On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 12:00:26 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 01:00:57 +0100, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
>>> <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 02/06/2022 00:14, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> <muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 12:48:07 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> You do realise there was a NLL station there which was demolished? Do
>>>>>>>>>> you see any major impediment on the alignment that would have prevented
>>>>>>>>>> that being extended to 200m long?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The NLL station had very narrow platforms; the station site was on a curve
>>>>>>>>> between the slope down to Connaught Tunnel, and eastwards the entire
>>>>>>>>> formation is squeezed between two roads. There doesn't appear to be 200m
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not seeing a single road crossing the line between when it comes up
>>>>>>>> and when it goes down again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I’m pretty sure Anna isn’t talking about a road crossing, but the fact that
>>>>>>> the railway has a road immediately adjacent on each side, not leaving room
>>>>>>> for platforms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, Neil has missed the point. The ony way to fit wide Liz platforms and
>>>>>> station buildings around the tracks would be to close both Albert and
>>>>>> Factory Roads, and probably demolish some of the houses in Leonard St and
>>>>>> Holt Road. Perhaps Holt Road would have to be taken over altogether?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Travelling through there this afternoon I came up with another alternative,
>>>>> you could perhaps stack the lines and platforms? ie have single track and
>>>>> platform at ground level, and then another single track and platform on
>>>>> viaduct above?
>>>>
>>>> They have just that on the Eighth Avenue Line as well as on the Canarsie
>>>> Line in New York.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When Vancouver's initial SkyTrain project was built (in time for the
>>> Expo '86 World's Fair which had a transportation theme), the
>>> four-station Downtown portion took over the Canadian Pacific Railway's
>>> single-track tunnel between CP's station on the waterfront and the
>>> marshalling yards/loco depot beside False Creek.
>>>
>>> Trackage between Stadium-Chinatown at the eastern end and Waterfront
>>> as terminus is stacked, so that the two in-between stations
>>> (Granville/Burrard) have two levels: upper in-bound, lower out-bound.
>>
>> There are a number of LU stations with that layout, particularly the early
>> Tubes, as it reduced their need to run under buildings. But, as they're
>> underground, it's not always obvious. Examples include Chancery Lane and
>> South Kensington.
>>
>
>Westminster Jubilee Line is another, IIRC.
>
>> I can't think of any above-ground examples here, though Canning Town has
>> two different stacked surface railways, and many stations have two
>> different railways above each other, one in Tube and one in the open.
>>
>
>My favourite example is Barcelona Metro Line 9, which unusually uses
>double-deck station-sized tunnel (12m/4ft diameter) throughout, with one
>direction track above the other within the single large tunnel. This saves
>the expense of digging out the larger station tunnels separately from the
>running tunnels. Outside of the stations, the extra space in the running
>tunnel is used for signalling equipment etc., storage space, reversing
>sidings etc., and crossovers from one direction to the other take the form
>of a simple ramp from one deck to the other, within this empty space. Many
>of the stations are equally innovative, being just a 25m diameter shaft
>from the surface to the platform levels, with lifts, stairs etc around the
>edges.
><https://www.cat-bus.com/2017/10/barcelonas-line-9-inspiring-montreals-pink-line/>

Sounds interesting — I've never been on it.

On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 23:13:59 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

><muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 12:48:07 -0000 (UTC)
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> <muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> You do realise there was a NLL station there which was demolished? Do
>>>> you see any major impediment on the alignment that would have prevented
>>>> that being extended to 200m long?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The NLL station had very narrow platforms; the station site was on a curve
>>> between the slope down to Connaught Tunnel, and eastwards the entire
>>> formation is squeezed between two roads. There doesn't appear to be 200m
>>
>> I'm not seeing a single road crossing the line between when it comes up
>> and when it goes down again.
>>
>
>Who mentioned crossings? East of the former station site, the line is
>constrained by Albert Rd to the north and Factory Rd to the south, so you
>can't widen the formation enough to fit compliant platforms in. I don't
>think there's enough space for long enough, current-standard platforms,
>between where the line curves away from Factory Road, and where it dives
>down towards Connaught Tunnel. I may be wrong of course, but from what I
>can see I don't think it'd fit.
>
>>> Furthermore, I can't OTTOMH think of any other airport railway station that
>>> I've used, which involves ambling down residential side-streets and across
>>> a main road (1/3rd the length of the runway!) to get from train to
>>> terminal. The closest is probably Ronaldsway, but unfortunately I've never
>>> yet been able to use the train to/from there.
>>
>> Its 156m from the track down Saville Rd to the city airport walkway
>> entrance FFS. I know you and recliner would probably baulk at walking any
>> further than your stanna stairlifts can take you but most people wouldn't
>> have a problenm with it.
>>
>
>The station entrance won't be anywhere near Saville Rd though. I was
>working on the basis that a move likely place for the entrance would be
>where it used to be, down near the footbridge. Google maps unfortunately
>measures in 1/10ths of miles for me, so its "1/3 mile" walk from there
>isn't particularly accurate.
>
>I walked through a different part of Silvertown this afternoon, less than a
>mile away (Woolwich Ferry to King George V station) and it's really not the
>kind of place I’d feel comfortable hauling a suitcase through.

I actually walked from the old Silverlink station (not long before it closed) to LCY, without any luggage. It wasn't a
nice walk, and I ended up having to duck under a fence to get there.

On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 16:35:03 +0100, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
<hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Are there any photos of that station in the Silverlink days?

A shot from my collection of Connaught Tunnel in steam days! Not 100%
sharp unfortunately but so much to see!

