Is it a practical solution to build a second line that operates like Victoria Line? What would be the issues? How might it help in London?

[Bald Rick]

That was my understanding too. Victoria line is pretty deep so I wonder how deep this line would go?

Deep!

I am aware that there is a proposed Thameslink 2/BML2, but I don’t even know what is going on with that.

Nothing, because there isn’t (and never has been) such a proposal in any rail investment plans.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Quick interchanges means there’s little space to hold crowds in times of disruption. Crossrail 1 built all those long corridors, and so will Crossrail 2. There’s already a specific corridor connection stub at Tottenham Court Road for this.

Solution: Provide the quick interchanges by making sure the platforms are close to each other, and provide the extra space that the long corridors would have given you by making the platforms wider. You don't need to excavate any more than you would do to build the corridors, and it's much more convenient for passengers.

 

[Mikey C]

The Victoria Line actually has good capacity in terms of being able to run an incredibly intensive and reliable service.

BUT, it's the stations and platforms which are the restriction, as many are overloaded. At stations like Oxford Circus, the next train is often arriving when people haven't left the platform from the previous one, and the passageways are tiny and far too small.

The only way to fix this would be with a horrendously expensive and disruptive rebuild, like the Bank rebuild for the Northern Line.

 

[Bald Rick]

Solution: Provide the quick interchanges by making sure the platforms are close to each other,

If only it were that easy.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Solution: Provide the quick interchanges by making sure the platforms are close to each other, and provide the extra space that the long corridors would have given you by making the platforms wider. You don't need to excavate any more than you would do to build the corridors, and it's much more convenient for passengers.

Or you could make use of more travellators (is that how you spell it?) like in the jubilee line corridor at Waterloo.

Back in the London Reconnections glory days, when we all thought London rail demand will exponentially increase until 2050, we came up with the idea of new DLR type metros in Central London that would avoid interchanging with large stations and have stations closer to offices - so for instance instead of serving Oxford Circus it’ll have a station at “Fitzrovia” for instance. The line would then interchange with the underground at much quieter stations that aren’t already interchanges, like St James Park or Goodge Street. The idea being to lure passengers away from already congested interchange stations. All gone now, that site really was something a decade ago.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If only it were that easy.

Isn't it? I appreciate that something like the Bakerloo-Victoria near-cross-platform interchange at Oxford Street (surely the gold standard in terms of something that is actually convenient for passengers) would be a lot harder to build, but I'm struggling to understand how it would be hard to build new platforms that are separate from but still reasonably close to the lines people would want to interchange with than seems to be the case for recent builds. Taking as an example, the Elizabeth line:

1. Would it really have been that hard to build the Liverpool Street platforms about 250 m further East, so they are located where Liverpool Street station actually is?
2. Would it really have been that hard at Canary Wharf to route the line 300m further South so that it could actually properly connect with the Jubilee line, even if interchange still required a short walk along some corridors?
3. Would it really have been that hard at Custom House to build the platforms about 100 m further West, so they weren't so far away from the DLR platforms?
4. Would it really have been that hard at Bond Street to build the platforms about 200 m further West, so they weren't so far away from the Jubilee and Central line platforms (again allowing for them still being completely separate platforms with corridors to interchange)?
5. Would it really have been that hard at Farringdon to build the platforms about 150 m further West, allowing separate escalators up to both the Northbound and Southbound Thameslink platforms (with the additional escalators paid for from the money saved by not building an almost useless extra ticket hall half way between Farringdon and Barbican, and a completely unnecessary additional interchange to the Westbound H&C/etc. at Barbican)?
6. Etc.

