• The experimental TfL Braille Tube relief map (MappingLondon)
• Why it’s good London has so many rail terminals (CityMetric)
• Gas tax immune electric vehicles are a revenue problem (CityLab)
• Hook of Holland light metro line conversion to open (IntlRailJ)
• The modern armoured train (AndrewGrantham)
• World’s best subway/Metro destinations unto themselves (NatGeo)
• Finland to allow congestion charges in cities (Eltis)
Whilst you wait for the next installment, check out our most popular articles:
- How Uber operates in London and why it is being banned
- On Our Line Podcast #8: Talking Uber, Lyft and Mobility disruption
- You Hacked – Cyber-security and the railways
And some of our other sections:
Feel we should read something or include in a future list? Email us at [email protected].
Reconnections is funded largely by its community. Like what we do? Buy us a cup of coffee or visit our shop.
The “Many Terminals” article fails to mention another advantage … if something goes ‘orribly worng at one terminus or its nearby lines, there’s almost always an alternative that will get you to where you want to go …
Hoek van Holland ….
will be completed on September 30, two years later than originally planned and €90m over budget. Oh dear, that sounds familiar.
However, no matter how nice the new trams seem, my mind goes back to the first time I passed through, in 1965, to be faced with a long train made up of stock from the Netherlands, DB, DR, Polish railways & two bogie-change compatible RU coaches. In between the “Western” & “Eastern” stock were two very worn, but still magnificent dark-blue coaches, proclaiming in Brass letters: “Compagnie Internationale des Wagon-Lits et des Grands Express Europeens” – As shown here
I think they are still extant, fully restored & running in this service
And those travelling during the right period may well have been on a train hauled by the former Manchester-Sheffield-Wath electric locos, which were sold to NS when the Woodhead line was closed. I used that route fairly regularly during the 1980s and saw them a lot.
Not sure London benefits from having SO many terminals though! If the railways had been planned more from the start, I’m sure the number could have been reduced to a more sensible number, say 6-8.
In idle moments I’ve wondered what a single London terminal capable of handling today’s (and presumably tomorrow’s) traffic would look like. A roundhouse, with platforms pointing out round the circumference and an enclosed concourse? A similar square? Two rows of platforms, all pointing (say) north or south with lines fanning out over approaching 180 degrees? In rough terms, what acreage would be needed for a single replacement?
Garry Brown
Try Berlin Hauptbahnof But, remeber, that some services still terminate “short” @ “Zoo” or “Ostbahnhof & there are lots of S-Bahn services.
And, most importantly, that very few services actually TERMINATE there … something you can’t do in London, bacuse of the geographic imbalance.
It would be interesting to know how much the cross-London travel “experience” depresses demand for long distance travel. With people travelling together, the combination of high prices and inconvenience must tip the balance towards the car.
With Paddington local services being transferred to Crossrail, there might be a case for run down and eventual closure of this station, long distance electric services could be diverted to newly rebuilt Euston. One less between-terminals set of transfers to worry about.
@Max Roberts – the rebuilt Euston is supposed to be full ere long – and there will continue to be an increasing volume of “local” services into Paddington anyway (eg the Oxfords and the Newburys.)
There is some evidence – at least in the past – of the demand caused by the difficulty of crossing London. That was the basis on which the GreenLine network was built – that didn’t go well for all the obvious reasons eventually… Both XC and the National Express networks had important market elements of avoiding London/avoiding multiple changes in London. Those, too, especially the latter have developed away from that in recent decades.
Then build it bigger, what a ridiculous opportunity to miss!
I don’t buy any arguments that because Cross Country and National Express London avoiding services didn’t flourish, there is no point exploring the idea. The services were slow and by it’s very nature, province-to-province demand will be fragmented. Concentrating as much as possible on a London Haultbahnhof caters for all the possibilities more effectively, winning on frequency and speed.
@Max Roberts – How much of London would you like to demolish? There are 12 (depending on how you count) Termini in London with a minimum of 30 approach tracks, so, say 15 tracks each side plus, of course all the throats that implies. Now, in width terms that means at least 30 platform faces say about 6-7000 feet, and in length terms about the same to allow for the station throats. So, something rather bigger than a square mile. Where would you like to plop that? Why not demolish the entire City for example? Or the entire West End? Now what would be the cost of the property acquisition? A mere trillion perhaps? BTW what do you think the cost of realigning the entire tube system to disperse the 600 000 people who would arrive every rush hour? Another £500bn? Oh, of course, that wouldn’t be necessary, would it – you have just demolished the reason for people travelling there anyway. Still people from Reading could get to Brighton quicker.
Common courtesy prevents me from writing the next paragraph…
The CityMetric article isn’t actually about why London has so many terminals, it is about why the main lines don’t penetrate the central area (except the ones that do). The writer clearly has no idea that this was a matter of deliberate policy in the nineteenth century.