DOCSLIB.ORG

Jss 18 (2) (1967) 115-135

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Jss 18 (2) (1967) 115-135 STATISTICAL BACKGROUND FOR THE PLANNING OF EXTENSIONS TO EXISTING UNDERGROUND RAILWAY NETWORKS by F. J. LLOYD (A paper discussed at a joint meeting of the Royal Statistical Society, General Applications Section and the Students' Society on 18 November 1966) BOTH the Royal Statistical Society and the Institute of Actuaries are interested in the collection and analysis of data and the use of the results for forecasting possible future trends. This paper deals with future traffic estimates of the number of passengers likely to use new underground railway facilities and the likely effect on the existing underground railway networks and other methods of transport, both public and private. It does not deal with the future planning of main line railway suburban services; nor does it deal with the civil engin- eering and operational problems of construction, although, of course, the capital cost of construction for a new tube and the capital cost of rolling stock have to be taken into account in considering the financial prospect of any new schemes. Underground railways involve a large capital cost and once they are built they are difficult and expensive to alter. Even a relatively simple additional station on an existing underground line is likely to cost at least £1 million in capital costs. But the capacity of an under- ground to move very large numbers of people in cities is unrivalled. With modern station layout and advanced automatic signalling devices it is possible to plan to run on a single track up to 40 trains of eight coaches each in any one hour. Such a service would have the capacity to carry up to 30,000 or more passengers in one hour pro- vided the potential passengers presented themselves evenly. In practice, however, passengers do not so regulate their travel require- ments and one feature of peak hour operation in London is the very heavy surges of passengers both on to and off the Underground at certain stations. While planning is related to passengers per hour, it is essential not to overlook the higher loadings in the critical quarter of 115 116 F. J. LLOYD an hour at the top of the peak. However, an underground railway has a great overload capacity, so that it can deal with short-time surges of traffic even if the loadings of individual trains or cars should be unevenly distributed. At the other end of the scale, the bus has a low capital cost, is extremely flexible as regards routeing and stopping, but has a much lower carrying capacity. For example, if it were possible to reserve a special lane for buses with stops every quarter-mile and no over- taking, the planned capacity of that lane would be no higher than about 100 buses per hour which, with a full load of 80 persons per bus, would amount to 8,000 passengers per hour. If laybys were introduced for stops and buses permitted to overtake each other and the stops widened to a mile apart the planned potential capacity might be increased to 150 buses per hour and 12,000 passengers per hour, per lane. Without reserved lanes the capacity would be less. For comparison a lane used only by private cars could accommodate 1,000 to 1,500 cars per hour. Car commuters to London average 1½ persons per car including the driver, so that private cars moving into or out of London in the peaks move about 2,000 people only per lane. From time to time various other technical methods for public transport in urban areas are proposed. There are difficulties in constructing overhead monorails or suspended railways in fully built- up cities because of the destruction of property and amenities. Difficulties of interchanging from one form of transport to another are magnified in an established city with existing surface and under- ground transport. For new cities or for transport over difficult terrain there may well be applications. At the present time a feasibil- ity study is being undertaken in Manchester of a possible monorail link between the city centre and an outlying suburb. There are other ideas, apart from monorails, but they are not discussed in this paper. In practice to obtain high rates of passenger movement within a city requires expert planning and operation under rigid control within a space used solely for that purpose. These conditions can be achieved by an underground railway; they are very difficult to achieve on the roads. In cities with recently developed underground railway systems, and in the early days of underground construction in London, the railways have played an important part in attracting new traffic and opening up the development of virgin land. For example, Stockholm is a city surrounded by lakes and inlets of the sea and there was no PLANNING UNDERGROUND RAILWAY EXTENSIONS 117 available land near to the city centre for housing development. By building an underground railway under various water barriers, it became possible to link newly built suburbs to the city centre. Similarly in London, the early extensions of the Northern Line from Golders Green to Hendon Central and Edgware in 1923-24 in the north, and from Clapham Common to Morden in 1926 in the south, had a major impact on suburban developments. The capital to finance these two London projects was raised by a redeemable debenture guaranteed by H.M. Government under the powers of the Trades Facilities Act 1921-22. The interest payments on this capital