 

[Bald Rick]

Isn't it? I appreciate that something like the Bakerloo-Victoria near-cross-platform interchange at Oxford Street (surely the gold standard in terms of something that is actually convenient for passengers) would be a lot harder to build, but I'm struggling to understand how it would be hard to build new platforms that are separate from but still reasonably close to the lines people would want to interchange with than seems to be the case for recent builds. Taking as an example, the Elizabeth line:

1. Would it really have been that hard to build the Liverpool Street platforms about 250 m further East, so they are located where Liverpool Street station actually is?
2. Would it really have been that hard at Canary Wharf to route the line 300m further South so that it could actually properly connect with the Jubilee line, even if interchange still required a short walk along some corridors?
3. Would it really have been that hard at Custom House to build the platforms about 100 m further West, so they weren't so far away from the DLR platforms?
4. Would it really have been that hard at Bond Street to build the platforms about 200 m further West, so they weren't so far away from the Jubilee and Central line platforms (again allowing for them still being completely separate platforms with corridors to interchange)?
5. Would it really have been that hard at Farringdon to build the platforms about 150 m further West, allowing separate escalators up to both the Northbound and Southbound Thameslink platforms (with the additional escalators paid for from the money saved by not building an almost useless extra ticket hall half way between Farringdon and Barbican, and a completely unnecessary additional interchange to the Westbound H&C/etc. at Barbican)?
6. Etc.

Short answer - Yes.

Longer answer, I will write tonight.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

... totaly ignoring the poorly-served parts of all the other conurbations around the UK, of course.

It's funny (not) that London and the SE have to have public transport improvements to facilitate ever more "growth," but places a lot closer to regional/provincial centres still limping along with 1 DMU an hour aren't considered worth investing in.

In recent years there have been two new passenger services outside London: Okehampton to Exeter and Ashington to Newcastle. I doubt very much that they will generate either the numbers or the return on the 100% investment from the national Exchequer that the Elizabeth Line is generating from the 30% investment from the Exchequer. Please also note that the industries which supply transport projects in London are not based in London, so projects like the Elizabeth Line or new trains sets for London Underground provide huge orders for organisations in the rest of the country, for example Siemens in Goole. Currently the steel works in Scunthorpe faces an uncertain future. I'm confident people there would love a new railway project in London.

 

[Bald Rick]

Isn't it? I appreciate that something like the Bakerloo-Victoria near-cross-platform interchange at Oxford Street (surely the gold standard in terms of something that is actually convenient for passengers) would be a lot harder to build, but I'm struggling to understand how it would be hard to build new platforms that are separate from but still reasonably close to the lines people would want to interchange with than seems to be the case for recent builds. Taking as an example, the Elizabeth line:

1. Would it really have been that hard to build the Liverpool Street platforms about 250 m further East, so they are located where Liverpool Street station actually is?
2. Would it really have been that hard at Canary Wharf to route the line 300m further South so that it could actually properly connect with the Jubilee line, even if interchange still required a short walk along some corridors?
3. Would it really have been that hard at Custom House to build the platforms about 100 m further West, so they weren't so far away from the DLR platforms?
4. Would it really have been that hard at Bond Street to build the platforms about 200 m further West, so they weren't so far away from the Jubilee and Central line platforms (again allowing for them still being completely separate platforms with corridors to interchange)?
5. Would it really have been that hard at Farringdon to build the platforms about 150 m further West, allowing separate escalators up to both the Northbound and Southbound Thameslink platforms (with the additional escalators paid for from the money saved by not building an almost useless extra ticket hall half way between Farringdon and Barbican, and a completely unnecessary additional interchange to the Westbound H&C/etc. at Barbican)?
6. Etc.

Longer answer.

Designing a new underground railway is necessarily an exercise in compromises. Many, many compromises.

The client of the project will want the interchanges as short as possible, not only because it makes it easier for passengers, but because it shortens the journey time for those interchanging - which makes the benefits case better through a) bigger time savings and b) more demand generated because of those time savings. Using Crossrail as the example (as you have) it was therefore in their interest to make the interchanges as quick as possible, and I am certain that everything was done to do so as far as was practical.

However engineering, practicality, and the laws of physics come into play.

Within London, under the surface is a congested place. We all know about the tunnels that have trains in them, and I guess most people will realise that closer to the surface are lots of tunnels / culverts / ducts with utlities in them. Some may remember that there is the old post office railway, deep air raid shelters, the Kingsway tunnel and a few other reasonably well know subterranean features; a few may know about the telecomms tunnels that spread out at various depths and directions from Chancery Lane. Add in foundations of various depths plus some deep basements of certain buildings (some of the latter are strictly ‘need to know’ basis) and theres not a lot of space. Geology comes to the party too.

