Elizabethan Style: A Look At Crossrail’s Core Stations

1. No, the ceiling in Tottenham Court Road’s ticket hall looks especially unpleasant. It reminds me of the “phobia of holes” thing.

2. Brilliant renderings, and excellent research in finding the older Crossrail proposal drawings.

3. I rather liked the look of the TCR ceiling, marred only by thinking “that’ll be a devil to kepp clean”.

4. I want to be part of this slim, youthful, clean London.

5. I rather liked the look of the TCR ceiling, marred only by thinking “that’ll be a devil to kepp clean”.

   Also known as the “JLE problem.”

   I want to be part of this slim, youthful, clean London.

   One day I’m going to create a set of “true commuters” for station mockups and send it to all these architecture firms for free:

   “Dave, can you add more Spanish teenagers with identical backpacks to the TCR mockups please.”

   “No problem Gary. Do you want me to add a couple more instances of ‘American standing on the walking side of the escalator’ as well?”

   “Yeah, probably for the best.”

6. The roundel outside the Dean St station entrance includes the words ‘Elizabeth Line’. This doesn’t seem to follow the usual standards, where line names must not appear on roundels?

   (Might be preaching to the converted here…)

7. Disappointing to see the roundel outside Tottenham Court Road read “Elizabeth Line”. Would be better if Crossrail was kept as the name of the network and on roundels and then Elizabeth Line used for the line itself.

   You don’t see underground stations with roundels reading “xxxx Line” so why should his be any different. They always just read “Underground” or “Overground” etc

8. There looks an awful of standing on the left going on with some of those escalators

9. That early pencil-drawing was really Piranesi-grim DDR stuff wasn’t it?
   And the very nice drawing for Bond Street at surface made me cry out for Art Nouveau architecture
   [Spelling errors and personal request snipped. LBM]

10. TfL have decided they don’t want to use Crossrail as name so it won’t be retained even as a mode name. It will solely be known as Elizabeth line from 2018 which is a shame as I thought Crossrail nicely articulated what this railway is about – national rail sized trains crossing London. Would be good to see the new Mayor retaining the name Crossrail in some way.

11. With regards to the correct use of Elizabeth Line and its positioning:

    My suspicion is that these mockups shouldn’t be taken as laying down the law in this area. Crossrail are still working on their equivalent of TfL’s Design Idiom and that probably includes a whole raft of work to be done with TfL themselves on nomenclature etc.

    I’m hoping that we’ll be able to get some time with key people there and at TfL to really get into depth on the design decisions on Crossrail in the next few months.

12. Is it me, or does the escalator look to be running at a very shallow angle at Bond Street (upper escalator from Davies Street)?

    And the jazzy design at Liverpool Street looks like an early style camouflage on wartime ships, which is particularly UN-easy on the eye. There might even be people with medical problems who could be disturbed by this particular design.

13. John Bull at 17:03

    If you could please kindly make them aware of some of the things mentioned here, including that they retain the name Crossrail for the network, and Elizabeth Line for the line.

    I hate to see such illogical and inconsistent naming being used for a very important project.

14. @John Bull – what’s good about most of the stations is the way in which you rise towards the light and, in the case of at least TCR, the barrier line is relatively close to the street and visible from it. I do agree about the staffage – we pensioners don’t exist, of course, not being very cool – mind you adding in a few down and outs and language school touts for realism might not sell the concepts…

    @GregT – designs of their time I guess – still, it’s nice to have moved on from the JLE Star Wars style. [Staffage to be aliens in jump suits, perhaps?]

    @Elshad – we have had the name of the line, name of system debate exhaustively and exhaustingly on this site already. Just remember that CrossRail isn’t a system or a network, and for the users, there’s nothing to distinguish it functionally from other lines such as TLK or even the Met.

15. “Crossrail” does lend itself to some obvious punslinging. (“Crossrail? BloodyLividrail, more like!”)

    Also, in fairness to Crossrail, it really is just a new Tube line, albeit a much more capacious one. The Bakerloo aside, I can’t see any of the older Tube lines ever being extended further, especially if London continues to densify*.

    —

    * (A real word, apparently. At least, my spellchecker isn’t complaining about it.)

16. Once works are completed in 2018 will Whitechapel revert to using the old entrance on Whitechapel High Street (the one that looks like a house), and if so will the current (temporary) entrance be closed or kept as a second entrance?

17. Nice to see some larger images although I’d seen most of them on the Crossrail site / Ianvisits’ site. I intend to pop down to RIBA to take a look for myself.

    My overriding comment is “they will all be hell to keep clean”. Having had to battle endlessly with others to keep JLE (and other) stations clean and tidy I know what a nightmare this will end up being especially when operational maintenance budgets come under pressure (they always do, so it’s when not if). The state of some JLE stations these days is deplorable and not fitting for what is still LU’s newest bit of railway.

    I am also slightly surprised at some of the colour choices (eg TCR platform concourse) with black shiny surfaces – I’m surprised that’s passed scrutiny. If the TCR designs are maintained they will also create a stark contrast with the rest of the station which is pretty much now “LU hospital corridor” style. The points where the two “designs” meet is going to be like passing between two different worlds. I note also the BR style signage in Whitechapel’s ticket hall. A tad out of place with the LU format signage beyond. 😉

18. @ Elshad 1703 – blame the former Mayor for the ridiculous naming issues. Crossrail’s project team can’t do anything about it and I don’t think the new Mayor will change it either no matter how enraged some of us are over the renaming.

    @ Elshad 1758 – yes the original entrance at Whitechapel will reopen with the new ticket hall (as per the image) just inside it. I think the temporary ticket hall becomes an emergency exit in the future with some of the space being used for new staff accommodation.

19. The Channel Tunnel was built by TransManche Link and is operated by Eurotunnel. As Crossrail is the builder it’s up to the operator to brand it isn’t it? I hope they invite the real Liz Line from American Vogue to the opening.

20. I was down at the RIBA for an unrelated seminar last night and had a quick dash around the exhibition afterwards.

    It’s really refreshing to see a bit of boldness and a richness of materials in these interiors after the ‘blanding’ out of so many of the large station projects in recent years (Blackfriars, in particular smacks of value-engineering and an unimaginative design team).

    The danger, of course, with such interiors is that they can date quickly as fashion and trends move on, but that’s part of the appeal of the network – every era leaves its fingerprints.

    As a general point about the graphics etc – although these will have been signed off by the client, it’s always the case that a lot of the corporate identities will be placeholder images, so I wouldn’t get too hung up about whether the logos are totally accurate at this stage.

21. @marckee – I wouldn’t be troubled by the fact that the designs are of their era -it’s one of the interesting things about tube stations – as with cathedrals – that you can see the whole history of the idea. Who would now like to tear down Boston Manor for something “contemporary”?

    As for logos -just so!

22. Many of those smart wall- and ceiling-claddings will have cabling and other essential services behind them.

    As we know well from the rest of the network, when work has to be done, the claddings and panels come off and stay off for weeks and sometimes months.

    Has any thought been given to the ‘look’ of the stations without the smart claddings – perhaps by designing panels that can be slid out of the way, and slid back, rather than having to be removed and stored elsewhere?

    At least these Crossrail stations don’t look as hideous as the worst of the Jubilee Line Extension (such as North Greenwich and, worst of all, Westminster, which has a perpetual look of not being finished).

23. The one feature that looks significantly different is the treatment of the escalator ‘rooms’.

    Generally, it’s now a hard act to come up with something that doesn’t look like another modern metro somewhere else in the world. There are loads of keen architects worldwide doing some quite interesting things. The one that made my eyes open wide was Line 2 in Warsaw.

24. I’m rather sceptical about the relaxed atmosphere on those escalators. Given the passenger capacity of Elizabeth Line trains, I would imagine that just one offpeak train unloading at say TCR would fill all available space with people. Imagine two arriving simultaneously in the peak!

25. RayL: I suspect the JLE stations don’t look finished because they aren’t! At London Bridge and Waterloo there are clearly visible threads to which panels should be attached. And such panels are attached to adjacent sections.

    It is devoutly to be wished that Messrs Crossrail & Co’s much vaunted project management skills will ensure that we are not left to travel in an environment which reminds us of the “ruddy blush” to achieve an arbitrary deadline. The images in this piece will act as a useful standard of comparison.

26. What I do like are the “rounded corners” to the tunnel / passageway / platform spaces, rather than the tight little awkward angles that we are, most unfortunately, used to.

27. One hopes that the directional signage improves between these renders and reality.

    And some of those platforms look as if they will, like the JLE ones, be rather dark.

    But overall, I’m impressed – they have made each station distinct, though similar in style and most of all allow the cathedral size of the stations be conveyed.

28. The “rounded corners” intrigued me too. I don’t know how they would build these, and I suspect they will get ‘value-engineered’ out, and we will actually get the tight little awkward angles.

29. I like the rounded corners, far more futuristic. Overall a very good looking set of stations.

    But why the giant cigarettes in Paddington Station?

    (I know they’re supporting pillars, but gold and white pillars will inevitably look like giant smokes)

30. If these turn out to be difficult / expensive to clean and maintain then surely that’s an indication of poor design?

31. A trains icon at Whitechapel. Is that normal in stations with only TfL operated services? I can’t for the life of me think if this is usual on the Overground – either in stations with TfL owned tracks or Network Rail ones.

32. @ RogerB – I doubt Crossrail would have published images of planned station finishes if they were to be “value engineered” away. Crossrail went through a load of value engineering several years ago which rationalised the stations anyway. I dare say there have been many further VE reviews in order to keep costs within budget across the entire project. I am surprised that there will be the level of variety in design / finishes at ticket hall that is now being shown. I had expected something fairly bland and “cheap” (as in affordable) rather than something that looks customised / bespoke. Let’s hope replacements / spares holdings are not horrifically expensive.

    @ CD Brux – I recall the reaction of the operational representative on the JLE Client Team when she saw some of the JLE station designs for the first time. She was appalled at the implied heavy cost / difficulty of maintenance, cleaning and repair. I can only hope that Crossrail has not replicated those same issues although the sheer size of Crossrail stations brings its own maintenance and cleaning challenges. I would hope that all of the designs have been finalised having also been reviewed by those who will maintain them so that finishes are easy to clean, lights are easy to relamp and that automated cleaning equipment can be used and equipment stored in convenient places. Things like escalator shafts will always present challenges but there are ways to clean these efficiently. This is where proper whole life costing techniques come into play and if Crossrail have done things properly then looking after Crossrail stations should not be a burden but we have a number of years to go before there is any demonstrable evidence either way on this point.

33. Whitechapel looks most interesting, with the glimpse down to the Overground from the concourse and lively surface structure design. Looking closely at the signage, the “Trains” sign is followed later by the usual colour coded line names branching off in different directions further down the concourse after the gate line. The NR style train symbol somehow feels fitting here, for this exclusive without-tube confluence of CR, LO and SSL. It’s certainly unusual for a TfL-only setup, but fits in with the overall design policy of saying only what needs to be said at various stages of navigation through station complexes. There is arguably an earlier precedent for “Trains” signage in the much older “To the trains” ones that occupy the recesses of my memory, I think of Underground Group vintage.

    The earlier pencil rendering reminds me of ones for RingRail, the 1970’s conception of what’s largely now the orbital Overground route (and which has left very little trace online other than references to documents in the National Archives). The train looks very much like ET420 S-Bahns – produced from 1970 until as recently as 1997. The early Bond Street entrance pavilion also looks based on German U and S Bahn examples, but would not cope with today’s Central London crowds. It rather implies that much as LT had blazed the original trail, by the late 70’s systems like Munich’s offered the standards of accessibility and spaciousness that we are only now catching up with and surpassing.

34. The “rounded corners” strike me as similar to the progress images we’ve already seen. Photos like this suggest to me they won’t be value-engineered away because they’re a natural product of the sprayed concrete lining construction which is no more expensive than sharp corners. Possibly even cheaper (less concrete, less precision?). However I am not a construction or architectural professional so this could be complete tosh on my part.

35. WW at 0035: at the risk of others heaping coals of fire on my head:

    1 Isn’t ease of maintenance part of a design build maintain and operate (DBMO) contract?

    2 Wasn’t that part of the “lessons learned” from the unamended PPP?

36. @WW: Let’s hope replacements / spares holdings are not horrifically expensive

    It’s interesting to see how certain standard elements – like those white panels with (sound deadening?) holes in them, or the bronze coloured cladding – recur between different stations, but in ways that feel different in each place. It does suggest that there is some use of standard replaceable components.

    One thing that makes the renders feel slightly eerie (apart from the way that everyone looks far happier than the average London passenger) is the absence of advertising.

37. WW ‘I would hope . . . lights are easy to relamp’
    If they are able to use LED lamps (with a life of say 30,000 hours) that would mean about three and a half years between renewals. That still leaves the question of access. I would expect the use of some sort of folding/modular platform which can be easily erected, stored and transported.

38. http://philmaxwell.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Underground-2c.jpg
    I seem to recall “to the trains” signs are most common opposite the exits to lifts, but here is one at Stepney Green

39. @RayK. The big trick with the folding/modular platform for LED replacement would be remembering where it was stored!

40. @Si. There seems to have been a genuine attempt to make the platforms brighter. Although the PEDs themselves are dark, the curved back walls are white, and the backlighter screens over the PEDs are designed to reflect light off those walls and onto the floor areas.

41. Ian J
    Yes, those holes are for sound absorption
    Slight problem – they do tend to accumulate dust, fluff & spiders.
    Same as the side-panels in many tube stations have resident mouse populations at the base, living off chocolate (etc) “droppings” from the passengers.
    We’ll know the Liz-Line has truly integrated into the system, when we can see the mice at quiet periods ….

42. Just a general comment about the ceilings and domes within that I learnt from my Paddington visit. A lot of thought went into these. They were planned from the outset. Some people write as if the finishes are something that is thought about later. Well it is not like that. They are thought about from the start. Even at that stage they are thinking about how to maintain them and keep them clean.

    The primary reason for the domes is because it gives so much control over lighting and the lighting can be adjusted to be transient when entering the station and going to the platforms. I believe they will also be adjusted complement external lighting levels.

    Similarly I find it laughable the idea that the smooth corners will be not included. A lot of research goes into passenger flow and how much these help. You don’t do all that research then throw it away at the last moment.

    From the comments, I don’t think everyone fully grasps how much research and planning has gone into the details.

43. @Fandroid The big trick with the folding/modular platform for LED replacement would be remembering where it was stored!’
    The only thing anyone needs to remember is that the inventory includes everything and its location.

44. @RayK
    Now, where did I put the inventory listing?

    @Greg
    What makes you think the mice (and spiders) haven’t already arrived?

45. 1. For an article entitled “Elizabethan Style” I’m disappointed that there aren’t an images of Lizzy parodying a Korean music video on the platforms.

    2. Corners – Agree with PoP in general.
    Picking up on SteveK’s point:
    Londoners are normally used to tunnel joins where the tunnels are cast iron or conventional reinforced concrete, this means you have sharp corners and the surface finishes reflect these.
    With Sprayed Concrete Lining (SCL) it is very hard to produce sharp corners and you generally want to avoid these for structural reasons so the larger the radii at corners are the better (circa 75cm ideal???) and the lining will reflect profile of the underlying structure. A lining that didn’t would have to be stronger and thus probably more expensive (“value de-engineered”?) Also good for other reason PoP mentions.

    3. Holes in panels in addition to sound adsorption I’d suggest they are to allow better heat dissipation from the cables behind (as they suspiciously seem to follow the normal cable run areas) so they operate at lower temperatures and have lower losses reducing the overall cooling requirement for the station…

    4. Re CdBrux @ 22:41
    “If these turn out to be difficult / expensive to clean and maintain then surely that’s an indication of poor design?”
    Yes if you are an engineer however if you are an architect you’re well on the way to a RIBA medal for your achievement!

46. The “rounded corners” intrigued me too. I don’t know how they would build these, and I suspect they will get ‘value-engineered’ out, and we will actually get the tight little awkward angles.

    Nope, as stevekeiretsu correctly guessed, these are a natural result of the Spraycrete method used to build out the station spaces. From conversations I’ve had with the architects there was thus a deliberate effort to take advantage of this and work it into the designs rather than simply falling into the trap of boxing everything out.

    In this they were helped by the fact that modern materials and fabrication techniques mean that there’s no real cost penalty any more for creating more complex panel shapes etc.

    There were still challenges around coming up with standard elements that would work in multiple places, but again with computer modelling that’s far easier now. As others up thread have spotted, if you look carefully at a lot of these you can see elements being reused, just in different ways and different places.

    This also ties into my next point:

    The big trick with the folding/modular platform for LED replacement would be remembering where it was stored!’

    As RayK says, even this has been thought about. Crossrail is BIMmed to within an inch of its life. It’s insane the level of detail they can go down to. That’s helped with modular design, but it should also mean maintaining the operating railway is far easier, because if something breaks you (almost literally) just scan it into the system and it’ll tell you:

    1) If there are any spares and where they are
    2) Who fitted it, how it was fitted, when etc. etc.
    3) Where else that element is used in case there’s a risk of wider part failure

    I’ve been meaning to sit down and get them to talk to us about their BIM setup for a while, as they’re pretty much the European leaders in it, certainly on a big project level.

47. Re Greg,

    The resident mousers can be conveniently sourced from the next to the new Battersea Station on the Northern Line extension and deployed with simple change at TCR.

    The stations should be far easier to keep clean from a rodent food point of view and there won’t be much food on the tracks with the PEDs.

48. Yes if you are an engineer however if you are an architect you’re well on the way to a RIBA medal for your achievement!

    As someone who currently works in a RIBA-award winning building which seems to have sacrificed the ability to receive or make phone calls for the sake of beautiful design, and requires you to go down 8 flights of stairs and up another 8 to get to the meeting rooms I can literally see from my office (a connecting bridge would have “ruined the lines” apparently) I can sadly confirm that there is indeed some truth in this moment of jest!

49. The resident mousers can be conveniently sourced from the next to the new Battersea Station on the Northern Line extension and deployed with simple change at TCR.

    Somewhere, in TfL, some poor coder has just read this and realised they need to add mice to their passenger modelling algorithms.

50. @jb … or even cats. Which reminds me that it has been quite a while since this site had any pictures of kittens…

51. John Bull,

    Scarcely on topic but just about transport related, I used to work at an office where there were no front steps up the steep bank leading up to the front door but there was a much longer route – all to please the architect.

    When challenged, he said he thought everyone would arrive by car and use the car park and the rear entrance at the back. I think even he realised the unsightly muddy path up the bank was less attractive than steps so we eventually got our steps.

    Oh, and the bus stop on the nearby new road had the stop plonked in the grass verge and the hardstanding and shelter a bus length away. We could only presume they thought that the front of the bus stopped in line with the bus stop and that buses still only had rear entrances.

52. Re John Bull,

    Who said it was jest? (Having done a pro bono project with a friend who is a RIBA award winner, I found threatening to have any frequently flagged “oversights”* (involving looking nice over client functional requirements) rectified before photos of the finished work can be take usually achieves the desired effect).
    *Especially the variety that they were told to sort months before even project tenders were issued.

    Jest would be:
    Q: “Why are civil engineers called that?”
    A: “because other engineers can’t be civil as they have to work with architects!”

