London's Elizabeth Line's disjointed introduction

[e27002 aurora]

Diamond Geezer reminds us that Crossrail opens in a year's time, but for
its first 12 months will consist of fhree separate services with
inconvenient connections where they meet. So if you want to use Crossrail
to get from, say, Harold Wood to Heathrow, you'll have to change twice,
with each change involving a change of levels and some walking that Roland
http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/crossrail-1.html

So at opening Abbey Wood will get a train every 4 minutes,
falling to every 5 minutes when the Shenfield branch connects.

So, it seems.

The phased introduction of Elizabeth Line services has been planned
this way for some time. Roger Ford wrote about it several months
back. IIRC a continental operator advised the operators to ensure the
central, and suburban, sections run each run smoothly, as separate
sections, before introducing the thru service.

Smooth Operator Nigel is just catching up.

[Jarle Hammen Knudsen]

On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 17:51:56 +0000, e27002 aurora

Post by e27002 aurora

Diamond Geezer reminds us that Crossrail opens in a year's time, but for
its first 12 months will consist of fhree separate services with
inconvenient connections where they meet. So if you want to use Crossrail
to get from, say, Harold Wood to Heathrow, you'll have to change twice,
with each change involving a change of levels and some walking that Roland
http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/crossrail-1.html

So at opening Abbey Wood will get a train every 4 minutes,
falling to every 5 minutes when the Shenfield branch connects.

So, it seems.
The phased introduction of Elizabeth Line services has been planned
this way for some time. Roger Ford wrote about it several months
back. IIRC a continental operator advised the operators to ensure the
central, and suburban, sections run each run smoothly, as separate
sections, before introducing the thru service.
Smooth Operator Nigel is just catching up.

Please don't edit the subject, it breaks threading.

[John Levine]

Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen

Post by e27002 aurora
Smooth Operator Nigel is just catching up.

Please don't edit the subject, it breaks threading.

Please do edit the subject to match the topic.

If your newsreader can't thread topics from the References: headers,
you need a better newsreader. It's been a standard feature since
the 1980s.

R's,
John

[e27002 aurora]

Post by e27002 aurora
Smooth Operator Nigel is just catching up.

Yes, this isn't new news, I'm sure I've been aware of this for a year or
two at least?

I agree, but thought it was worth drawing attention to Diamond Geezer's
latest post on the subject. I'm sure not everyone realises that when
Crossrail finally opens in a year's time, it will actually consist of three
separate services with inconvenient connections between them. The real,
connected-up Crossrail is still two years away.

I appreciated your post. It was the first time I have heard it spelled
out that the three services will all be called Elizabeth Line, as
opposed to one Elizabeth Line and two TfL Rail services, which would
have been a lot less confusing IMO.

Basil, I think you are right about that. TfL Rail is nicely generic.
Just calling the Central Section the Elizabeth Line until thru running
begins would have worked well.

[e27002 aurora]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 13:34:43 +0000, e27002 aurora

Post by e27002 aurora

Post by e27002 aurora
Smooth Operator Nigel is just catching up.

Yes, this isn't new news, I'm sure I've been aware of this for a year or
two at least?

I agree, but thought it was worth drawing attention to Diamond Geezer's
latest post on the subject. I'm sure not everyone realises that when
Crossrail finally opens in a year's time, it will actually consist of three
separate services with inconvenient connections between them. The real,
connected-up Crossrail is still two years away.

I appreciated your post. It was the first time I have heard it spelled
out that the three services will all be called Elizabeth Line, as
opposed to one Elizabeth Line and two TfL Rail services, which would
have been a lot less confusing IMO.

Basil, I think you are right about that. TfL Rail is nicely generic.
Just calling the Central Section the Elizabeth Line until thru running
begins would have worked well.

[e27002 aurora]

If the objective is to please people getting off the Victoria Line at
Euston, and walking to the MML platforms from there, rather than getting
off the Victoria Line at Kings Cross for the MML platforms, then I think
we can discount them as a target audience of any relevance at all.