In that constrained 3D environment, you need to thread twin tunnels. The main running tunnels obviously need to meet standards for curvature (vertical and horizontal) and gradients, and preferably not overly restricting line speed as that means lower capacity (Hence why the Victoria line can do 36tph, but other lines max out at 30/32).

The stations need to be (almost) straight and level, with at least two separate routes to the surface (at least one at or close to each end), and those routes to the surface need to be large enough to accommodate the forecasted passenger flows - not just those forecast for opening, but forecasted for at least the first 30 years (preferably 60) of operations. Add in a level access route (usually lifts), and the routes for all the services (power, ventilation, fire systems, info systems, plant and machinery, etc) and (little known but required) a clear route for fire and rescue personnel to get down unhindered whilst several thousand passengers are getting out, and you need a lot of space in the station area. And again that space needs to be clear of other existing tunnels, services, foundations, basements, secret bunkers, etc.

Then the ground level end of the vertical circulation needs to ‘land’ somewhere that it can be built - being flippant for a moment the middle of Selfridges or Lincoln’s Inn Fields would raise a few eyebrows. So, for each station, the engineers will be looking for areas on the surface (or a storey or two down) large enough to accomodate the forecast passenger flows, and essentially will be looking for buildings big enough to demolish that aren’t in some way difficult (ie listed, otherwise protected or special).

If the stations are not close together, then you need additional escape and/or ventilation shafts in order to maintain line capacity for the trains. Again these need to ‘land’ at ground level somewhere practical albeit are smaller than what is required for a station.

Finally it all has to be stitched together underground. No point having a perfect station location with perfect platform position and orientation if you can’t ‘bend’ the running tunnels to them because of other constraints.

To pick up the first three of your examples:

1) Liverpool St platforms are where they are as a compromise for the two big passenger flows at each of Liverpool St and Moorgate entrances. Having the platforms further east makes the Moorgate end less attractive (no interchange with Northern or the GN), would need the station entrance to be located in Finsbury Circus (the furore about the temporary land take there was mitigated only on the promise of handing it back in better shape than it was taken), and would compromise the alignment on to Whitechapel - the tunnels curve north immediately to the east if Liverpool St. This was the subject of much study and optioneering.

2) Canary Wharf station is the only place it could go. All the (deep) building foundations to the immediate south preclude a station there without demolition of what’s above - several million sq ft of it. Also, even if that weren’t the case, had the alignment been further south it would then have had the Limehouse Link tunnels in the way en route to Whitechapel.

3) Custom Hosue is as far west as it can go. There are crossovers immediately to the west of the platforms, then the tunnel portal. The portal can’t move west as it has to dive quickly to get under the River Lea and (AIUI) avoid some Thames Water tunnels in the area. Besides the whole of Custom House DLR station is within the length of the EL station, it couldn’t be any closer. Make sure you are at the west end of the train!


I hope this helps explain. This is also why the alignment for Crossrail 2 is so constrained - for example there is only one place the station can go at “Euston St Pancras”, and that is East - West in the parcel of land between The British Library and Francis Crick institute. Anywhere else means demolishing all / part of one or other of those buildings, and/or other listed buildings, and/or closing at least one tube line (or Thameslink). It’s also why the “proposal” to build HS2 as a through route underground at Euston was complete fantasy - it just wasn‘t possible in any practical sense, let alone economics.

 

[Magdalia]

Longer answer.

Designing a new underground railway is necessarily an exercise in compromises. Many, many compromises.

Thanks for taking the time to do the longer answer.

Then the ground level end of the vertical circulation needs to ‘land’ somewhere that it can be built - being flippant for a moment the middle of Selfridges or Lincoln’s Inn Fields would raise a few eyebrows. So, for each station, the engineers will be looking for areas on the surface (or a storey or two down) large enough to accomodate the forecast passenger flows, and essentially will be looking for buildings big enough to demolish that aren’t in some way difficult (ie listed, otherwise protected or special).