53. For those of you that haven’t spotted, the Crossrail Flickr page has many more (70+) new images that are worth a look:

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/132206803@N03/albums/72157665760923153

54. @John Bull – it’s always a bad sign when the building receives an award – in Cambridge, we historians were forced to leave our faculty library for a prize winning Stirling jobbie which had many interesting serious design faults – clad in Staffordshire industrial brick which in icy weather turned the approach steps into a skating rink; a hot air ventilating system which blew gusts from floor grids up girls’ skirts; a design of corridor which acted as the conch of an old-fashioned phonograph broadcasting the faculty internal discussions to the whole building; a library designed as a greenhouse with 30 degree temperatures in february. [Sorry,rant over].

    In the circs.the CrossRail stations are excellent and I hope they don’t get a prize/kiss of death…

55. Yep – I don’t get why it needs the purple roundel – it’s just another (new) tube line and branding it as such with the existing roundel would make it far simpler for the occasional user and tourist.

56. ngh 12 May 2016 at 11:01

    “Jest would be:
    Q: “Why are civil engineers called that?”
    A: “because other engineers can’t be civil as they have to work with architects!” ”

    I think that joke is one of mine.

57. Re Alan G,

    That joke was already old before I was born…

58. I recall in the early days of Crossrail, when approval had not yet been given, that one of the senior members explained that they encountered a lot of opposition from the treasury who were upset at the cost of Jubilee line stations which had subsequently received design awards. Reputedly (and hopefully only in jest) the Crossrail directors were warned not to propose any station design that would receive a design award.

59. @ngh
    “The resident mousers can be conveniently sourced from next to the new Battersea Station on the Northern Line extension ”

    When they said the NLE is being built for the Fat Cats………….

60. @PoP – the problem started back in the day when LT was renationalised and the LT investment methodology permitted station upgrades and the BR methodology didn’t. The word went out from Caesar Augustus (aka my then Deputy Secretary John Palmer) that any attempts by BR to use LT-style appraisal methods were to be trodden on so firmly.

61. ngh 12 May 2016 at 13:55

    Re Alan G,

    That joke was already old before I was born…

    And there was me thinking Id made it up all by myself!

62. @Pedantic of Purley, 12 May 2016 at 10:51
    . . . no front steps up the steep bank leading up to the front door but there was a much longer route. . . he thought everyone would arrive by car and use the car park and the rear entrance at the back. I think even he realised the unsightly muddy path up the bank was less attractive than steps so we eventually got our steps.

    A fairly modern (80s/90s?) Accor Group hotel I stayed in last year was no more than five minutes walk from a nearby northern town centre with a good selection of bars and restaurants, yet had no formal pedestrian access from the street at all I could find. Even the car park road entrance had no parallel path requiring people on foot or in a wheelchair to step into the car lane to cross the threshold. Close to the reception entrance people had kicked out a section of low wooden fence rail and created a well worn path from the nearest pedestrian pavement, through a hedge and down a steep muddy grass bank. Clearly their crude attempt to confine captive guests to their own rather dire refreshment offerings had been unsuccessful!

63. Escape from Accor! I remember the movie…

64. @ PoP 0947 – to be fair why on earth would anyone *know* there has been lots of research before designs were created and firmed up? No one has mentioned this before, Crossrail haven’t “boasted” about it so why would it dawn on anyone? Even those of us who have been fortunate enough to be involved with station designs for major projects may have had a poor experience rather than a class leading one. I could bore you all stupid with examples of having to “educate” architects about the realities of revenue collection, ticket selling, passenger flows, passenger behaviour. If Crossrail have learnt all the lessons from previous bad practice and implementation then well done to them. I look forward to seeing the results for myself.

    @ Ian J 0351 – I remember the “Architect in Charge” on the JLE proudly announcing that his “creation” would not be bespoiled by advertising. Several people stiffled laughter and smiled knowingly. Of course the Jubilee line extension stations are now full of advertising because it is such a money spinner. I expect exactly the same will apply to Crossrail – the patronage and its demographic will be heaven for advertisers.

65. I have to be honest and say I am actually rather blown away by just how amazing these designs are. They’re really classy, in particular I like how the materials complement eachother, the wood, the metal, the stone. The proportion too, the sense of balance, and the flow – I can’t believe just how good this actually looks. There are hints of the art deco influence from early underground station designs, and the Scandinaian influences those designs were themselves influenced by I believe? (Hints of that pathway in the Bond Street entrance concept perhaps). And then the tech contours of the white walls on the platforms, like track and field lines – propulsion!
    Its truly a pleasure to see some British transport design that has a world class quality to it. I can see these designs becoming internationally recognised if they turn out in practise to be as good as the impressions these renders create.
    Of course, the inevitable note of caution, one often thinks there should be a test applied to these ‘artist impression’ renderings; especially when you see the reality of many London buildings and how they actually look in the flat nakedness of grey London as compared to their planning proposal images of etheral towers seemingly built from wisps of cotton-cloud, floating in Californian sunshine.
    I would call it the ‘Lowry test’ (after LS Lowry)! A doffing of the flat-cap reality of British life!

66. @ anon 1243 – thanks for the pointer to the Flickr images. Having spent a while looking at the various images a few more things stand out.

    1. As already said no fat people in view. How nice people like me have been airbrushed out of existence. However someone has taken great care to ensure mums with buggies, people on crutches, wheelchair users, a multi ethnic mix, hipsters and “on trend” fashion are all represented. Lots of dog walkers outside Woolwich station too. Not a criticism btw just an observation as to how architects see the world and the people in it. 🙂

    2. In the escalator shafts a decision has been taken to incorporate lighting into the escalator banks themselves rather than ceiling lighting. It’s going to be fun seeing what happens to light levels when escalators have to be hoarded off for repair and maintenance.

    3. There is a remarkable lack of wayfinding information. While many ticket halls are purely for Crossrail services some provide access to other lines and it’s suprising they are not referenced. Even at lower levels there is little wayfinding until you get to platform level. I wonder how long that will actually last.

    4. Where there are large banks of escalators there are no signs to show the direction escalators are working in. Clearly people will learn how things work but still slightly surprised there are not signs aiding passenger flows given how high such flows are predicted to be.

67. @WW
    “I could bore you all stupid with examples of having to “educate” architects about the realities of revenue collection, ticket selling, passenger flows, passenger behaviour.”

    Like my local station, which, it was explained to me, was laid out so that people could easily reach the ticket machines or, if necessary, the ticket office. What they seem to have forgotten was that these days the vast majority of passengers arriving at the station to catch a train do not need to buy a ticket at the station at all, as they have season tickets or Oysters, or (as this is a major shopping centre) the return halves of day returns. And as the same barrier line serves for entrance and exit, all passengers leaving the station have to pass all the ticket machines too.

68. WW says ” just an observation as to how architects see the world and the people in it”

    Architects could well be putting in that selection of “people” which they think will best provoke the desired reaction from viewers of the pictures. Which probably means avoiding extremes of any kind. They are probably as aware as the rest of us that, how shall I put it, the average BMI of real people nowadays is a bit higher than the medical profession might recommend, but they are selling a product, not depicting us as we are.

69. Crossrail have updated their site to include ‘slider’ photos of the above images, comparing them with current progress:

    http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/design/station-design-in-pictures-before-and-after

70. The update also includes a link to a bit about the prototyping/research that has gone into the design and specification.

    http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/design/prototyping-refining-design-every-step-of-the-way

    Regarding ‘educating architects’: Hm. Well, there are only a few specialist transport architects in the country, and one of the skills of an architect is being able to tease out a proper brief from the client. It’s not enough just to be able to design to statutory standards as well as the standards and guidelines of the client – without a satisfactory brief it is difficult to keep on top of all of the regimes, policies and changes in every part of the country (and even every part of the world for global practices).

    A couple of extra points: On projects I have worked on, there have been numerous times when LUL staff needed to be ‘educated’ by their colleagues, by the unions, by engineers and yes, by architects, so it’s not unique to my profession. This happens on every construction project and it’s not a sign of failure at all. In particular, we had significant issues designing a new ticket office when LUL standards were totally inadequate and outdated, and LUL’s Human Factors department seemed incapable of deciding on an approach that reflected how the staff would actually use the room. We had to hold their hand through the process, working with designers, union reps, other LUL departments, suppliers and manufacturers and contractors. Naturally, the ticket office is now closed!

    It should be pointed out that many, if not most, of the standards and guidelines that relate to design are produced in collaboration between TfL/LUL and architecture practices – in part because both parties lack technical knowledge in certain areas. This is how design works – a back and forth, collaborative process where all parties hone their expertise and output.

71. I don’t like the idea of the Elizabeth Line captioned roundel sign on the outside view of TCR station. Surely this should say Crossrail, with Elizabeth Line and any future additional Crossrail lines being signed accordingly within the stations

72. An authoritative-sounding (though anonymous) comment was made earlier in this thread, to the effect that TfL do not intend to use the name Crossrail at all for the Elizabeth Line when opened, and that does seem to be consistent with the announcements made when the name “Elizabeth Line” was launched.

    There has been a presumption in many places that “Crossrail” is a new network name like Underground, Overground, and Tramlink (was very tempted to write “Wombling Free” there). It seems that TfL may not share that presumption. So, whereas the Picadilly Line is part of the Underground, the Elizabeth Line is not part of anything. Hmm.

73. Yes, I recall that Malcolm, but it is certainly a mess in my mind. I would have thought that TfL would aim to get their hands on Thameslink too one day, and how would they brand that ?

    Furthermore re TCR, with at least 2 Underground lines at the station, it doesn’t make any sense to have an Elizabeth Line roundel alone on the face of the station

    It is not helped by the fact I simply dislike the name of the line. I like lines generally (and of course some of the legacy rail company line names are an exception) to say something about where they go. Victoria is a place in London served by a tube line of that name. Where exactly is Elizabeth ?

74. @Stuart
    “I don’t like the idea of the Elizabeth Line captioned roundel sign on the outside view of TCR station.”
    There are plenty of Underground stations where the external signs indicate the individual line(s) served, albeit not usually on roundels.
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Euston_Square_tube_station_sign_-_IMG_0790.JPG
    http://www.london24.com/polopoly_fs/1.4178808.1438594592!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg

    The problem with the signage in the illustration of TCR is that it shows only one of the three lines served. And indeed it is planned that TCR will, uniquely, be served by both Crossrail 1 and Crossrail 2

75. Stuart 13 May 2016 at 10:36

    “Where exactly is Elizabeth ?”

    You’d have to be Heisenberg to answer that one !

76. @Stuart – you mean geographically related like the Met, the District and the Circle?

77. @timbeau
    Interesting pictures you throw up. The first I think specifically addresses confusion caused by the non-linkage of Euston and Euston Square, each serving different line. The second is a nice example of the roundel showing “Underground” and the line names are minor details

    @Graham H
    Well I did comment on the exceptions of the legacy rail companies’ line names. So the only real exception to my mind is the Jubilee (noting newer creations like the Hammersmith & City) which was a late rename of the Fleet (which an alternative line extension was finally built would have been a misnomer in any case). Circle is quite a helpful description even if no longer technically correct

78. Stuart – even in their wildest dreams I suspect neither DfT nor TfL would want TfL to operate to Cambridgeshire or the South Coast, all part of the Thameslink network. It’s a very different beast from Lizzie (which is similar to the Met in many respects), with Lizzie 2 being different again.

    And what do Metropolitan, District, and non-legacy Jubilee, Northern and Overground tell you about where those lines go?

79. Geographical names for lines. I don’t like these, because of the confusion between “Getting a train to Victoria” (which may or may not be a Victoria Line train), and “Getting a Victoria Line train” (which may or may not be going to Victoria).

    Not to mention the fact that the district of Victoria is anyway named after a station, which is named after a street, which is named after a Queen, who was named (and it wasn’t even her first birth name) after an abstract concept.

80. @Mike
    Of course you are right on the scope of Thameslink, though it feels very Metro-like towards the core

    As to the names, I think there is a geographical reference and relevance in the Northern Line

81. My last post as we are getting OT and different people will never agree …

    @Malcolm
    There are lots of places named after people but once a place name has stuck, it at least takes on a geographical significance. Perhaps that will happen one day with the EL if we get a new town build on the site that is currently Heathrow Airport. Let’s not head on with that subject (!)

82. I’m likely on my own here but I shall miss the hugely overcrowded, daily confused, utterly disorganised, post-apocalypse, bohemian-by-accident-chic that was TCR.

    Oh well.

83. @Malcolm
    “named after a Queen, who was named (and it wasn’t even her first birth name) after an abstract concept.”

    The Duchess of Kent, Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, was an abstract concept?

    @Stuart
    “noting newer creations like the Hammersmith & City”
    The Hammersmith & City Railway Company (originally a subsidiary of the GWR) was opened in 1864, and is thus the second oldest name on the Underground.

    The name of the original “Metropolitan Railway” has been hijacked by the later St John’s Wood Railway (although I believe has been extended a bit further than St Johns Wood now………

84. timbeau: You’ve got me there, I think it should have read “named probably indirectly after an abstract concept”. I thought I’d followed the chain back far enough, but I think this commentariat (not just you) doesn’t really do “far enough” !

85. @Malcolm

    “I think this commentariat (not just you) doesn’t really do “far enough”!”

    Au contraire, analysing back to root cause and first principles is a key facet of the commentariat. And Royal history, lineage and illnesses of course…

86. I don’t really know how realistic that Elizabeth Line roundel is outside TCR, but the arguments do pose a genuine question of what purpose the branding has. Given the ownership and branding complexity of London’s railways some thought should be given to a standard way of indicating immediately to the public which services operate from any station. Is it too much to ask that all appropriate symbols are on display in an obvious manner?

87. @Fandroid
    “Is it too much to ask that all appropriate symbols are on display in an obvious manner?”
    That is the usual practice

    Like this
    http://www.tubewalker.com/images/metropolitan/aldgate_to_finchley_road/570/aldgate_to_finchley_road067.jpg

    or this
    http://gb.fotolibra.com/images/previews/925511-stratford-station-london.jpeg (which should now have a fifth roundel!)

    Something missing from this one
    http://petervelthoen.nl/content/DSCN0142-Wimbledon-station-17-6-2012-aphv-ps.jpg

88. @ Timbeau

    An old one from Wimbledon – ttps://www.flickr.com/photos/24772733@N05/2668916039

    And one from Barking – https://www.flickr.com/photos/24759744@N02/8922115253/

    On the basis of these examples Stratford’s totem needs two extra symbols – Buses and TfL Rail / Crossrail / Lizzie Line. Only problem is that it’ll end up as tall as the concourse building. 😛

89. My normal problem station for signage is Denmark Hill, but that might have been rectified with the access changes there. I fully accept the fine example set at Barking.

90. Just what are these symbols on the street for? The locals don’t need anything at all. Outsiders just need to know “here is the station”. Possibly something different for a bus station, and just maybe some sort of distinction (for a railway station) as to whether or not it’s a local (within London) one, or more far-reaching station.

    All else is vanity.

91. @Malcolm – “All else is vanity” Stop reading Ecclesiastes, you’ll only commit suicide.

92. The public exhibition for the revised ‘Royal Arsenal Square’ is to take place next Friday and Saturday. http://www.royalarsenalheritage.co.uk/

    The initial plans which required for the demolition of the grade II listed Officers’ House (Building 11) were thrown out after public outcry.

    https://fromthemurkydepths.wordpress.com/2014/11/23/berkeley-homes-plans-to-demolish-listed-woolwich-building-from-1739/

    [From the link:

    “Berkeley is working towards completing the Heritage Quarter with its latest proposals to retain and redevelop Buildings 10 and 11 for residential and commercial use, securing the long-term future of these heritage assets and opening them up to the public for the first time.

    “The plans will create a dynamic and culturally rich public gateway to the new Woolwich Crossrail station, supporting access and interchange for millions of station users.” LBM]

93. @Jeff Wolfers
    “I don’t get why it needs the purple roundel – it’s just another (new) tube line ”

    As has been discussed on here previously, Crossrail is fairly unavoidably subject to the particulars of the 1993 railways act when it comes to ticketing interoperability and legal conditions of carriage, so it cannot simply be “just another tube line”. Whatever TfL decide to do, The Elizabeth Line will almost certainly not be branded as part of “London Underground”.

94. To my mind, the rather wonderful slider images in the links provided by marckee above seem to give the lie to the idea that shotcreting is responsible for the curvy edgeless tunnel entrances many of us love in the new renders. In the current layer, there are clear edges, presumably to be smoothed out later.

95. @anonymous pedant
    “Crossrail is fairly unavoidably subject to the particulars of the 1993 railways act when it comes to ticketing interoperability and legal conditions of carriage, so it cannot simply be “just another tube line”.

    The intricacies of the 1993 Railways Act are of no concern to the vast majority of Londoners. To them, it will indeed be just another Tube line – vide the widely reported remarks about e.g Forest Hill recently having acquired a tube station.

96. @Anonymous pedant – in fact, LRT and through them LU are also party to the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement in respect of various aspects of their operations. CrossRail will be no different in that respect from,say, the outer reaches of the Met.

97. Is it a record for wandering right off topic in less than 48 hours?

98. @timbeau @Graham H
    You’re right. The vast majority of Londoners won’t care. The lawyers however will. Whatever it is called, Crossrail will not be branded “London Underground”.

    @Graham H
    All the pre-1993 shared running between LU and NR is codified into the 1993 Railways act. Crossrail is not.

99. @ Anon Pedant – I rather suspect that the Crossrail Sponsors Agreement between DfT and TfL codifies a whole load of things. I’ve looked at this in the past and it certainly covers ticketing and settlement, certain Railways Act provisions and a load of other stuff to make sure that Crossrail services function as part of the wider National Rail network and that TfL have clear responsibility for ensuring its operation. A lot of the ticketing stuff is redacted but it’s pretty clear to me that TfL via the concession operator are tied into ensuring “Network Benefits” that covers Travelcard Agreement, Through Ticketing Agreement, Ticketing and Settlement Agreement, Staff Travel Schemes and a shed load more. If you want to read the Agreement then the best way to find it is to use the House of Commons Library and look for “DEP2008-2977” dated 4 Dec 2008.

100. @Anonymous Pedant – “All the pre-1993 shared running between LU and NR is codified into the 1993 Railways act. ” No it isn’t. You have no idea how this was done. Some of the commercial arrangements turned up in individual franchise agreements (see AR’s remarks about the Chiltern arrangement), but most were incorporated into T&SA. The operational relationships were enshrined in track access agreements – LU was just another TOC for this purpose.

     BTW there was no pre-1993 running between LU and NR (NR didn’t exist at the time- not even Railtrack before the 1993 Act). Any agreement was between LRT and BRB. These remained in place after the 1993 Act was passed and only piecemeal codified in the way described. I have noted before how I subsequently arranged for a number of BR assets,including the unmentionable tube line, to be transferred to LRT, so I won’t repeat it again. None of this was enshrined in the 1993 Act.

101. @timbeau 13/5 15:52

     Fun fact – Stratford if I’m not mistaken does now have a sticker at the bottom proclaiming the existence of TfL Rail.

