http://cdn.londonreconnections.com/logos/logo_light.png

TfL have confirmed the launch details for the new Cable Car linking Greenwich and the Royal Docks.

We have written about the Cable Car throughout its slightly troubled gestation, and will be returning to the subject in detail next week in line with the launch. In the meantime, however, it is now possible to confirm both operating hours and the initial price point.

In terms of launch date, TfL have confirmed that it will open to passengers at midday on Thursday 28th – a date that we will happily admit has exceeded our expectations. After that, opening hours will be as follows:

  • 0700 to 2100 Mondays – Fridays
  • 0800 to 2100 on Saturdays
  • 0900 to 2100 on Sundays

These standard services will be augmented with earlier and/or later running for special events, including the Olympics.

Fares and Ticketing

A basic fares table is included below, but the fare structure seems to be slightly more complex than might be hoped. Although Oyster discounts are supported, journeys on the Cable Car won’t contribute to the daily cap and – at least at first glance – won’t be covered by a travelcard itself. TfL’s announcement also seems to suggest that it won’t necessarily be as simple as rolling up and tapping on:

A single fare boarding pass using Oyster pay as you go for the Emirates Air Line will cost £3.20 (child fare £1.60). Passengers with a Travelcard or other Oyster cards (including Freedom Passes) will be able to fly for the same fare but will need to buy a boarding pass from ticket offices or vending machines which are available at both terminals, Emirates Greenwich Peninsula and Emirates Royal Docks.

The price point itself, whilst not entirely unreasonable, does seem to highlight once again that the Cable Car is a system not entirely sure of its audience. It is priced slightly too high for a commuter journey but cheap for a tourist attraction (especially thanks to the roundtrip option). The inclusion of a multi-fare option (which much be used within 12 months) will mitigate the cost for anyone who does find themselves using it regularly, but such a user will almost certainly still need to purchase a travelcard for the rest of their journey as well, so this will still be an additional charge over what they’re currently paying.

Full fare details are included below.

Cash single fare Fare for Oyster pay as you go users, Travelcard & Freedom Pass holders Frequent flyer ticket (10 journeys)
Adult boarding pass £4.30 £3.20 £16.00
Child boarding pass £2.20 £1.60 n/a
jump to the end
There are 64 comments on this article
  1. Anonymous says:

    Look closely at the press release and you’ll see there is a form of a weekly cap where 5 or more journeys in a week are charged at £1.60 per ride. I suspect that the Airline’s ticketing system is separate from other TfL systems and while it can take cash from an Oyster card for payment purposes it cannot record the journey on an Oyster card itself. I assume that the Airline ticketing (Boarding Card!) system will record the Oyster card number and if 5 (or more) uses in a week are recorded then a credit will be applied to the PAYG balance. I dare say it will all become clear in 10 days time.

  2. John Bull says:

    Yeah – that’s the multi-ticket thing. I do think that brings the price down to a relatively “commutable” level (although I’m still not sure how much of an audience it’ll attract for that), but the boarding pass process may deter that.

    Like you say, we’ll have to wait and see really.

  3. Simon in Battersea says:

    The 9pm finishing time prevents the thing being used for concert goers at the 02 or Excel. I would have thought this would have been one of the main uses??

  4. Anonymous says:

    @ JB – I don’t think it is you know. The multi ride is £16 for 10 trips in a year. The pricing table in the press release has an asterisk against the £3.20 fare with a footnote pointing to a weekly form of cap.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Is it correct that this scheme and the vanity Routemasters provide a sum total of transport ‘enhancements’ on Boris’ watch? (I don’t actually think this had much to do with Boris). Much better achievement than those rubbish DLR extensions and the east london line……

  6. Anonymous says:

    (now I’ve started wondering about the chronology of Crossrail…..)

  7. jamesup says:

    Not even an oyster option? That’s pretty poor. As with the Boris Bikes – oh that’d be a bit hard so lets not bother. Except, that wouldn’t be hard, just create a zone for it.

    As with HS1 and HEX (and Gatwick Express) – why does anyone persist on demanding paper tickets in this age?

    I’ll go on it once, I’m sure, and then it’ll be jubilee and DLR for any relevant journeys that I need to make…

  8. Greg Tingey says:

    So
    A complete rip-off
    It doesn’t even vaugely really “connect” with anything, since the terminals are a LONG walk to the nearest stations (relatively speaking.)