were borne by the Common Fund of the Underground group of companies which included the London General Omnibus Company. The importance of the financial contribution of the bus company was underlined by Mr Frank Pick, vice-chairman of the London Passenger Transport Board, who once said, 'It requires certainly two, and possibly three, road miles to support one rail service mile'. He was referring to the conditions of the 1930s and for various reasons the same is not true today. One reason why underground railways are so expensive to finance is that the heavy capital investment is used near to capacity to carry the intensely peaked commuter traffic only twice a day, only five days a week. The split of the density of such underground passenger traffic in London by hours of the day is given in Table 1, taken from the London Traffic Survey, Vol. 1, Table 6-9. Table 1 Weekday journeys inside the survey area by residents of the survey area by periods of arrival Percentage of Journeys by Underground by Period of Arrival Terminating in Terminating in Survey Area Central Area Early morning off peak 7.6 7.9 Morning peak (2 hours) 301 49.7 Midday off peak (7 hours) 191 20.7 Evening peak (2 hours) 31.6 160 Evening off peak 11 6 5.7 Total (24 hours) 1000 1000 The survey area covers 941 square miles with its boundary 15-20 miles from Charing Cross and includes most of the underground system; the central area covers about ten square miles. 118 F. J. LLOYD It is seen that very broadly during one-sixth of the hours of operation over a week two-thirds of the passengers are carried mainly in one direction only. Before condemning these figures as unproductive, remember that the life of London depends on its underground services. Apart from providing direct commuter facilities for dormitory areas, the London Underground has the function of distributing commuters from main line stations to their offices or other work places in the central area. As a result of future changes in population and employment patterns, it is expected that the number of outer suburban commuters, mainly using the suburban railways, will increase and additional underground facilities will be required to distribute these passengers in the central area. A further reason for creating new underground railway facilities in central London is the need to relieve overcrowding on existing underground lines. Not only can the points of congestion be eased and the passengers given reasonable travelling conditions, but other parts of the existing underground network can be brought into more pro- ductive use. For example, the Victoria Line when in operation will ease the present intense loadings between Victoria and Charing Cross on the District Line in the morning and evening peaks. A further very necessary relief will be given on the Piccadilly Line immediately north of Kings Cross. In both examples it has been estimated that the easement will amount to 20 to 25% of the present crush loading conditions. Yet another reason is the need to provide relief to traffic-con- gested streets. The 20th century has seen the fantastic growth in private transport brought about by the motor car. It is clear from North American experience that one of the problems of the present is to learn how to live in cities with the private car. Recent American experience shows a realization that the private car alone cannot move everyone into and out of cities, and there has been a resurgence of 'rapid transit' (or underground railways in London terms). Great cities clearly need an underground railway network with 'park-and- ride' facilities which will tempt the motorist to leave his car at his local station or at a convenient station nearer the centre, and to continue his journey by underground railway. In considering underground railway planning in London it must be remembered that while the origins of the underground system might be regarded as a series of historical accidents rather than the PLANNING UNDERGROUND RAILWAY EXTENSIONS 119 result of an overall plan, it would be truer to say that there were plans but there were too many and they were not co-ordinated.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rail Accident Report
    Rail Accident Report Penetration and obstruction of a tunnel between Old Street and Essex Road stations, London 8 March 2013 Report 03/2014 February 2014 This investigation was carried out in accordance with: l the Railway Safety Directive 2004/49/EC; l the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003; and l the Railways (Accident Investigation and Reporting) Regulations 2005. © Crown copyright 2014 You may re-use this document/publication (not including departmental or agency logos) free of charge in any format or medium. You must re-use it accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and you must give the title of the source publication. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This document/publication is also available at www.raib.gov.uk. Any enquiries about this publication should be sent to: RAIB Email: enquiries@raib.gov.uk The Wharf Telephone: 01332 253300 Stores Road Fax: 01332 253301 Derby UK Website: www.raib.gov.uk DE21 4BA This report is published by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch, Department for Transport. Penetration and obstruction of a tunnel between Old Street and Essex Road stations, London 8 March 2013 Contents Summary 5 Introduction 6 Preface 6 Key definitions 6 The incident 7 Summary of the incident 7 Context 7 Events preceding the incident 9 Events following the incident 11 Consequences of the incident 11 The investigation 12 Sources of evidence 12 Key facts and analysis