102. If anything, the (The?) Elizabeth Line would be part of the Overground, surely?

103. The Elizabeth Line could be deemed to be part of the Overground, but I don’t think there is any “surely” about it. It will be part of whatever TfL or the Mayor says it is part of. Current indications point towards “nothing” (a stand-alone line going by no other name), but John Bull has already warned about attaching too much weight to the text of the signs in the pictures.

104. I see lots in these designs to worry about. First impressions apply to most but not all renderings:

     Lots of shiny surfaces which always look terrible within months of commissioning when they inevitably become dirty, scratched or covered in bits of old sticky tape, etc,

     Lots of high contrast colours surfaces and patterns which result in a highly cluttered visual impact and which do not help the user interpret how to get through the space easily. Against this cluttered smoke and mirrors visual field the passenger has to work hard to extract the meaningful and relwvant information… Is that a shadow, or an opening? Is that area a different colour because it is a waiting area or is it just an arbitrary change in floor or wall covering?

     Finally it looks like this stuff will be expensive to keep clean and will realistically be impossible to maintain in a condition that resembles the renderings. Use of sheet metal finishes usually assures us of shoddy and short lived decor.

     Why not keep it simple? The unfussy, meticulously thought through overground stations are a joy to live with by contrast.

105. @Alsion W/Malcolm – there’s a “sort of logic” to the umbrella titles for lines used by TfL:

     – unconcessioned services (almost) entirely on own infrastructure – LU
     – concessioned services partly on own infrastructure/partly on NR – CR
     – concessioned services entirely on NR infrastructure – LO

     Not that any of these fine distinctions is of interest to the travelling public… and the neat classification suggested above may just be entirely accidental, of course.

106. Graham: If I don’t say it, someone else will. The East London line, part of LO, is in TfL ownership (I think).

107. … and there are parts of LU running over NR metals – the division is not absolute.

108. Graham H,

     There are also the lines under the responsibility of the MD, London Underground, and the rest. The MD LU has the Underground and the Elizabeth line. The rest report into something called “contracted services” and not, I hope, “contracting” services.

109. @130 – Of course;my point was simply about infrastructure. (I’ll know we’re making progress when LO as well as CR report into the LU management and financial structure, and there are common services such as technical and commercial standards across the whole system. It is absurd that an inherited historical structure [franchising/NR] get in the way of unified presentation of the functionally indistinguishable network)

110. Can we expect a look at the other stations soon, or will it be a similar amount of time before those stations open? (ie a year from now)

111. @Toby:

     It was my understanding that the “core stations” in the article’s title refers primarily to the new stations on the line, in the tunnelled core.

     Abbey Wood, Shenfield, and Custom House aside, I don’t think the other existing stations will see much more than was done for the London Overground conversions: a deep clean, a lick of paint, some new signage, and the usual “step-free” lifts and footbridges (if needed), but that’s about it.

     Only Abbey Wood and Custom House are essentially being rebuilt, with brand new station buildings. Shenfield is getting some work done too, but not quite as radical. (A new bay platform, some platform extensions, and some reworking of the track and sidings to allow 12 trains per hour to operate from there.) Reading has already been rebuilt. I don’t think Maidenhead is seeing extensive work either.

     That said, I think Crossrail may want to revisit the ‘Key Journey Times’ part of their Shenfield page. (For example, once Crossrail’s core tunnelled section opens, you can change onto it from one of the fast Liverpool Street services and shave off a lot of time from the “Current Journey Times” to places like Heathrow and Bond Street.)

112. @Timbeau & Walthamstow Writer:

     Am I the only one who thinks the red-on-white Buses Roundel on the Barking totem looks weird? On the buses, it’s white on red!

     In any case, surely the fact that you can see the buses (and, presumably, the bus stop itself) beside the totem makes having the logo on the latter redundant? The totem presumably refers to the station building itself, which is not a bus stop, but just happens to be located next to one.

113. Alternation between white-on-red and red-on-white is already familiar to the London psyche, instanced by Request versus Compulsory stop flags (of yore).

114. @ Anomnibus 1631 – you would be incorrect in your assumption. Several stations, especially to the west, are getting brand new ticket hall buildings with much more space. There have been regular press releases on the Crossrail website as the plans have gained planning permission. Nearly all stations are getting enhanced public realm outside them. To the east then yes it is more a case of a full refurb of the stations coupled with accessibility works. However a lot of the ticket halls will see internal rebuilds to create more space and allow gatelines to be installed.

     @ Anomnibus 1637 – I think you are missing the point with the totems. They do not refer specifically to the station but to the interchange. They refer to the immediate vicinity which will contain the access (station) to the rail services shown and also to the bus services running on the roads / in the bus station nearby. Clearly if it just referred to the station building then it would be absurd because buses in London typically don’t depart from within railway or tube stations.

     http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-interchange-signs-standard.pdf

115. re. 14:32 post – Enamelled metal has proven to be very durable and easy to clean. Sure, it’s a pig to repair any chipped bits, but those stations re-clad around 2 decades ago (e.g. Embankment) still feel fresh and clean. Generally, the images look as though the finishes will be as good as could be expected. The pitfalls happen when there are complex ledges, nooks and crannies that are difficult to reach get dusty, or as happened at Canning Town, the swish lines of the architectural engineering has to sprout a hairy layer of pigeon spikes. The raw concrete surfaces on the JLE appear to be hard to clean in some stations, but the CR surfaces look wipe-clean to me. The general finishes and ambience these days are certainly better than as can be seen 1.00 and 3.00 minutes into this video of the bad old days https://youtu.be/GtGl9VaKRKI

     As with the JLE, I suspect they probably won’t know if there is a problem with water ingress until it’s too late to do anything from the ‘outside’. It’s certainly unsightly at Waterloo and London Bridge, whether on exposed tunnel rings or metal cladding. The mineral deposits look to be beyond the rescue of limescale remover (assuming they have tried), so I’m curious to know whether further measures have gone into CR’s engineering than was used on the Jubilee.

116. @ Nick BXN – glad you’ve mentioned water ingress. It’s a curse and sometimes outside of LU’s direct control. Having had to try and get something done about the nightmare that was Leicester Square I speak from pained experience. More substantive work was eventually done there (I take no credit for that) but within months some of the problems were reappearing. The existence of nearby drains/rivers makes it very hard to fix permanently. Coming to Crossrail I’m wondering if the sprayed concrete solution is more effective. ISTR seeing something on the telly that said Crossrail were putting in waterproof membranes between layers of the sprayed concrete – presumably as a water ingress preventative measure? I sincerely hope Crossrail avoid what is happening now with some of the JLE stations. As you say some of them are in a poor state due to ingress – Waterloo in particular.

117. Water will always get in unless some really heavy engineering is applied at the design stage (designing water -retaining concrete structures was an interesting early period in my career – and I strongly doubt that that sprayed concrete can ever be made watertight on its own.) The best solution is often to try to steer the water to a place that causes no problems and from where it is easier to abstract it. Just trying to keep it out at all costs is a waste of effort and can result in extremely expensive failures.

118. I was wondering about potential advantages of sprayed concrete, but with or without membrane interlayers, one still has to execute day joints , laps and junctions to other elements. Also, I assume that station escalator shafts use ring linings – I find it difficult to imagine doing the diagonal shafts in sprayed.

     In my own business which involves dealing with damp basements and church crypts, I have been impressed by the German VitaPore / Bionic Pore system – its defining benefit is that it allows the moisture through, but converts it into vapour that does not spoil interior surfaces in the process. It didn’t gain market traction in the UK at the time I specified it a few years ago. I suggested to their MD during a site visit that they approach LU with the plastered surfaces affected Leslie Green stations in mind.

119. QUESTION

     I keep meaning to ask this…

     The two double-ended stations in the Crossrail Elizabeth Line core section: are they going to be called

     Liverpool Street·Moorgate and Farringdon·Barbican

     I’m sure that I have seen these on “mock up line diagrams” provided by Crossrail at some point. The main reason is that there are going to be Elizabeth Line services during peak hours that run into Liverpool Street mainline (from Gidea Park) and the difference is important given these trains will be Elizabeth Line ones, but it’s going to be quite a walk from Platform 17 at Liverpool Street to the Liverpool Street·Moorgate platforms.

     This is also true for the parallel (but branded GWR and Heathrow Express) sections in the west that will call at Elizabeth Line platforms and use the same rails, but end up in Paddington Station.

     The obvious president here is of King’s Cross-St Pancras , where all the Underground station platforms are called that.

     There is the obvious issue that Bank DLR/Northern Line which should be called Bank-Monument, of course.

     If there are links to the answers, this would be extra helpful.

120. Briantist,

     They have always been referred to as a single name (e.g. Liverpool St, Farringdon). There has been no specific declaration but given the fact that the single name is consistently applied throughout the Crossrail website and on all documents we can take it as being true. Mind you we could take it as being true that the final product would be called either Crossrail or Crossrail 1.

     I don’t think any precedent has been set by King’s Cross – St Pancras. These at the time of naming were two separate substantial main line termini and not to have included the name would have caused a lot of people problems.

     In the case of the Liverpool Street the main line station is of considerably more importance than Moorgate. I do know that nowadays technically Moorgate is also a National Rail London terminus but it is hardly on the same scale as Liverpool Street.

     In the case of Farringdon, it is clear that users will gravitate to the Farringdon entrance although, slightly awkwardly, passengers changing for the sub surface lines (Circle, H&C and Metropolitan) will be encouraged to do so at Barbican.

     Note that similarly it is only proposed to have a joint name at Euston – St Pancras on Crossrail 2 despite obvious opportunities at Tottenham Court Road and Dalston. The latter will be Dalston not Dalston Kingsland and Dalston Junction. Note sure what happens to the existing National Rail station called Dalston though.

121. @ Briantist – it may be “obvious” to you to use two names for one station but it isn’t to me. People will quickly learn what connections and entrances / exits exist at the new Crossrail stations when they open. Hopefully TfL might nick a bit of Japanese practice where they provide clear maps at platform level as to which end of the station to use for the best interchange / appropriate street exit for a particular locale.

     @ PoP – are people really going to encouraged to change to the SSR lines at Barbican? I appreciate the connections at Farringdon are not ideal given the differences in level etc. From my reading of the plans for the Barbican link it’s always looked a bit low capacity and convoluted with more emphasis on mobility impaired access that allowing for high pedestrian flow rates. I’ll happily admit the plans I first saw were not stunningly clear and I may have misread them but I’m still surprised. I have double checked a copy of the Design and Access Statement I have saved for the Eastern Ticket Hall which confirms what I thought but things may have changed and you’ve better contacts with the Crossrail team. I’d have thought Moorgate a slightly more viable option but I guess it depends where you’re travelling too and from.

     Barbican Link Planning Application

122. @PoP Dalston (Cumbria) station would presumably become just another of those theoretical sources of confusion, like Stratford, Gillingham, Bromley, Ashford, Charing Cross and doubtless many more.

123. @Pedantic of Purley
     @Walthamstow Writer

     Yes, I agree that there certainly is a major-minor station thing going on with both of the double-ended stations, that’s a fair point.

     I’ve been creating a new staff-app for MTR Crossrail recently, so I’ve been thinking very carefully about what it is you tell to “random passengers” to convey information clearly.

     Here’s my experimental thought. Let’s assume it’s 2020 and everything has gone to plan.

     1) You’re at Paddington station and you want to get the Barbican. You’re getting the Elizabeth Line. Where do you get off? How do you know you don’t need to change to the Circle Line for one stop?

     2) You’re at Stratford and you’re going to Old Street. Which was a pig back in 2016. But today it’s just one change, but where at?

     3) You are at the Barbican and want to get a Thameslink train. What do you do? It’s a long around-the-houses walk above ground, so…

     4) Canary Wharf to Angel is four stops – it was 7 in the past – where do you change?

     5) It’s the morning peak and you’re at Maryland. The first train says “Elizabeth Line” towards Liverpool Street. How do you know if you can take this and be able to continue onward to Heathrow?

     I’m not trying to be obtuse, I’m trying to think of what you tell someone who doesn’t have a clue, rather than the well-educated in this particular sphere of knowledge (ie, people who wouldn’t score a single point on the annual LR quiz).

     @Malcolm

     Ah yes, that list.

124. Briantist: I think your list of situations where appropriate advice to passengers is rather non-obvious is a good one. It is clearly not a “random” list, you have chosen routes which well-illustrate the difficulty arising from double-ended stations. Many other desired routes do not suffer from the same issues. (And maybe certain currently-existing routes have similar issues).

     But it all goes to show that well-chosen station-naming, good maps (*), good signage, and clever advisers (human and mechanised) are all very important towards the goal of deconfusing passengers.

     (*) As is probably well-understood, we are not about to redesign the tube map here in this forum.

125. @Briantist

     A solution to problem 5 is simply to identify the destination as either Liverpool Street Main Line, or Liverpool Street Low Level as appropriate. No different to places with trains to both Glasgow Queen St or Central main line and low level alternatives, and very common in Germany where S Bahn platforms beneath a main line station are frequently referred to as “Tief” (literally “Deep”). A quick perusal at a German timetable shows these low level platforms at Frankfurt Hbf are also referred to by their platform numbers (101 and 104) to distinguish them from the platforms upstairs with numbers less than 100.

126. @Malcolm

     Well, yes, the chosen routes were to make the point.

     Another question might be: I’m stood on the corner by Ropemaker Street and South Place in the City and I can see signs for an Elizabeth Line station. What is the name of the station shown on the same signs? Could I find my way back here knowing that?

     I totally agree that there needs to be some very good work done here, and I’m sure it will, I just can’t think of a way – for me – that it would work logically without having double-barrelled names.

     Also, I quite like the sound of them: they definitely have something of the King’s Cross St Pancras about them.

     I’m happy to be proved wrong, as ever.

     (*) Yes, been here and done that. https://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/london-2050-cartographical-interlude/ etc

127. @Malcolm

     That list.

     Alexandra Palace, Alexandra Parade; Bramley (Hants), Bramley (W Yorks); Charing (Kent), Charing Cross, Charing Cross (Glasgow); Dalston (Cumbria), Dalston Junction, Dalston Kingsland; Epsom (Surrey), Epsom Downs; Gloucester, Gloucester Road; Herne Bay, Herne Hill;
     [Snip. That will do to be going on with. Malcolm]

     Not even the list by miles. But I won’t post it all here.

128. @Briantist. I would very much hope that the tube map which includes the Elizabeth Line will show links between Farringdon(E line) and Barbican stations. Ditto for Liverpool Street (E line) and Moorgate. The map already shows the link between Hackney Downs and Hackney Central, so I suspect that we can safely assume that the double-ended stations on the Elizabeth Line will be treated in a similar simple fashion. As for links to Thameslink, well that’s straying into severely discouraged territory!

129. The list of similar stations is here for your entertainment and presumed “not discussed here because it’s off topic”-ness – https://ukfree.tv/styles/images/2016/similars.html

130. @Fandroid

     There is a “network map” on the crossrail site, which does show the interconnections.

     http://74f85f59f39b887b696f-ab656259048fb93837ecc0ecbcf0c557.r23.cf3.rackcdn.com//assets/library/image/e/original/elizabeth-line-network-map-jan-2016_final.gif

     This isn’t the most helpful configuration as it shows the double-endedness of the station at Farrington-Barbican very well, but at Liverpool street suggest that the Overground is an easy connection. I’m taking this with “a pinch of salt”. Try tracing your finger on the above mentioned Canary Wharf to Angel route on it.

     You’re right about Hackney Downs and Hackney Central of course, but that’s a covered walkway that keeps you off the mean streets of Hackney, rather than the building of a brand-new station between two existing ones.

     It’s an interesting thought exercise all the same.

     [It is indeed. But as it is not currently “fun with maps” time on London Reconnections, let’s not go too far down the map route. Briantist’s original question about the names of the Elizabeth big stations is still open for comments – noting PoP’s point, however, that renaming from the currently-expected names is rather unlikely at this point. Malcolm]

131. @Briantist (in Gigabit internet heaven) – 29 May 2016 at 09:17
     QUESTION
     I keep meaning to ask this…
     The two double-ended stations in the Crossrail Elizabeth Line core section: are they going to be called
     Liverpool Street·Moorgate and Farringdon·Barbican
     [SNIP]
     There is the obvious issue that Bank DLR/Northern Line which should be called Bank-Monument, of course.

     One traditional solution for a station which serves two places is to use ‘and’. One thinks of Hayes and Harlington, Windsor and Eton Riverside for example.

     So why not Faringdon and Barbican, Moorgate and Liverpool Street?
     (Placing the western exit first should make it easier on mapping.) It makes it very clear to tourists etc that at each Elizabeth Line station both exits are served.

     IIRC, Monument on platform signs is/used to be Monument for Bank.
     ——-
     For the ‘spur’ services into Paddington and Liverpool Street, Man of Kent’s suggestion of the ‘High Level’ suffix has much to commend it, even if only for internal Eliz.Line use on train and station destination indicators and line diagrams (which should show the spurs to the High Level).

132. Kings Cross St Pancras was not always known thus – indeed the Metropolitan station opened several years before St Pancras did. The CSLR station opened in 1906 as Kings Cross but the GNPBR opened the following year as plain Kings Cross, renamed in 1927 to match the CSLR. The “for” was dropped in 1933.
     I don’t know whether the original Metropolitan Kings Cross station was ever renamed, but the new one opened in 1941 as KXSP. (The “Widened Line” platforms remained as “Kings Cross” (later KX MidlandCity and still later KXTL) right to the end in 2007)
     http://underground-history.co.uk/renames.php

133. Joining station names with a hyphen when a big one covers two little ones has numerous precedents in Paris: Chatelet-Les Halles par exemple.

134. I realise double-barrelled names are unusual for London, but they’re quite common elsewhere. In cities with grid-like street layouts, (i.e. almost every city in the USA), most metro stations tend to be above / under intersections, so have names like “43rd/Something”, referring to the two roads that cross each other at the station. Sometimes you get the full name with “St.”, “Ave.”, or whatever; at others, they might just use the first word of each road, especially if the said road(s) change name at the intersection. (In which case, something like “Tom/Dick/Harry” might be all you see on the signage.)

     Paris also has a few double-barrelled names: “Palais Royale – Musée du Louvre” and “Reuilly – Diderot” to pick just two on one line. Then again, Paris is unusual in Europe in having an explicitly designed ring-and-spokes street layout, while most of her peers have retained an essentially medieval street map.

     Some of the metro stations in Rome also have suffixes (e.g. “Barberini – Fontana di Trevi”), though the second half is usually displayed in a smaller typeface and is aimed mainly at tourists. In this example, the station is named after Piazza Barberini (under which it was built), while the suffix, added some years later, refers to the Trevi Fountain, which is actually nowhere within sight of any of the station’s entrances.

     My point, assuming I had one when I started writing this, is that double-barrelled station names can, and do, work. They can even work well, if treated with care.

     I think, for Crossrail, we shouldn’t be averse to following the Parisian model. E.g. “Farringdon – Barbican”, “Moorgate – Liverpool St.”, etc.

     (One issue is whether suffixes like “Road” or “Street” are needed today. Most cities don’t bother including these, and it would certainly reduce some of the visual clutter on the more complex maps. On the other hand, it would leave us with multiple “Edgware” stations, not to mention stations with names like “Baker”, “Great Portland” and “Bond”. Which just look and sound weird.)

