On 29/05/2010 15:39, MIG wrote:
On 29 May, 15:35, lonelytraveller
wrote:
On 26 May, 03:14, Alistair wrote:



On May 25, 7:49 am, lonelytraveller

wrote:
[long discussion about rebuilding Bank station]

Because it doesn't involve building any concourse that wouldn't
already be built in some form, and doesn't involve building an
entirely new northern line concourse, it may well actually save money,
rather than cost it.

I can't see why you think it has disadvantages?

I was extremely sceptical when I read your first post. I'm still
sceptical but now I see where you're going.

I think the key point is that IF the DLR extension to Charing Cross
happens, then these other side benefits get unlocked. And I think
that's true.

They would never rebuild the station just for the DLR's benefit. If
the DLR extension happens first, it would always be a completely new
branch, bypassing the station meaning that there would only be half as
many DLR trains heading to bank.

Not really. Tower Gateway would be abandoned, replaced by a new
station on the existing line towards Bank where the provision was
made. The lines would branch beyond.

Then the Bank/Tower Gateway split would become a Bank/Charing Cross
split.


Rebuilding bank IS a confirmed plan
for a 2025 target completion date. All I'm suggesting is that the
rebuilding should happen a certain way which aids the possibility of a
future DLR extension, with other side benefits, rather than a way
which ignores them.

But it's far from clear that the gradient profile of the Northern
would permit one tunnel to be put under the other at Bank -- it may,
but it's a lot more complex than just moving a tunnel sideways, as
they did at Angel and London Bridge. It should be fine at the northern
end given that one tunnel dives under the other there anyway (so you
just connect the lower tunnel to the one that dives under) but the
southern end may be trickier, especially as you'd be messing with
tunnels under the Thames.

I'm not sure I follow your logic. How is a new tunnel BELOW the
existing one a problem under the Thames? Are you suggesting that the
Thames flows under the existing tunnel rather than above it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Are there any plans for Balham or Clapham South, on the Northern Line?