Not everyone is arriving at St Pancras from the Victoria Line. Other
methods of transport are available. You can't please all of them; you
take from one and give to another.

The vas majority have to walk "further" to get to the MML platforms.
Victoria Line passengers are simply the ones most disadvantaged.
Only a handful of people approaching from the NNW (through a side door)
won't. If there was indeed some kind of "balancing" of need taking
place, it wouldn't be so bad. But there isn't.

TfL's facilities known as Kings Cross/St Pancras station are a
convoluted horrible mess of which TfL should be thoroughly ashamed.
Even though the station is advertised as "step free", anyone with
walking difficulties would have a hard time negotiating the distances
underground.

OTOH, above ground, the NR Kings Cross improvements, undertaken during
the period when Network Rail was private, are a magnificent blending
of old and new to create a very pleasant and functional station.

The contrast could not be more stark.

[Roland Perry]

Post by e27002 aurora
TfL's facilities known as Kings Cross/St Pancras station are a
convoluted horrible mess of which TfL should be thoroughly ashamed.
Even though the station is advertised as "step free", anyone with
walking difficulties would have a hard time negotiating the distances
underground.

I don't think the "step free" facilities are intended for people who
can't walk very far (I've helped such folks negotiate several stations
including Kings Cross) but are to tick a box that says "wheelchair
friendly". And as a side effect "pram the size of an SUV friendly".

It doesn't mean that such acts of friendliness should be deprecated, but
sometimes they could be much better done.

Actually, the lift down to the Northern Line platforms is in the classic
ticket hall, and could hardly be more convenient. I normally use it in
preference to the escalators, anyway.

They lost a significant opportunity by not putting a lift near the
Platform 1 buffers down to what would be virtually above the small lift
to the Piccadilly Line. And despite still having some passageway would
have been a substantial short-cut to the Victoria Line.

Post by e27002 aurora
OTOH, above ground, the NR Kings Cross improvements, undertaken during
the period when Network Rail was private,

I don't think NR was ever "private", although its status changed very
slightly wrt its debt being on or off the books.

Post by e27002 aurora
are a magnificent blending
of old and new to create a very pleasant and functional station.

The Northern Ticket Hall (largely responsible for the extended walks to
the deep tube) is part of the Kings Cross redevelopment, not St Pancras.
The main escalators from there to the new concourse are in a very
inconvenient place. And there's no excuse for the escalator up to the
suburban platforms being a single tidal flow rather than a pair.

The toilet facilities on the mezzanine are a joke, as is the lack of a
pedestrian exit from the main platforms via the mezzanine. The resulting
walk to St Pancras (via the buffers) is much extended.

The area between the shed buffers and the flying saucer is a complete
botch. Arriving, you have to go outside to get to the flying saucer, and
when the scrum at the inadequate number of barriers when 12-car loads of
people try to access one train in under ten minutes is absurd.

Similarly, if you exit the tube via the steps/lift just outside the
building there, the route to the flying saucer is definitely an
afterthought. The answer, of course, would have been another exit from
the north/south TfL passageway on the other side, for people heading for
the ticket office/departure boards from the classic/subsurface halls.

Post by e27002 aurora
The contrast could not be more stark.

They both have good and bad features.

[e27002 aurora]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 10:26:29 +0000

Anybody arriving at King's Cross St Pancras Underground station is equally
badly off, unless they arrive on the Metropolitan (etc) platforms.

Other cities do their best to make sure the interchange between lines is as
short as possible. In London we seem to deliberately do the opposite. The
new thameslink platform at St P, the jubilee line at waterloo which seems to

be

half a mile from anything else and requires a travalator are good examples.

The station at Waterloo is going to be under the Charing Cross Line
beneath Waterloo East; rather than under the old Eurostar platforms and
north end of the concourse. I don't know the specific reason for this.

