|
Post by ADH45258 on Sept 24, 2019 13:36:09 GMT
I think there is a case to make some changes to the stations along tube lines in order to speed up journey times and improve interchanges:
I would suggest closing some stations that are very close to adjacent ones. For example, Monument and Mansion House could close in favour of an expanded Cannon Street (with interchange to Bank Station).
Stations in close proximity, including OSIs could be better linked for interchange. For example, Euston and Euston Square. Liverpool Street and Moorgate could perhaps be integrated for better connections, as well as Tower Hill and Fenchurch Street. Baker Street could even be merged with Marylebone?
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Sept 24, 2019 14:05:03 GMT
With other rail systems such as RER in other cities, I think London could benefit from an expanded Crossrail-style network. The Elizabeth Line still has the potential for further extensions, while Thameslink is an unusual service by combining a metro through central London with commuter/regional services. I would suggest three main crossrail lines, aiming to improve direct connections, including to major commuter towns and all London airports.
Line 1 - effectively an amendment of the Elizabeth Line. I would introduce new stations at City Airport and North Kensington (on Ladbroke Grove). On the west section, there is some spare capacity with several services currently set to terminate at Paddington from the east. Heathrow could get an increase in services if this is possible with line capacity - though if usage of Heathrow Express declines, it could even be replaced by a semi-fast Crossrail service (e.g. calling at Hayes & Harlington and Ealing Broadway only). I would divert Maidenhead terminaters at Slough to instead take over the Windsor branch, at 3-4tph. Reading services would then additionally call at Burnham and Taplow. Another new branch could be introduced by taking over the Greenford branch from West Ealing, then continuing to take pver some Chiltern services to High Wycombe. In the east, I would extend Abbey Wood services to Ebbsfleet as already proposed. Some Shenfield services could potentially extend to Southend Victoria, to improve connections to Southend Airport. Another possible branch could be to Grays via Forest Gate, Barking and Rainham.
Line 2 - effectively an amendment of Crossrail 2 proposals. The central London section would be as planned, but calling at KCSP only (rather than combined Euston interchange), and with the option for an additonal stop at Piccadilly Circus. I would not take over the Shepperton/Kingston branch, but include the Hampton Court and Chessington branches as proposed. Other southwest services would go to Epsom and Woking, with one of these continuing to Guildford (via Mayford or Effingham Junction). On the north section, the main line would go from Dalston Junction to join the WAML at Tottenham Hale, with services continuing beyond the Broxbourne proposals to Stansted Airport, as well as a branch to Hertford East. Another possible branch could be from Dalston, to Hackney Central, Stratford International, then take over Epping services from the Central Line. I would not keep the New Southgate branch as this takes quite an indirect route into central London.
Line 3 - Using the Thameslink core, but with less far-out destinations. Existing longer distance Thameslink routes would terminate at terminal stations in exchange for metro/commuter routes. Core services would run at an appropriate frequency to Luton and Gatwick Airports, with luton airport services continuing to terminate at Luton station (additional services could terminate at St Albans City or Redhill). Metropolitan Line services to Amersham/Chesham/Watford** would be incorporated (no longer stopping at Northwick Park and Preston Road), with a new stretch of track at Neasden connecting to the Dudden Hill Line, joining Luton services at Cricklewood. Another possible branch could be to Welwyn Garden City via Finsbury Park. To the south, Gatwick services would run via Elephant & Castle, Herne Hill, Crystal Palace and East Croydon, with some services taking over the Caterham branch. The branch from Crystal Palace to Beckenham Junction could possibly be included as well. Another branch would go via London Bridge, then via a tunnel to a new station to serve the New Bermondsey development, then stopping at Peckham, then joining the line at Nunhead and continuing via Catford, Bromley South and Orpington to Sevenoaks, possibly with some services terminating at Bromley or Orpington.
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Nov 6, 2019 0:15:59 GMT
Thameslink should make up its mind on what sort of service it wants to run; an interurban regional mainline service or a metro service.
Interurban regional railway: The Sutton and Catford branches would be siphoned off to London Overground, while the Rainham service would be sped up and call at fewer stations but ran via Blackheath rather than Greenwich like the old semi fasts, is also extend it down to Canterbury East, in which after Gillingham, would call only at Sittingborne and Faversham, spreading the CrossRail net wider and further (seriously the May 2018 timetable changes were too shortsighted that it didn’t take CrossRail into account) I would also add a Guildford service, calling at E&C, Herne Hill, Tulse Hill, Streatham, Sutton, Epsom, Effingham Junction and Guildford, and the proposed (but likely never to happen) Maidstone East service would run via Bromley South, Beckenham Junction, Penge East, Herne Hill, E&C then to the core.