    [Show full text]
  • The Operator's Story Appendix
    Railway and Transport Strategy Centre The Operator’s Story Appendix: London’s Story © World Bank / Imperial College London Property of the World Bank and the RTSC at Imperial College London Community of Metros CoMET The Operator’s Story: Notes from London Case Study Interviews February 2017 Purpose The purpose of this document is to provide a permanent record for the researchers of what was said by people interviewed for ‘The Operator’s Story’ in London. These notes are based upon 14 meetings between 6th-9th October 2015, plus one further meeting in January 2016. This document will ultimately form an appendix to the final report for ‘The Operator’s Story’ piece Although the findings have been arranged and structured by Imperial College London, they remain a collation of thoughts and statements from interviewees, and continue to be the opinions of those interviewed, rather than of Imperial College London. Prefacing the notes is a summary of Imperial College’s key findings based on comments made, which will be drawn out further in the final report for ‘The Operator’s Story’. Method This content is a collation in note form of views expressed in the interviews that were conducted for this study. Comments are not attributed to specific individuals, as agreed with the interviewees and TfL. However, in some cases it is noted that a comment was made by an individual external not employed by TfL (‘external commentator’), where it is appropriate to draw a distinction between views expressed by TfL themselves and those expressed about their organisation.
    [Show full text]
  • 110 Years of the Great Northern & City
    110 YEARS OF THE GREAT NORTHERN & CITY 110 years ago, on 14 February 1904, the short Great Northern & City Railway opened between Finsbury Park and Moorgate with intermediate stations at Drayton Park, Essex Road and Old Street. Highbury opened later, on 28 June 1904, becoming Highbury & Islington on 20 July 1922. Despite aspirations of things much grander (through trains to Moorgate from the Great Northern main line Railway) it remained a relatively quiet backwater, although it did have its moments at peak times with a 2½-minute service of five or six-car trains scheduled – and with skip-stop operation. For the most part, however, two-car trains sufficed at off-peak times. The Metropolitan Railway took over the GN&C in 1913, although the line remained ‘isolated’ until the line was absorbed into British Rail’s Great Northern Electrification scheme in the 1970s. After London Transport was formed in 1933, it became the Northern City Line but in later years (and after the closure of the Finsbury Park – Drayton Park section) became known as the Highbury Branch (of the Northern Line). Of course the line’s history has been told in various publications before, so this will be a short pictorial look at the early days. Above: A line up of GN&C Stock on the stock connection ramp at Drayton Park, comprising mostly the original wooden-bodied stock. However, the fourth car from the camera is one of the all-steel cars. This photo shows the GN&C’s outside current rail system. The brick-built ‘hut’ seen beneath the third car survived until a few years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Crossrail - the Application of Advanced Engineering and Science to Grow London's Transport Network
    1 Crossrail - the Application of Advanced Engineering and Science to Grow London's Transport Network 1. Introduction Crossrail is a rail network which goes under London and aims both to improve journey times and to link East and West London by creating an extra 42 kilometres of twin-bore tunnels, 21 kilometres of which will be under central London. It is currently the largest civil engineering project in Europe1, has over 10,000 people working on it and will have cost £16 billion2 by the time it opens to the public in 20183. While there have been plans to connect East to West London since the 1880s, it was first officially proposed in 1974 by the Department for Environment and the Greater London Council4. Currently over 1 billion tube journeys are undertaken each year and as an extra million people are expected to use London's public transport in the next 10 to 15 years, the various stations and train lines will soon be reaching their maximum capacity5. Crossrail is expected to be used by 200 million people each year and to provide a 10% increase to London's rail capacity6. This essay sets out the principal scientific and engineering problems the engineers faced while planning the route and constructing the tunnels and discusses how they creatively solved them using advanced engineering and science. 2. Planning the route Determining the optimum route and depth of a tunnel through an environment such as the City of London is an extremely complex task. Engineers are looking to minimise the cost and timetable for construction while taking into account underground obstacles and hazards; minimising damage to archaeological sites and historic buildings; taking advantage of the most consistent and easy to tunnel sub-soil conditions; satisfying UK safety authorities7 and of course linking up with existing infrastructure so as to create a coherent travel network.