As an aside - I wonder why the lines at waterloo were never linked to the
charing X line at waterloo east? They're at the same level and can't be more
than 50 metres apart at closest approach. It would have created a south river
line following the river (more or less) from richmond out to gravesend.

Strangely LT/LRT/TfL have regressed. When they built the Victoria
Line back in the 1960s they made interchange so easy. Amid Beeching,
and the general decline during that period, the Victoria Line shines
as a real achievement.

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:21:31 +0000

Post by e27002 aurora

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 10:26:29 +0000

Anybody arriving at King's Cross St Pancras Underground station is equally
badly off, unless they arrive on the Metropolitan (etc) platforms.

Other cities do their best to make sure the interchange between lines is as
short as possible. In London we seem to deliberately do the opposite. The
new thameslink platform at St P, the jubilee line at waterloo which seems to

be

half a mile from anything else and requires a travalator are good examples.

The station at Waterloo is going to be under the Charing Cross Line
beneath Waterloo East; rather than under the old Eurostar platforms and
north end of the concourse. I don't know the specific reason for this.

As an aside - I wonder why the lines at waterloo were never linked to the
charing X line at waterloo east? They're at the same level and can't be more
than 50 metres apart at closest approach. It would have created a south river
line following the river (more or less) from richmond out to gravesend.

Strangely LT/LRT/TfL have regressed. When they built the Victoria
Line back in the 1960s they made interchange so easy. Amid Beeching,
and the general decline during that period, the Victoria Line shines
as a real achievement.

One can only assume that what makes construction easier for the engineers
and maybe saves a few weeks or months, takes priority over what will make life
easier for hundreds of millions of passengers over the next couple of centuries.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:21:31 +0000

As an aside - I wonder why the lines at waterloo were never linked to the
charing X line at waterloo east? They're at the same level and can't be more
than 50 metres apart at closest approach. It would have created a south river
line following the river (more or less) from richmond out to gravesend.

They were, once - until 1911, but it required a moveable bridge
section of the concourse to reach platforms in the main Waterloo
station that were East of the connection. It was taken out of service
because it was rarely used.

[Recliner]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:21:31 +0000

Post by e27002 aurora

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 10:26:29 +0000

Anybody arriving at King's Cross St Pancras Underground station is equally
badly off, unless they arrive on the Metropolitan (etc) platforms.

Other cities do their best to make sure the interchange between lines is as
short as possible. In London we seem to deliberately do the opposite. The
new thameslink platform at St P, the jubilee line at waterloo which seems to

be

half a mile from anything else and requires a travalator are good examples.

The station at Waterloo is going to be under the Charing Cross Line
beneath Waterloo East; rather than under the old Eurostar platforms and
north end of the concourse. I don't know the specific reason for this.

As an aside - I wonder why the lines at waterloo were never linked to the
charing X line at waterloo east? They're at the same level and can't be more
than 50 metres apart at closest approach. It would have created a south river
line following the river (more or less) from richmond out to gravesend.

Strangely LT/LRT/TfL have regressed. When they built the Victoria
Line back in the 1960s they made interchange so easy. Amid Beeching,
and the general decline during that period, the Victoria Line shines
as a real achievement.

One can only assume that what makes construction easier for the engineers
and maybe saves a few weeks or months, takes priority over what will make life
easier for hundreds of millions of passengers over the next couple of centuries.

Apparently, the Victoria line was subsequently criticised for inadequate
capacity in the stations, so the JLE was designed to have large, high
capacity stations, even though this meant some platforms were well
separated from others in the station. Some were OK (Canada Water, Canning
Town, Stratford, Westminster, West Ham), others less so (Waterloo, London
Bridge, Canary Wharf).

[Basil Jet]

Post by Recliner
Apparently, the Victoria line was subsequently criticised for inadequate
capacity in the stations, so the JLE was designed to have large, high
capacity stations, even though this meant some platforms were well
separated from others in the station. Some were OK (Canada Water, Canning
Town, Stratford, Westminster, West Ham), others less so (Waterloo, London
Bridge, Canary Wharf).