I am only an occasional visitor to London. The impact of construction at ground level was clearly visible in the areas I visited around Liverpool Street, Farringdon and Tottenham Court Road, including demolition of existing buildings.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Longer answer.

Designing a new underground railway is necessarily an exercise in compromises. Many, many compromises.

The client of the project will want the interchanges as short as possible, not only because it makes it easier for passengers, but because it shortens the journey time for those interchanging - which makes the benefits case better through a) bigger time savings and b) more demand generated because of those time savings. Using Crossrail as the example (as you have) it was therefore in their interest to make the interchanges as quick as possible, and I am certain that everything was done to do so as far as was practical.

However engineering, practicality, and the laws of physics come into play.

Within London, under the surface is a congested place. We all know about the tunnels that have trains in them, and I guess most people will realise that closer to the surface are lots of tunnels / culverts / ducts with utlities in them. Some may remember that there is the old post office railway, deep air raid shelters, the Kingsway tunnel and a few other reasonably well know subterranean features; a few may know about the telecomms tunnels that spread out at various depths and directions from Chancery Lane. Add in foundations of various depths plus some deep basements of certain buildings (some of the latter are strictly ‘need to know’ basis) and theres not a lot of space. Geology comes to the party too.

In that constrained 3D environment, you need to thread twin tunnels. The main running tunnels obviously need to meet standards for curvature (vertical and horizontal) and gradients, and preferably not overly restricting line speed as that means lower capacity (Hence why the Victoria line can do 36tph, but other lines max out at 30/32).

The stations need to be (almost) straight and level, with at least two separate routes to the surface (at least one at or close to each end), and those routes to the surface need to be large enough to accommodate the forecasted passenger flows - not just those forecast for opening, but forecasted for at least the first 30 years (preferably 60) of operations. Add in a level access route (usually lifts), and the routes for all the services (power, ventilation, fire systems, info systems, plant and machinery, etc) and (little known but required) a clear route for fire and rescue personnel to get down unhindered whilst several thousand passengers are getting out, and you need a lot of space in the station area. And again that space needs to be clear of other existing tunnels, services, foundations, basements, secret bunkers, etc.

Then the ground level end of the vertical circulation needs to ‘land’ somewhere that it can be built - being flippant for a moment the middle of Selfridges or Lincoln’s Inn Fields would raise a few eyebrows. So, for each station, the engineers will be looking for areas on the surface (or a storey or two down) large enough to accomodate the forecast passenger flows, and essentially will be looking for buildings big enough to demolish that aren’t in some way difficult (ie listed, otherwise protected or special).

If the stations are not close together, then you need additional escape and/or ventilation shafts in order to maintain line capacity for the trains. Again these need to ‘land’ at ground level somewhere practical albeit are smaller than what is required for a station.

Finally it all has to be stitched together underground. No point having a perfect station location with perfect platform position and orientation if you can’t ‘bend’ the running tunnels to them because of other constraints.

To pick up the first three of your examples:

1) Liverpool St platforms are where they are as a compromise for the two big passenger flows at each of Liverpool St and Moorgate entrances. Having the platforms further east makes the Moorgate end less attractive (no interchange with Northern or the GN), would need the station entrance to be located in Finsbury Circus (the furore about the temporary land take there was mitigated only on the promise of handing it back in better shape than it was taken), and would compromise the alignment on to Whitechapel - the tunnels curve north immediately to the east if Liverpool St. This was the subject of much study and optioneering.

2) Canary Wharf station is the only place it could go. All the (deep) building foundations to the immediate south preclude a station there without demolition of what’s above - several million sq ft of it. Also, even if that weren’t the case, had the alignment been further south it would then have had the Limehouse Link tunnels in the way en route to Whitechapel.

3) Custom Hosue is as far west as it can go. There are crossovers immediately to the west of the platforms, then the tunnel portal. The portal can’t move west as it has to dive quickly to get under the River Lea and (AIUI) avoid some Thames Water tunnels in the area. Besides the whole of Custom House DLR station is within the length of the EL station, it couldn’t be any closer. Make sure you are at the west end of the train!


