On May 16, 5:05*am, Basil Jet wrote:
But is your plan about wider socio-economic benefits, or have you looked
at a map of closed railways and played join-the-dots?

I originally started looking at it when I begun commuting for work and
experienced a wider chunk of the network, and was bemused that orbital
travel was so poorly served, making the use of the term "network"
largely laughable. Rail-wise outside London you have a short section
of line between Bletchley-Bedford, but your first real option
including the ECML is Birmingham-Leicester-Peterborough. Looking into
bus routes and the times they take through the same congested routes
(as the cars that are the problem) only fills you with disappointment,
so looking into rail options is a natural progression. I only joined-
the-dots as it conveniently offers a few benefits, namely that for the
closed bits a majority of the existing developments tended to have
most of their growth whilst the route was still open, meaning they are
already built up, but with open(ish) corridors through them still. The
former interchange stations also tend to have good onward transport
links as they're largely still significant enough in their own right.
The still-open sections, on the other hand, have most of the same
benefits, but also offer simplification of service patterns. I'm sure
NXEA would like to lose the Hertford branch, much as LM want to lose
the St. Albans branch, though I suspect TfL would want to keep the
Watford branch, even if to only ran to Watford Junction. Through
services are operationally much more economic than multiple short
branches.

Additionally, something that was stated in a discussion on East-West
Rail is also pertinent; in this day and age of journey planners and
their ilk, if passengers are told that this line is the quickest/
cheapest route, they'll take it, even if it isn't obvious to them at
the outset.