135. @ Briantist – please don’t take this the wrong way but based on your many comments over the months I’d say you have a particular way of viewing the world. What appears crystal clear and sensible to you I’d suggest is not how most people will view things. Clearly anyone with a deep knowledge of a subject (most people commenting on this blog!) isn’t going to perceive or interpret things like Mr / Mrs / Miss Punter using the transport network. You view dual naming as perfectly logical whereas I suspect many people would be confused. Based on TfL’s maps for Crossrail they have clearly decided on a single naming philosophy and then using wayfinding to direct people to the appropriate line interchange or street exit.

     I would assume that the operators and wayfinding people are working now or have already completed their outline operational plans and the wayfinding needed to support them. This is on the basis that electrical designs, fixtures etc will all have to be finalised so they can be procured, manufactured and delivered and installed. I’d also assume that there has also been agreement about staged opening and the interim wayfinding needed to support what will be temporary passengers flows before permanent arrangements click into place.

     On your specific issue of Liverpool St interchange to the Overground then it might well be easier than you imagine. There is to be a low level connection between Crossrail’s ticket hall and LU’s Central Line ticket hall. The latter runs underneath the main line platforms and has stairs up beside Platform 2 and near the Southend platforms. The only issue is that the ticket hall is presently open M-F only but I can see there being merit in access being permitted through it at all times once Crossrail opens. Otherwise the single escalators up and down from the Main Line concourse to street level for access to the Crossrail main entrance are going to be overwhelmed with people wanting access to / from Crossrail. I’m not aware of any plans to add escalator capacity at Liv St mainline so I assume people will be directed downstairs. Mobility impaired access may be more difficult.

136. Braintist
     We all forgot the really obvious one …
     Clapham

     [ I don’t think Briantist did forget that, as it happens, it fell prey to my scissors. Like-named stations are now well-and-truly done. Malcolm]

     WW
     isn’t going to perceive or interpret things like Mr / Mrs / Miss Punter using the transport network.
     But … that’s the problem
     I went to Teddington yesterday & [ @ Vauxhall / Clapham Jn ] there were large numbers of plainly totally lost people wandering about & being directed. I believe it was something to do with men playing a game with odd-shaped ball(s) as they say …..

137. @John U.K.

     Thanks for your “and” suggestion. I did consider that, but the problem here is that there are ten stations in London that have “and” in them and none of them…

     Bat & Ball (Sevenoaks), Caledonian Rd & Barnsbury (Overground), Crossharbour & London Arena (DLR), Elephant & Castle (Underground), Finchley Road & Frognal (Overground), Harrow & Wealdstone (Trains, Overground, Bakerloo), Hayes & Harlington (GWR), Highbury & Islington (Overground, Victoria), Sudbury & Harrow Road (Chiltern) and Totteridge & Whetstone (Northern Line)

     .. sit between two stations of the named parts. Of these only Caledonian Rd & Barnsbury is a short walk from Caledonian Rd (Picadilly) and Finchley Road & Frognal is a pleasant stroll from Finchley Road (Metropolitan).

     I must admit I too use “high level” for the Paddington platform, even though I’m quite sure I have to go down from street level to get to them.

138. As WW says (or implies) we are probably far too late to have any impact on the Elizabeth Line station names. And while it’s still possible to discuss what might-have-been, such discussions are somewhat removed from reality.

     Not really my place to suggest such a leap (normally I am discouraging them), but would the name conversation be perhaps a bit more real if it addressed station names on Crossrail 2?

139. @Briantist (in Gigabit internet heaven) – 30 May 2016 at 08:32

     Leaving aside the special cases of Bat & Ball and Elephant & Castle, where ‘&’ is part of the place-name, by and large ‘and’ in a station name tells the passenger that two places are accessible from that station.
     Whatever a station is called, those familiar with the London transport network will soon get used to it.
     But for those unfamiliar with London, I think ‘and’ rather than a hyphen (-) gives more clarity.

     Whilst I disagree with WW’s view that a single name + wayfinding is adequate (much more helpful to know in advance of alighting that one has the right exit options) I suspect he may be right in that orders have been placed.

     That the current TfL map of the EL does not show the Paddington and Liv.St. ‘High Level’ terminating platforms separately will surely be the basis of endless confusion, as the mental map it engenders is a straight line, with terminators stopping at the same or adjacent platforms as through trains .

140. Briantist (in Gigabit internet heaven) 29 May 2016 at 16:41

     “5) It’s the morning peak and you’re at Maryland. The first train says “Elizabeth Line” towards Liverpool Street. How do you know if you can take this and be able to continue onward to Heathrow? ”

     Same applies at Stratford and all stations to Gidea Park. I can think of two solutions, both in common use in various parts of London Underground:
     1) Final destination of each train.
     2) Elizabeth line via (name a station further west. I’d pick as Tottenham Court Road also served by the Central Line and beyond Liverpool St).

     Either way the Liverpool St terminators will need to say “not stopping at Whitechapel” and there will often be non-Elizabeth trains at platforms 5 & * at Stratford, as there are now.

141. @Anomnibus
     “One issue is whether suffixes like “Road” or “Street” are needed today.”
     It absolutely is, because of the British habit of naming thoroughfares not after where they are (although there are some of those, such as Tooting Broadway) but where they lead to (e.g. Finchley Road) or even after the nobleman who owned the land they were built on (e.g Lancaster Gate).

     Seasoned rail travellers will be well aware that the suffixes “Road” (as in Beaulieu Road or Bodmin Road) or “Junction” as in (Yeovil Junction, Tiverton Junction or Clapham Junction) are British English for “a taxi ride away”

142. @ Walthamstow Writer

     Thanks. I’m not going to take it the wrong way. I’m certainly aware that after almost three decades of designing and writing software and/or websites (or apps, as at the moment) for organizations, I’m more aware of the meaning of Douglas Adams’s great quote “A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.”

     I am, for this reason, highly intrigued by how your “Mr / Mrs / Miss Punter” think. I was entertained by a French family getting from King’s Cross to St. James’s Park via two circle line trains and Edgeware Road yesterday, and watching how a group of returning-from-stag-do men were getting back to the east end from Paddington.

     I’m going to disagree about it being “too late”. My experience says that the stations names and signage will be the very last thing to go up in a new station. The production of decals is fast and they are put up last to save them being damaged by site cleaning or staff trophy-hunters.

     I doubt very much that a service that is still three years from running has “completed their outline operational plans”.

     I take your point about the Overground link – my cross point was that the much easier interchange with higher frequency Northern Line at Moorgate should be a visual priority.

     @ Malcolm

     So we have for Crossrail 2: Euston-Pancras, Dalston Interchange and Seven Sisters-South Tottenham (which will be S3T perhaps)

     @ John U.K.

     Actually, as I was saying that only the two Caledonian Road and Finchley Road examples are the only two that match other stations. And both are actually non-trivial walks too far to be out-of-station interchanges.

     @ Alan Griffiths

     Indeed. But the two TfL Rail platforms (5 and 8) don’t now have other non-TfL Rail services on them at Stratford. They only have TfL Rail branding and signage. This is true for all of the stations up the lines except for Romford (and that’s due to engineering work for the new control center).

143. I think the potential confusions with multi-station complexes are being being very overstated. It’s quite common in Moscow, whose map is very easy to navigate. http://www.inat.fr/metro/moscow/ (Inat has yet to add Elizabeth to the excellent London map). It can be argued that the different station names actually help, since there is an unambiguous cross-checking between the station name on the platform with the line designation, so much less chance of going astray.

     The Canary Wharf to Angel scenario looks very simple with the current TFL map to me. Cartographically, the connectors need a little tweaking, as it makes Liverpool Street SSL/Central look like an un-named station. A triple-dot vertical through CR-SSL-Central would fix that.

     I agree that navigation out of the double ended stations into surrounding streets needs care. Munich has very good orientation maps, for example, https://www.mvg.de/aushangfahrplan/P8_H_OB_0.pdf
     whereas in Paris it often takes me a while to work out where I have surfaced and which way I’m looking. Woolwich Arsenal DLR is also challenging for those who think in compass directions, because the eastbound end of the train ends up in the west-facing end of the station.

144. Well at least we don’t have to say everything in two languages, like they do in Brussels, so that double names become quadruple. My favourite metro station there is “Arts-Loi – Kunst-Wet” on the corner of Avenue des Arts/Kunstlaan and Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat.

145. Re WW (And NickBXN),
     “Based on TfL’s maps for Crossrail they have clearly decided on a single naming philosophy and then using wayfinding to direct people to the appropriate line interchange or street exit.”

     That sounds very similar to the Moscow solution (which works well from experience) where each “station” in the complex retains it own name and good clear signage does the rest.

     Re the prominence (or rather not) of Moorgate, I suspect this may change if TfL takes over running the national rail services at the end of the current TSGN franchise /management contract in 2021-23 (depending if DfT takes up available extensions).

146. @PZT -and it’s taken to a utterly futile level where the name is the same in Flemish and French, yet the announcement is made twice, thus “Herrmann-Debroux/Herrmann-Debroux”.

147. GrahamH PZT…think of the fun and games in Singapore with four official languages!

     For Graham’s particular point, this is one of the limitations of computerised PIS (as in ‘taking the PIS’) that it cannot easily sort out exceptions unless given specific instructions to do so.

148. @ngh – 30 May 2016 at 16:03
     Re WW (And NickBXN),
     “Based on TfL’s maps for Crossrail they have clearly decided on a single naming philosophy and then using wayfinding to direct people to the appropriate line interchange or street exit.”
     That sounds very similar to the Moscow solution (which works well from experience) where each “station” in the complex retains it own name and good clear signage does the rest.
     I can see that working where each name in a complex is unique. It in effect bcomes an ‘X for Y & Z’ type station as in ‘Monument for Bank’.) But the two Eliz.Line stations under discussion have apparently each been assigned the name of an existing station elsewhere in the complex each serves.

149. Briantist @08.52

     Crosharbour lost (& London Arena) in 2006, following that venue’s demolition in 2005, so there are now only 9 stations with an & in the name.

150. @ John W – I didn’t express a personal opinion about the adequacy of the Crossrail naming regime. I just said many people might be confused by such an approach. That’s merely remarking how others may perceive the station names when they look at a map. I actually couldn’t really care because I already have nerdy levels of knowledge of the station layouts and general locations of Crossrail’s new stations. I am possibly one of the least representative “Mr Punters” outside of the Crossrail project. I’m just looking forward to seeing the actual physical scale of what’s been built compared to the plans I’ve pored over.

     @ Briantist – the naming regime will have been settled a fair while ago. How can you design signalling systems, station management systems etc etc without knowing the names of the stations? I suspect there will be plenty of systems with the name Crossrail in them or on them and they’ll never be changed because it would cost a load of money and would open commercial discussions over variations that TfL certainly would not wish to trigger. You can’t design stations properly unless you understand how they’re going to be operated. If you get this back to front you end up with compromises that can cause issues for decades. Wayfinding is important but you can build in flexibility over routes and directions and I’d expect Crossrail to have fully flexible arrangements so ticket halls can be taken out of use if need be and people redirected seamlessly underground without endless paper posters and plastic tape everywhere. I’d also expect all of the interchange routes to be configurable to reflect the need for planned closures / different hours of operation etc. My only caveat is that the recently published images of the new stations had very limited signage in view. I wonder if that is architectural wishful thinking or genuinely representative of what will be. Only 30 months and a couple of weeks before we find out (assuming 15 Dec 2018 is opening day).

     The two Finchley Road stations are an OSI pairing (I’ve done that interchange and it was recognised in charging the correct extension fare). The two Caledonian Rd stations are not – the distance there is pretty lengthy.

151. John U.K. : I don’t quite see the point of your objection. You seem to be saying that if the Elizabeth Line station called Liverpool Street was renamed “Buttercup Lane”, then it could be subtitled “(for Liverpool Street and Moorgate)”, and that would work; whereas if it is called Liverpool Street and subtitled “(for Moorgate)”, that won’t work.

     If option 1 works, then option 2 (similar but simpler) must surely work?

152. ngh refers to “the prominence (or rather not) of Moorgate”, and possible TfL takeover.

     I think the relative prominence of Liverpool Street (NR) and Moorgate (NR) may have more to do with number of platforms / trains per typical hour (18 / 30 versus 2 / 6), rather than issues of who runs the trains.

153. WW asks “How can you design signalling systems, station management systems etc etc without knowing the names of the stations?”

     I suspect that you could do this without enormous difficulty if you knew, right from the start, that station names were undecided, and would be decided by a certain fixed date. You could use provisional names internally, making allowance for the final name being possibly different. There would be some extra cost, but possibly not very great.

     But this is presumably not the case (or it would have been sure to have shown up in some of the vast publicity, films, websites and what-have-you about the whole project).

     If, as is probably the case, the stations have always been known since the start of design by unquestioned fixed names, then a change as late as now would be enormously disruptive and (internally) confusing – and would probably bump up the famously well-contained costs quite a bit.

154. timbeau says “It absolutely is, because of the British habit of naming thoroughfares not after where they are … but where they lead to… or even… “

     British habit? Oh, it’s the Brits being illogical is it? Burghers of Huddersfield going for names like “Leeds Road”, “Halifax Road”, “Wakefield Road” and so forth, whereas the logical denizens of everywhere-else-land would have called them all “Huddersfield Road” because they are all in Huddersfield?

155. Re Malcolm,

     But Moorgate is typically 12tph…
     Agree Liverpool Street will always be more prominent but behaving like Moorgate doesn’t exist will be little harder after another line appears on the map into Moorgate.

     Any one willing to bet against an increase in prominence for Moorgate if TfL take over?

156. timbeau says “It absolutely is, because of the British habit of naming thoroughfares not after where they are … but where they lead to… or even… “

     Well that is a lot better than the old German habit of naming a main line terminus after the original other end of the line. When this is a small town or village the consequences are bizarre. Whilst Potsdamer Bahnhof is largely fortuitously conveniently at Potsdamer Platz in Berlin, I am sure hardly anyone in the UK would know where Lehrte was if it had not been for Lehrte station (also in Berlin).

157. @Malcolm
     “it’s the Brits being illogical is it?”

     Did I say it was illogical? But it does seem to cause confusion for visitors, who ask for a ticket to “Edgware” when they actually want to go to the station between Paddington and Baker Street.

     @PoP
     “German habit of naming a main line terminus after the original other end of the line” Occasionally used in the UK, such as the “Brighton” and “Chatham” stations at Victoria, although Lady Bracknell considered the distinction immaterial.

158. Malcom
     If, as is probably the case, the stations have always been known since the start of design by unquestioned fixed names, then a change as late as now would be enormously disruptive and (internally) confusing
     As err, the Piccadilly line extension stations – north of Turnpike Lane, famously, were not fixed until quite close to opening, IIRC?

     timbeau
     That “habit” seems to be a speciality of inhabitants of the rebellious colonies ….

159. @Anomnibus

     The difference to what was being proposed here is that US station names in grid system cities refer to single locations – the intersection of x Avenue with y Street. Not two different locations that are at each end of the station.

     In Paris, Reuilly-Diderot is a European example of an intersection name (rue de Reuilly and Boulevard Diderot) while Palais-Royal – Musee du Louvre was renamed relatively recently as a one-off thing, because it is closer to the main entrance to the Louvre museum than Louvre-Rivoli, which tourists were getting off it and then being faced with a long walk.

160. @Philip
     “because it is closer to the main entrance to the Louvre museum than Louvre-Rivoli, which tourists were getting off it and then being faced with a long walk.”
     There are of course many such anomalies in London, usually because the more distant station was there first and got first dibs on the name. For example Tooting statoin, (which is actually just over the border in Mitcham), the Lord Mayor of London’s official residence is closer to three other stations than the one that is actually called “Mansion House”. And the closest station to the main entrance of St Paul’s Cathedral is not on the Tube map at all! (As I work in the area, I often find bemused tourists who, having emerged from the tube station, seem to be unable to find the eponymous cathedral, hidden as it is behind the new Stock Exchange building!)

161. And woe betide anyone wanting to go to Epsom Downs and thinking that the best station to go to is one called “Epsom Downs”.

162. As an intersection name, there used to be “Holborn Kingsway”, and given that the station is not on Holborn proper (it is on High Holborn – Chancery Lane is the station for Holborn itself) it is perhaps a pity that the wrong half of the name was dropped.

     There were examples of adjacent stations on different lines having different names, the combined result being an “intersection name” – for example Oxford Street/Tottenham Court Road (CCEHR and CLR respectively – the CCEHR’s original TCR station was nearer the midpoint of that thoroughfare)

163. @Philip (and others):

     “The difference to what was being proposed here is that US station names in grid system cities refer to single locations – the intersection of x Avenue with y Street. Not two different locations that are at each end of the station.”

     This isn’t always the case. Many stations in the US have multiple entrances. In New York City, the Subway and its brethren have trains up to 10 cars long, which means the stations can easily span more than a single city block.

164. timbeau: no, you did not say it was illogical, true. But rather than a British habit, it seems a universal bit of common sense to me. The troublesome bit about Edgware is that it’s near enough to central London to have tickets available from the same machines and counters as Edgware Road, but it’s far enough away to have a significantly higher single fare. Ditto Finchley. Not ditto Oxford (though as people keep telling me Oxford Street is not so named because it goes to Oxford, even though it does). And not ditto Liverpool.

165. @timbeau:

     “It absolutely is, because of the British habit of naming thoroughfares not after where they are (although there are some of those, such as Tooting Broadway) but where they lead to (e.g. Finchley Road) or even after the nobleman who owned the land they were built on (e.g Lancaster Gate). “

     None of this is unique to the UK. The only thing (almost) unique to London is streets named after the town or village it’s in: usually, the local High Street. These are a legacy of the low-density housing and construction model chosen by Victorian England; London is indeed unusual in still having so many isolated High Streets as few major world cities have followed the same model. Their medium/high density cities tend to make almost every through road a high street in all but name, so the distinction makes no sense.

     I doubt many tourists in Rome are particularly surprised to get out of “Bologna” station (Line B) and find themselves still in Rome rather than several hundred kilometres away to the north. Line A even has stations with names like “Cipro” (Cyprus) and “Spagna” (Spain), yet both are quite clearly in Rome, rather than in other countries.

     They’re named after the piazzas* under which the stations were built. Note that none of the stations actually has the word “Piazza” in its name on the maps. Similarly, those named after roads lack the “Via” (or “Corso”, etc.), so it’s just the name of the road minus the “Street”, “Road” or “Avenue”.

     Even the Glasgow Subway uses “Street” and “Square” identifiers rather inconsistently. The western half of the map is almost entirely devoid of them, while “St. Enoch” is missing its “Square”. (Also, note the addresses given for some of the stations: “Bridge Street” is actually in Eglinton Street, to pick just one example. While street renaming / realignments in the past may account for some of these, it doesn’t explain why the station names weren’t changed as well.)

     *(Metro construction in Italian cities tends to favour digging whacking great holes in the middle of such piazzas as it avoids extensive demolition for the new stations, allows big, Oxford Circus-style circulation areas with multiple entrances, and it’s a lot cheaper than the alternatives. The disadvantage is the archaeology, but that’d be a problem no matter where you put the station.)