I hope this helps explain. This is also why the alignment for Crossrail 2 is so constrained - for example there is only one place the station can go at “Euston St Pancras”, and that is East - West in the parcel of land between The British Library and Francis Crick institute. Anywhere else means demolishing all / part of one or other of those buildings, and/or other listed buildings, and/or closing at least one tube line (or Thameslink). It’s also why the “proposal” to build HS2 as a through route underground at Euston was complete fantasy - it just wasn‘t possible in any practical sense, let alone economics.

Thanks for the detailed reply! That's interesting. Definitely nice to know if designers do want interchanges to be short and convenient - because honestly, as a passenger, a lot of the time it really doesn't feel that way. The number of times I see stuff that was built 50+ years ago that was super-convenient compared to or even replaced by new stuff that is just not at all convenient to use

Don't really want to challenge anything when you've been so helpful in explaining all that, but just a couple of things that strikes me: Firstly, about Liverpool Street. You rightly mention interchange with the Northern line. Actually most of the times I use Liverpool Street it is to swap between the Elizabeth and Northern lines, so you could argue I ought to be one of the people who would be happy that there's a direct interchange at Moorgate. But the thing is, my observations are that the numbers of Elizabeth line passengers at Liverpool Street who use that passageway is a tiny fraction of the numbers of people who enter/exit at Liverpool Street itself, so it seems to me that that Moorgate interchange is benefitting a small number of people (yes, including me) at the expense of a far greater number of people. (And Moorgate is only one stop from Liverpool Street on the Circle/H&C anyway)

Also the requirement for 2 public entrances for each station for safety surprises me, not least because as far as I'm aware, Woolwich only has one entrance, and countless tube platforms have been operating just fine for decades with only one entrance to each platform pair. (I can see the rationale for requiring a 2nd emergency entrance)

 

[stuu]

Also the requirement for 2 public entrances for each station for safety surprises me, not least because as far as I'm aware, Woolwich only has one entrance, and countless tube platforms have been operating just fine for decades with only one entrance to each platform pair. (I can see the rationale for requiring a 2nd emergency entrance)

He didn't say public... Woolwich does have a second escape route - it's part of the ventilation structure 250m east of the entrance. Second routes of escape came in presumably after Kings Cross, although I wouldn't swear to it

 

[Bald Rick]

Also the requirement for 2 public entrances for each station for safety surprises me, not least because as far as I'm aware, Woolwich only has one entrance, and countless tube platforms have been operating just fine for decades with only one entrance to each platform pair. (I can see the rationale for requiring a 2nd emergency entrance)

I just double checked, as I didn’t think I said there needed to be two public entrances. However I inadvertently left room for interpretation, and wasn’t clear enough. What I said was:

with at least two separate routes to the surface (at least one at or close to each end), and those routes to the surface need to be large enough to accommodate the forecasted passenger flows - not just those forecast for opening, but forecasted for at least the first 30 years (preferably 60) of operations.

“Two seperate routes to the surface“ doesn’t mean both have to be for everyday public use. One can be emergency escape only - if the forecasted passenger flows can be accommodated by just the one access. As an example, St Pancras Low Level only has one passenger access per platform, but actually has three separate access routes to each platform, two of which are emergency only.

However in central London, the passenger numbers mean that you need two entrances simply to deal with them. Tottenham Court Road can easily have 5,000 people alighting in the space of a little over 2 minutes: that’s a lot of people to get ‘upstairs’ and (importantly) a lot of people to put on the Northern Line platforms even if only 10% of them went that way.

The number of times I see stuff that was built 50+ years ago that was super-convenient compared to or even replaced by new stuff that is just not at all convenient to use

Well, 50+ years ago there was a lot less underground, standards were less stringent, and almost everything built was for trains about half the length and passenger numbers less than half per train of what the Elizabeth line deals with.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I just double checked, as I didn’t think I said there needed to be two public entrances. However I inadvertently left room for interpretation, and wasn’t clear enough. What I said was:





“Two seperate routes to the surface“ doesn’t mean both have to be for everyday public use. One can be emergency escape only - if the forecasted passenger flows can be accommodated by just the one access. As an example, St Pancras Low Level only has one passenger access per platform, but actually has three separate access routes to each platform, two of which are emergency only.