    [Mod Note: Unnecessary uncivily removed - no need for sweeping statements Greg - JB]

  9. Dave says:

    Fly?
    Yet another bastardisation of the English Language.

  10. NLW says:

    @ Simon in Battersea

    The PR states: There will be extended opening hours when there are events at the local venues, including Olympic events. Details of the extended hours will be announced nearer the time.

    I presume the O2 has events pretty much 7/52 though?

  11. Anonymous says:

    Will they accept airmiles?

  12. Anonymous says:

    Replace “fly” with “dangle” and it reads rather more amusingly. They seem to have just nicked the PR used at the launch of the British Airways London Eye as was.

    B

  13. Anonymous says:

    What though if the contraption is a terrific success (takes off?). Will there be appraisals of an orbital network? Dangle hubs? Encroachment into the Northern Heights?

  14. Anonymous says:

    @ Anon 8.21. If you look on the TfL website – http://www.emiratesairline.co.uk/ – you will find web pages that show the amazing sights and attractions on the north and south banks served by the Dangleway. I wasn’t aware that the Dangleway stretched into the West End and to Brixton :-)) Perhaps your orbital network already exists?

  15. Anonymous says:

    Thanks anon @8.59. Given me a whole new perspective! What with circus tent, ferris wheel, wobbly bridge, Ol****c helter skelter and dangleway I am convinced that Aldwych ghost train and boris pedlo hire are on their way.

  16. Greg Tingey says:

    Building this thing even vaguely close to the approach to LC Airport is a really risky hostage to fortune.

    As for the advertising PR & misuse of the language, well ……

  17. Rogmi says:

    I see that:
    “there will be the option to take a non-stop return journey.
    This ’360 degree tour’ will cost £6.40 with Oyster. ”
    So no discount for a return trip. I assume that you’ll have to buy a return ticket before boarding.

  18. Fandroid says:

    ‘Boarding Card’ Oh so much more romantic (or redolent of airport delays?) than boring old ‘Ticket’ ! No worries, Londoners won’t be fooled and the Boreding Cards will probably have to be bought in a ‘Ticket Machine’. I just hope they aren’t as cranky as Lufthansa or BA self-service check-ins.

    My guess is they are using standard cable-car/gondola technology and the gates will use bar-code scanners or whatever standard contactless detection is in use in zillions of similar installations all over the mountains of Europe. It’s a way of bypassing any variations from the standard design that would have delayed what has actually been a remarkably swift transformation from idea to reality.

  19. James Bunting says:

    @ Jamesup

    A special zone has been created for it to show that it is not part of the normal tariff zones.

    http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/london-rail-and-tube-services-map.pdf

    As no one seems entirely sure of the target market things may change later on. One thing that does not seem clear to me is how (season) Travelcard holders, who might be the most likely commuters, will be able to get a frequent traveller rebate unless they know to go to the trouble of getting additional PAYG credit loaded in advance.

  20. Greg Tingey says:

    Today’s “Diamond Geezer”
    http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.co.uk/
    Gives it a thorough reaming, considerably better than I could, or did.
    All hail the stupid, dangerous, expensive, vanity-project of the “Arabfly Dangleway” !!

  21. Anonymous says:

    In that case I’m just glad it’s sponsored by Emirates rather than Iberia. I don’t think I like the sound of the “SpanishFly Dangleway.”

  22. Luongo says:

    @ Greg Tingey

    If the Emirates Air Line was instead the El Al Air Line would you insist on referring to it as the Jewfly Dangleway?

    An expensive project with little obvious value it may be, but that doesn’t justify the use of such incendiary language.

  23. D-Notice says:

    What’s the issue with calling it “Arabfly Dangleway”?

    The airline is called Emirates because it takes its name from where they are based: the United Arab Emirates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirates_(airline)

  24. C says:

    Jewfly Dangleway would be fine…on’t be so prim.

    I’m surprised it already hasn’t evolved into the Dangleberry.