166. I hope it’s not too far off topic to mention the disappointed people who turned up at St James’s Park tube station during the Olympics hoping to attend a football game in what they thought was the nearby stadium (which is in Newcastle!).

167. @Malcolm
     “But rather than a British habit, it seems a universal bit of common sense to me. ”

     So why does it confuse foreign tourists? I have heard “Take a left at Fulham” when what was meant was turning left on to the Fulham Road (and away from Fulham itself).

168. 130 – or Exeter?

169. Geography doesn’t help much when Piccadilly Line trains are currently described as “Eastbound” when the easternmost station is Manor House.
     Another example is that Finchley Central is further west than West Finchley.

170. Sometimes people think they know best and won’t be persuaded otherwise. When I was stationed at RAF Hendon we often had new arrivals who had lugged a suitcase from Hendon Central, despite being told to get off at Colindale.

171. I think foreign tourists are confused because they are foreign. All sorts of linguistic tricks and conventions provide subtle cues to natives (in this context, that is speakers of British English who have lived for a long time in Britain, though not London), and these cues are not available to people from elsewhere (whether Japan or Toronto). Exactly the same applies when Britons travel abroad, we get puzzled at the simplest things (like naming metro platforms by their ultimate destination) which are so obvious to locals that they are quite unable to appreciate the need to explain them.

172. “German habit of naming a main line terminus after the original other end of the line”

     Also Russian habit (the Finland station in St Petersburg). Also Belgian habit (Luxembourg station in Brussels).

173. Just to clarify: someone from Britain has probably heard of Fulham and knows that there is a place by that name (even if they don’t know exactly where it is), so they know that “Fulham” and “Fulham Road” may be different. The foreigner, who has probably got away with saying “Trafalgar” rather than “Trafalgar Square”, or “Victoria” rather than “Victoria Station”, and being nevertheless understood, tends to overgeneralise this finding.

174. Peezedtee,

     But I would like to imagine that people have heard of Finland and Luxembourg and could make sense of that. I mean they are countries and not jumped up villages. You don’t make the mistake of thinking you are in Finland when standing in a station in St Petersburg.

     You could add Gare du Lyon, and, Gare du Nord, Gare de l’Est at a pinch.

175. (There may be room for more than one opinion as to whether Luxembourg [while being a country] is or is not also a jumped up village).

176. timbeau: Americanisms get everywhere, especially in relation to prepositions. And we all omit words, particularly when talking to a fellow native speaker. I believe what you heard was take a [turn] left at [the intersection with] Fulham [Road].

177. Malcolm: tourists get confused because they’re not from round ‘ere. A relation of mine from Derbyshire put her Oyster card in the ticket slot on the gate line.

     London has more visitors than residents. So it behoves* TfL to design operate & maintain a system which accommodates the needs of its actual & prospective customers.

     If you don’t fancy public transport (& I don’t if I’m on my own in, eg, Tokyo and Moscow) there are taxis#.

     *(rhymes with moves)
     # other private hire vehicles …

178. Nameless
     … for absurd geographical station-naming the various Dulwiches must take the London prize – followed closely by the many Actons

179. Anomnibus: Bank is mostly under the eponymous road junction, piazza style, & has first-class adjacent Roman-era archaeology. Nearest Elizabeth line station: Moorgate.

180. “London has more visitors than residents”.

     A bit contentious, that. Over the course of a year, it may well be that more people have visited London at least once than its total population. In certain parts of central London (such as in Trafalgar Square) there will be more visitors than London residents. But for most definitions of “in London” (which is itself a highly ambiguous phrase), I doubt if there is any day on which more visitors are present than residents. (Where would they all sleep?).

181. At the risk of being snipped I would point out that from Norwich one can catch a train to Liverpool Street OR Liverpool. This has caused confusion to many.

182. @OB
     English place names like many other aspects of the language have lost their literal logic over time. There is a certain point where it is just too difficult to eliminate all possible misunderstandings and confusion arising from insufficiently precise station names. Many of the EL station names are too long already.

     The only sure way to get round this would be a comprehensive renaming. You could eliminate all duplications and irregular spellings at the same time. That sounds like a double plus ungood idea to me.

     “behoves” “(rhymes with moves)”
     That ain’t necessarily so. [moderatoriated]

183. Mods.
     On second thought, please can we have a moratorium on words like behove. They spark too many opinions.

     [Your second thought is much better than the first. Duly moratoriated. There is nothing wrong with opinions in general, but opinions on that word, what it means, how it is pronounced, meant and understood on different sides of the pond are indeed better kept for the pub. Malcolm]

     Just add it to the teal list.

184. No snip, but this situation in Norwich (also Ely) has been mentioned a time or two already. (But then so has almost everything).

185. The East Anglian confusion, as has been discussed before, is between Liverpool Lime Street and Liverpool Street. Some common sense would be appropriate there, as there is only one station in each city served by direct trains from Norwich, so why bother with the suffix at all? (Likewise the redundant information that “this is the service to XYZ, at a station only served by trains of that one franchise.

     You also get oddities like the NR enquiries system defaulting to a suburban station on Merseyside rather than the busiest station in the country (or occasionally defaulting to Water Eaton just for a change)

186. timbeau: Indeed. But the custom of referring to the specific station in London, rather than announcing the train as a London train, seems very widespread (if not universal) in the UK. In general the least ambiguous announcement, you would think, would be to give all the information (this train for London Liverpool Street), but that is rarely heard even if sometimes seen, and it is usually the “London” which is dropped, not the “Liverpool Street”.

     And, as you say, quoting the whole lot at Norwich makes the destination rather more unclear (since both utterances include the word “Liverpool” and the word “Street”.

     As has also been mentioned in connection with Belgium, tailoring generally appropriate messages to messages appropriate at that particular time and place (aka common sense) is difficult to apply in the context of an automated passenger information system.

187. Of course, there are some places with trains to more than one London terminal (four possibilities from Ramsgate, for instance), and for those it makes very good sense to specify which one.

188. Nameless/Malcom: noted.

     1984 is so last century! (apart from the aspects which are now part of our daily lives, like CCTV all over public transport)
     Cambridge has trains to King’s Lynn & Kings Cross, of course, as well as Liverpool Street.

     Length of names: I would single out TCR and Hayes & Harlington* but the others don’t look too bad given the burden if disambiguation.

     *which is super awkward as there is a Hayes in Kent and a Harlington in Bedfordshire.

189. Malcom re visitors & residents.
     1 for London as a whole;
     2 the numbers in my head are 8.5mn residents within the Khanate and 14.5mn visitors pa;
     3 I think we kind of know that they don’t all come at once & are concentrated in the centre (where a lot of the public transport assets are, including the developing assets of the Elizabeth Line).

     It would be mildly unhelpful for TfL to focus on one group to the exclusion of the other.

190. I really don’t think the names are a problem. Maps really do help. I think tickets are the biggest issue for those unfamiliar with the network. For example, finding the cheapest fare from Euston to Milton Keynes Central with a Gold Card is a real challenge.

191. @Malcolm “There may be room for more than one opinion as to whether Luxembourg [while being a country] is or is not also a jumped up village”.

     Not many villages, even jumped-up ones, have a population of half a million. But in any case, the line in question also serves the Belgian province of Luxembourg as well as the Grand Duchy thereof. That’s another quarter of a million.

192. Perhaps we should have taken a Parisian approach and just have non-geographic names if need be – battles, people, etc. Crimée (I guess we have Waterloo), George V (we have one of those on the DLR albeit named after a dock, rather than the King himself), Marx Dormoy, Marcel Semba, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Rosa Parks, Jaurès. Fans of the Lizzy line name would love it ;).

193. Interesting idea from Si about brand new names – would provoke even more controversy than existing methods.

     I do not know whether any of the other Paris examples were named directly after people or battles, though. Franklin D Roosevelt (and perhaps most or all the rest) was the name of a street before it was the name of a station.

194. Directions – By rail to Acton. How to ensure that the opposition does not arrive with a full team, being scattered over all the possible stations (Art of Course Rugby Michael Green).

     I have personally been involved in a number of these debacles.

195. I agree with OB that TfL needs to consider both residents and visitors; on the whole I think they already do.

     I don’t think the figures you mention are strictly comparable, though, as visitors are counted once per visit, and residents once per head per year. But they do serve as a general indication.

     But if you choose a random person in London (say to be hit by lightning), then that is far more likely to be a resident. On the other hand, if you choose a random instance of needing travel advice, it is entirely possible that that need arises from a visitor more often than from a resident.

196. “London has more visitors than residents’

     But not all visitors (or even a majority) come from countries where they routinely ignore the street, place, road, etc terminator. In most of Europe, the descriptor is essential because there are multiple roads/places with the same main name. Eg, in Bruxelles there is both the Place de Luxembourg and the Rue de Luxembourg (Incidentally, I think the station may be named after the Place and not the country).

     Just because one culture adopts a habit of dropping street descriptors (and therefore getting confused when one is needed) it doesn’t mean that we should, therefore, work on the basis of that culture.

197. An additional source of confusion in Brussels is that you can assume, sometimes wrongly, that two solar place names are the Flemish and French versions of the same place. Not always: Mechelen and Machelen are a long way apart.
     Follow signs for Mons and Bergen out of Brussels, and as you leave the city and enter Flanders, Mons suddenly vanishes off the signs, A few miles further, and as you enter Wallonia, Bergen disappears but Mons reappears.

198. Si 31 May 2016 at 21:01

     “Rosa Parks” would have to be a Bus station

199. @Alan Griffiths

     There are! Detroit; Jacksonville (Florida); and others available courtesy of Google (other search engines are available).

200. Old Buccaneer’s figures (8.5mn residents within the Khanate and 14.5mn visitors pa) sound about right, but there is a third major group of transporteers: commuters. Another couple of million?

     There was a semi-frivolous map published some months ago suggesting new names for the combining stations with new names based on more historic / local usage. To me this makes more sense than any of the options thus far presented as you would have a specific name for the CR/LizLine halt, and then the existing / subsidiary name for the exit you required — the latter name being that on the existing system for other travel options.

201. @Malcolm: a change as late as now would be enormously disruptive and (internally) confusing – and would probably bump up the famously well-contained costs quite a bit

     Thank goodness there hasn’t been a late change to the name of the whole line, then…

202. JJ
     It used to be much worse at Stansted Airport …
     Trains to London Livp St
     AND
     Liverpool L St
     In parallel platforms, simultaneously.
     And, yes, the inevitable did happen …

203. PZT
     NOT to be confused with the Duchy of Grand Fenwick, I presume?

204. Alison here they are, based on 2011 census data:

     https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/faculty/social-sciences/news/london-supernova-city-1.476001

     This probably belongs under “High Speed Buffers Part 3 – are there limits to commuting?”

     About 1.5mn daily to the Cities of London & Westminster alone from the South East, so 2mn sounds roughly right. No wonder London & the South East are such a big percentage of total national passenger rail usage.

     Other datasets & visualisations are available.

205. While not favouring one type of transport user over another, I strongly believe that designers of transport systems and their information systems should recognise that not everyone understands local conventions or colloquial English and can, in fact, get seriously confused by some over-complicated and/or ambiguous signs/announcements. The Liverpool Street /Liverpool Lime Street one is a classic. Anyone who omits the ‘London’ in front of the former should be disciplined.

206. and I was going to add before my tablet rebelled- and managers should seriously decide whether to omit the Lime Street bit after Liverpool ( except when based in Lancashire!). Only tenuously connected to London, but the principles apply there more than just about anywhere else, because of the sheer numbers of visitors.

207. @Alison
     “There was a semi-frivolous map published some months ago suggesting new names for the combining stations with new names based on more historic / local usage. To me this makes more sense than any of the options thus far presented as you would have a specific name for the CR/LizLine halt, and then the existing / subsidiary name for the exit you required — the latter name being that on the existing system for other travel options.”

     This is an interesting idea… Given that Bank station is going to be closed and rebuilt in a few years, it might then be possible to do the same with the Bank-Monument complex: give the Northern and DLR lines a new name whilst keeping “Bank” for the central line and The Drain, and keeping Monument for the District/Circle.

     Another idea might be to just rename Aldergate Barbican to Farringdon East and (more controversially perhaps) rename all the Moorgate stations to “Liverpool Street West”.

     It would mean that the circle line would go Farringdon-West, Farringdon-East, Liverpool Street-West, Liverpool Street-East, Aldgate, Tower Hill, Bank-South.

208. @ Briantist yes but Farringdon West is East of the Farringdon Road 🙁
     & Moorgate is on the road of that name.

     So not great for the rail – surface interchange that we’re trying to improve. Allegedly.

209. @Fandroid
     Passengers getting off Eurostar at Ashford are faced with a sign saying ‘passports at the ready’. This is from Kent Police or Border Force, but just how colloquial can you get.

210. @Quinlet.Most local transport systems in Germany have audible announcements for next stop etc. In many of the bigger cities these include a second announcement in English at the main stations and at significant visitor attractions. That’s not just because they get a lot of native English speakers, but because English is the most likely second language for non-German speakers. The English used is Standard English. It would be daft for British transport systems to provide a local dialect version followed by a Standard English version. As the latter is taught in just about every school in the country, it makes sense to only use that, and to only use words that appear in normal phrase books!

     As a total aside- I had to wait so long on Newport station once, that I was beginning to learn the Welsh for 1, 2, 3 & 4!

211. @Fandroid
     Yes I agree about using a form of standard english. I think most transport operators are getting better at this as they are having to be more customer focussed. Sadly neither the police nor Border Force seem to see the needs of their customers as their top priority – let alone communicating with them effectively.

212. @Old Buccaneer
     yes but Farringdon West is East of the Farringdon Road ?

     maybe Smithfield East and Smithfield West?

     A particularly odd example of this was the “Turning South London Orange” proposal for a station on the Overground in the Eversleigh Road area of Battersea, provisionally named “Clapham East” despite being a good mile west of that suburb’s High Street!

213. Re Quinlet,

     “Sadly neither the police nor Border Force seem to see the needs of their customers as their top priority – let alone communicating with them effectively.”

     but their customer is the Home Office, I think you mean their users!

214. I can’t quite see the police doing a customer satisfaction survey as prisoners are waiting to take arrested customers in to custody.

     And on a scale of 1 to 10 how satisfied were you with the way the officer applied the handcuffs?

215. Customers or users (or victims), if you want people to heed a notice, it has to be clear to its intended readership. (heedership?)

216. timbeau re: Eversleigh Rd: I detect the malign influence of Clapham Junction, which is even further away. Let’s just say n+1 wrongs don’t make a right and leave it at that. We have a superfluity of Clapham stations as it is; another geographically remote one would be no help.

     I personally would not support your ‘Smithfield’ proposal. The scope for confusion remains (see the discussion re ‘the art of coarse rugby’ & Acton above). Beware also East Smithfield, the street near St Katherine’s dock.

217. quinlet, others I can imagine that many people in the police & Border Force have a low opinion of the public, based on the section with which they spend most of their time. That doesn’t excuse any bad behaviour or incomprehensible signage.

218. PoP
     Not quite.
     IF one follows the “Peelian principles” of policing then we are all, supposedly their customers … something that seems to get forgotten from time to time ….
     See also OB on this (!)

219. @Briantist 18.28
     Farringdon East? Barbican station makes perfect sense as a name as it’s both the closest station to the Barbican Centre, and the easiest for arriving or departing concert-goers to locate on foot. And “Bank South” sounds far too much like “Bankside”, the name now popularly used for the area on the opposite side of London Bridge between Southwark Cathedral and Tate Modern. Neither name change would help confused tourists’ orientation.

220. Back to stations & people’s behaviour:

     I think standards of behaviour on public transport in London have fallen significantly in the last 30 years. I think the architects of stations have to take that into account. I expect more staff will have to be deployed.

     “I have seen the enemy and he is us.”

221. @OB. I am regularly pleasantly surprised at how helpful Tube passengers can be when the need arises. Only last week I got an instant offer of assistance in lifting a pushchair down steps when the last lift at Kings Cross was out of order. I simply don’t agree with you.

222. I think you could both be right. The standard of the worst behaviour in public has quite possibly gone down, but the best has gone up. Instead of everyone being uniformly stand-offish but not offensive, we have a broader mix of behaviour, including some very good and some very bad.

223. Perhaps it’s peak vs. off-peak too. Fandroid let’s agree to disagree; I’m not discounting instances like yours when I make a point about standards.

224. @Malcolm: The standard of the worst behaviour in public has quite possibly gone down, but the best has gone up

     My understanding of the way that some football crowds, say, behaved on public transport 30 years ago suggests that very poor behaviour is not a completely new development either.

225. Oh dear, it would appear that some people still don’t get it even at this late date.

226. @Greg Tingey – odd how they’ve only just noticed that CR1 passes the door. [Nor will it pass the journey times test mentioned by McLoughlin, but maybe City airport management can’t read either].

227. We may not be able to read either, as the article which Greg cites lurks shyly behind a now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t semi-permeable paywall.

     But the idea seems reminiscent of “the bus passes my front garden, so why won’t they let me plant a bus stop there so that I don’t need to walk down the road?”.

228. There was a very similar complaint earlier this week in, I think, the Standard – from a resident of Westbourne Park.

229. “Scope variations” are not our favourite thing “non shocker” remark by Crossrail team. 😉

     I imagine that “megaphone diplomacy” by LCA by going round, over and under TfL to try to force their hand won’t be appreciated either. You do have to wonder why commercial organisations appear to resort to the tactics of a petulant child to get their own way rather than listening to what’s being said and then complying with it. It’s not as if LCA is bereft of public transport access either.

230. The Wikipedia entry for London City Airport suggests that Crossrail did make passive provision for a station. The document they cite appears to have vanished, but this blog seems to be quoting the relevant passage.

     Of course, “passive provision” doesn’t mean “You can buy a suitably-sized D1 Through Station set and put it down beside our track whenever you feel like it.”

231. Greg Tingey 31 May
     “… for absurd geographical station-naming the various Dulwiches must take the London prize – followed closely by the many Actons”

     Canterbury is worse. One’s to the north of the city walls, the other to the south. One’s called Canterbury East and the other Canterbury West. I can never remember which is which. (And if you draw a line on a map the “East ” station is only marginally east of Canterbury West.)

232. WW
     This is, in fact, the exact opposite side of the coin that one very rarely ever sees in say “Management / Union” disputes.
     That sort of quite frankly, pigheadedness, is not going to go down well with Cross (very cross) rail at all, is it?

233. ABG: If you want an aide-memoire for Canterbury (and a sort of excuse), then note that Canterbury West is near the West Gate of the old town (where Watling Street exits to go broadly westwards towards London), and, err, Canterbury East is not! (Although it is near the Castle Gate, through which the another west-tending road exited, so maybe not all that much help really).

234. Alan Burkitt-Gray 3 June 2016 at 12:44

     ” Canterbury West ” is the one where the High Speed trains stop. Does many people from out of town need to know anything else?

235. Re: London City Airport (LCY). A DLR every 10 mins or less with a 16 minute journey time from Poplar, a very short walk from Canary Wharf on the Elizabeth Line looks good to me, as an alternative for those inbound from Abbey Wood. I reckon it’s a 10 minute walk from the Factory Road footbridge (which is where I guess the station would be) to LCY DLR station.