However in central London, the passenger numbers mean that you need two entrances simply to deal with them. Tottenham Court Road can easily have 5,000 people alighting in the space of a little over 2 minutes: that’s a lot of people to get ‘upstairs’ and (importantly) a lot of people to put on the Northern Line platforms even if only 10% of them went that way.




Well, 50+ years ago there was a lot less underground, standards were less stringent, and almost everything built was for trains about half the length and passenger numbers less than half per train of what the Elizabeth line deals with.

It is at times like this that I always think it is worth reminding people that the Elizabeth line is not just another underground line.
The trains are a LOT longer and a little wider. It is really a normal railway line with full length trains but deep underground.
There will always be fewer stations as they are so much longer. For example Farringdon Station covers Farringdon and Barbican Moorgate, Liverpool Street covers Liverpool Street and Moorgate Barbican.

The Elizabeth line does however have to negotiate all the other underground obstructions (foundations, underground lines, sewers and other services).
All that was very well explained by @Bald Rick a few posts above.

 

[sjoh]

For example Farringdon Station covers Farringdon and Moorgate, Liverpool Street covers Liverpool Street and Barbican.

You've gotten the combination stations mixed up, but agreed.

The Victoria Line actually has good capacity in terms of being able to run an incredibly intensive and reliable service.

BUT, it's the stations and platforms which are the restriction, as many are overloaded. At stations like Oxford Circus, the next train is often arriving when people haven't left the platform from the previous one, and the passageways are tiny and far too small.

The only way to fix this would be with a horrendously expensive and disruptive rebuild, like the Bank rebuild for the Northern Line.

I suppose adding an additional platform face on the opposite side to the Victoria line platforms might be a potential not-quite-so-horrendously expensive option, and potentially a little less disruptive too, but would still be ... a headache. I.e. doors would open on both sides, exit one side for bakerloo interchange and the other side for exit. No idea if there's space tho.

 

[Peter Sarf]

You've gotten the combination stations mixed up, but agreed.

Always getting those two mixed up, corrected.

I suppose adding an additional platform face on the opposite side to the Victoria line platforms might be a potential not-quite-so-horrendously expensive option, and potentially a little less disruptive too, but would still be ... a headache. I.e. doors would open on both sides, exit one side for bakerloo interchange and the other side for exit. No idea if there's space tho.

You would have to enlarge the existing track+platform tunnels. Not easy on a live railway. At Oxford Circus an extra platform could also provide links to the central line. But from my experience using Oxford Circus in the 1990s the trains might not take many more passengers so it gets to the point where you might as well build another line. That was evening rush Central line to Southbound Victoria line where we were queuing in the link tunnel - I used to work late just to avoid it. Then stopped working in central London.

However IF people would move along the platform things might be easier on the actual platform.

 

[The exile]

What going from 2tph to 3tph doesn't sound a significant increase, 3tph is about the point where people will just turn up for a train rather than looking at the timetable, as such you do see a reasonable increase in use at such a frequency.

As long as 3tph means a train (roughly) every 20 minutes rather than at intervals of 5-5-50, which will still get trumpeted by politicians and box-ticking officials as “3 trains an hour”. All service level requirement should specify the maximum interval between services as well as the number of tph. “3tph with a max interval of 25 minutes” as an example.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Feb 2025 ==

Well, 50+ years ago there was a lot less underground, standards were less stringent, and almost everything built was for trains about half the length and passenger numbers less than half per train of what the Elizabeth line deals with.

Not to mention that in lots of cases, the “convenient interchange / travel pattern / route to work” (or whatever) will have been found sometime in the fifty years after that infrastructure was built. As others have said that “convenient route” may also be a convenient way of ensuring maximum casualties in the event of a fire / explosion/ stampede.