  25. IslandDweller says:

    ” Building this thing even vaguely close to the approach to LC Airport is a really risky hostage to fortune. ”
    er – why would that be Greg? If you look at the approach (remember it is a steep 5.5 degree approach, not the usual 3 degree approach), the planes come nowhere near the dangleway wires. If a plane is so low as to be anywhere near those wires – well there are be plenty of other pre-existing hazards to worry about – such as the bridge across the dock by Excel.
    I’m not claiming that the dangelway is a sensible addition to the transport network – but on the other hand it is no hazard to aviation.

  26. Anonymous says:

    why bother using this cable car when you can go on the DLR to Canning Town and then get the jubilee line to North Greenwich – the pricing structure appears aimed at fleecing tourists, business people etc.

    /

  27. Anonymous says:

    It’s probably quicker than tube/dlr?

  28. Anonymous says:

    re “It’s probably quicker than tube/dlr?” – but it ain’t going to be cheaper is it?

  29. Greg Tingey says:

    Luong – I suggest you go and re-read Diamond Geezer’s comments on the Dangleway – HE called it that, and now everyone’s doing it! { HINT: Don’t you recognise mocking sarcasm, at this expensive, useless vanity project? }
    Furthermore there is a discussion over there about hypersensitive delicate little flowers like yoursef, and the use of language. I recommend you go and read it.

    “Quicker” ….. Actually, if you include the walks at each end, from station-to-station, it is usually going to quicker to use the DLR/Jubilee. ( Oops! )
    Again, the excellent Diamond Geezer has already pointed this out …. and I THINK it was mentioned on here, as well.

  30. Littlejohn says:

    The term ‘Arabfly Danlgeway’ has been used so frequently, notably by Diamond Geezer and Greg but by others as well, that I think if anyone on whom it might be a personal reflection took real exception to it we would have known by now. When I was stationed in what is now the UAE (1968 – 1969) it was called the Trucial States. Can we please have a truce on this constant bickering over what people call it and get back to discussing the engineering, economics and value of it?

  31. John Bull says:

    [Mod note (don't see many of them!)]

    Sticking my “Fat Controller” hat on for a second I hereby declare “Arabfly Dangleway” an acceptable term on LR.

    Basically you won’t find me using it, mainly because I tend to feel that its a “call to emotion” and stuff like that tends to undermine people’s arguments (or suggest they’re not entirely confident in them) during a debate, but that’s something people are free to heed or not, based on their own point of view.

    Basically “Arabfly Dangleway” is thus no different from “Network Fail” or “DaFT” in that regard to my mind. You won’t catch me saying them, but doing so is eye-roll-worthy as far as I’m concerned not some slanderous (or racially motivated) act.

    But yes, if it gets bought out by Iberia next year I will expect to see people using Spanishfly Dangleway just as much. Or else!

    Now if, as Littlejohn rightly suggests, subsequent debate could focus on the project itself I’d be grateful. Further comment on the term itself may well be deleted (or at least edited out)

    [/Mod]

  32. Euloroo says:

    They said the Eiffel Tower was a complete waste of time and money and they turned out to be wrong. So maybe there’s hope for the Orbit.

    But a pseudo public transport facility built to coincide with a special event to sort of link train stations (with a bit of a walk), an entertainment venue and convention space, whilst charging a fairly stiff fair? Yup, that would be the Sydney Monorail, built for the Bicentennial in 1988 and linking the city centre with Darling Harbour for an eye-watering $5 a ride. The verdict? Only a handful of tourists use it so its being taken down next year to allow for the convention centre to be redeveloped.

  33. Anonymous says:

    Surely the main reason for building the cable car is to allow passengers stranded at North Greenwich by Jubilee line failures an easier route out of there (via the Airline and DLR) than the existing bus routes. I’m sure time and time again the barriers will be kept open with the Emirates Airline accepting valid tube tickets of all varieties on, er, one acceptable route…

  34. timbeau says:

    Could it (or indeed the DLR) cope with the crowds at the end of an event at the Dome if the Jubilee had fallen over?

  35. Littlejohn says:

    Once more following Edward Sloley’s Link http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/Part-1-Item05-Commissioners-Report-June-2012.pdf in The Secret Life of Seven Sisters (20 June 2012) I see that TfL repeats the claim, disputed by others, that the Dangleway can carry 2,500 passengers an hour in each direction. It also claims that this is equivalent to 30 buses. Not if they are Borismasters. Passenger capacity would need to be 84 per vehicle. Because of its excessive weight, the Borismaster is limited to 77 passengers maximum.