What's wrong with Canary Wharf JLE station? It's usually considered the
line's architectural highlight?

[Tim Woodall]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Recliner
Apparently, the Victoria line was subsequently criticised for inadequate
capacity in the stations, so the JLE was designed to have large, high
capacity stations, even though this meant some platforms were well
separated from others in the station. Some were OK (Canada Water, Canning
Town, Stratford, Westminster, West Ham), others less so (Waterloo, London
Bridge, Canary Wharf).

What's wrong with Canary Wharf JLE station? It's usually considered the
line's architectural highlight?

The escalators down to the platform are exceptionally wide (large dead
space between the two in each group) due to the structural supports down
the middle of the platform. (I assume structural - if it's architectural
'look and feel' then someone should be shot)

This means that although the platform floor area is large, there's
surprisingly little space to stand and people getting to the bottom of
the escalator can find it hard to move away from the end - to the extent
that sometimes they have to hold people back from getting on to the
escalator at all.

I'm not sure quite what could have been done differently - escalators
between the supports rather than beside them - but I've got no idea
whether there's space to make this possible.

In fact, because of the limited circulating space when it's busy in the
evening, the departing trains are rarely 'rammed full' as there's a
limited number who manage to get on before the doors close. As I only do
one stop when taking the tube from here I'd like to be last on and I
don't mind being a bit cramped but that doesn't always work the way I
want.

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:44:33 +0000 (UTC)

Post by Tim Woodall

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Recliner
Apparently, the Victoria line was subsequently criticised for inadequate
capacity in the stations, so the JLE was designed to have large, high
capacity stations, even though this meant some platforms were well
separated from others in the station. Some were OK (Canada Water, Canning
Town, Stratford, Westminster, West Ham), others less so (Waterloo, London
Bridge, Canary Wharf).

What's wrong with Canary Wharf JLE station? It's usually considered the
line's architectural highlight?

The escalators down to the platform are exceptionally wide (large dead
space between the two in each group) due to the structural supports down
the middle of the platform. (I assume structural - if it's architectural
'look and feel' then someone should be shot)
This means that although the platform floor area is large, there's
surprisingly little space to stand and people getting to the bottom of
the escalator can find it hard to move away from the end - to the extent
that sometimes they have to hold people back from getting on to the
escalator at all.

True, I found that when I worked there. It could be chaos in rush hour if
a train was delayed.

Also there's the plain fact that canary wharf station is a massive waste of
space. You don't need ceilings 60 foot high in a tube station, they could have
put 3 or 4 floors in to use for other things that would be a benefit to the
area and bring in revenue for LU. As it is its just cathdral sized dead space
that benefits no one other than the architects to say "Look what we did!".

[Charles Ellson]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:44:33 +0000 (UTC)

Post by Tim Woodall

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Recliner
Apparently, the Victoria line was subsequently criticised for inadequate
capacity in the stations, so the JLE was designed to have large, high
capacity stations, even though this meant some platforms were well
separated from others in the station. Some were OK (Canada Water, Canning
Town, Stratford, Westminster, West Ham), others less so (Waterloo, London
Bridge, Canary Wharf).

What's wrong with Canary Wharf JLE station? It's usually considered the
line's architectural highlight?

The escalators down to the platform are exceptionally wide (large dead
space between the two in each group) due to the structural supports down
the middle of the platform. (I assume structural - if it's architectural
'look and feel' then someone should be shot)
This means that although the platform floor area is large, there's
surprisingly little space to stand and people getting to the bottom of
the escalator can find it hard to move away from the end - to the extent
that sometimes they have to hold people back from getting on to the
escalator at all.

True, I found that when I worked there. It could be chaos in rush hour if
a train was delayed.
Also there's the plain fact that canary wharf station is a massive waste of
space. You don't need ceilings 60 foot high in a tube station, they could have
put 3 or 4 floors in to use for other things that would be a benefit to the
area and bring in revenue for LU. As it is its just cathdral sized dead space
that benefits no one other than the architects to say "Look what we did!".