    [Show full text]
  • Cartometro London Edition
    @g A B C How Wood (Herts) D E F G H I J King's Cross - St. Pancras Detail Level crossing Pad 22/08/1865 London Underground : 25/09/1949 removed from London Underground : 30/03/1994 2 1 1 2 Blake Hall Closed 31/10/1981 North Weald Loco Pit Ron's Siding Spur Version 3.4 3 Hotel Curve 2 1 York Road Curve Ongar Metropolitan Kings Langley h tt Maiden p Lane Chesham Bricket Wood : Curve 1 / r 2 Goods yard August 2015 /c f . GREATER LONDON ar e t re Redland Road o. .f Level crossing Stone Siding metro Cheshunt Kings Cross Tunnel Overground y g y Kings Cross loop Cheshunt Junction 1 Up Goods Loop Underground, Central 27 1 Epping Theobalds Grove 2 1 Transport Tracks Map Overground, DLR, Level crossing Level crossing Garston (Hertfordshire) Radlett Tracks map with platforms, connections & depots Tramlink & National Rail Waltham Cross Watford Tunnels 24/04/1865 London Underground : 25/09/1949 to Brill & VerneyJunction © 2015 - Franklin JARRIER - Reproduction prohibited without the permission of the author - carto.metro@gmail.com - http://carto.metro.free.fr (part of the metropolitan from 1892 to 1936) Metropolitan Amersham Radlett Junction 31 32 Watford North 3 2 34 NR / LUL 1 Turkey Street boudary 01/09/1892 Hadley Wood North tunnels 2 Theydon Bois 1 Level crossing Enfield Lock Chalfont & Latimer Hadley Wood 3 2 1 Watford north Junction Hadley Wood South tunnels 11 10 Gordon Hill 7 6 9 8 Overground Watford Yard 3 5 1 4 Watford Junction 2 Watford 08/07/1889 south Junction Metropolitan 21 22 1 Watford 23 2 24 Level crossing Elstree & Borehamwood
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes Document for Winchmore Hill Ward Forum, 19/01/2016 19:30
    Public Document Pack WINCHMORE HILL WARD FORUM - 19.1.2016 MINIUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE WINCHMORE HILL WARD FORUM HELD ON TUESDAY, 19TH JANUARY, 2016 Present: Cllr. Dinah Barry (chair), Cllr. Ertan Hurer Apologies: Cllr. Elaine Hayward, Cllr. Bambos Charalambous (arriving late from an earlier meeting), Andy Barker (FLDRA), Notes: DB 1. REPORT FROM LOCAL POLICE PC Denise Thorpe gave a report covering the last three months. • Burglaries and car crime: theft of and from vehicles, is lower than for the same period last year. • Most burglaries are taking place between five and six o’clock when residents are still out at work and it is dark. • PC Thorpe has been taking measures to help us to be more secure: - delivering notices to houses if they have been left in darkness, making it evident that no one is home, - delivering notices advising people who have UPVC doors how to lock them securely, - checking motor vehicles to ensure that valuables are not left on display, - Checking car doors are locked - they often aren’t. In one road PC Thorpe found three unlocked cars. Residents should make sure that their automatic locking systems are actually working! 2. LOCAL RAILWAY AND TRAIN SERVICE Graham Smith, Infrastructure Maintenance Delivery Manager at Network Rail (NR) answered questions and listened to concerns. • He is looking to improve the trackside planting near Palmers Green. Trackside clearance is needed for safety but he will make sure it is more sensitively managed in future, • He is looking into the possibility of some planting to screen the track near the skew bridge in Hoppers Road, • He is meeting with Cllr.