 

[35B]

Thanks for the detailed reply! That's interesting. Definitely nice to know if designers do want interchanges to be short and convenient - because honestly, as a passenger, a lot of the time it really doesn't feel that way. The number of times I see stuff that was built 50+ years ago that was super-convenient compared to or even replaced by new stuff that is just not at all convenient to use

Don't really want to challenge anything when you've been so helpful in explaining all that, but just a couple of things that strikes me: Firstly, about Liverpool Street. You rightly mention interchange with the Northern line. Actually most of the times I use Liverpool Street it is to swap between the Elizabeth and Northern lines, so you could argue I ought to be one of the people who would be happy that there's a direct interchange at Moorgate. But the thing is, my observations are that the numbers of Elizabeth line passengers at Liverpool Street who use that passageway is a tiny fraction of the numbers of people who enter/exit at Liverpool Street itself, so it seems to me that that Moorgate interchange is benefitting a small number of people (yes, including me) at the expense of a far greater number of people. (And Moorgate is only one stop from Liverpool Street on the Circle/H&C anyway)

Also the requirement for 2 public entrances for each station for safety surprises me, not least because as far as I'm aware, Woolwich only has one entrance, and countless tube platforms have been operating just fine for decades with only one entrance to each platform pair. (I can see the rationale for requiring a 2nd emergency entrance)

There’s another point here, which is that stations are also destinations, not just interchange points. Canary Wharf is a shockingly poor interchange, but it is very well placed as the EL station FOR Canary Wharf. Likewise, by spreading the loads at Liverpool St, Farringdon and Tottenham Court Road, there is a good compromise made between interchange and actually serving the location.

 

[Mikey C]

He didn't say public... Woolwich does have a second escape route - it's part of the ventilation structure 250m east of the entrance. Second routes of escape came in presumably after Kings Cross, although I wouldn't swear to it

Woolwich was built on the cheap, as it wasn't part of the original plans. It could do with a second entrance as it's been a massive success.

 

[MarkyT]

“Two seperate routes to the surface“ doesn’t mean both have to be for everyday public use. One can be emergency escape only - if the forecasted passenger flows can be accommodated by just the one access. As an example, St Pancras Low Level only has one passenger access per platform, but actually has three separate access routes to each platform, two of which are emergency only.

However in central London, the passenger numbers mean that you need two entrances simply to deal with them. Tottenham Court Road can easily have 5,000 people alighting in the space of a little over 2 minutes: that’s a lot of people to get ‘upstairs’ and (importantly) a lot of people to put on the Northern Line platforms even if only 10% of them went that way.

Double-ended stations can also expand the 'walkshed' with entrances up to a quarter of a mile apart, perhaps on different streets, attracting more passengers. This can help make up for long station spacing of modern lines, which can save on the number of stations and achieve better cross city speeds compared to older tubes, some of which have stations closer than the twin entrances of a single EL facility in the city centre. If a secondary emergency egress doesn't lead out to a useful traffic area, then there's little benefit in upgrading it to a full public entrance with gatelines, escalators, permanent staffing etc. Where a main entrance is sited about midway along the platforms for other reasons, such as for mainline interchange at St Pancras low level, then alternate full public entrances formed from other necessary emergency egresses may simply be too close to the main access be of any benefit.

 

[Mikey C]

Many of the Jubilee Line Extension stations effectively have two passenger entrances, enabling them to serve a wider area.

Waterloo, Southwark, London Bridge and Canary Wharf for example.

 

[Transilien]

I get the feeling that no new Underground lines will ever be built, especially deep tube ones with their cramped tunnels. The name 'underground' just isn't flashy enough to get any massive investments apart from extensions to already existing lines.

 

[AM9]

I get the feeling that no new Underground lines will ever be built, especially deep tube ones with their cramped tunnels. The name 'underground' just isn't flashy enough to get any massive investments apart from extensions to already existing lines.

I think it's more an issue of the difference in utility that full size vs deep tube size rolling stock has makes the difference in cost almost irrelevant. If a flow in Central London is needed, it means that the demand is probably too high for a deep tube to cope much longer than a couple of decades. A full sized line (e.g. the Lizzy) will hopefully cope for many decades to come, thereby matching the planned life of the infrastructure, i.e. 120 years.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I get the feeling that no new Underground lines will ever be built, especially deep tube ones with their cramped tunnels. The name 'underground' just isn't flashy enough to get any massive investments apart from extensions to already existing lines.