It is easier and quicker to dig a big hole and build within in than to
construct a maze of tunnels as done in older Underground stations. In
the case of Canary Wharf, much of the hole was already there in the
form of the West India dock. The current construction doesn't appear
to necessarily prevent addition of further internal floors/levels if
wanted at some time in the future.

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 18:28:36 +0000

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Also there's the plain fact that canary wharf station is a massive waste of
space. You don't need ceilings 60 foot high in a tube station, they could

have

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
put 3 or 4 floors in to use for other things that would be a benefit to the
area and bring in revenue for LU. As it is its just cathdral sized dead space
that benefits no one other than the architects to say "Look what we did!".

It is easier and quicker to dig a big hole and build within in than to
construct a maze of tunnels as done in older Underground stations. In
the case of Canary Wharf, much of the hole was already there in the
form of the West India dock. The current construction doesn't appear
to necessarily prevent addition of further internal floors/levels if
wanted at some time in the future.

Can't see that happening, at least not easily. There's too much structural
clutter. Extra floors should have been designed in from the start. A wasted
opportunity IMO.

[Robin]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 18:28:36 +0000

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Also there's the plain fact that canary wharf station is a massive waste of
space. You don't need ceilings 60 foot high in a tube station, they could

have

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
put 3 or 4 floors in to use for other things that would be a benefit to the
area and bring in revenue for LU. As it is its just cathdral sized dead space
that benefits no one other than the architects to say "Look what we did!".

It is easier and quicker to dig a big hole and build within in than to
construct a maze of tunnels as done in older Underground stations. In
the case of Canary Wharf, much of the hole was already there in the
form of the West India dock. The current construction doesn't appear
to necessarily prevent addition of further internal floors/levels if
wanted at some time in the future.

Can't see that happening, at least not easily. There's too much structural
clutter. Extra floors should have been designed in from the start. A wasted
opportunity IMO.

Is it known that such a design could have met requirements for smoke
dispersal and bomb blast resistance? It is after all a high profile
location. And there were sound reasons why ordnance - and firework! -
factories had strong walls and weak rooves.

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:45:42 +0000

Post by Robin

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 18:28:36 +0000

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Also there's the plain fact that canary wharf station is a massive waste of
space. You don't need ceilings 60 foot high in a tube station, they could

have

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
put 3 or 4 floors in to use for other things that would be a benefit to the
area and bring in revenue for LU. As it is its just cathdral sized dead

space

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
that benefits no one other than the architects to say "Look what we did!".

It is easier and quicker to dig a big hole and build within in than to
construct a maze of tunnels as done in older Underground stations. In
the case of Canary Wharf, much of the hole was already there in the
form of the West India dock. The current construction doesn't appear
to necessarily prevent addition of further internal floors/levels if
wanted at some time in the future.

Can't see that happening, at least not easily. There's too much structural
clutter. Extra floors should have been designed in from the start. A wasted
opportunity IMO.

Is it known that such a design could have met requirements for smoke
dispersal and bomb blast resistance? It is after all a high profile

No idea, but couldn't be any worse than the skyscraper I worked in there.
The emergency stairs had a choke point on the 1st floor. An appalling design
and whoever approved it should've been sacked.

Post by Robin
location. And there were sound reasons why ordnance - and firework! -
factories had strong walls and weak rooves.

I doubt you could get much stronger walls than a former dock!

[Graeme Wall]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 18:28:36 +0000

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Also there's the plain fact that canary wharf station is a massive waste of
space. You don't need ceilings 60 foot high in a tube station, they could

have

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
put 3 or 4 floors in to use for other things that would be a benefit to the
area and bring in revenue for LU. As it is its just cathdral sized dead space
that benefits no one other than the architects to say "Look what we did!".