     I remain to be convinced that a 300mn expansion of LCY is a good idea; if it gets approval, I would hope that there’s a limit on road movement & at that point a 50mn station that adds 3mn of fares revenue might make sense. But I guess the 2.5 minute time penalty *both ways* for *all* the trains might add up to a *serious* ‘disbenefit’# which could scupper the proposed new station.

     All figures from Construction News, linked to by Greg Tingey at 0929 above, except DLR frequency & travel times, source Citymapper and the walking time, source Google Maps.

     #Apologies if ‘disbenefit’ isn’t a word. I reckon it’s worth about 2.1mn pounds pa for 1mn (non LCY) passengers at 50 pounds an hour. I’ve ignored wear & tear on trains and extra energy costs because I don’t have plausible numbers to hand.

     [Disbenefit is a word, whatever autocorrect might think. The traditional “synonym” is drawback, but disbenefit is more quantitative, whereas drawbacks come in lumps. Malcolm]

236. @OB -disbenefit certainly exists! In the case cited, there’s also the cost of the additional rolling stock (2×10 car sets) which also has to be borne by the operator.

237. GH but the operator gets income from the 2×10 cars, not only from LCY passengers…

238. OB: But if the 2 x 10 cars are only added to provide the (non-LCY) service that was going to happen anyway, they will not produce any extra income of their own (except from LCY passengers). Unless I have lost the plot somewhere, which is entirely possible.

239. Re OB,

     But it is the same income they would get from the non-LCY passengers just redistributed across more cars/trains, drivers and electricity use. The max # passengers per hour doesn’t change as you still have 12tph on the Abbey Wood branch just greater cost to provide that service level.

240. Re Malcolm,

     You haven’t 😉

241. ngh, Malcolm: I stand corrected. But we discussed capacity at length here:
     https://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/happens-crossrail-full-part-1-problem/

     See in psrticular the Sir Peter Hendy quotation an the following paras. Which doesn’t help LCY’s case.

242. @OB – ngh and Malcolm have explained why you don’t generate any extra income to cover the costs of the two extra units. The income is the income is the income.

243. Re OB,

     The converse is also seen in some recent resignalling projects (e.g. Northern line) which have allowed the same stock to run more tph and generate more income. The higher operating speed on HS2 would do similarly and does increasing the line speed on the approaches to London Bridge (e.g. elimination of weak bridges to increase speed from 25/30mph to 50/55/60mph). All increase passenger flux in relative terms.

244. Why would there be no extra income? If LCY think a cross rail station would encourage more people to use the airport, and presumably the new station.

245. There might be extra income from LCY passengers. But OB postulated (at 21:45) that there might be extra extra income (from other passengers). That notion is the one which several of us have successfully ganged up on.

246. Airport already full? (The point is that the extra station imposes extra costs on the operator regardless of any extra income which may or may not be generated by a better airport connexion).

247. Re Timbeau,

     Extra income from the Airport but the same or less max income from other stations but a higher cost base overall.

     Remember extending Crossrail to Dartford, Ebbsfleet Intergalactic and possibly beyond to Gravesend is back on the agenda to get the Ebbsfleet Development Corp back on track (pun intended). Crossrail would be a semifast service which isn’t aided by adding extra stops on the existing route…

     The Crossrail station would still have a 300m walk to the airport vs an 1100m on the road in a shuttle bus from Custom House Crossrail station taking less time than the walk from an Airport Station… (And a lot cheaper too)

248. @ngh -the other – generic -problem with any new station within the travelcard area is whether it genuinely generates extra income for the “system” as a whole or merely diverts income from other nearby travelcard modes . (In this case, from buses and DLR).

249. Re: OB at 2145 and follow up: I wasn’t clear. I thought that if you had +2 sets in service they would carry a mixture of LCY and non LCY passengers, additional to those in the base case. I had failed to appreciate that 12tph was the capacity of the Abbey Wood branch.

     Graham H at 2304: from the customers’ point of view, they get more travel choices and get a (non cash) benefit of a “better” journey. I can see that it doesn’t help the finances of the operator if they switch from an existing service at no net cash cost to them.

     Also the fares of ppl who switch from road to rail (eg to/from Ebbsfleet Intergalactic! or within the travel card area) are net new income to the Elizabeth Line aren’t they?(even if the beastly Treasury swipes it later under some medieval doctrine!)

250. Re OB,

     HMT should get at least £50m (probably double) in stamp duty paid on all the new homes at Ebbsfleet (or rather Greenhithe and Swancombe???).

     And TfL get lots of extra revenue (probably a good chunk of cannibalised from SE!)

     While it is do-able there are big problems with taking abbey Wood branch above 12tph is that means the CR core has to go above 24tph which probably means tipping out and turning the extra services at Paddington / Westbourne Park which may screw things up so you have to extend more services westwards to stop this happening (Old Oak Common planned as the future turnback from 2026) so in the interim Hayes and Harlington or West Drayton thus requiring a few more trains than the 2 already mentioned, which then requires more stabling etc…

251. Graham H re: Airport full? 2238 on 3 June. Pretty much, at least in the peaks, if this video has not been played with too much:
     https://youtu.be/gSJ2caxJbrY by Vict20; timelapse of western operations.

     4,319,301 passengers# in 2015 handled by 84,753 aircraft movements (source: CAA via Wikipedia); a 57/43 pc business/leisure split on 100pc scheduled flights.

     March 2016: 374,911 terminal passengers (and 78 transit) in 6,924 movements at LCY. That month saw 12.4mn scheduled terminal passengers at all London airports, of which Heathrow 6.1mn, Gatwick 2.9mn, Stansted 1.9mn and Luton 1.0mn. Total scheduled aircraft movements for the big 4: 78,411.
     (Source: CAA).

     There’s a summary of the LCY expansion plan here:
     http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/london-city-airport-expansion/
     #LCY themselves claim 220 more who might be transit passengers?

252. If a dedicated Crossrail station for London City Airport attracted passengers from much further away than now, then it’s possible that TfL income might increase. Of course those passengers are probably simply changing their choice of London Airport, and could well have been using TfL services previously. Even if we know a bus link from Custom House is likely to be little different from a long local walk, there is a big difference in perception from the user’s point of view. We have discussed this issue many times before – ie how tolerant air passengers are of long distances on foot within an airport.

     Among my colleagues there are several who prefer LCY to the alternatives, and the most vociferous is the one who lives in Ipswich!

     As for me, I like it as it is- totally unpretentious. It’s a bit like a medium sized city railway station- A transport hub with some useful facilities, not a retail operation with a transport sideline. The expansion plan will probably change that balance.

253. So from the figures provided by OB, we can calculate that there are approximately 7000 passengers a day using LCY (in practice probably higher on weekdays, fewer at weekends, but let’s stay with the numbers quoted).
     Over an approximately 16 hour operating day, that’s 437.5 passengers per hour. If every single one caught a Crossrail train (24 an hour through Custom House), that adds all of 18.2 passengers to every train.
     LCY’s expansion plans limit it to 120,000 plane movements pa, so even adding 50% to the numbers above doesn’t make a huge difference. And there’s still DLR, buses and other modes that will be more convenient for some passengers.

254. @Man of Kent – 🙂 And by the by the cost of leasing and operating another 2 trains is likely to be of the order of £8m pa – say, £20k a day – so these extra 700 pax/day are each going to be brassing up about £30 for their trip – or not.

     As LCY no doubt realise, it’s always cost effective to get someone else to buy you a present.

255. @ Man of Kent that’s not how LCY works. I would say (from experience, haven’t looked for stats) that 0600-1000 and 1600-1900 on weekdays are about 90-95pc of the flows, pretty well balanced inbound & outbound, I’d guess. LCY doesn’t operate on Saturday afternoons and Sunday mornings. While that doesn’t hugely affect the numbers per 1000-car train, I reckon people will notice in the peaks.

     The principal “other modes” are car & taxi.

     Note: 48 aircraft movements between 0635 and 1000 this morning.

256. Most of the LCY capacity expansion is coming from swapping flights from smaller prop planes (typically 50 passenger) to jets (typically 100 seats – the runway restrictions at LCY mean you’ll never get anything much larger than an Embraer E190 using it).
     But as noted above, the existing DLR station is incredibly well situated (less than a minute walk from the check in area) and very well used.

257. Graham H: LCY passengers’ UK origin/destination will be predominantly within London. Yet more subsidy for the kulaks and the bourgeoisie!!

     Re: £30 a trip, why don’t we charge the first passenger of the day £20k & everyone else can travel for free? No-one will pay more for public transport than the DLR/TfL fare, in practice. Except ppl who get caught without a ticket.

     Sorry: “per 1000-seat train” above. And a further 29 aircraft movements between 1000 and 1230.

258. IslandDweller: thanks. So the theoretical maximum capacity is 12mn pax pa, say a million a month. I think the DLR might struggle to absorb that.

259. @OB – Quite right – you’ve been talking to the Treasury economists haven’t you? [I really did spend more time than I would have wished explaining to one of that tribe why you couldn’t charge the first passenger on a bus £25 to go down Whitehall and all the rest 1p. Public transport foxes them – it shouldn’t exist in theory, but it does].

     I don’t have any modal split figures for LCY but I wouldn’t be surprised if an unusually high proportion didn’t arrive by cab and Uber. The DLR connexion is excellent provided you don’t mind lugging bags around Bank.

260. Long way off 12 million at LCY. About 4 and a half million passengers last year. More than 50% of LCY passengers use DLR already (I believe it has highest public transport percentage of any major uk airport), so it’s already a significant provider of passengers on that branch. Furthermore, once Crossrail/Elizabeth opens, we can expect freed up capacity on the Woolwich DLR branch as SELondon and Kent commuters switch their alliegance.

261. @GrahamH. Cab usage at LCY in decline. Frequent passengers now wise to and fed up with the inevitable Blackwall tunnel area gridlock – hence very high modal share for DLR.

262. @DavidG @Old Buccaneer @3078260061 @WW @Alan Griffiths @Greg Tingey @John U.K. @Fandroid et al

     Thanks to everyone for their comments re the names of Farringdon-for-Barbican and Liverpool Street-for-Moorgate. I’m still not sure that we’ve actually managed to clear up the issue of three double-ended stations (including Bank-for-Monument), but the feedback has been terrific.

     I was at the new Canary Wharf station in Docklands today (visiting the Museum of London Docklands) and went for a walk in the rather splendid gardens – https://goo.gl/maps/sFT9xouHLr52 – and couldn’t help noticing that that area is called Crossrail Place.

     The obvious question is: will this remain being called Crossrail Place or will the name get changed? If it does, who is it that gets to pay for all the marble to be replaced and re-engraved?

263. So Graham H., why can’t you charge the first customer £25 and then the remaining 1p each?
     [And there is no reason why public transport shouldn’t exist.]

264. Dear Treasury Economist

     I’ll leave you to explain why not. Could be time to join the real world in which practical people have to make businesses work?

     Yours

     GH

265. So, Graham H, you have no answer.

     Actually, the point of the question is to get people to think a bit harder about policy. Thinking through the reasons why you can’t charge the first person £25 and the rest 1p means that you start to understand how you might charge them and for what they should be charged (or how the services are otherwise paid for). Thus, the question is “what are the benefits and to whom of providing public transport, and how should it be paid for”. I would have thought these kinds of questions would have been central to discussions within the department of transport; perhaps if they had been we would have rather better transport provision.

266. Treasury Economist: Asking questions “to provoke thought” (or similar purposes) is an excellent idea in a lecture or seminar, possibly a reasonable idea in a pub or tea-party discussion (depending on who is there, and what your status is, and so forth). It may be a good idea in the Treasury canteen, or the House of Commons tea room, though I would not be sure about that, having never been to either place.

     On this site, though, when someone wishes to bring the discussion to bear on a particular question (for instance, “what are the benefits and to whom of providing public transport, and how should it be paid for” , we generally prefer them to pose that question directly.

     Noting your final point, do you actually know whether “these kinds of questions [are] central to discussions within the department of transport” ? Your phrasing suggest that you believe they are not, which may well be correct, but do you have evidence?

267. And some thoughts on why the answer might be important.

     In the distant past rail passengers paid a fare based on how many miles they travelled. But BR pioneered thinking about charging different users different prices, so those more willing to pay ended up paying more. The costs of various bits of track were, in the distant past, not really properly assigned to freight/local/traffic etc. This is something, actually, Graham H has often talked about (see is comments about not being able to understand the true cost building the French high speed rail). Later, in sectorisation, the costs were assigned to the primary user (“the first person pays £25”) and the other users of the network paid the marginal cost (“the others pay 1p each”). This kind of thinking has even affected EU legislation, since current rules mean that freight can only be charged marginal cost (e.g. the 1p). This means, for instance, that it can never contribute to any business case for reopening a railway line. Similarly, the benefits of non-franchised services in the ECML/WCML arise since the entrants only pay the marginal cost (e.g. the 1p rather than the £25) to the infrastructure operator of using the track. Should they make a larger contribution?

     Maybe not quite such a silly question after all.

268. No, it’s simply that I can’t be bothered to explain it to you… As I say, remember the old Whitehall definition of a Treasury economist as someone who sees something working in practice and wonders why it doesn’t work in theory.

269. @Treasury Economist
     “But BR pioneered thinking about charging different users different prices, so those more willing to pay ended up paying more.”

     — And THAT is where the rot set in, IMHO.
     (The answer to your question is: Because it is unfair. But that is what happens when you reduce everything to money and market forces.)

270. peezedtee: It is a perfectly respectable position that you hold, that fares per mile should be the same for every passenger. That used to apply in many parts of the world, and the principle is still applicable to quite a lot of subsets of the world’s public transport.

     But it is not the only approach which can be described as “fair”. Given the (very) unequal distribution of wealth and income throughout the world, claims can certainly be made that it is better for the railways to obtain most of their revenue from “the rich”, by market segmentation approaches, and yet still enable relatively poor people to travel, provided that they jump through certain hoops (like sticking to the train they first thought of 3 days earlier). If the London to Manchester fare was legally required to be the same for everyone, then the fat cats and directors of this and that who currently pay through the nose would pay less, and the single parent who struggles now to pay the advance fare would just have to stay at home. What’s “fair” about that?

271. I’ve located the map I referred to earlier, on citymetric*.

     From West to East: Paddington – Hanover – St Giles – Smithfield – Broadgate – Whitechapel.

     I think they make sense, which means of course that there is no chance whatsoever the Liz Line will have unique station names…

     * http://www.citymetric.com/transport/londons-crossrail-needs-rename-almost-all-its-stations-1742

272. @Malcolm – the important point, which perhaps I made too subtly for some, is that even if you believe that the marginal user should be charged the marginal cost they impose, in the real world you can’t do that. Bus drivers don’t haggle with the next passenger and no one would tolerate it if they did. Nor do petrol filling stations argue with you over the price of the last litre you put in. Life isn’t organised according to theory (and if it was, given the large number of theories, chaos would ensue…)

     The trouble with economics is that we have been in thrall to a series of directly conflicted theories, one of which dominates at any particular time. They can’t all be right. What is the point of businessmen entering into that academic debate? As one friend who had managed the Public Expenditure side of the Treasury put it sadly “Why should anyone believe us? – it is the Treasury, after all, which has brought you the British economy since 1945…”

273. Speaking as a mere passenger,the reason why the “first passenger pays £25” system would not work,is that most buses would then run around empty.

274. @slugabed – a very practical example of what I meant. [I recall one colleague who, dashing out of 2 Marsham St about 9 pm and faced with a narrow chance of getting the 9.15 from Waterloo, couldn’t find a taxi but an empty 507 arrived almost immediately. “How much to go straight to Waterloo?” “£5” “Done” and done. There’s marginal pricing and marginal utility for you…]

275. Graham H says “The trouble with economics is that we have been in thrall to a series of directly conflicted theories…”

     Doubtless you are right here. And it would be nice if economists could all get together and produce one “theory of everything” which has all the right answers and we could all live happily ever after. But since, as you mention, we are in the real world, this is not about to happen. Someone has to decide what rate of income tax and VAT we all pay (and other more complex questions). Ultimately this is a decision for the politicians in charge, but they (probably advisedly) do not just make up the answers out of their heads, but they pay some attention to people who claim some expertise in these matters.

     The British economy since 1945 has probably not performed as well as one might hope. But who knows whether, if the arrangements had been different (say leaving it all to a focus group of taxi-drivers), it could have performed spectacularly worse.

276. @Slugabed
     Ah well, the economics is inverted by Megabus, which maintains that at least one seat is available on every journey for £1 (plus 50p booking fee). So in this case, the first passenger pays £1.50, and the rest pay more….
     My observations are load factors of typically 85% or better – compared to 50% or less on National Express. My sample sizes are however not very large.

277. @Malcolm
     “The British economy since 1945 has probably not performed as well as one might hope…”

     Notwithstanding Malcolm’s explanation, this is not an invitation to discuss this topic. Only the economics of transport in England, centring on London, will be entertained. LBM

278. Man of Kent
     The word “inverted” is the giveaway to the success of Megabus’ business model.
     Malcolm
     More than that,Economists seem to argue over the meaning of the word “Good”…warring factions gain and lose ascendancy,and take their theory sets with them…

279. @Malcolm -the difference between the focus group of taxi drivers/greengrocers and the Treasury economists is that the former claim no credit for running the British economy, the latter do.

280. @Malcolm
     My answer “Because it is not fair” was in response to the question “Why not charge the first person £25 and rest 1p”? It doesn’t follow from that that any different arrangement necessarily IS fair. Several differing policies might all be unfair.
     But if you want to adopt a public policy that mitigates inequality of wealth, using the public transport fares structure is not necessarily the most sensible way of doing it.

281. peezedtee says ” if you want to adopt a public policy that mitigates inequality of wealth, using the public transport fares structure is not necessarily the most sensible way of doing it”

     True. But if you want to devise a fares policy that takes account of inequality of wealth, then market segmentation may be worth a look.

     The reason I thought you considered uniform fares policy to be fair was the way you said “.. and that was where the rot set in”. But looking again at your comment, I see that I was reading into it more than what you said. Apologies.

     But even though you didn’t say it, people sometimes claim that the “good old days” of uniform fares per mile were fairer, which provides a sort of excuse for my polemic.

282. @PZT – Absolutely. One might add that “fair” (like “good+”) reflects a judgement about the policy objectives and one could debate endlessly what the word means and whether the chosen instrument (sc fares) is the best way of achieving that objective. It’s just rhetoric. Beware economists who come bearing such gifts as “fair and efficient pricing*” therefore – meaningless concepts. Still less a useful guide to hard pressed managers and policy makers struggling to run a business!

     *The title of an especially useless EU research cum policy paper which never asked the basic question as to why fares were charged.

     + Defining “Good” – I have a vague recollection (timbeau will know) of yet more McGonagall, this time a metrical version of the passage in the Old Testament recording Nebuchadnezzar’s lycanthropy “He murmured as he munched the unaccustomed food, it may be wholesome but it is not good”.

283. I refer the honourable commentators to my earlier point: ‘markets where you can, minimal public sector intervention where you can’t”. I continue to believe that this is *primarily* a pub conveŕsation.

284. Graham H latest: loving it.
     I would add Hilaire Belloc writing about Henry Byng:
     “They murmured, as they took their fees:
     “There is no cure for this disease!”