Metro option: the further most northern destinations would be Bedford and Stevenage, while the southern destinations would be the Sutton Loop, Sevenoaks via Catford, Orpington via Penge East, Gatwick Airport, and in addition Brighton, I’d integrate Thameslink into TfL, but the Brighton service would have special fares.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Nov 6, 2019 11:21:09 GMT
Northern Line extension further extended to Wandsworth via the already considered Clapham Junction, with adjustments to bus services accordingly;
Eg.163 or 164 extended to Wandsworth with a frequency increase
Eg. 131 rerouted at Wimbledon to Wandsworth and increase the 219 frequency with a conversion to double deckers
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Nov 6, 2019 12:25:15 GMT
My dream would be DLR extended to Bromley North from Lewisham but sad, it won't going to be happen at anytime now due to the flats building up in Lewisham area.
|
|
|
Post by Dillon95 on Nov 8, 2019 8:56:15 GMT
I think it's bizzare that the Bromley North services only go as far as Grove Park. They should be extended to Charing Cross and or Cannon Street for sure. Other wise it's just a waste of space.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Nov 8, 2019 23:00:09 GMT
I think it's bizzare that the Bromley North services only go as far as Grove Park. They should be extended to Charing Cross and or Cannon Street for sure. Other wise it's just a waste of space. I agree, that line is just sqaundered potential, and the lack of a through service is really poor. If it did have through trains then at least that would help to alleviate some pressure over at South. I think if the Bakerloo Line extension is to go south of Lewisham then whilst probably too logistically difficult, Bromley North should be considered as well as the branch line down to Hayes, I mean sending trains down that spur to Beckenham Junction off the Hayes line was considered, but I can't see there being the funds to double the mainline to bring the Bakerloo line to Bromley via that route instead.
|
|
|
Post by Dillon95 on Nov 10, 2019 9:38:59 GMT
I think it's bizzare that the Bromley North services only go as far as Grove Park. They should be extended to Charing Cross and or Cannon Street for sure. Other wise it's just a waste of space. I agree, that line is just sqaundered potential, and the lack of a through service is really poor. If it did have through trains then at least that would help to alleviate some pressure over at South. I think if the Bakerloo Line extension is to go south of Lewisham then whilst probably too logistically difficult, Bromley North should be considered as well as the branch line down to Hayes, I mean sending trains down that spur to Beckenham Junction off the Hayes line was considered, but I can't see there being the funds to double the mainline to bring the Bakerloo line to Bromley via that route instead. I'd rather the Bakerloo Line be extended to Bromley North than to Hayes personally if they would only do one or the other. Bromley is a massive town and is the centre of the borough, it should be prioritised to have better connections than Hayes which is a small suburb of Bromley.
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Nov 10, 2019 14:11:19 GMT
I agree, that line is just sqaundered potential, and the lack of a through service is really poor. If it did have through trains then at least that would help to alleviate some pressure over at South. I think if the Bakerloo Line extension is to go south of Lewisham then whilst probably too logistically difficult, Bromley North should be considered as well as the branch line down to Hayes, I mean sending trains down that spur to Beckenham Junction off the Hayes line was considered, but I can't see there being the funds to double the mainline to bring the Bakerloo line to Bromley via that route instead. I'd rather the Bakerloo Line be extended to Bromley North than to Hayes personally if they would only do one or the other. Bromley is a massive town and is the centre of the borough, it should be prioritised to have better connections than Hayes which is a small suburb of Bromley. I agree. If I were a Hayes line user I’d be annoyed that my regular service, of which 2 trains per hour are semi fast, were replaced by a tube which will add stops and will be much slower than the current stopping service. Better to extend the Bakerloo to Bromley North since it has no direct London services anyway, and as you say Bromley is a much larger town and kind of fits being in Zone 5 as Harrow is in Zone 5 also.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Nov 10, 2019 14:45:59 GMT
I'd rather the Bakerloo Line be extended to Bromley North than to Hayes personally if they would only do one or the other. Bromley is a massive town and is the centre of the borough, it should be prioritised to have better connections than Hayes which is a small suburb of Bromley. I agree. If I were a Hayes line user I’d be annoyed that my regular service, of which 2 trains per hour are semi fast, were replaced by a tube which will add stops and will be much slower than the current stopping service. Better to extend the Bakerloo to Bromley North since it has no direct London services anyway, and as you say Bromley is a much larger town and kind of fits being in Zone 5 as Harrow is in Zone 5 also. Bromley North is in Zone 4, though, unlike Bromley South, but still sees little use outside peak hours because of the perceived hassle of the change at Grove Park, and perhaps because of the definite hassle now of getting a bus from outside Charing Cross to reach Regent and Oxford Street.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Nov 10, 2019 15:50:15 GMT
The issue with the Bromley North branch is that it feeds into the fast lines at Grove Park, not the local lines. If the services were extended to Charing Cross or Cannon Street they would either need to operate on the fast lines (thereby missing out Lewisham) or would need to cross most or all of the running lines, leading to potential for delay - those lines are already at capacity at peak times. Keeping the service as a self-contained shuttle minimises its operational impact on other services.