<https://photorail.zenfolio.com/p1042063127/e3cd12809>

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 12:00:26 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 01:00:57 +0100, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
>>>> <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 02/06/2022 00:14, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> <muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 12:48:07 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> <muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> You do realise there was a NLL station there which was demolished? Do
>>>>>>>>>>> you see any major impediment on the alignment that would have prevented
>>>>>>>>>>> that being extended to 200m long?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The NLL station had very narrow platforms; the station site was on a curve
>>>>>>>>>> between the slope down to Connaught Tunnel, and eastwards the entire
>>>>>>>>>> formation is squeezed between two roads. There doesn't appear to be 200m
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not seeing a single road crossing the line between when it comes up
>>>>>>>>> and when it goes down again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I’m pretty sure Anna isn’t talking about a road crossing, but the fact that
>>>>>>>> the railway has a road immediately adjacent on each side, not leaving room
>>>>>>>> for platforms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, Neil has missed the point. The ony way to fit wide Liz platforms and
>>>>>>> station buildings around the tracks would be to close both Albert and
>>>>>>> Factory Roads, and probably demolish some of the houses in Leonard St and
>>>>>>> Holt Road. Perhaps Holt Road would have to be taken over altogether?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Travelling through there this afternoon I came up with another alternative,
>>>>>> you could perhaps stack the lines and platforms? ie have single track and
>>>>>> platform at ground level, and then another single track and platform on
>>>>>> viaduct above?
>>>>>
>>>>> They have just that on the Eighth Avenue Line as well as on the Canarsie
>>>>> Line in New York.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When Vancouver's initial SkyTrain project was built (in time for the
>>>> Expo '86 World's Fair which had a transportation theme), the
>>>> four-station Downtown portion took over the Canadian Pacific Railway's
>>>> single-track tunnel between CP's station on the waterfront and the
>>>> marshalling yards/loco depot beside False Creek.
>>>>
>>>> Trackage between Stadium-Chinatown at the eastern end and Waterfront
>>>> as terminus is stacked, so that the two in-between stations
>>>> (Granville/Burrard) have two levels: upper in-bound, lower out-bound.
>>>
>>> There are a number of LU stations with that layout, particularly the early
>>> Tubes, as it reduced their need to run under buildings. But, as they're
>>> underground, it's not always obvious. Examples include Chancery Lane and
>>> South Kensington.
>>>
>>
>> Westminster Jubilee Line is another, IIRC.
>>
>>> I can't think of any above-ground examples here, though Canning Town has
>>> two different stacked surface railways, and many stations have two
>>> different railways above each other, one in Tube and one in the open.
>>>
>>
>> My favourite example is Barcelona Metro Line 9, which unusually uses
>> double-deck station-sized tunnel (12m/4ft diameter) throughout, with one
>> direction track above the other within the single large tunnel. This saves
>> the expense of digging out the larger station tunnels separately from the
>> running tunnels. Outside of the stations, the extra space in the running
>> tunnel is used for signalling equipment etc., storage space, reversing
>> sidings etc., and crossovers from one direction to the other take the form
>> of a simple ramp from one deck to the other, within this empty space. Many
>> of the stations are equally innovative, being just a 25m diameter shaft
>> from the surface to the platform levels, with lifts, stairs etc around the
>> edges.
>> <https://www.cat-bus.com/2017/10/barcelonas-line-9-inspiring-montreals-pink-line/>
>
> Sounds interesting — I've never been on it.
>

Me neither! (Hopefully this year) but as you say it sounds fascinating :)

Anna Noyd-Dryver

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 01/06/2022 13:48, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> <muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 31 May 2022 11:07:37 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> <muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> Define near. Its 200m from the crossrail track in silvertown to the airport
>>>>> terminal, less than the distance you'd travel at heathrow or gatwick from
>>>> the
>>>>> car parks. There is absolutely no excuse for them not to have built a
>>>> station
>>>>> there and can only be a deliberate ommission. Perhaps city airport management
>>>>
>>>>> didn't kiss enough arse or something.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where do you think there's room to fit a station complying with current
>>>> standards, near LCY, without the line needing to be built in a tunnel
>>>> rather than re-using the existing trackbed?
>>>
>>> You do realise there was a NLL station there which was demolished? Do
>>> you see any major impediment on the alignment that would have prevented
>>> that being extended to 200m long?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The NLL station had very narrow platforms; the station site was on a curve
>> between the slope down to Connaught Tunnel, and eastwards the entire
>> formation is squeezed between two roads. There doesn't appear to be 200m
>> between those two obstacles. I'm going to assume that an EL station there
>> would count as 'new' rather than a refurbishment of the previous station,
>> on the grounds that the line was closed following standard procedures for
>> closing lines (IIRC), rather than being 'closed for 18 years for conversion
>> to EL'; and as such wouldn't be eligible for grandfather rights regarding
>> current standards on platform widths etc.
>
> Are there any photos of that station in the Silverlink days?
>

Presumably you found this page?
<http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/s/silvertown/>

On 02/06/2022 01:57, Recliner wrote:
> Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 01:00:57 +0100, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
>> <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/06/2022 00:14, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> <muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 12:48:07 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> <muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> You do realise there was a NLL station there which was demolished? Do
>>>>>>>>> you see any major impediment on the alignment that would have prevented
>>>>>>>>> that being extended to 200m long?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The NLL station had very narrow platforms; the station site was on a curve
>>>>>>>> between the slope down to Connaught Tunnel, and eastwards the entire
>>>>>>>> formation is squeezed between two roads. There doesn't appear to be 200m
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not seeing a single road crossing the line between when it comes up
>>>>>>> and when it goes down again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’m pretty sure Anna isn’t talking about a road crossing, but the fact that
>>>>>> the railway has a road immediately adjacent on each side, not leaving room
>>>>>> for platforms.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, Neil has missed the point. The ony way to fit wide Liz platforms and
>>>>> station buildings around the tracks would be to close both Albert and
>>>>> Factory Roads, and probably demolish some of the houses in Leonard St and
>>>>> Holt Road. Perhaps Holt Road would have to be taken over altogether?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Travelling through there this afternoon I came up with another alternative,
>>>> you could perhaps stack the lines and platforms? ie have single track and
>>>> platform at ground level, and then another single track and platform on
>>>> viaduct above?
>>>
>>> They have just that on the Eighth Avenue Line as well as on the Canarsie
>>> Line in New York.
>>>
>>
>> When Vancouver's initial SkyTrain project was built (in time for the
>> Expo '86 World's Fair which had a transportation theme), the
>> four-station Downtown portion took over the Canadian Pacific Railway's
>> single-track tunnel between CP's station on the waterfront and the
>> marshalling yards/loco depot beside False Creek.
>>
>> Trackage between Stadium-Chinatown at the eastern end and Waterfront
>> as terminus is stacked, so that the two in-between stations
>> (Granville/Burrard) have two levels: upper in-bound, lower out-bound.
>
> There are a number of LU stations with that layout, particularly the early
> Tubes, as it reduced their need to run under buildings. But, as they're
> underground, it's not always obvious. Examples include Chancery Lane and
> South Kensington.

Don't forget St. Paul's.
>
> I can't think of any above-ground examples here, though Canning Town has
> two different stacked surface railways, and many stations have two
> different railways above each other, one in Tube and one in the open.

Which ones? I think there are a couple like that on the Canarsie Line.