    [Show full text]
  • What's Wrong With
    O N N D G R O O L U P N E W S E R No 28 SEPTEMBER 2016 L E T T Our Newsletter is sent out to our London members and other contacts. The group exists to campaign for sustainable transport solutions in London and to support the work of the Campaign nationally. If you have not already done so we would be pleased if you would also join our group and take part in our London What’s based activities. To contact the group write to Chris Barker, wrong Campaign for Better Transport, 46 Redston Road, London N8 7HJ. with HS2 - E-mail: chrisjbark- er46@gmail.com: the CBT phone 020 8347 7684. Regular meetings of EUSTON the group are held in view STATION central London. The Newsletter is edited by Chris Barker. Contribu- New high speed rail lines can to Scotland and Wales are rope with regular commuters connection at Old Oak Com- tors are welcomed. be a means of providing extra unclear making it difficult to hit the hardest by annual mon must be given serious Opinions expressed capacity and freeing up space on see how HS2 will compete season ticket hikes. Passen- consideration urgently. are those of the au- thors and not neces- existing lines for increased with short-distance aviation. gers travelling on the existing Ongoing investment in There has been insufficient HS1 line pay a premium and if public transport is vital to the sarily those of the freight and local passenger Campaign for Better services. work on the options for using this formula is applied to HS2, success of our country so the the capacity on the existing many people could be ex- very substantial government Transport.
    [Show full text]
  • Waterman Numbered Report Template
    Transport Statement Proposed B1 Office Development, 2a Tabernacle Street, Islington 17 August 2011 Waterman Boreham Limited Regent House, Hubert Road, Brentwood, Essex CM14 4JE, United Kingdom t: +44 1277 238 100 f: +44 1277 238 150 www.waterman-boreham.com Content 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 2 Site Location & Local Highway Conditions ............................................................................................ 2 Accessibility ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Public Transport ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Underground and Over-ground Railway Stations ............................................................................. 3 Buses ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) Assessment ..................................................................... 4 Walking and Cycle Facilities .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • London Transport Records at the Public Record Office
    CONTENTS Introduction Page 4 Abbreviations used in this book Page 3 Accidents on the London Underground Page 4 Staff Records Pages 6-7 PART A - List of former ‘British Transport Historical Records’ related to London Transport, which have been transferred to the Greater London Record Office - continued from Part One (additional notes regarding this location) Page 8 PART C - List of former ‘British Transport Historical Records’ related to London Transport, which are still at the Public Record Office - continued from Part One Pages 9-12 PART D - Other records related to London Transport including Government Departments - continued from Part One Pages 13-66 PART E - List of former ‘Department of Education and Science’ records transferred from the PRO to the Victoria & Albert Museum Pages 67 APPENDIX 1 - PRO Class AN2 Pages to follow APPENDIX 2 - PRO Class MT29 Page 51- (on disc) APPENDIX 3 - Other places which have LT related records Pages 68-71 PRO document class headings: AH (Location of Offices Bureau) Page 13 AN (Railway Executive Committee/BTC/British Railways Board) - continued from Part One Pages 14-26 AN2 (Railway Executive Committee, War of 1939. Records cover period from 1939-1947) Pages to follow AT (Department of the Environment and Predecessors) Page 27 AVIA (Ministry of Aviation/Ministry of Aircraft Production) Page 27 AY (Records of various research institutes) Page 27 BL (Council on Tribunals) Page 27 BT (Board of Trade) - continued from Part One Page 28-34 CAB (Cabinet Papers) Page 35-36 CK (Commission for Racial Equality/Race
    [Show full text]
  • How Can This Happen? Railway Tunnel Penetrated by Piles
    How Can This Happen? Railway Tunnel penetrated by Piles. BB – Extracts from RAIB report. Summarised by : Steven Harper - Balfour Beatty Rail Nick Cook – Balfour Beatty Major Projects What Happened? 1. A seven storey residential building commenced piled foundations on 6 March 2013,13m above an undetected railway tunnel. 2. At 10:09 hrs on Friday 8 March 2013 Driver reported that water was flowing from the roof of the tunnel. (Old Street and Essex Road stations on the Northern City line.) 3. Inspection train deployed and 2 x 350mm dia Auger drills had come through the tunnel wall and had fallen onto the track. 4. The piling team were unaware that they had penetrated a tunnel. 5. Attempted to locate the missing sections of auger using metal bars. 6. No accidents or injuries. History 1. The site was vacant since the 1970s. 2. Developer engaged an Architect, Engineer and Land Searches. 3. GI Bore holes done in November 2011 – possible obstructions 4. Planned bore hole depth of 20m, one refused at 14m. 5. The Structural Engineer’s research – no tunnels or sewers. 6. Planning permission was granted for the scheme in March 2012. 7. Principal Contractor passed responsibility onto Piling Contractor. 8. Unknown to the designers, 19 of the planned 39 piles would clash. 9. The longest piles would have extended over 9 metres below rail level How did this happen? 1. In 1967 London Borough of Hackney, intended to issue a covenant. 2. This did not happen and did arise clearly on the land searches. 3. Ordnance Survey do not plot London Underground network.