And for those who advocate extending the DLR or Bakerloo to Bromley North, I have a question - how are you going to get those lines between Lewisham and Grove Park? They would need to have segregated additional lines, and the only way to get them through what is a heavily built-up area would be hugely expensive tunnelling.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 10, 2019 16:08:44 GMT
The issue with the Bromley North branch is that it feeds into the fast lines at Grove Park, not the local lines. If the services were extended to Charing Cross or Cannon Street they would either need to operate on the fast lines (thereby missing out Lewisham) or would need to cross most or all of the running lines, leading to potential for delay - those lines are already at capacity at peak times. Keeping the service as a self-contained shuttle minimises its operational impact on other services. And for those who advocate extending the DLR or Bakerloo to Bromley North, I have a question - how are you going to get those lines between Lewisham and Grove Park? They would need to have segregated additional lines, and the only way to get them through what is a heavily built-up area would be hugely expensive tunnelling. Not only that but I’d argue having a Bakerloo branch through Camberwell should be more of a priority given the area still has no station and wouldn’t have as much hassle as you have beyond Lewisham. It won’t ever happen but that’s my own thoughts
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Nov 10, 2019 18:02:04 GMT
The issue with the Bromley North branch is that it feeds into the fast lines at Grove Park, not the local lines. If the services were extended to Charing Cross or Cannon Street they would either need to operate on the fast lines (thereby missing out Lewisham) or would need to cross most or all of the running lines, leading to potential for delay - those lines are already at capacity at peak times. Keeping the service as a self-contained shuttle minimises its operational impact on other services. And for those who advocate extending the DLR or Bakerloo to Bromley North, I have a question - how are you going to get those lines between Lewisham and Grove Park? They would need to have segregated additional lines, and the only way to get them through what is a heavily built-up area would be hugely expensive tunnelling. Not only that but I’d argue having a Bakerloo branch through Camberwell should be more of a priority given the area still has no station and wouldn’t have as much hassle as you have beyond Lewisham. It won’t ever happen but that’s my own thoughts Yes the decision to route the extension down via OKR is a bizarre one, Camberwell needs this more since as you say it has no station except for Denmark Hill which is convenient for Kings College Hospital but not for the Camberwell area which is more heavily built up and has more of a proper town centre vibe than the OKR, you could still have the NXG station as well, and as you say I don’t believe phase 2 of the B-Loo line extension will happen, if it does it’ll be in the 2050s at the earliest.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Nov 10, 2019 18:39:14 GMT
Not only that but I’d argue having a Bakerloo branch through Camberwell should be more of a priority given the area still has no station and wouldn’t have as much hassle as you have beyond Lewisham. It won’t ever happen but that’s my own thoughts Yes the decision to route the extension down via OKR is a bizarre one, Camberwell needs this more since as you say it has no station except for Denmark Hill which is convenient for Kings College Hospital but not for the Camberwell area which is more heavily built up and has more of a proper town centre vibe than the OKR, you could still have the NXG station as well, and as you say I don’t believe phase 2 of the B-Loo line extension will happen, if it does it’ll be in the 2050s at the earliest. Camberwell has been treated disgracefully by the planners of TfL and its predecessors over the last few decades imo, and it continues. I can see why the Old Kent Road routeing got the nod, though, based on the huge volume of housing planned in the vicinity. Boris Johnson, when Mayor, should have agreed the extension of the Charing Cross branch of the Northern Line out to Camberwell and beyond rather than sucking up to billionaire developers of an ex-power station site, but money talks and Boris listens.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Nov 10, 2019 18:59:17 GMT
Yes the decision to route the extension down via OKR is a bizarre one, Camberwell needs this more since as you say it has no station except for Denmark Hill which is convenient for Kings College Hospital but not for the Camberwell area which is more heavily built up and has more of a proper town centre vibe than the OKR, you could still have the NXG station as well, and as you say I don’t believe phase 2 of the B-Loo line extension will happen, if it does it’ll be in the 2050s at the earliest. Camberwell has been treated disgracefully by the planners of TfL and its predecessors over the last few decades imo, and it continues. I can see why the Old Kent Road routeing got the nod, though, based on the huge volume of housing planned in the vicinity. Boris Johnson, when Mayor, should have agreed the extension of the Charing Cross branch of the Northern Line out to Camberwell and beyond rather than sucking up to billionaire developers of an ex-power station site, but money talks and Boris listens. Its a joke. The same scenario which you describe with the NLE can be applied to the BLE. TfL will make lots of money out of extending the Bakerloo Line down OKR as there is a general plan to redevelop that area, and of course, the yuppies buying the flats are too rich/posh/stuck up/a combination of all three to use the 453. Camberwell should have gotten the Bakerloo line years ago, the sidings beyond Elephant and Castle are even referred to as the ''Camberwel baby sidings,'' its such a shame the Bakerloo didn't go down there many years ago but it may never go down there at this rate. Sadly it is because as you say private investors turned TfL's head and will help to fund the BLE via OKR.
|
|