In message <t79ju1$gpr$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:04:49 on Thu, 2 Jun 2022,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> <muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 12:48:07 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> <muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> You do realise there was a NLL station there which was demolished? Do
>>>>> you see any major impediment on the alignment that would have prevented
>>>>> that being extended to 200m long?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The NLL station had very narrow platforms; the station site was on a curve
>>>> between the slope down to Connaught Tunnel, and eastwards the entire
>>>> formation is squeezed between two roads. There doesn't appear to be 200m
>>>
>>> I'm not seeing a single road crossing the line between when it comes up
>>> and when it goes down again.
>>>
>>
>> Who mentioned crossings? East of the former station site, the line is
>> constrained by Albert Rd to the north and Factory Rd to the south, so you
>> can't widen the formation enough to fit compliant platforms in. I don't
>> think there's enough space for long enough, current-standard platforms,
>> between where the line curves away from Factory Road, and where it dives
>> down towards Connaught Tunnel. I may be wrong of course, but from what I
>> can see I don't think it'd fit.
>>
>>>> Furthermore, I can't OTTOMH think of any other airport railway station that
>>>> I've used, which involves ambling down residential side-streets and across
>>>> a main road (1/3rd the length of the runway!) to get from train to
>>>> terminal. The closest is probably Ronaldsway, but unfortunately I've never
>>>> yet been able to use the train to/from there.
>>>
>>> Its 156m from the track down Saville Rd to the city airport walkway
>>> entrance FFS. I know you and recliner would probably baulk at walking any
>>> further than your stanna stairlifts can take you but most people wouldn't
>>> have a problenm with it.
>>
>> The station entrance won't be anywhere near Saville Rd though. I was
>> working on the basis that a move likely place for the entrance would be
>> where it used to be, down near the footbridge. Google maps unfortunately
>> measures in 1/10ths of miles for me, so its "1/3 mile" walk from there
>> isn't particularly accurate.
>>
>> I walked through a different part of Silvertown this afternoon, less than a
>> mile away (Woolwich Ferry to King George V station) and it's really not the
>> kind of place I’d feel comfortable hauling a suitcase through.
>
>Pre covid LCY peaked at 5 million passengers per year. Assuming 12 hours of
>operation per day that works out at 1200 passengers per hour. Given that a
>chunk of those will be coming from the City it hardly seems worth building
>a Liz Line station for those sorts of numbers.

London City's ground transportation stats are here:

<https://assets.ctfassets.net/ggj4kbqgcch2/yakavjCrHa8eWYgKO26Qe/b05e7a5
dfa55d3ef00d6281dd501dcbc/Surface_Access_Strategy_2017-2025.pdf>

In Figure 1, page 4, says public transport usage is 69%, which must be
DLR 62% plus 7% something else (except none of the fragments add up to
7% -unless it's rounding errors for Taxi and Bus (but why exclude
Privte Hire?)

In figure 2 it suddenly flips to 55%. Or maybe that includes staff as
well as passengers. Later they complain that 37% of staff start work
before 6am, and yet the first DLR train doesn't arrive until 0607 (a
syndrome I'm sure most other airports suffer from too). And while the
first flights aren't until 7am, and they have rapid check-in procedures,
that's bound to affect some people's choices.

But anyway, remember that airports have "rush hours" too, so the
10,000-odd currently using the DLR each day will be unevenly spread. But
not enough to overwhelm the existing capacity (which is what really
matters - other charts at their link above show a *mean* surface journey
time of 40m (Leisure) and 50m (business) so shaving five or ten minutes
off that with a Liz-Line trip isn't going to make a huge difference to
most passengers.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 17:17:11 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 13:59:40 +0200, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-06-01 11:51:29 +0000, Recliner said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 10:32:31 +0200, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-06-01 00:10:53 +0000, Recliner said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 31/05/2022 09:20, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 19:49:48 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not clear why they did not build a station at LCY as this would
>>>>>>>>>>>> cater well to the business community. Yes, I know that we have the DLR
>>>>>>>>>>>> into Bank, but it is slow compared to the service that the Liz could
>>>>>>>>>>>> offer into Liverpool Street, which is also in the city.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On top of that, they could possibly charge a premium fare to from the
>>>>>>>>>>>> airport.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If London is supposed to be a major financial hub, I would think that
>>>>>>>>>>>> the powers that be would want a premium rail service directly into the
>>>>>>>>>>>> City within a few minutes or into the Wharf.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a bit short-sighted, IMHO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That section of line re-uses the former North Woolwich trackbed, and
>>>>>>>>>>> there's no space to put a station near the airport terminal. To put an
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Define near. Its 200m from the crossrail track in silvertown to the airport
>>>>>>>>>> terminal, less than the distance you'd travel at heathrow or gatwick from the
>>>>>>>>>> car parks. There is absolutely no excuse for them not to have built a station
>>>>>>>>>> there and can only be a deliberate ommission. Perhaps city airport management
>>>>>>>>>> didn't kiss enough arse or something.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think, quite simply, LCY doesn't generate enough traffic to justify two
>>>>>>>>> stations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It was my impresion, however, that there was a push to expand passenger
>>>>>>>> volumes at LCY.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stats from the CAA show that passenger volumes slightly exceeded 5.1
>>>>>>>> million in 2019, compared with over 2.8 million in 2009.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, less than 3% of the total for London airports in 2019.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LCY seems to be aimed at least partly at business travellers, many of
>>>>>>>> whom are in town just for a day or two. A railway right into the Wharf
>>>>>>>> or into the City might help to increase usage at the airport.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The DLR could easily provide such direct services if needed. The fact that
>>>>>>> it doesn't tells you how small the demand would be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most DLR trains through LCY run Woolwich to Bank, so provide a direct
>>>>>> link to the City.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought they mostly ran to Stratford?
>>>>
>>>> My perception is more Bank trains, but looking at what TfL advertise,
>>>> it's every 10 minutes to each durign the day.
>>>
>>> The last time I went to LCY, all the trains were from Stratford, which surprised me.
>>>
>>
>> I've just travelled through there on a Bank train, so that's definitely not
>> still the case.
>>
>
>I travelled on a Sunday morning, which might make a difference?
>
Quite possibly. Weekend work can cause bustitution or splitting of
routes into shorter sections such that fewer through routes are
available to/from peripheral destinations.