  36. Fandroid says:

    Can I be dangerously positive?

    It’s worrying that it doesn’t really connect existing transport very well. That’s reminiscent of all the almost connections that exist in London due to competition between different companies, or just one mode ignoring another (ludicrous short-termism, which actually reduced the numbers on each mode; but some folk just don’t understand how transport networks work best. In the era of Boris’s Strategic Interchanges, it’s not a good start.

    What I see as the positive bit is just how quickly it has gone from an idea to commissioning. Compare it to Crossrail ! Not in the same league, admittingly, but that took decades to obtain any sort of go-ahead, whereas this seems to have turned into reality in a couple of years.

    What I’m thinking is that if gondolas can be implemented so fast, what’s to stop more being built as a serious part of the transport infrastructure? I’m sure LR Commenters can come up with dozens of places where a link of modest length would unzip a barrier to Londoners’ ability to get about. It would be better (ie a lot cheaper!) if it’s not over the Thames downstream of London Bridge, so that the PLA can’t demand navigation clearances designed for a late 19th century windjammer.

    These sort of gondola systems have unlocked public transport nightmares in favela districts in South America, such as in Medellin. They can have a really useful function.

  37. Boris Pedelo 821 says:

    @Fandroid

    I take your point re relief regarding poor connectional faciliies and think it has some merit. Where there are no land based restraints, however, I wonder whether there is a role for lightweight shuttle connection such as the Parry peoplemover

  38. timbeau says:

    @Fandroid

    A link between Victoria and Battersea Power Station would be about the same length as the North Greenwich/Royal Victoria one, and a lot cheaper than the Northern Line Extension!

    One between Waterloo and Blackfriars would be good – since TfL insist that all the bus routes between Waterloo and St Pauls have to go via the Aldwych, instead of the much more direct and less congested route via Blackfriars Bridge.

    Maybe another to connect the HS1 and HS2 terminals at St Pancras and Euston? #

    Or for some of the longer OSIs

  39. Greg Tingey says:

    Problems with cable-cars in Central London & across the Thames.
    1] Capacity – just cannot carry enough people – see discussions above & elsewhere (especially Diamond Geezer]
    2] Crossing the river – hideously unsafe, since the river is a helicopter main route for low-flying craft in the central area – police / ambulance / heliport, etc ….
    3] If you want cheaper [*] real mass-transit options, the answer is, I’m afraid either trams or trolleybuses. Much as the RM was loved by Londoners, I am still of the opinion that getting rid of the “trolleys” was really serious mistake. They carried more people than a early RM, they were silent, and non-polluting.
    Too late now, of course.
    [*] “Cheaper” as in not as much as a deep-level tube, that is – by quite significant amounts.

  40. Fandroid says:

    Greg,

    much as I love trolleybuses, I cannot see that they offer more in the way of mass transit than a load of diesel buses. Quieter, less polluting, but not really offering any more capacity or avoiding road congestion. Trams in the UK take very long to implement, are not cheap, and have a promotion success rate of about 25%. In central London they too would be prey to road congestion and the chances of getting any segregated routes would be very slim. The only feasible segregated tram route in central London must be along the full length of Oxford Street, with all other traffic banned.

    If the 2,500 rate is real for the dangleway, then that’s not to be sniffed at if it’s slotted into a place where there is nothing at present. I’m not talking of replacing anything, just adding new links, where any additional capacity is a bonus. It would probably do for linking Walthamstow Central to Queens Road for example! (or Hackney Downs to Hackney Central – now I’m beginning to make it up as I go)

  41. Fandroid says:

    or East Acton/White City to Hammersmith Hospital and Wormwood Scrubs. Loughborough Junction to to Kings College Hospital and Denmark Hill station. West Ruislip (Central & Chiltern) to Ruislip (Metropolitan & Piccadilly). Windsor & Eton Central to Riverside. Morden to Morden South

  42. Paul Luton says:

    Any news about bicycle tickets ?