It is easier and quicker to dig a big hole and build within in than to
construct a maze of tunnels as done in older Underground stations. In
the case of Canary Wharf, much of the hole was already there in the
form of the West India dock. The current construction doesn't appear
to necessarily prevent addition of further internal floors/levels if
wanted at some time in the future.

Can't see that happening, at least not easily. There's too much structural
clutter. Extra floors should have been designed in from the start. A wasted
opportunity IMO.

What are you going to use the extra floors for?

[b***@cylonHQ.com]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:50:08 +0000

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 18:28:36 +0000

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Also there's the plain fact that canary wharf station is a massive waste of
space. You don't need ceilings 60 foot high in a tube station, they could

have

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
put 3 or 4 floors in to use for other things that would be a benefit to the
area and bring in revenue for LU. As it is its just cathdral sized dead

space

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
that benefits no one other than the architects to say "Look what we did!".

It is easier and quicker to dig a big hole and build within in than to
construct a maze of tunnels as done in older Underground stations. In
the case of Canary Wharf, much of the hole was already there in the
form of the West India dock. The current construction doesn't appear
to necessarily prevent addition of further internal floors/levels if
wanted at some time in the future.

Can't see that happening, at least not easily. There's too much structural
clutter. Extra floors should have been designed in from the start. A wasted
opportunity IMO.

What are you going to use the extra floors for?

Yeah, tricky one, what could thousands of square feet of floor space be used
for in a major financial district + shopping area.... hmmm....

[Graeme Wall]

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:50:08 +0000

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 18:28:36 +0000

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Also there's the plain fact that canary wharf station is a massive waste of
space. You don't need ceilings 60 foot high in a tube station, they could

have

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
put 3 or 4 floors in to use for other things that would be a benefit to the
area and bring in revenue for LU. As it is its just cathdral sized dead

space

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
that benefits no one other than the architects to say "Look what we did!".

It is easier and quicker to dig a big hole and build within in than to
construct a maze of tunnels as done in older Underground stations. In
the case of Canary Wharf, much of the hole was already there in the
form of the West India dock. The current construction doesn't appear
to necessarily prevent addition of further internal floors/levels if
wanted at some time in the future.

Can't see that happening, at least not easily. There's too much structural
clutter. Extra floors should have been designed in from the start. A wasted
opportunity IMO.

What are you going to use the extra floors for?

Yeah, tricky one, what could thousands of square feet of floor space be used
for in a major financial district + shopping area.... hmmm....

That you can only access through the ticket barrier…

[David Walters]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 18:28:36 +0000

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Also there's the plain fact that canary wharf station is a massive waste of
space. You don't need ceilings 60 foot high in a tube station, they could

have

Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
put 3 or 4 floors in to use for other things that would be a benefit to the
area and bring in revenue for LU. As it is its just cathdral sized dead space
that benefits no one other than the architects to say "Look what we did!".

It is easier and quicker to dig a big hole and build within in than to
construct a maze of tunnels as done in older Underground stations. In
the case of Canary Wharf, much of the hole was already there in the
form of the West India dock. The current construction doesn't appear
to necessarily prevent addition of further internal floors/levels if
wanted at some time in the future.

Can't see that happening, at least not easily. There's too much structural
clutter. Extra floors should have been designed in from the start. A wasted
opportunity IMO.

What are you going to use the extra floors for?

More shopping! There are 4 floors of shops and restaurants (1, 0,-1,-2)
currently open above the E*******h line station in Crossrail Place with
a 5th floor (-3) of currently closed of space which I assume will open
next year.

I think the ticket hall is -4 with the platforms at -5

The empty shops on -3 were briefly accessible when there
were a series of light installations in them as part of
Winter Lights. It seems there is a fresh set in Jan 2018 -
https://canarywharf.com/arts-events/events/winter-lights-2018

[h***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by Tim Woodall

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Recliner
Apparently, the Victoria line was subsequently criticised for inadequate
capacity in the stations, so the JLE was designed to have large, high
capacity stations, even though this meant some platforms were well
separated from others in the station. Some were OK (Canada Water, Canning
Town, Stratford, Westminster, West Ham), others less so (Waterloo, London
Bridge, Canary Wharf).