On 01/06/2022 01:10, Recliner wrote:
> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 31/05/2022 09:20, Recliner wrote:
>>> <muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 19:49:48 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not clear why they did not build a station at LCY as this would
>>>>>> cater well to the business community. Yes, I know that we have the DLR
>>>>>> into Bank, but it is slow compared to the service that the Liz could
>>>>>> offer into Liverpool Street, which is also in the city.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On top of that, they could possibly charge a premium fare to from the
>>>>>> airport.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If London is supposed to be a major financial hub, I would think that
>>>>>> the powers that be would want a premium rail service directly into the
>>>>>> City within a few minutes or into the Wharf.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a bit short-sighted, IMHO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That section of line re-uses the former North Woolwich trackbed, and
>>>>> there's no space to put a station near the airport terminal. To put an
>>>>
>>>> Define near. Its 200m from the crossrail track in silvertown to the airport
>>>> terminal, less than the distance you'd travel at heathrow or gatwick from the
>>>> car parks. There is absolutely no excuse for them not to have built a station
>>>> there and can only be a deliberate ommission. Perhaps city airport management
>>>> didn't kiss enough arse or something.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think, quite simply, LCY doesn't generate enough traffic to justify two
>>> stations.
>>
>> It was my impresion, however, that there was a push to expand passenger
>> volumes at LCY.
>>
>> Stats from the CAA show that passenger volumes slightly exceeded 5.1
>> million in 2019, compared with over 2.8 million in 2009.
>
> Yes, less than 3% of the total for London airports in 2019.
>
>>
>> LCY seems to be aimed at least partly at business travellers, many of
>> whom are in town just for a day or two. A railway right into the Wharf
>> or into the City might help to increase usage at the airport.
>>
>
> The DLR could easily provide such direct services if needed. The fact that
> it doesn't tells you how small the demand would be.
>
> The Heathrow link from Canary Wharf and the City is far more useful. Note
> that BA has dropped its LCY-JFK flights (which only had 32 seats anyway).

The journey from the Elizabeth Line to London City Airport does seem
particularly awkward considering that the line passes by so close.
Walking from Canary Wharf EL to Poplar DLR seems the least bad route,
but not ideal for passengers with luggage.

On 2022-06-03 10:23:29 +0000, Certes said:

> On 01/06/2022 01:10, Recliner wrote:
>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 31/05/2022 09:20, Recliner wrote:
>>>> <muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 19:49:48 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not clear why they did not build a station at LCY as this would
>>>>>>> cater well to the business community. Yes, I know that we have the DLR
>>>>>>> into Bank, but it is slow compared to the service that the Liz could
>>>>>>> offer into Liverpool Street, which is also in the city.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On top of that, they could possibly charge a premium fare to from the
>>>>>>> airport.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If London is supposed to be a major financial hub, I would think that
>>>>>>> the powers that be would want a premium rail service directly into the
>>>>>>> City within a few minutes or into the Wharf.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a bit short-sighted, IMHO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That section of line re-uses the former North Woolwich trackbed, and
>>>>>> there's no space to put a station near the airport terminal. To put an
>>>>>
>>>>> Define near. Its 200m from the crossrail track in silvertown to the airport
>>>>> terminal, less than the distance you'd travel at heathrow or gatwick from the
>>>>> car parks. There is absolutely no excuse for them not to have built a station
>>>>> there and can only be a deliberate ommission. Perhaps city airport management
>>>>> didn't kiss enough arse or something.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think, quite simply, LCY doesn't generate enough traffic to justify two
>>>> stations.
>>>
>>> It was my impresion, however, that there was a push to expand passenger
>>> volumes at LCY.
>>>
>>> Stats from the CAA show that passenger volumes slightly exceeded 5.1
>>> million in 2019, compared with over 2.8 million in 2009.
>>
>> Yes, less than 3% of the total for London airports in 2019.
>>
>>>
>>> LCY seems to be aimed at least partly at business travellers, many of
>>> whom are in town just for a day or two. A railway right into the Wharf
>>> or into the City might help to increase usage at the airport.
>>>
>>
>> The DLR could easily provide such direct services if needed. The fact that
>> it doesn't tells you how small the demand would be.
>>
>> The Heathrow link from Canary Wharf and the City is far more useful. Note
>> that BA has dropped its LCY-JFK flights (which only had 32 seats anyway).
>
> The journey from the Elizabeth Line to London City Airport does seem
> particularly awkward considering that the line passes by so close.
> Walking from Canary Wharf EL to Poplar DLR seems the least bad route,
> but not ideal for passengers with luggage.

The alternative would be to head out to Woolwich and transfer there,
though that's also an OSI involving a bit of a walk, and means going
into zone 4 from zone 3, which is also not ideal.

Robin

Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
> On 2022-06-03 10:23:29 +0000, Certes said:
>
>> On 01/06/2022 01:10, Recliner wrote:
>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 31/05/2022 09:20, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> <muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 19:49:48 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not clear why they did not build a station at LCY as this would
>>>>>>>> cater well to the business community. Yes, I know that we have the DLR
>>>>>>>> into Bank, but it is slow compared to the service that the Liz could
>>>>>>>> offer into Liverpool Street, which is also in the city.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On top of that, they could possibly charge a premium fare to from the
>>>>>>>> airport.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If London is supposed to be a major financial hub, I would think that
>>>>>>>> the powers that be would want a premium rail service directly into the
>>>>>>>> City within a few minutes or into the Wharf.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a bit short-sighted, IMHO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That section of line re-uses the former North Woolwich trackbed, and
>>>>>>> there's no space to put a station near the airport terminal. To put an
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Define near. Its 200m from the crossrail track in silvertown to the airport
>>>>>> terminal, less than the distance you'd travel at heathrow or gatwick from the
>>>>>> car parks. There is absolutely no excuse for them not to have built a station
>>>>>> there and can only be a deliberate ommission. Perhaps city airport management
>>>>>> didn't kiss enough arse or something.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think, quite simply, LCY doesn't generate enough traffic to justify two
>>>>> stations.
>>>>
>>>> It was my impresion, however, that there was a push to expand passenger
>>>> volumes at LCY.
>>>>
>>>> Stats from the CAA show that passenger volumes slightly exceeded 5.1
>>>> million in 2019, compared with over 2.8 million in 2009.
>>>
>>> Yes, less than 3% of the total for London airports in 2019.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> LCY seems to be aimed at least partly at business travellers, many of
>>>> whom are in town just for a day or two. A railway right into the Wharf
>>>> or into the City might help to increase usage at the airport.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The DLR could easily provide such direct services if needed. The fact that
>>> it doesn't tells you how small the demand would be.
>>>
>>> The Heathrow link from Canary Wharf and the City is far more useful. Note
>>> that BA has dropped its LCY-JFK flights (which only had 32 seats anyway).
>>
>> The journey from the Elizabeth Line to London City Airport does seem
>> particularly awkward considering that the line passes by so close.
>> Walking from Canary Wharf EL to Poplar DLR seems the least bad route,
>> but not ideal for passengers with luggage.
>
> The alternative would be to head out to Woolwich and transfer there,
> though that's also an OSI involving a bit of a walk, and means going
> into zone 4 from zone 3, which is also not ideal.
>

A change at Canary Wharf is probably better, either walking the short
distance to Canary Wharf DLR, with an easy change at Poplar, or walking
directly to Poplar DLR.

Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On 01/06/2022 01:10, Recliner wrote:
>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 31/05/2022 09:20, Recliner wrote:
>>>> <muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 19:49:48 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not clear why they did not build a station at LCY as this would
>>>>>>> cater well to the business community. Yes, I know that we have the DLR
>>>>>>> into Bank, but it is slow compared to the service that the Liz could
>>>>>>> offer into Liverpool Street, which is also in the city.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On top of that, they could possibly charge a premium fare to from the
>>>>>>> airport.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If London is supposed to be a major financial hub, I would think that
>>>>>>> the powers that be would want a premium rail service directly into the
>>>>>>> City within a few minutes or into the Wharf.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a bit short-sighted, IMHO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That section of line re-uses the former North Woolwich trackbed, and
>>>>>> there's no space to put a station near the airport terminal. To put an
>>>>>
>>>>> Define near. Its 200m from the crossrail track in silvertown to the airport
>>>>> terminal, less than the distance you'd travel at heathrow or gatwick from the
>>>>> car parks. There is absolutely no excuse for them not to have built a station
>>>>> there and can only be a deliberate ommission. Perhaps city airport management
>>>>> didn't kiss enough arse or something.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think, quite simply, LCY doesn't generate enough traffic to justify two
>>>> stations.
>>>
>>> It was my impresion, however, that there was a push to expand passenger
>>> volumes at LCY.
>>>
>>> Stats from the CAA show that passenger volumes slightly exceeded 5.1
>>> million in 2019, compared with over 2.8 million in 2009.
>>
>> Yes, less than 3% of the total for London airports in 2019.
>>
>>>
>>> LCY seems to be aimed at least partly at business travellers, many of
>>> whom are in town just for a day or two. A railway right into the Wharf
>>> or into the City might help to increase usage at the airport.
>>>
>>
>> The DLR could easily provide such direct services if needed. The fact that
>> it doesn't tells you how small the demand would be.
>>
>> The Heathrow link from Canary Wharf and the City is far more useful. Note
>> that BA has dropped its LCY-JFK flights (which only had 32 seats anyway).
>
> The journey from the Elizabeth Line to London City Airport does seem
> particularly awkward considering that the line passes by so close.
> Walking from Canary Wharf EL to Poplar DLR seems the least bad route,
> but not ideal for passengers with luggage.
>

Doubling back via Woolwich is the other alternative.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
> On 2022-06-03 10:23:29 +0000, Certes said:
>
>> On 01/06/2022 01:10, Recliner wrote:
>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 31/05/2022 09:20, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> <muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 19:49:48 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not clear why they did not build a station at LCY as this would
>>>>>>>> cater well to the business community. Yes, I know that we have the DLR
>>>>>>>> into Bank, but it is slow compared to the service that the Liz could
>>>>>>>> offer into Liverpool Street, which is also in the city.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On top of that, they could possibly charge a premium fare to from the
>>>>>>>> airport.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If London is supposed to be a major financial hub, I would think that
>>>>>>>> the powers that be would want a premium rail service directly into the
>>>>>>>> City within a few minutes or into the Wharf.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a bit short-sighted, IMHO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That section of line re-uses the former North Woolwich trackbed, and
>>>>>>> there's no space to put a station near the airport terminal. To put an
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Define near. Its 200m from the crossrail track in silvertown to the airport
>>>>>> terminal, less than the distance you'd travel at heathrow or gatwick from the
>>>>>> car parks. There is absolutely no excuse for them not to have built a station
>>>>>> there and can only be a deliberate ommission. Perhaps city airport management
>>>>>> didn't kiss enough arse or something.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think, quite simply, LCY doesn't generate enough traffic to justify two
>>>>> stations.
>>>>
>>>> It was my impresion, however, that there was a push to expand passenger
>>>> volumes at LCY.
>>>>
>>>> Stats from the CAA show that passenger volumes slightly exceeded 5.1
>>>> million in 2019, compared with over 2.8 million in 2009.
>>>
>>> Yes, less than 3% of the total for London airports in 2019.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> LCY seems to be aimed at least partly at business travellers, many of
>>>> whom are in town just for a day or two. A railway right into the Wharf
>>>> or into the City might help to increase usage at the airport.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The DLR could easily provide such direct services if needed. The fact that
>>> it doesn't tells you how small the demand would be.
>>>
>>> The Heathrow link from Canary Wharf and the City is far more useful. Note
>>> that BA has dropped its LCY-JFK flights (which only had 32 seats anyway).
>>
>> The journey from the Elizabeth Line to London City Airport does seem
>> particularly awkward considering that the line passes by so close.
>> Walking from Canary Wharf EL to Poplar DLR seems the least bad route,
>> but not ideal for passengers with luggage.
>
> The alternative would be to head out to Woolwich and transfer there,
> though that's also an OSI involving a bit of a walk, and means going
> into zone 4 from zone 3, which is also not ideal.
>

That's a good point about the extra zone.

