a new local hub. So the Jubilee Line came first, DLR then Canary Wharf and finally the JLE project. Even in the late 50's and early 60's they were considering what to do with the Docklands and developments were being looked into long before Canary Wharf came along. This is the Fleet line that was never built so the office development never took place . The DLR was built and the office development followed. |
|
|
|
Post by fleetline on Aug 13, 2012 3:57:03 GMT
This is the Fleet line that was never built so the office development never took place . The DLR was built and the office development followed. If you at the original question was in reply to my statement about planning transport intrastructure and development follows, hence my mention of Isle If Dogs station as it showed this thinking. Build new lines and development follows is the point I'm making. |
|