What's wrong with Canary Wharf JLE station? It's usually considered the
line's architectural highlight?

The escalators down to the platform are exceptionally wide (large dead
space between the two in each group) due to the structural supports down
the middle of the platform. (I assume structural - if it's architectural
'look and feel' then someone should be shot)

Can we expect Crossrail's escalators to set any sort of records, such as
the longest or shortest in Western Europe?

[Recliner]

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Tim Woodall

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Recliner
Apparently, the Victoria line was subsequently criticised for inadequate
capacity in the stations, so the JLE was designed to have large, high
capacity stations, even though this meant some platforms were well
separated from others in the station. Some were OK (Canada Water, Canning
Town, Stratford, Westminster, West Ham), others less so (Waterloo, London
Bridge, Canary Wharf).

What's wrong with Canary Wharf JLE station? It's usually considered the
line's architectural highlight?

The escalators down to the platform are exceptionally wide (large dead
space between the two in each group) due to the structural supports down
the middle of the platform. (I assume structural - if it's architectural
'look and feel' then someone should be shot)

Can we expect Crossrail's escalators to set any sort of records, such as
the longest or shortest in Western Europe?

I doubt it, but some Crossrail stations will have a lot of them.

[Charles Ellson]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 00:21:32 -0000 (UTC), Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Tim Woodall

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Recliner
Apparently, the Victoria line was subsequently criticised for inadequate
capacity in the stations, so the JLE was designed to have large, high
capacity stations, even though this meant some platforms were well
separated from others in the station. Some were OK (Canada Water, Canning
Town, Stratford, Westminster, West Ham), others less so (Waterloo, London
Bridge, Canary Wharf).

What's wrong with Canary Wharf JLE station? It's usually considered the
line's architectural highlight?

The escalators down to the platform are exceptionally wide (large dead
space between the two in each group) due to the structural supports down
the middle of the platform. (I assume structural - if it's architectural
'look and feel' then someone should be shot)

Can we expect Crossrail's escalators to set any sort of records, such as
the longest or shortest in Western Europe?

I doubt it, but some Crossrail stations will have a lot of them.

Judging by the Jubilee Line and elsewhere with multiple flights at
deeper stations, they would seem to have a practical limit on the
amount of lift before inviting trouble. The more steps you have then
the more metalwork you have in motion able to suffer faults so
splitting in two or three and having parallel flights reduces the
chance of losing everything in one direction.

[Basil Jet]

Post by e27002 aurora
Strangely LT/LRT/TfL have regressed. When they built the Victoria
Line back in the 1960s they made interchange so easy. Amid Beeching,
and the general decline during that period, the Victoria Line shines
as a real achievement.

It's not so strange. Deep piled buildings were rare when the Victoria
Line was built, and the restriction against tunnelling beneath buildings
which existed when the earlier lines were built had been repealed, so
the Victoria Line planners had freedom like no-one before or since.

[Charles Ellson]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by e27002 aurora
Strangely LT/LRT/TfL have regressed. When they built the Victoria
Line back in the 1960s they made interchange so easy. Amid Beeching,
and the general decline during that period, the Victoria Line shines
as a real achievement.

It's not so strange. Deep piled buildings were rare when the Victoria
Line was built, and the restriction against tunnelling beneath buildings
which existed when the earlier lines were built had been repealed,

IMU nothing was repealed; the shallower lines in the past involved a
far greater risk of infringing on deep foundations/basements (hence
lines following roads) and potential claims for subsidence and
similar. The land occupied by the line (at the relevant levels below
ground) could/can be obtained either by negotiated purchase or by the
associated legislation transferring ownership compulsorily.

Post by Basil Jet
so
the Victoria Line planners had freedom like no-one before or since.