In terms of connection to LCY, it's perhaps a shame that EL couldn't have
looped slightly further north to serve Canning Town. Though perhaps the
additional (non-airport) passengers that would have brought, might have
overwhelmed that station.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-06-03 10:23:29 +0000, Certes said:
>>
>>> On 01/06/2022 01:10, Recliner wrote:
>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 31/05/2022 09:20, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> <muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 19:49:48 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not clear why they did not build a station at LCY as this would
>>>>>>>>> cater well to the business community. Yes, I know that we have the DLR
>>>>>>>>> into Bank, but it is slow compared to the service that the Liz could
>>>>>>>>> offer into Liverpool Street, which is also in the city.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On top of that, they could possibly charge a premium fare to from the
>>>>>>>>> airport.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If London is supposed to be a major financial hub, I would think that
>>>>>>>>> the powers that be would want a premium rail service directly into the
>>>>>>>>> City within a few minutes or into the Wharf.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's a bit short-sighted, IMHO.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That section of line re-uses the former North Woolwich trackbed, and
>>>>>>>> there's no space to put a station near the airport terminal. To put an
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Define near. Its 200m from the crossrail track in silvertown to the airport
>>>>>>> terminal, less than the distance you'd travel at heathrow or gatwick from the
>>>>>>> car parks. There is absolutely no excuse for them not to have built a station
>>>>>>> there and can only be a deliberate ommission. Perhaps city airport management
>>>>>>> didn't kiss enough arse or something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think, quite simply, LCY doesn't generate enough traffic to justify two
>>>>>> stations.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was my impresion, however, that there was a push to expand passenger
>>>>> volumes at LCY.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stats from the CAA show that passenger volumes slightly exceeded 5.1
>>>>> million in 2019, compared with over 2.8 million in 2009.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, less than 3% of the total for London airports in 2019.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> LCY seems to be aimed at least partly at business travellers, many of
>>>>> whom are in town just for a day or two. A railway right into the Wharf
>>>>> or into the City might help to increase usage at the airport.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The DLR could easily provide such direct services if needed. The fact that
>>>> it doesn't tells you how small the demand would be.
>>>>
>>>> The Heathrow link from Canary Wharf and the City is far more useful. Note
>>>> that BA has dropped its LCY-JFK flights (which only had 32 seats anyway).
>>>
>>> The journey from the Elizabeth Line to London City Airport does seem
>>> particularly awkward considering that the line passes by so close.
>>> Walking from Canary Wharf EL to Poplar DLR seems the least bad route,
>>> but not ideal for passengers with luggage.
>>
>> The alternative would be to head out to Woolwich and transfer there,
>> though that's also an OSI involving a bit of a walk, and means going
>> into zone 4 from zone 3, which is also not ideal.
>>
>
> A change at Canary Wharf is probably better, either walking the short
> distance to Canary Wharf DLR, with an easy change at Poplar, or walking
> directly to Poplar DLR.
>

I noticed that there's a walkway protruding from the EL Canary Whatf
building, towards Poplar; hopefully when whatever's being built between the
two is done, there might be a better connection too.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 11:28:22 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

>Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> On 01/06/2022 01:10, Recliner wrote:
>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 31/05/2022 09:20, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> <muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 19:49:48 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not clear why they did not build a station at LCY as this would
>>>>>>>> cater well to the business community. Yes, I know that we have the DLR
>>>>>>>> into Bank, but it is slow compared to the service that the Liz could
>>>>>>>> offer into Liverpool Street, which is also in the city.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On top of that, they could possibly charge a premium fare to from the
>>>>>>>> airport.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If London is supposed to be a major financial hub, I would think that
>>>>>>>> the powers that be would want a premium rail service directly into the
>>>>>>>> City within a few minutes or into the Wharf.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a bit short-sighted, IMHO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That section of line re-uses the former North Woolwich trackbed, and
>>>>>>> there's no space to put a station near the airport terminal. To put an
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Define near. Its 200m from the crossrail track in silvertown to the airport
>>>>>> terminal, less than the distance you'd travel at heathrow or gatwick from the
>>>>>> car parks. There is absolutely no excuse for them not to have built a station
>>>>>> there and can only be a deliberate ommission. Perhaps city airport management
>>>>>> didn't kiss enough arse or something.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think, quite simply, LCY doesn't generate enough traffic to justify two
>>>>> stations.
>>>>
>>>> It was my impresion, however, that there was a push to expand passenger
>>>> volumes at LCY.
>>>>
>>>> Stats from the CAA show that passenger volumes slightly exceeded 5.1
>>>> million in 2019, compared with over 2.8 million in 2009.
>>>
>>> Yes, less than 3% of the total for London airports in 2019.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> LCY seems to be aimed at least partly at business travellers, many of
>>>> whom are in town just for a day or two. A railway right into the Wharf
>>>> or into the City might help to increase usage at the airport.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The DLR could easily provide such direct services if needed. The fact that
>>> it doesn't tells you how small the demand would be.
>>>
>>> The Heathrow link from Canary Wharf and the City is far more useful. Note
>>> that BA has dropped its LCY-JFK flights (which only had 32 seats anyway).
>>
>> The journey from the Elizabeth Line to London City Airport does seem
>> particularly awkward considering that the line passes by so close.
>> Walking from Canary Wharf EL to Poplar DLR seems the least bad route,
>> but not ideal for passengers with luggage.
>>
>
>Doubling back via Woolwich is the other alternative.

It occurs to me that the best idea might be to use Custom House station to get from the EL to DLR (a very easy change),
then take the DLR two stops to Canning Town, where it would be a cross-platform change for a train to LCY. It's all in
zone 3.

On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 23:20:29 +0100, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 02/06/2022 01:57, Recliner wrote:
>> Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 01:00:57 +0100, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
>>> <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 02/06/2022 00:14, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> <muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 12:48:07 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> You do realise there was a NLL station there which was demolished? Do
>>>>>>>>>> you see any major impediment on the alignment that would have prevented
>>>>>>>>>> that being extended to 200m long?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The NLL station had very narrow platforms; the station site was on a curve
>>>>>>>>> between the slope down to Connaught Tunnel, and eastwards the entire
>>>>>>>>> formation is squeezed between two roads. There doesn't appear to be 200m
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not seeing a single road crossing the line between when it comes up
>>>>>>>> and when it goes down again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I’m pretty sure Anna isn’t talking about a road crossing, but the fact that
>>>>>>> the railway has a road immediately adjacent on each side, not leaving room
>>>>>>> for platforms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, Neil has missed the point. The ony way to fit wide Liz platforms and
>>>>>> station buildings around the tracks would be to close both Albert and
>>>>>> Factory Roads, and probably demolish some of the houses in Leonard St and
>>>>>> Holt Road. Perhaps Holt Road would have to be taken over altogether?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Travelling through there this afternoon I came up with another alternative,
>>>>> you could perhaps stack the lines and platforms? ie have single track and
>>>>> platform at ground level, and then another single track and platform on
>>>>> viaduct above?
>>>>
>>>> They have just that on the Eighth Avenue Line as well as on the Canarsie
>>>> Line in New York.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When Vancouver's initial SkyTrain project was built (in time for the
>>> Expo '86 World's Fair which had a transportation theme), the
>>> four-station Downtown portion took over the Canadian Pacific Railway's
>>> single-track tunnel between CP's station on the waterfront and the
>>> marshalling yards/loco depot beside False Creek.
>>>
>>> Trackage between Stadium-Chinatown at the eastern end and Waterfront
>>> as terminus is stacked, so that the two in-between stations
>>> (Granville/Burrard) have two levels: upper in-bound, lower out-bound.
>>
>> There are a number of LU stations with that layout, particularly the early
>> Tubes, as it reduced their need to run under buildings. But, as they're
>> underground, it's not always obvious. Examples include Chancery Lane and
>> South Kensington.
>
>Don't forget St. Paul's.
>>
>> I can't think of any above-ground examples here, though Canning Town has
>> two different stacked surface railways, and many stations have two
>> different railways above each other, one in Tube and one in the open.
>
>Which ones?