    [Show full text]
  • LPTB NEW WORKS PROGRAMME 80TH ANNIVERSARY a TRIBUTE to a MAJOR EXPANSION of the UNDERGROUND NETWORK by John P Mccrickard
    LPTB NEW WORKS PROGRAMME 80TH ANNIVERSARY A TRIBUTE TO A MAJOR EXPANSION OF THE UNDERGROUND NETWORK by John P McCrickard Eighty years ago, on the 5 June 1935, Chancellor of the Exchequer Neville Chamberlain in the National (Coalition) Government announced to Parliament that “the London Passenger Transport Board, London and North Eastern Railway and the Great Western Railway will enter at once upon a programme of great improvements and extensions of London transport”. This bold and ambitious plan comprised several LPTB tube railway extensions out of the London central area to connect with various suburban lines of the LNER and GWR, which would be electrified for the purpose allowing direct Underground services to the City and West End. Also included were a number of station reconstructions in the central area to deal with burgeoning traffic, together with ancillary works such as power supply enhancements. Overall, the prime aim was to deal with serious problems of congestion afflicting the existing transport services, especially from the North-East London area into Liverpool Street, where severe peak-hour overcrowding reigned. A supplementary Commons statement by Chamberlain on 18 June 1935 clarified further details of the plan. Funding of the expected total cost of £40m would be by loans raised by a Finance Company on which the Government would guarantee both the principal and interest. This so-called “cheap money” would enable these important public transport schemes to be executed – such improvements by the railway companies had previously proved well-nigh impossible due to high costs of borrowing the required capital on the open market.
    [Show full text]
  • Major Project to Create UK's First Intercity Digital
    Major project to create UK’s first intercity digital railway continues June 8, 2021 Great Northern passengers on the Northern City Line, one of the most important routes into the City of London, will enjoy more reliable journeys by summer next year. The reliability boost will come from work to upgrade track and signalling on the route, in a key stage of the East Coast Digital Programme, which will create the first intercity digital railway in the UK, fitting trains with the latest in-cab signalling technology and removing the old lineside signals. This will mean that signallers will be able to communicate with trains continuously rather than only at fixed signal points, responding in real time, which will benefit passengers by reducing delays and significantly improving performance. However, to carry out this vital work, there will be some temporary service changes for passengers. There will be six weekends of track closures between Finsbury Park and Moorgate this summer as Network Rail teams work to install new equipment. These closures will be in place on the following dates: Saturday, 19 and Sunday, 20 June Saturday, 26 and Sunday, 27 June Saturday, 10 and Sunday, 11 July Saturday, 7 and Sunday, 8 August Saturday, 28, Sunday, 29 and Monday, 30 August Saturday, 4 September and Sunday, 5 September During these closures, trains will be diverted into King’s Cross station. Passengers who need to travel during this time are advised to plan ahead via National Rail Enquiries or via greatnorthernrail.com. There may be further dates when work is required and Great Northern and Network Rail will keep passengers informed of any additional impact on services.
    [Show full text]