There are still corridors that could be undergrounded; Edgware Road-Victoria, Fleet Street, Kingsway. Then there’s the possibility of new Underground lines in the suburbs. I came up with the idea of an East Croydon to Heathrow via Surbiton line recently.

Other routes could replace LO lines and provide better connectivity. Such as the WLL or the South London Line.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think it's more an issue of the difference in utility that full size vs deep tube size rolling stock has makes the difference in cost almost irrelevant. If a flow in Central London is needed, it means that the demand is probably too high for a deep tube to cope much longer than a couple of decades. A full sized line (e.g. the Lizzy) will hopefully cope for many decades to come, thereby matching the planned life of the infrastructure, i.e. 120 years.

I can see scope for more rail lines - especially orbital lines - in outer London, but I guess that would be overground rather than tube. Within central London, if - as seems to be the consensus - there's not really any room for more underground lines beyond Crossrail 2, then I wonder if the way forward is to use better congestion charging to clear the roads of many of the private cars, taxis and ubers that clog them up: That would mean the buses could run much faster and more frequently, which in turn means a lot of short journeys within Zone 1 that are currently made by tube could be more easily/quickly be made by bus, relieving pressure on the tube.

 

[Bald Rick]

There are still corridors that could be undergrounded; Edgware Road-Victoria, Fleet Street, Kingsway.

Are you sure? Do you know what is under Fleet street and Kingsway, for example?

 

[sjoh]

Are you sure? Do you know what is under Fleet street and Kingsway, for example?

make it a log flume. sorted.

 

[The Ham]

I can see scope for more rail lines - especially orbital lines - in outer London, but I guess that would be overground rather than tube. Within central London, if - as seems to be the consensus - there's not really any room for more underground lines beyond Crossrail 2, then I wonder if the way forward is to use better congestion charging to clear the roads of many of the private cars, taxis and ubers that clog them up: That would mean the buses could run much faster and more frequently, which in turn means a lot of short journeys within Zone 1 that are currently made by tube could be more easily/quickly be made by bus, relieving pressure on the tube.

Buses are good, trams would be a bit better (higher capacity for one).

Either way, even a near empty (for London) bus carrying 16 people would carrying the same number of people (or passengers) as about 10 cars (or taxis/Ubers, yet takes to the space of just 2.

Whilst there's always going to be cars, reductions in the number of them is possible.

 

[may032]

Buses are good, trams would be a bit better (higher capacity for one).

Either way, even a near empty (for London) bus carrying 16 people would carrying the same number of people (or passengers) as about 10 cars (or taxis/Ubers, yet takes to the space of just 2.

Whilst there's always going to be cars, reductions in the number of them is possible.

Buses are incredibly efficient in terms of road space. We need more bus lanes though, relatively cheap to build and if more people saw the bus speed ahead of them while they were stuck in traffic, I think modal shift would follow. Also some of London’s suburban town centres should - rather than pedestrianise - become bus-only where possible to encourage more local bus use.

 

[stuu]

I can see scope for more rail lines - especially orbital lines - in outer London, but I guess that would be overground rather than tube. Within central London, if - as seems to be the consensus - there's not really any room for more underground lines beyond Crossrail 2, then I wonder if the way forward is to use better congestion charging to clear the roads of many of the private cars, taxis and ubers that clog them up: That would mean the buses could run much faster and more frequently, which in turn means a lot of short journeys within Zone 1 that are currently made by tube could be more easily/quickly be made by bus, relieving pressure on the tube.

The problem with orbital lines is that they almost inevitably mean 2 changes for any journey: radial-orbital-radial. Unless the frequencies are high enough that wait times are negligible then it becomes a serious disadvantage, and changes alone are bad enough. I used to live in Harrow and I did used to occasionally daydream about where a sensible orbital line would go - follow the 140/superloop to Heathrow and maybe to Feltham? Or to Ealing-Brentford-Richmond? Either would have some merit, but would either be enough to justify the investment? In the event anything were ever built I would assume it would be something like the DLR, segregated, automated shortish trains