  43. Littlejohn says:

    Greg, Fandroid. In my bus-spotting youth Trolleybuses held a special place in my affections, and still do. Sadly, the economic case for their reintroduction is slim. The reason that the trolleybus was the vehicle of choice for replacing trams was primarily that although the trams (and frequently the rails) needed replacement the electrical installation – sub stations, feeders, traction standards and so on – still had plenty of life in them. So it made economic sense to make use of these for an electrically powered vehicle; particularly when the trolley seated (in London) 70 against the 56 of its diesel-engined competitor. When the trolleybus fleet needed replacement so too did all the electrical gubbins; the whole lot was time-expired simultaneously. By this time, traffic levels were falling and the 64 seats of the original RM were deemed sufficient.

    If you have to put in a whole electrical infrastructure, as you would now, you may as well put down some rails as well, and free the vehicles from traffic congestion and reliance on roads. (Or dangle some cables, I suppose).

  44. Anonymous says:

    Perhaps a more appropriate name is Boris in the Sky with Diamonds or BSD

  45. Disabled Freedom pass holder says:

    What wll be the charge for the special return trip for a disabled freedom pass holder?

    Will the cars come to a complete standstill for boarding and disembarking/

  46. Fandroid says:

    @Disabled Freedom Pass Holder

    I don’t know the details of this system, but many of those in the Alps do not stop (just go very slowly through the stations). The TfL website says that wheelchair users can use it, so we have to assume that they have thought it through. The alpine ones often have a ‘parking area’ for spare gondolas. It’s conceivable that an attendant could help a wheelchair bound person on board a parked one and then launch it into the system. It would need someone ready at the other end to do the reverse manoeuvre though!

    @timbeau

    I think Waterloo to Blackfriars would be a fantastic route. If there was an intermediate station at Tate Modern, it would be an instant hit. The Blackfriars end would have to be close(ish) to the tube station to pick up westbound transferees from the Circle/District.

    Think of the potential market- commuters, tourists heading for Tate Modern, culture vultures heading for the South Bank complex, transferees between Britain’s busiest railway station and a core station of Thameslink (with all 24 tph stopping there plus the trains using the bay platforms) .

    Greg’s helicopter crash theory can be killed off by roughly aligning it vertically with Blackfriars Bridge (and the double deck buses going over it).

    There might be problems getting airspace rights over buildings on the route. As I understand it,, these beasts have to travel in straight lines between stations. Staring out from Waterloo taxi road last night there seemed to be a gap between tall buildings if it headed past St John’s church. The demand on one in this site would probably require it to have a double cable and gondola arrangement from the start.

    I can’t wait to have a go on it!

  47. Fandroid says:

    On second thoughts I’ll leave Tate Modern out of it. Doubling back won’t be appreciated by those in a hurry, and the Blackfriars station south entrance serves that fairly well anyway.

  48. Greg Tingey says:

    Capacity
    These things just cannot carry enough people, unless you use really big cars, not the pathetic chewing-gum bubbles that the Dangleway uses.
    This was discussed, at length in the original L-R article IIRC. [ "Where Eagles Dare" ? ]

    Err. Fandroid OF COURSE they have to travel in straight (horizontal) lines between pylons! Grrrrr …..

  49. timbeau says:

    Greg – yes they need to travel in straight lines between pylons, but it should be possible to engineer something that is angled at an intermediate station. Although I know of no cable cars with an intermediate station (other than one where you change from one car to another) but I see no particular reason why it would not be possible.

    I agree with Fandroid that the intermediate stop would not be appreciated by commuters in a hurry. In any case, the commuters would probably fill the cars anyway so nobody would be able to board at TM. (A reason often given for there being no Blackfriars stop on the “Drain”)

    (What about a triangular route, reversible so that the direct Wlo-Bfrs axis matches the main commuter flows, and TM is served on the counterflow?)

  50. Anonymous says:

    @ Littlejohn – while not disputing your capacity comments someone (not you) has failed to understand that double deckers can’t get through the Blackwall Tunnel without specialist bodywork to cope with the curves in the older tunnel. Perhaps the TfL calculation was based on Boris’ hate bus – the dreaded Citaro artic?