285. Alison
     Citymetric have got the same fault, in a different form to HMT …
     Have people here heard of the “QUERTY effect”?
     Re-naming all the stations is contrary to that effect – often it simply is too difficult to change.
     Yes, I know some station names have changed in the past, but usually one-at-a-time & for good reasons. Look at the stations currently called Charing Cross & Embankment, respectively.

286. Malcolm
     a fares policy that takes account of inequality of wealth, then market segmentation may be worth a look.
     Called “First Class” & “Pullman” I believer, are they not?
     And “Workman’s Tickets” at the other end.
     * cough *

287. @OB – Belloc – a much underrated poet and writer . You and I will get snipped for continuing this, I fear…

288. Slugabed 4 June 2016 at 21:25

     ” The word “inverted” is the giveaway to the success of Megabus’ business model.”

     Don’t agree. Its just a crafty variety of advertising.

289. First/second/third class is indeed one form of market segmentation. Pricing by when you book is another. There are probably more – “2 for 1” offers and group save spring to mind, also PoP’s example of reduced fares if accompanied by a teddy bear. In fact even half fares for children probably count, since the expense to the railway of carrying a child is unlikely to be much different.

290. @Greg T/Malcolm – then you would like Russian freight pricing, which reflects the value of the goods, not the cost of conveyance -thus, a ton of gold will be charged many times more than a ton of dust.

291. OB/GH: we should at least get the Belloc quote correct before the Mods snip: it was Henry King, not Byng; and the physicians (of the utmost fame) answered, not murmured.

292. The “£25 for the first passenger and 1p for everybody else” model is essentially how taxis are priced, but is quite inapproprriate for a service that runs to a timetable, because the marginal cost of carrying the first passenger is no different from any other. As another comment pointed out, if the passenger does’t travel, the bus will still run – empty.

     Cheap advance deals are all very well, but the people who end up paying full whack are not the businessmen (certainly my employer’s expenses department are very hot on quizzing anyone who used an anytime fare, and most business meetings are arranged days or even weeks ahead). Those who end up paying walk up fares are just as likely to be distress purchases – the mercy dash to a dying relative, the person stranded by disrupted plans (broken down car, delayed flight, etc) – or people who have no means of buying tickets in advance – no internet, a taxi ride away from a staffed station, etc. I doubt that the demographic of either group is wealthier than the average.

293. @timbeau – and that’s exactly what the earliest horsebus proprietors used as their USP – “No more waiting for extra passengers; always (!) runs to time”. What the proponents of the taxi model of pricing forget is that the product is different and the market is different.(And that conveniently overlooks that very few retailers follow the taxi model either – except perhaps for some market stall* traders who are anxious to clear off- when was the last time anyone haggled over the price of the next tin of beans?)

     *For some reason,economics textbooks always seem to focus on market stall, especially those selling strawberries. Modern commerce seems to pass them by.

294. Whether a bus need run if there are no passengers is sometimes an issue for rail replacement services, which are sometimes point to point, so there is no need to allow for passengers from intermediate stops. Typically the bus has to run anyway, just to be available for the return journey (which may have passengers, but their existence is not fully known when the empty bus must set out). Theoretical exception: two simultaneous empty buses in opposite directions could stay put (if organised in time), but then you may still have problems because the buses and the drivers will later on turn out to be in the wrong place.

295. But OB. This is metaphorical pub.

     It is (faintly) conceivable that you could charge the first passenger on the bus £25, but if he/she had their wits about them, they could respond ‘fine, but charge any other passengers £1 and give me 50p back for each one’.

     The problem with that scenario is that the very first passenger would have to be able to afford/risk £25. Where I live, I suspect that I would be the only one able to do that!

     I wonder if it is really true that EU rules require rail freight to be charged at marginal rates. UK practice (based on the EU required open access to the tracks) is that the primary users (franchisees) pay for the base level track costs, and marginal users (freight plus open access passenger operations) pay the marginal costs. After all, there are significant freight only railways over the ditch – e.g. the Betuweroute.

296. Re Graham H 1257,

     Because the textbooks don’t want to touch the real detail of “cost to serve” analysis(including complex feedback mechanism) that drives most real world pricing models* today! The ultimate aim is predictable return on investment and optimising it.

     *Which tend to end up in the domain of accountants and engineers rather then economists for some reason 😉

297. AG
     “…crafty advertising”
     Remember Dorothy L Sayers’ definition of advertising ( In which she used to work ) ???
     “Telling plausible Lies for money”.
     Oops

298. @ngh – I agree – every commercial environment I have worked in makes pretty thorough research into – above all – cash flow, risk analysis and, as you say, the cost to serve. And because these people are dealing in millions of daily transactions, they are little focussed on market clearing prices and the like – even with the most sophisticated software, pricing is reduced to a formula (as with airlines) and not a fire sale last minute bargain. The same point might be made about hotel and accommodation pricing – airbnb charges are what the market will bear – a very different thing. Though I do often wonder – taking your cost to serve point – why TOCs have their peculiar pricing structures; someone else’s* sunk costs, I guess….

     (And – in relation to your last sentence – businessmen) To recall the old joke about the engineer, the physicist and the economist stranded on a desert island would be simply indecent…

     *Mine and yours, as taxpayers.

299. @ Graham H – you may not haggle with the checkout person in a shop but you effectively haggle with yourself. This is either prior to entering a shop (you choose which one you wish to go to for all sorts of reasons) or within the shop when you decide which product to buy and at what price. That’s just the market working in a different way. Those consumer decisions take place with transport but at different points in the hierarchy. People decide on mode – again for a load of reasons. Once you’ve decided to go by bus there is rarely much choice about quality or price once you’re at a stop waiting for a bus to go to “x”. (you can substitute other modes for “bus” in the previous sentence).

300. @WW – of course,tho’ I’m not sure that economic theory allows for self-haggling (sounds dodgier than it is …)

301. @ Graham H I think economists hide self haggling within “utility theory” in that endearing hand-wavy way they have. It may also form part of “behavioural economics”, which seems intent on demolishing the assumption that economic actors* are rational.

     PS: anyone got a tin opener? ?
     *the abstractions formerly known as Homo Economicus

302. Historical note / question
     Does anyone else know where the point-of-origin was for “fixed” ( i.e. displayed/marked) prices was, as opposed to haggling for everything?
     Hint: it is relevant (congestion) & it was in London …

303. “It may be wholesome, but it is not good.”: it’s obviously not McGonagall, who never wrote a correctly scanned couplet in his life, let alone a metrical Testament. At a first reading it sounds more like a mid-Victorian parody Newdigate Prize entry, and the sort of thing found in Wyndham Lewis’s The Stuffed Owl. It isn’t there, but a letter to the Spectator in 1913 does indeed attribute it to an entrant in the 1852 competition. Note that that letter quotes only the preceding couplet, so it was no easy Google.

     I resisted posting this last night, but since the conversation has been allowed to continue, I’d hate it to go far on false premises. One mustn’t let the Mandarins go unchallenged on their errors, even obiter, or they get cocky.

     G K Chesterton (and they who love Belloc love GKC) also wrote about Nebuchadnezzar the King of the Jews, who suffered from new and original views. The moral of the poem is that not all innovations are worthwhile, no matter how evangelically they are put forward. Possibly this is also applicable to commenters on LR.

304. @Wax Lyrical – so you have no reliable evidence at all apart from your own judgement?

305. @ Greg I’m guessing it has to do with a German’s invention made compulsory in London 109 years ago, if road transport related? I think displayed prices in shops & for theatre tickets are earlier, as are railway fares.

306. WL
     Err … no.
     [ Talking of “own judgements” ]
     I think H Belloc wonderfully inventive & still-topical ( Like W S Gilbert)
     But, I’ve steadily gone off Chesterton – his religiosity & jew-baiting do not appeal.

307. I think we’ve had enough about poets (and aspirants to that calling). This article is entitled “Elizabethan Style: A Look At Crossrail’s Core Stations”. Matter extraneous to such a topic may be destroyed without further warning.

     (And while we’re at it, this is not a metaphorical pub. Any attempts to serve or consume metaphorical beer will be metaphorically squashed as flat as a metaphorical pancake.)

308. @OB – and published toll charges and canal rates would push fixed prices back well into the C18. Possibly some of the mediaeval Assizes (eg the Assize of Ale) fixed prices (or at least attempted to do so) in addition to fixing measures and quality but I haven’t had time to read them all yet!

309. The Lord Protector’s “Ordinance for the Regulation of Hackney-Coachmen in London and the places adjacent” gave the Court of Aldermen power to set the rates of London taxis in 1654, as well as capping their numbers at 200. I think it’s fair to say on this evidence that Oliver Cromwell would not have approved of Uber.

     Back on topic, will any of the LUL-run Crossrail central area stations have taxi ranks?

310. OB / GH / Ian J
     Like the Uber connection … but no.
     Though it was to do with very serious road congestion.
     One of the shops on Old London Bridge tried the experiment out, as a way of cutting-down on “shopfront time” & easing the flow … it caught on very quickly.
     If I can find my book on old London Bridge, I will give you the approx date – it’s known to within a couple of years & it’s back in the 14/15th Century.

311. Ian J
     Liverpool St. Same as current Taxi rank just outside where the E end entrance is going to be (?)
     Paddington – probably not, though the moans about the present arrangement may lead to changes ….
     Bond St, I doubt it.
     TCR – where would they put one? Rely on street-hail, same as people do now, I suppose.
     Farringdon / Barbican – I doubt it – see street hail as above.
     Whitechapel .. ??

312. @Ian J – it’s not clear where you would put them. Offhand, I can’t recall any central London cab ranks that aren’t in the forecourts of mainline stations (+Baker Street). Wouldn’t the punters simply rely on a flow of cabs past the door as with any other central street?

313. Re Graham H,

     “Offhand, I can’t recall any central London cab ranks that aren’t in the forecourts of mainline stations ”

     How about London Bridge?

314. @ngh

     As far as I am aware Cannon street and the stations on the Thameslink core are the only main line stations lacking cab ranks on the premises. London Bridge does have one. But that’s not what Graham said. Are there any ranks anywhere else? I feel sure there must be – outside hotels for example?

315. Would the Savoy count?
     Also the location of another pub-quiz question’s answer that Greg will almost certainly know….

316. Graham H/Timbeau
     Are there any ranks anywhere else?
     re cab ranks – see
     https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/tfl-taxi-ranks-booklet.pdf

     for locations – there are lots!

317. @John UK – thanks for the list – many of them seem quite small which is perhaps why they get overlooked. Not sure I agree that there are “lots” of places to put a rank outside, say, Bond St or TCR or Farringdon – nearby,possibly, but the station designs show the entrances onto fairly constrained streets such as Oxford Street or busy streets such as Tottenham Court Road where space is at a premium and/or many of the available spaces are taken by terminating buses.

318. Re Timbeau,

     London Bridge’s is no longer on the forecourt hence it qualifies for Graham’s not on the forecourt criteria!

319. @ngh
     Has it moved then?
     http://www.networkrail.co.uk/London-Bridge-station-map.pdf

     That appears to be as much “on the forecourt” as, say, Waterloo’s or Victoria’s is.

320. Re timbeau,

     Yes as the taxis really struggle to get to it with site deliveries slightly reduced to that area for time being till September) and especially post Tooley Street closure a month + ago.
     There is the rank in St Thomas Street and longer term in the area on Bermondsey Street next to the listed “Shipwrights Arms” when the building work has finished on that side. (Drastically reduces right hand turns in and around the Tooley Street and Borough High Street junction)

321. The cab rank at London Bridge, as shown on the map, was operating quite happily this morning.

     Overall, though, I suspect that designating cab ranks is increasingly becoming out of date except in very specific cases where you might expect a large number of people wanting a cab to come to the same point in close order. Many of the small cab ranks are there either for historic reasons or because they are where cab drivers can get serviced, but serve no really useful purpose for customers.

322. [There is to be no more discussion of poetry, as promised. However, this message is allowed through on the grounds that, where possible (i.e. not always) we let posters answer anything they feel is denigrating them personally (without moderators necessarily agreeing that such feelings are justified). This should close the matter, notwithstanding the question mark which I have bracketed. Malcolm]

     @Graham H: since I’m being called out on my judgement, no. I gave a technical reason why the proposed attribution was implausible; I showed that my educated hunch led to at least some corroborative evidence (the additional information that there was a specific competition in which my attribution makes sense); and I demonstrated the strength of the case on the balance of probabilities, by showing that it had been published in the place where, if other evidence were available, it was most likely to have been adduced.

     I could have just asserted my answer, but I backed it up and showed my working. This is what a helpful contribution to a debate looks like, isn’t it[?] And that goes for on-topic comments, too.

323. Graham H at 1018: there’s a rank in Hanover square. I understand Hanover Sq will also contain an entrance to Bond Street Elizabeth Line station.

     Ian J re: Cromwell: the ordinance permits 300 coaches kept by 200 people. It also sets up a separate self governing body.

324. @quinlet: I suspect that designating cab ranks is increasingly becoming out of date except in very specific cases where you might expect a large number of people wanting a cab to come to the same point in close order

     I agree, but the main examples of that type of location in London are stations (and perhaps especially stations where people are arriving from airports), where the point of the rank is to enforce a queuing system for both drivers and passengers and discourage drivers from hanging around at places where they would get in the way. Crossrail stations are likely to have more luggage-encumbered Heathrow passengers than the typical tube station (and also more passengers arriving at once) so there will be some demand for onward car transport be it by taxi or minicab.

     Interestingly American airports are increasingly applying the rank concept to Uber* drivers too. The difference is that there is a virtual, rather than physical, queue: drivers entering a designated area are allocated first-come-first-serve to passengers but don’t have to physically queue and are kept away from the airport itself until they have a customer.

     *Other smartphone minicab apps are available.

325. Cab ranks are provided at main line termini because the railway does not penetrate to the city centre so another means is needed to complete the journey (or to transfer to another terminus for cross city journeys). Crossrail does penetrate the city centre and will therefore do much of the distribution itself, so a cab rank at each and every station should not be necessary. The two existing ones at Paddington and Liverpool Street should be sufficient for those who do need to complete their journey by taxi.

326. Re Ian J,

     Heathrow and Uber have implemented that for the past few week at Heathrow too with physical Uber holding pen… (And stopped Uber drivers in other (residential) areas being able to be shown as available)

327. Cab ranks are also for rest & refreshment of drivers.
     Ian J I think you mean marshalling of customers.

328. Timbeau respectfully disagree with your argument but not your conclusion. Central Activity Zone (CAZ) destinations may well be more easily & cheaply reached from Bond St or Farringdon in a taxi than Paddington or Liverpool Street. Especially with luggage (professional samples, models, etc). Other use cases, eg small children, disability may apply.

     However I don’t believe these add up to the need for a dedicated rank at each exit of each of the stations between Farringdon and Bond Street (inclusive).
     I’m open to being shown to be wrong either by modelling or experience.

329. @OB
     I said “will do much of the distribution”. There will be occasionally users of taxis to/from intermediate stations (as indeed there may be to/from any Tube station), but not enough to justify a permanent rank

330. timbeau apart from the existing one in Hanover Sq. Fair point – but we won’t know how ppl will use the new facility until it opens.

331. @OB -the central CrossRail stations all debouch into busy thoroughfares where the wait for a taxi is usually very short (except of course when it’s raining or you’re late).

     Some of the ranks listed in John UK’s paper seem not to be places where hirers are made very welcome (is this a difference between “Rest” and “Refreshment” stands? Maybe the presence of a cabman’s shelter is indicative? The list doesn’t seem to explain at all clearly.)

332. Graham,
     This appears to be the definition Taxi ranks are provided for the purpose of helping the public access taxi services and must not be used for parking. The exception to this is where there is a designated rest or refreshment rank. Drivers are permitted to leave their taxis on a rest rank for a maximum of 60 minutes and on a refreshment rank for a maximum of 45 minutes. All drivers using refreshment ranks must use the facilities of the refreshment shelter when it is open. All designated rest and refreshment ranks are listed in the table below:

     All those that are not Rest and/or Refresment ranks also appear to be called Working ranks on occasion.
     The lists note those which are multipurpose ranks.

333. @John UK – thank you; yes, I saw that but – with a nod to the lawyers amongst us – I really couldn’t make “regulatory” sense of what it said. For example, the second sentence could be read as meaning that the purpose described in the first sentence doesn’t apply to R&R ranks, an interpretation supported perhaps by the additional class of “working ranks”. Nothing is said about the obligation -or not – to ply for hire on the different types of rank, although the permission to leave the cab at the R&R ranks implies no obligation to be available – something personal observation suggests is usually the case.

334. I should have added that anyone wanting to suggest new ranks – outside Elizabeth Line stations or otherwise – should go to
     https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/taxi-ranks

     and scroll down.
     ———
     @Graham H – 7 June 2016 at 13:45

     Not being a lawyer I’d suggest that the common-sense interpretation is that there is no obligation at the R&R ranks to pick up. (Anecdotally I seem once to recall going into a cab shelter and asking if anyone wanted a fare – but that was more than forty years ago!)
     But note that some ranks are R&R part of the day, working ranks the rest of the day.

335. I thought ‘debouch’ might be a made up word, but I should’ve considered the source – Graham H:

     debouch – to emerge from a narrow or confined space into a wide, open area.

336. There are several practical and policy issues arising with the recent interesting trend of discussion. As timbeau has indicated, historically main line users whether suburban or long distance have benefited from surface transport distribution interchanges (easy or otherwise) at the various London termini ringing Central London.

     The Circle, District and Metropolitan lines also achieve a good degree of surface distribution because of their frequent intersections with termini, while of course the Met considered itself a mini-main line at places such as Baker Street. Passing tubes also gained some advantage.

     The tubes changed the underlying nature of the distribution offer. Some tubes such as the Bakerloo and W&C were explicitly about attracting such distribution flows underground, though there might still be some desire for onwards distribution even from places such as Bank! They tended to rely heavily on passengers exiting any station and hoping for hail-and-ride if there weren’t a rank.

     Fast forward to now and the future, and we see increasingly subterranean main line flows, including some outer commuting. Moorgate in the 1970s (GN) and 1980s (Midland), Thameslink (now being greatly expanded) and the Crossrails are the emerging future. Locations such as Whitechapel, Farringdon and Tottenham Court Road could be just as much a main line ‘London Farringdon’ and ‘London TCR’, etc, or more so, with future passenger usage, as classic UndergrounD stations.

     Add in expectations about the quality and availability of mobility impaired travel (where it doesn’t matter whether main line or metro in origin), and it is worth considering whether London should continue to focus largely on guaranteed rail-taxi interchange along the historic ring of termini. It might also be considered unreasonable to require mobility impaired users to forego the opportunity (and cost effectiveness) of fast rail access within the central zone.

     If some policy change were merited, then there would be the interesting choice of where would be practical. They don’t necessarily have to be the Thameslinks and Crossrails of the future, though some practicalities might point in that direction. Interchange to reach the remoter interstices of the West End and City might suggest several deserving stations such as Tottenham Court Road (CR1, future CR2) and Farringdon (TL, CR1), though competition for use of the local streets might well be considerable! Does, for example, Hanover Square (Bond Street) provide some West End access capability. I recall a taxi rank of some sort there in past years.