There's plenty of examples in London. For example, the Piccadilly line has long stretches where it runs directly under
surface or sub-surface railways.

On 03/06/2022 13:31, Recliner wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 23:20:29 +0100, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 02/06/2022 01:57, Recliner wrote:
>>> Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 01:00:57 +0100, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
>>>> <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 02/06/2022 00:14, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> <muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 12:48:07 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> <muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> You do realise there was a NLL station there which was demolished? Do
>>>>>>>>>>> you see any major impediment on the alignment that would have prevented
>>>>>>>>>>> that being extended to 200m long?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The NLL station had very narrow platforms; the station site was on a curve
>>>>>>>>>> between the slope down to Connaught Tunnel, and eastwards the entire
>>>>>>>>>> formation is squeezed between two roads. There doesn't appear to be 200m
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not seeing a single road crossing the line between when it comes up
>>>>>>>>> and when it goes down again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I’m pretty sure Anna isn’t talking about a road crossing, but the fact that
>>>>>>>> the railway has a road immediately adjacent on each side, not leaving room
>>>>>>>> for platforms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, Neil has missed the point. The ony way to fit wide Liz platforms and
>>>>>>> station buildings around the tracks would be to close both Albert and
>>>>>>> Factory Roads, and probably demolish some of the houses in Leonard St and
>>>>>>> Holt Road. Perhaps Holt Road would have to be taken over altogether?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Travelling through there this afternoon I came up with another alternative,
>>>>>> you could perhaps stack the lines and platforms? ie have single track and
>>>>>> platform at ground level, and then another single track and platform on
>>>>>> viaduct above?
>>>>>
>>>>> They have just that on the Eighth Avenue Line as well as on the Canarsie
>>>>> Line in New York.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When Vancouver's initial SkyTrain project was built (in time for the
>>>> Expo '86 World's Fair which had a transportation theme), the
>>>> four-station Downtown portion took over the Canadian Pacific Railway's
>>>> single-track tunnel between CP's station on the waterfront and the
>>>> marshalling yards/loco depot beside False Creek.
>>>>
>>>> Trackage between Stadium-Chinatown at the eastern end and Waterfront
>>>> as terminus is stacked, so that the two in-between stations
>>>> (Granville/Burrard) have two levels: upper in-bound, lower out-bound.
>>>
>>> There are a number of LU stations with that layout, particularly the early
>>> Tubes, as it reduced their need to run under buildings. But, as they're
>>> underground, it's not always obvious. Examples include Chancery Lane and
>>> South Kensington.
>>
>> Don't forget St. Paul's.
>>>
>>> I can't think of any above-ground examples here, though Canning Town has
>>> two different stacked surface railways, and many stations have two
>>> different railways above each other, one in Tube and one in the open.
>>
>> Which ones?
>
> There's plenty of examples in London. For example, the Piccadilly line has long stretches where it runs directly under
> surface or sub-surface railways.

I was referring to a situation where a station is topside in one
direction and below the surface in the other.

On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 18:53:34 +0100, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 03/06/2022 13:31, Recliner wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 23:20:29 +0100, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/06/2022 01:57, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 01:00:57 +0100, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
>>>>> <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 02/06/2022 00:14, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 12:48:07 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> <muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realise there was a NLL station there which was demolished? Do
>>>>>>>>>>>> you see any major impediment on the alignment that would have prevented
>>>>>>>>>>>> that being extended to 200m long?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The NLL station had very narrow platforms; the station site was on a curve
>>>>>>>>>>> between the slope down to Connaught Tunnel, and eastwards the entire
>>>>>>>>>>> formation is squeezed between two roads. There doesn't appear to be 200m
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not seeing a single road crossing the line between when it comes up
>>>>>>>>>> and when it goes down again.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I’m pretty sure Anna isn’t talking about a road crossing, but the fact that
>>>>>>>>> the railway has a road immediately adjacent on each side, not leaving room
>>>>>>>>> for platforms.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, Neil has missed the point. The ony way to fit wide Liz platforms and
>>>>>>>> station buildings around the tracks would be to close both Albert and
>>>>>>>> Factory Roads, and probably demolish some of the houses in Leonard St and
>>>>>>>> Holt Road. Perhaps Holt Road would have to be taken over altogether?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Travelling through there this afternoon I came up with another alternative,
>>>>>>> you could perhaps stack the lines and platforms? ie have single track and
>>>>>>> platform at ground level, and then another single track and platform on
>>>>>>> viaduct above?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They have just that on the Eighth Avenue Line as well as on the Canarsie
>>>>>> Line in New York.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When Vancouver's initial SkyTrain project was built (in time for the
>>>>> Expo '86 World's Fair which had a transportation theme), the
>>>>> four-station Downtown portion took over the Canadian Pacific Railway's
>>>>> single-track tunnel between CP's station on the waterfront and the
>>>>> marshalling yards/loco depot beside False Creek.
>>>>>
>>>>> Trackage between Stadium-Chinatown at the eastern end and Waterfront
>>>>> as terminus is stacked, so that the two in-between stations
>>>>> (Granville/Burrard) have two levels: upper in-bound, lower out-bound.
>>>>
>>>> There are a number of LU stations with that layout, particularly the early
>>>> Tubes, as it reduced their need to run under buildings. But, as they're
>>>> underground, it's not always obvious. Examples include Chancery Lane and
>>>> South Kensington.
>>>
>>> Don't forget St. Paul's.
>>>>
>>>> I can't think of any above-ground examples here, though Canning Town has
>>>> two different stacked surface railways, and many stations have two
>>>> different railways above each other, one in Tube and one in the open.
>>>
>>> Which ones?
>>
>> There's plenty of examples in London. For example, the Piccadilly line has long stretches where it runs directly under
>> surface or sub-surface railways.
>
>I was referring to a situation where a station is topside in one
>direction and below the surface in the other.