    @ Fandroid – have you been hired as the “dangleway” consultant for the Mayor’s Transport strategy? I’ve heard about enthusiasm but I think you’ve just redefined it. :-) I know you accepted you were perhaps getting a little carried away but we do not need millions wasted on dangleways between stations that are close together like the Hackneys or Walthamstows. What would have been a million times more worthwhile would have been to use the £63m for the Dangleway to provide a bus via Blackfriars from Waterloo *and* a new entrance to Queens Rd Walthamstow *and* the long promised link between the two Hackney Stations *and* a capacity enhancement at Finsbury Park. You’d still have change left over. This is what is so disgraceful about frittering away money on a cable car – there are much better, higher benefit long term improvements that that money could have created.

    The Ngong Ping 360 cable car in Lantau in Hong Kong does change direction at turning points to allow it to climb up from the Tung Chung station then cross water and then ascend over the mountain. It also has “Crystal Cars” with glass bottoms to give a full view. Personally I think it would be utterly terrifying to use. That cable car is very popular but it does serve a genuine tourist destination – the Giant Buddha. http://www.np360.com.hk/en/

    On the subject of trams and trolleybuses – these could quite readily provide a significant boost in capacity if the service spec and vehicles are chosen properly. Given hundreds of cities worldwide – old and new – manage to provide segregated routes I do not see why London is unable to do the same. The simple fact is that at some point diesel fuel will become too expensive and we will require feasible alternatives. I do not see hybrids or hydrogen buses as providing that alternative so London’s Mayor and TfL will have to fall off their fence and spend very considerable sums to convert a lot of high demand corridors to electric power. It will also face a crisis about how to provide intermediate and low capacity routes in the suburbs that are presently run with conventional buses. Much higher cycling rates would assist but a lot of infrastructure will be needed to provide a safe and convenient network for cyclists.

  51. Littlejohn says:

    @ Anonymous 03:10PM, 25th June 2012. Tunnel buses? Yes and no. It is true that services were operated through the Blackwall and Rotherhithe Tunnels by STL class with specially constructed upper decks that sloped inwards. Passengers upstairs sat sideways, back to back down the centre. However, by the time they came to be replaced road works had made the operation of standard vehicles possible and there are plenty of photos of RTLs operating the 108. Initially they had special tyres with reinforced sidewalls to withstand the scuffing against the kerb but (relying on memory) eventually standard tyres were used.

    Whether modern double deckers would fit is another matter as they are both longer and wider. Does anyone know what operates today’s Blackwall routes – it is probably half a century since I was last in that neck of the woods.

  52. Malcolm says:

    The old Blackwall tunnel now has a height limit of 13′ 0″ or 4.0 metres. (No, these are not the same height, but there are complex rounding rules for the signs). The height detector is set at 4.0 metres plus a little allowance for bounce. The tunnel bore may be taller than this (it was once, as RTLs etc are about 14′ 6″), but if so this is now a state secret.

    Most double deckers in Britain are higher that 4.0 metres. The 108 seems to be operated by single deckers.

  53. Anonymous says:

    @Timbeau The Skyrail in Cairns Australia has an inetrmediate station if I remember correctly. All they do is the same as at the end stations ie have a slow bit where the doors open, but with no loop.

  54. timbeau says:

    The floor of the Blackwall Tunnel was raised to increase its width shortly after the southbound bore was opened.

    The 108 switched to single deck in 1968

  55. fandroid says:

    the alpine ones i have seen have only deviated from straight lines at intermediate stations not pylons. there would be unbalanced lateral forces on the tops of fairly slender towers otherwise. possible, yes, but expensive in terms of strengthened structures. transit through intermediate stations without getting off is commonplace. eg grindelwald-furst in switzerland. greg`s high demand problem can be easily solved the way it always is, by peak pricing. boris`s dangleway is at the top end of costs, partly due to it`s ludricrous height, and partly due to too much need for marine construction techniques.

  56. Greg Tingey says:

    Fandroid
    I think you are trying a wind-up. Please don’t?
    The whole point of a transport facility in a big city is to carry as much as possible. Deliberately throttling-off the “demand” is plain Upney,
    Yes, dangleways COULD be useful, with frequent large cars, over land, with lower elevations.
    Crossing the river is a problem because of flight-paths for helicopters.

  57. RG says:

    Re alpine gondolas, the main lift at Mayrhofen in Austria does have a turn at a pylon, rather than an intermediate station. It comes as quite a shock and ain’t comfortable – makes everybody fall over!