337. @John UK -I imagine you got something of a frosty reception! I agree about the commonsense view but it does rather beg the question of what the classification means for the travelling public. The niceties of the distinctions are not made visible to the them except via a swathe of unlit “for hire ” signs…

     @LBM – and I naively thought that all Canadians were well versed in Gallicisms …

338. @Jonathan Roberts – maybe the point – these days – of the rank is not so much the convenience of the potential hirers (who could be served by passing vehicles) but the avoidance of congestion caused by large numbers of on-street cabs converging on a single point of heavy demand. Perhaps, therefore, it doesn’t matter if some of your “quasi-terminals” where demand is less perhaps than the traditional railway terminus are served from the street?

339. @GH

     Our version of French is unique and uses many words from 300 years ago that have passed out of usage in France. But sadly not all Canadians are bilingual…

340. @GH
     Maybe, but if mobility impaired – as I was very recently for several weeks! – then I’d desire some certainty that station ‘A’ or interchange ‘B’ guaranteed a facility…

341. @JR – I entirely understand that, having myself been disabled for a few months a while back. What can’t be guaranteed (and this is something we learn quickly out here in the sticks) is that the provision of a rank is a guarantee at all that there will be any vehicles sitting around on it for hire. Back in NSE days, we did a certain amount of research into the Dutch Taxi-train scheme which guaranteed the availability of a taxi at a destination (and for which you would prepay with a voucher purchased at the same time as your train ticket); one of the problems was that guarantee. The next step down in terms of provision was the designation of a rank but without any guarantee (and in most country areas the thing had slid away into a board with a phone number if you were lucky). I think we concluded that the rank/no guarantee option was about as much management effort as we could put into it at the time. Whether you get a better frequentation of the street than a designated rank in central London (other than at the points of heaviest demand) is unclear.

342. @GH
     Understood. I only proposed a facility. Not a guaranteed vehicle, though that would be very nice. In Central London, I’d trust that something in the form of a vehicle (let’s not state if a T or a Ü or even a P[ed-shaw]) wouldn’t be too long in coming, given the likely supply of rail-originating or rail-heading users!
     After all, this isn’t Dawlish…

343. No, we rely on the equivalent of Jno Robinson…

344. Jonathan Roberts, Graham H: perhaps part of the answer is to book ahead using 21st century technology, at least if Crossrail keeps its promise to keep us on line down the hole?

345. Graham H @ 21:19 on 7 June: assuming you mean John Robinson (1856-1943), who designed:

     4-4-0 ‘Improved Director’ GCR Class 11F No. 506 Butler–Henderson (Later BR No. 62660), which is preserved at the National Railway Museum, York, and currently on display at Barrow Hill Roundhouse, near Chesterfield, Derbyshire (source: Wikipedia)
     You might prefer Victoria Butler-Henderson as your chauffeur of choice!(if available, which I concede is unlikely)

346. @OB: perhaps part of the answer is to book ahead using 21st century technology

     Probably so, but then where do you arrange to meet your car? Would some kind of pre-designated pick-up spot help both you and your driver?

347. @OB – no, not him at all but the taxi driver who is occasionally mentioned as conveying guests to Blandings Castle.

     Back on the res, as Bertie Wooster would have said, the inhabitants of various side streets near Heathrow have been very publicly complaining about their use as informal virtual cab ranks in recent months so modern technology may not solve the problem quite as expected.

348. OB
     HERE
     … and HERE too!

349. Graham H: apols. Re Thief Row, ngh has reported (either up-thread or elsewhere on this site) that Uber have cooperated with the authorities and don’t allow drivers whose GPS coordinates put them in the residential streets to show on the system as “available”. There is also an Uber customers’ ‘pen’, ngh reports.

350. Is there anywhere else I can find pictures of the early 1990s Crossrail designs?

351. This seems the best place to mention that the Crossrail website has published lots of photos of architectural finishes at the stations today

352. Malcolm 4 June 2016 at 21:00

     “Graham H says “The trouble with economics is that we have been in thrall to a series of directly conflicted theories…””

     “The point of economic forecasts is to make astrology seem respectable”.
     J K Galbraith, “The Great Crash 1929”.

353. @Alan Griffiths 🙂

354. Article worrying that there aren’t enough escalators on crossrail.

     http://www.citymetric.com/transport/i-m-very-worried-crossrail-doesn-t-have-enough-escalators-3359

355. @Rational Plan – this is possibly in the category of fake news, as it rests on the assumption that half a train full disembarks at the same station. I think TfL might be given some credit for making an effort (a) to estimate the numbers boarding and alighting, and (b) to take safety into account in station design. [That said, the conventional estimate for escalator capacity is or was 3600 pax/hr, far below the study estimate – but then, it is an Indian study, where western norms are hardly like to apply…]

356. That study argues that loads of people will get off at Liverpool St on trains arriving from metropolitan Essex – because that’s what they do now. Seems to ignore the whole point of Crossrail, namely enabling folk who have other destinations further west to get there without switching to a tube or bus.

357. IslandDweller: Doesn’t this depend on the value of “loads of”? For perfectly good reasons unrelated to heritage issues, many people arriving on Crossrail from the east will get off at Liv-St-Moorgate because their office or other destination is nearby, or at any rate, nearer to that station than any other Crossrail station. Focus on the dreaded Wharf (or on “Midtown”) should not be taken as meaning that all the offices in The City have suddenly disappeared.

358. Liv St crossrail platforms will also have an exit at the Moorgate end, thus twice as many escalators as the article calculated.

359. People in London move around until they can afford to settle on a particular station that takes them directly (if possible) to their job. Plenty of stations have over half of their pasengers walking to their final destination. Their is a lovely series of maps floating around somewhere that sub divides London into little squares, Each one shows the numbers of passengers from a particular London terminal to each square, whether by foot, bus, a particular tube line. Not only do all the city terminals have most of their customers walk to their offices, huge numbers do the same from Victoria, Charing Cross and Euston.

     Of the three branches of Crossrail, only the Great Eastern line, has huge numbers disembarking in the City.

360. rational plan,

     My opinion is that this is incredibly sloppy amateurish research. The sort that drives the professionals nuts for its oversimplification and the ridiculous amount of publicity it gets. I didn’t think there could be any species lower than a crayonista but I am starting to revise my feelings.

     As others have already pointed out, even if someone works within walking distance of Liverpool St, there will be the exit at Moorgate which will be closer for many.

     I also strongly suspect there are lots of people who don’t work around Liverpool Street who currently choose to change there simply because the interchange at Stratford onto the Central line is becoming ridiculously crowded. This will include a lot of people whose inward journey will not be on the Elizabeth line. No allowance seems to be made for them changing at Stratford in future.

     Finally, this extremely simplistic bit of research fails to take into account that there will be a residual peak period service from Gidea Park to Liverpool St High Level. Nowhere in the crude calculations have they subtracted 4 tph trainsful of people who would probably use these trains as a preferred option if they really did work near Liverpool St. I believe that would make a substantial difference to the calculations.

361. Haha, delighted to see this being discussed on these pages. The piece is clearly framed as a single amateur opinion, not a research study, and should be treated as such.

     Still, I did factor in the Moorgate exit, that’s provides three of the six escalators serving the platforms. I continue to not understand how nine are needed at Central and Victoria line equivalent stations, while this line with a vastly higher potential capacity should be built with fewer, and no passive provision – that I can see – for later improvements (despite the passive provision to increase the service volume via longer and more frequent trains).

     From your great ’90 second railway’, “there comes a point where frequency is not about how many trains you can squeeze through the tunnels, but about how quickly you can get passengers onto and clear of, the platforms.” There’ll be no point having built that passive provision for more capacity if it can’t be used, because the platform access can’t keep up.

362. I agree that the author of this report is probably wrong, for the reasons already given. But I don’t really share the alarm at it being published. It strikes me as good that someone is taking a look at such questions, and trying, however amateurishly, to challenge accepted figures. Given the design effort put into Crossrail – enormous effort by (I believe) well-organised teams of experts, a mistaken attack like this one should be able to be shrugged off with little long-term effect. Such things are the price we pay for having a free press.

363. Oh, and of course “fake news” it is not. That repulsive phrase is generally taken to refer to deliberate attempts to mislead the public. This article may well mislead, but the author seems perfectly sincere and not malicious.

364. Malcolm,

     Not disagreeing with any of that really but it’s the idea that this hasn’t all been planned for and extensively modelled that gets me. In fairness to James, I hadn’t read the article as carefully as I should have done – those maddening pop-ups and other stuff made it very difficult to read and I tried to pick up on the major points before the screen suddenly moved. He had done more to emphasise that this was his personal musings more than research that was definitely correct than I gave credit for.

     Experts do get things wrong but I think it is highly unlikely in this case.
     Basic rule: Empirical evidence trumps anecdotal evidence.

     However equally well, James could have stood and at platform 5 at Stratford in the morning peak (or platform 8 in the evening peak ) and note that the loading on the TfL Rail service is much lighter immediately east of Stratford than it is between Stratford and Liverpool Street and, by the time you have taken into account the future Gidea Park – Liverpool St (High Level) service, conclude that there is probably a massive overprovision of escalators at Liverpool St/Moorgate.

     Anyway, what is the worse that can happen? Let’s presume James is correct. Assuming they haven’t scrapped all the Class 315 they could even temporarily beef up the Gidea Park – Liverpool St (High Level) service a bit. The could probably manage 6tph rather than 4tph currently planned on the basis that that 6tph was what was originally planned. It was reduced down to 4tph on the basis that analysis should that 6tph really wasn’t needed. By the time these are 9-car 205m Crossrail trains in December 2019, even at 4tph I would have thought that would be enough to see the problem go away. If it appears to still be a problem then, as a last resort, purchase of another two class 345 trains, available as an option in the contract, to permanently enhance the Gidea Park – Liverpool St (High Level) service really should fix things.

365. @Malcolm -yes, he is sincere – in his ignorance. We all know the “surely” and “it is reasonable” arguments from our neighbourhood crayonistas. And even academics rely on peer review rather than a single published report (and that 15 years old). And even half decent journos bother to check their facts (eg the Victoria Line most certainly wasn’t full and nor were its escalators when it opened). No basis to rubbish TfL professionals therefore; I wouldn’t try and defend the indefensible if I were you…

366. Can I throw in a link here to STRATFORD STATION – FIT FOR FOOTBALL? Document type: Technical Paper Charles Harmer BArch MSc, ICE 31/08/2016?

     It certainly demonstrates the amount of real data that TfL and Crossrail are using to plan the network. and it’s certainly more sophisticated than the above-mentioned blog.

367. I fear I have started a bit of a feeding frenzy over what probably was never intended to be classified as serious research. A bit of a pity it gets picked up and almost presented as such though.

     I really don’t want to twist the knife having being one of those putting it in but the article is misleading in a number of other ways.

     Amongst the somewhat misleading suggestions:

     1) It is true that some Victoria line stations had some escalator barrels contain fixed stairs in the middle. However, far from being a planning failure, this was an excellent bit of passive provision in the face of a pressure to cut costs. It always was the intention that these would converted to escalators if the need arose. With the current day cost just in electricity of around £35,000 a year to run an escalator, this seems an excellent piece of forward planning.

     Next we will be told that passive provision for escalators at Pudding Mill Lane DLR station was a planning failure because the escalators should have been put in from day one.

     If they had built the escalator barrels only large enough for two escalators that would have been a failure to plan.

     In the case of Victoria station itself, there certainly was cost-cutting but if the job had been specified as desired then the whole project would probably have been abandoned as too expensive. However, be under no illusion, my limited experience suggests that the new entrance is little used. Furthermore, even one escalator is more than enough to transport everyone to the Victoria line platforms given that there is a limit to how many people can get on the trains – same at London Bridge on the Jubilee line.

     2) I don’t know the exact circumstances of North Greenwich but it was far from obvious that there would inevitably be a large demand. Just look at how many years it too for the land to be developed around Canada Water.

     So either the enhancements mentioned mean that escalators replace fix stairs (no big deal – see above) or a new escalator barrel had to be built. If the latter then there are unlikely to much cost savings by doing it as part of the original station. Canary Wharf had a second entrance built/enhanced years later and in that case too the benefit of doing the work at the time of building the line would have been limited.

     3) The case of inadequate escalators between the East London line and the Jubilee line at Canada Water is a complex issue for which TfL Rail, as masters of London Overground, have no simple answer. It would be relatively easy to provide more escalators, and this has been looked at, but that doesn’t fix the problem. In fact, the fear is that it will make it worse. The restriction in the down direction in the morning is beneficial because it helps stops the Jubilee line platforms getting overcrowded.

     I fear the tone of the article reminds me of 1960s road planning where a bottleneck was found and it was thought that removing that bottleneck would solve a problem. All it did was move that bottleneck somewhere else. In fact, when it comes to Crossrail, they have worked hard to avoid these. They have even deliberately not joined the Hanover Square entrance to Oxford Circus tube station for fear of creating a below ground bottleneck – caused not be escalators but by people from big trains wanting to get onto little trains that are already full.

368. @PoP – I’m sorry , I didn’t mean to stir it; it’s simply that these days the world is full of people who think their uninformed and unresearched opinion is better and more valuable than that of experts or professionals, nor are they ashamed to loose off to that effect on any and all social media.

369. Graham H,

     I share your frustration. Unfortunately we also have the situation nowadays where objective reports are also cherry picked by politicians to back up their ideological beliefs. So witness the Foreign Secretary’s misuse of government statistics or the way various MPs (of all parties) quoted parts of the Gibb report, not in its full context, to ‘prove’ their point.

     At the same time, I feel I was a little harsh from the outset on someone who, arguably, was only raising an issue. Although, there did seem to be rather a lot of jumping to conclusions both on the topic in hand and the reasons for what were seen as past shortcomings.

370. Briantist @ 7 October 2017 at 12:32

     “Can I throw in a link here to STRATFORD STATION – FIT FOR FOOTBALL? Document typ…?”

     I read that and two points struck me
     1) very little new investment suggested, and that was additional stairs to platforms 3/5 and 6/8 (additional stairs before the Olympic Games were built very slowly)
     2) LU has been adamantly against naming the subways, yet the research document does that, for the excellent reason that its the only way to be clear which part of the station the author is referring to.

371. As we’ve mentioned Stratford here is a little snippet from the Q1 17/18 Investment Programme Report

     “Station capacity

     An early feasibility study is under way to address capacity issues at Stratford, both
     immediately and in the long term.”

     So someone has realised there are issues that need resolution and sooner rather than later. That rather indicates some considerable concern about the scale of local development and the ability of the station to cope with more population, employment and journey growth. It’ll be interesting to see what emerges as possible solutions.

372. Briantist @ 7 October 2017 at 12:32

     “Can I throw in a link here to STRATFORD STATION – FIT FOR FOOTBALL? Document typ…?”

     A third point belatedly struck me:
     3) no discussion of a “third peak”, as they called in in 2012, and whether or not to run extra trains from Liverpool Street after West Ham United home games and other big events at the stadium.

373. The other issue around the Elizabeth Line opening is changes to bus routes. People who currently get buses to the District line at East Ham or Plaistow from the south may well find it quicker to get a bus to Custom House instead.
     TfL consultation document implies that it is not yet possible to terminate and turn buses at Custom House station.
     Newham Council staff think that is possible with the present roads.

374. Alan G – I think Custom House is a battle between Newham and TfL over some land and road space. TfL want a specific number of bus stands and have framed part of the consultation changes as being inhibited by the lack thereof. Clearly Newham are reluctant to cede the land and road space on a permanent basis to TfL. It will be interesting to see how things pan out given there is oodles of space down the road at Prince Regent for buses to stand but, of course, the local road network in that area isn’t really designed for a lot of buses shuttling back and forth between Custom House and Prince Regent. With the delightful benefit of hindsight it looks like Crossrail built their local station in the wrong place – either Prince Regent or Canning Town would have been more effective in terms of interchange.

375. Walthamstow Writer 9 October 2017 at 18:25

     “TfL want a specific number of bus stands” is news to me.

     The southern end of Normandy Terrace, in Freemasons Road, is to be demolished, but probably not before station opening. There are still two resident leaseholders and one business to be relocated.

376. @ Alan G – the need for stands is implied from the proposals for services to be rerouted to terminate at Custom House plus the 330 which “may” have to terminate at a roundabout some distance “unless Newham Council can provide the stand space we need”. Words to that effect are all in the East London Crossrail bus consultation (now closed for responses) as I am sure you know. I’ve read too many TfL consultation documents not to be able to detect what’s really being said.

377. AG / WW
     HERE is a pre-rebuild view of Custom House – ignore the station, please look at the roads.
     Freemasons Rd is the one joining the road parallel to the railway close to the centre of the station.
     Since, once, you have the image up, you can zoom & scan, you can all judge if Prince Regent or Canning Town would have been “better”.
     IMHO – Canning Town was/is “not on”, because it’s too close to the Lea, but I’m still suprised, given the size of ExCel that the CR1 station isn’t double-ended, with interchanges to both Custom Ho & Prince Regent.
     As WW says … isn’t hindsight wonderful …..

378. Walthamstow Writer,

     With the delightful benefit of hindsight it looks like Crossrail built their local station in the wrong place – either Prince Regent or Canning Town would have been more effective in terms of interchange.

     But Custom House is where the station needs to be! Prince Regent is a non-starter because of the need to align with the approach to Connaught Tunnel. Did you mean Royal Victoria? Canning Town would be quite a deviation and would need a very expensive deep level station. Furthermore, Custom House serves ExCel in a way that cannot be done otherwise.

     More to the point, there is an issue of what is wanted v was is easy. You can suggest the cop-out option but I would argue the important thing is to get it right for the long term. If Newham won’t co-operate then there are ways around that if it really important. If every transport plan was modified to a sub-optimal solution to appease a dissenting party then we would have a terrible transport system.

     I would argue that Custom House without a perfect bus network is better than anything else – even if it has a better bus interchange.

379. Greg Tingey 9 October 2017 at 20:00

     “AG / WW
     HERE is a pre-rebuild view of Custom House – ignore the station, please look at the roads.”

     Aerial photo useful, but more than a little out of date.

     Let me update you:

     1) pub on NW corner of Victoria Dock Road and Freemasons Road, demolished and replace by station entrance. Crossrail published a photo of the opening of a lift and a staircase and I’m in it.
     2) space to west of the junction will all be available once no longer needed for Crossrail construction.
     3) May Wynne House (block of flats with 4 chimneys, at eastern end of Murray Square) demolished and fenced off. Site available as soon as required,
     4) Normandy Terrace (maisonettes and shops on west side of Freemasons Road) is the only part of the future bus station site that is Newham Council’s and not yet available. The southern part (about a quarter, up to the passage where a blue wall can be seen) is to be demolished. There are still one business and two resident leaseholders to be relocated before the demolition can begin. Slightly complicated by the fact the that business is run by one of the resident leaseholders.

     Next steps:
     1) TfL to respond to question asked by Assembly Member Unmesh Desai.
     2) serious detailed discussion between TfL and Newham staff to make good bus connections happen.

     People south of the Docks and in the southern part of Plaistow and East Ham will need buses to Custom House station and therefore they need this to work.

Comments are closed.