How about Baker Street, then, which has two levels of Tube train running in opposite directions?

On 03/06/2022 12:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> On 01/06/2022 01:10, Recliner wrote:
>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> LCY seems to be aimed at least partly at business travellers, many of
>>>> whom are in town just for a day or two. A railway right into the Wharf
>>>> or into the City might help to increase usage at the airport.
>>>
>>> The DLR could easily provide such direct services if needed. The fact that
>>> it doesn't tells you how small the demand would be.
>>>
>>> The Heathrow link from Canary Wharf and the City is far more useful. Note
>>> that BA has dropped its LCY-JFK flights (which only had 32 seats anyway).
>>
>> The journey from the Elizabeth Line to London City Airport does seem
>> particularly awkward considering that the line passes by so close.
>> Walking from Canary Wharf EL to Poplar DLR seems the least bad route,
>> but not ideal for passengers with luggage.
>
> Doubling back via Woolwich is the other alternative.

When Crossrail is completed would changing at Stratford make sense?

Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
> On 03/06/2022 12:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>> On 01/06/2022 01:10, Recliner wrote:
>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> LCY seems to be aimed at least partly at business travellers, many of
>>>>> whom are in town just for a day or two. A railway right into the Wharf
>>>>> or into the City might help to increase usage at the airport.
>>>>
>>>> The DLR could easily provide such direct services if needed. The fact that
>>>> it doesn't tells you how small the demand would be.
>>>>
>>>> The Heathrow link from Canary Wharf and the City is far more useful. Note
>>>> that BA has dropped its LCY-JFK flights (which only had 32 seats anyway).
>>>
>>> The journey from the Elizabeth Line to London City Airport does seem
>>> particularly awkward considering that the line passes by so close.
>>> Walking from Canary Wharf EL to Poplar DLR seems the least bad route,
>>> but not ideal for passengers with luggage.
>>
>> Doubling back via Woolwich is the other alternative.
>
> When Crossrail is completed would changing at Stratford make sense?
>

Yes, if already on a train to Shenfield (only a minority of western arm
trains will be on that route, and probably none from Heathrow). Otherwise,
I think Custom House will be better (going via a very easy cross platform
change at Canning Town).

Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
> On 03/06/2022 12:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>> On 01/06/2022 01:10, Recliner wrote:
>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> LCY seems to be aimed at least partly at business travellers, many of
>>>>> whom are in town just for a day or two. A railway right into the Wharf
>>>>> or into the City might help to increase usage at the airport.
>>>>
>>>> The DLR could easily provide such direct services if needed. The fact that
>>>> it doesn't tells you how small the demand would be.
>>>>
>>>> The Heathrow link from Canary Wharf and the City is far more useful. Note
>>>> that BA has dropped its LCY-JFK flights (which only had 32 seats anyway).
>>>
>>> The journey from the Elizabeth Line to London City Airport does seem
>>> particularly awkward considering that the line passes by so close.
>>> Walking from Canary Wharf EL to Poplar DLR seems the least bad route,
>>> but not ideal for passengers with luggage.
>>
>> Doubling back via Woolwich is the other alternative.
>
> When Crossrail is completed would changing at Stratford make sense?
>

Yes, possibly; from Liverpool Street, Google maps suggested routes are
Custom House>bus (22 min), Stratford>DLR (29 min), Woolwich>DLR (28 min).

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 2022-06-07 04:28:19 +0000, Recliner said:

> Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
>> On 03/06/2022 12:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>> On 01/06/2022 01:10, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> LCY seems to be aimed at least partly at business travellers, many of
>>>>>> whom are in town just for a day or two. A railway right into the Wharf
>>>>>> or into the City might help to increase usage at the airport.
>>>>>
>>>>> The DLR could easily provide such direct services if needed. The fact that
>>>>> it doesn't tells you how small the demand would be.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Heathrow link from Canary Wharf and the City is far more useful. Note
>>>>> that BA has dropped its LCY-JFK flights (which only had 32 seats anyway).
>>>>
>>>> The journey from the Elizabeth Line to London City Airport does seem
>>>> particularly awkward considering that the line passes by so close.
>>>> Walking from Canary Wharf EL to Poplar DLR seems the least bad route,
>>>> but not ideal for passengers with luggage.
>>>
>>> Doubling back via Woolwich is the other alternative.
>>
>> When Crossrail is completed would changing at Stratford make sense?
>>
>
> Yes, if already on a train to Shenfield (only a minority of western arm
> trains will be on that route, and probably none from Heathrow). Otherwise,
> I think Custom House will be better (going via a very easy cross platform
> change at Canning Town).

It's only cross platform for half the trains, for the other half it's
via a subway, as the Woolwich-Stratford and Woolwich-Bank routes use
different sets of platforms at Cannign Town.

Robin

Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
> On 2022-06-07 04:28:19 +0000, Recliner said:
>
>> Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
>>> On 03/06/2022 12:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>> Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 01/06/2022 01:10, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> LCY seems to be aimed at least partly at business travellers, many of
>>>>>>> whom are in town just for a day or two. A railway right into the Wharf
>>>>>>> or into the City might help to increase usage at the airport.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The DLR could easily provide such direct services if needed. The fact that
>>>>>> it doesn't tells you how small the demand would be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Heathrow link from Canary Wharf and the City is far more useful. Note
>>>>>> that BA has dropped its LCY-JFK flights (which only had 32 seats anyway).
>>>>>
>>>>> The journey from the Elizabeth Line to London City Airport does seem
>>>>> particularly awkward considering that the line passes by so close.
>>>>> Walking from Canary Wharf EL to Poplar DLR seems the least bad route,
>>>>> but not ideal for passengers with luggage.
>>>>
>>>> Doubling back via Woolwich is the other alternative.
>>>
>>> When Crossrail is completed would changing at Stratford make sense?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, if already on a train to Shenfield (only a minority of western arm
>> trains will be on that route, and probably none from Heathrow). Otherwise,
>> I think Custom House will be better (going via a very easy cross platform
>> change at Canning Town).
>
> It's only cross platform for half the trains, for the other half it's
> via a subway, as the Woolwich-Stratford and Woolwich-Bank routes use
> different sets of platforms at Cannign Town.
>

Sure, but if you have luggage it's worth waiting for the next
cross-platform one. Only if there's none shown is it worth taking the
lift-subway-lift route.