  58. Fandroid says:

    Greg,

    I cannot see how adding a new transport facility is ‘throttling off demand’. It’s already ‘throttled’ by the absence of any direct connection between Waterloo and Blackfriars (or any plans for one). Surely part of something is better than no thing? Those who want to pay will do so, the rest will do what they do now, change tubes at Embankment. Concerning helicopters – they successfully avoid all the existing bridges, including the tall and oddly shaped ones like Tower Bridge. If the cables were slung at around the same height as the neighbouring bridges (as suggested in my post of 04.35AM* 25th June) then the helicopters could cruise over it without noticing.

    However, @Anonymous 03.10PM* 25th June, (despite the uncontrollable desire to keep arguing with Greg) I have decided to resign my appointment as Boris’ Dangleway consultant. You mentioned a few things that £47M could have bought. It made me realise that a sum like that spent on London’s cycle routes would have dramatically improved the current facilities all over the city and transformed life for Londoners and visitors in a way that one gondola system a long way down the Thames never could.

    But, even though I have got on my bike, my agreed bonus will still be paid.

    * whatever happened to the 24 hr clock? (or BST even?)

  59. Greg Tingey says:

    Actually, a very large number of people who come into Waterloo, and work in the CIty just …. walk.
    The Mumblebum Bridge, between Tate Bankside and St Paul’s gets used a lot for this

  60. timbeau says:

    Greg – yes we do: or use a Boris Bike in the unlikely event that we can find one and are reasonably optimistic of being able to get rid of it again within a twenty minute walk of our destination!

    Holders of London Terminals seasons can now manage nearly half the walk from Waterloo to St Pauls under cover, thanks to the new entrance at Blackfriars (for the really lazy, you can hop on a train for the ride to City TL – little longer than he Travelator at Bank!). If you have a Zone 1 travelcard you can also use the Waterloo East-Southwark link, meaning only the short walk from Southwark station to Blackfriars Bridge is exposed to the elements

  61. Littlejohn says:

    There is a very interesting blog detailing the preparations for the grand opening on the Ian Visits blogspot here http://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2012/06/27/last-photos-of-the-cable-car-as-a-construction-site/

  62. IslandDweller says:

    Well – the views are cool – on a clear afternoon like today.
    It was a little windy this afternoon – if you’re not good with heights you may not enjoy the wobble.

    Re the earlier wheelchair discussion. My ride happened to co-incide with a chap in a wheelchair, and I shared the cabin with him. They slow down the system to a very very very slow speed, to give the wheelchair user more time to load – though I don’t think this fella needed it as he was very nifty with his motorised chair. The “attendant” insisted on strapping in the wheelchair user, which he thought was ridiculous. I have to agree – I have no idea where he was likely to go during our ride – and these systems operate happily in the Alps whilst crammed with adults all carrying sharp sticks – and no-one comes to any harm….

  63. Long Branch Mike says:

    In a previous life I was a city (low floor) bus driver, and the training was very specific to strap in wheelchairs, for safety, though in practice hardly any wheelchair user is keen on having this done cuz of the hassle & time delay. Insurance & safety reasons were cited, so we had to at least make the offer.

  64. Ian Bartlett says:

    It’s not safe and I won’t use it…I’ve seen Moonraker! Aside from that, I do have issues about its lack of integration into the Travelcard scheme; just seems like another Boris-inspired ‘integrated transport doesn’t matter’ project.

Leave a Comment

In order to make LR a pleasant place for discussion, please try to keep comments polite and, importantly, on topic! Comments that we feel do not meet these criteria, or that contain language that could cause some people trouble at work, may be moderated or deleted.

*
* (This won't be shown, but you can link it to an avatar if you like)

acceptable tags

Recent Articles

Suburban Commandos: Transport and London 2050

by

Londoners with a particular interest in politics and planning may have noticed a new phrase appear in the lexicon of both in recent months – London 2050. In this article we take a closer look at precisely what that phrase means, and how thinking is shaping up so far. For when it comes to transport infrastructure 2050 is far closer than one might think.

Crossrail: Reading the Future

by

At yesterday’s TfL Board Meeting “Crossrail Enhancements” were discussed, in a non-public session, and agreed. These enhancements were the extension of Crossrail to Reading, which will be officially announced today. That Crossrail will be extended to Reading should not be