wrote:
On 12.06.17 20:17, Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 18:49:33 +0100, "
wrote:

On 12.06.17 0:05, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On 11.06.17 21:03, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On 11.06.17 10:28, Robin9 wrote:
;162178 Wrote:
In article ,
(Robin9) wrote:
-
d;162167 Wrote: -
On Fri, 09 Jun 2017 14:50:24 +0100
Recliner wrote:-
Central Line to Denham; Northern Line to Bushey Heath and Alexandra
Palace; Met Line to Quainton Road, Brill and Verney Junction.-

Ripping up the line to alexandra palace was IMO the most shorted
sighted
move ever made by LT. Muswell Hill is a buzzing crowded suburb that
only
has bus connections which are utterly hopeless in the rush hour. A
branch of the northern line would transform it into one of the most
desirable suburbs in London (given the view and other facilities) and
probably send the house prices stratospheric.-

It wasn't closed by London Transport. The tube never went there.
London Underground took over only the stretch between Highgate
and Barnet.

Alexander Palace was the terminus of the branch line from Finsbury
Park and was closed by British Rail in the early/mid 1950s. The track
bed
between Finsbury Park and Highgate is now a public footpath.-

That's a bit economical with the truth. It was included in the 1935-40
plan
and considerable works were done by London Transport, including Highgate

station, cabling and some conductor rail installations. The residual
train
service was provided by BR but then so was it to Epping and Ongar until
1957.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

With all due respect, the fact that London Transport did some
preparatory work does not mean very much. That work came to
nothing. London Underground did not take over the line to
Alexander Palace which was closed by BR in July 1954.

Spud's point is that closing the line was foolish. Certainly today,
in today's political climate, no line would be closed. In 1954
attitudes and assumptions were quite different.

Reminds me of South Kentish Town; They closed the station on a whim,
AIUI, due to low passenger volumes.

I would ask about the prospects of reactivating that station, but I know
that they are less than zero.

Yes, I don't think any of the Tube stations that were closed early in their
lives because of low traffic have been reopened. Perhaps the one with the
best, albeit still very low, chance of reopening is York Road on the Picc,
thanks to all the new developments on the former Kings Cross railway lands.
The demand would be there, but the cost of reopening it to modern standards
would be high

Well, the matrix for the station is there -- at least part of it.

Escalators? Gates?

Oh, yes, absolutely. That all needs to go in and I am sure that they
would have to do much work on the concourse, if not practically rebuild
it from scratch.

I was referring to the platform level. The spot is already there.

Of course, you would have to build new platforms, redo the walls and
ceilings and possible even relay the ROW.

and the extra stop would slow down evry train on the line.

So, adjust the schedules.

Slowing down everyone's journey is the problem, not the scefule.

More trains? NT4L, perhaps?

Or its successor, by the time the station is reopened.

How much time would it take to rebuild and reactivate the station
against the required time for public consultations, environmental impact
and securing finance?

I suppose the actual physical construction work would take around three
years or so, but this document is worth a read:
http://www.lurs.org.uk/articles10_ht...ork%20road.pdf

It concludes:

Overall there would be very few extra journeys on the Underground resulting
from the station opening, and those using the station would mostly be using
it in place of bus travel.
Two key problems would arise from the opening of the station:
1. It would slow the Piccadilly Line down ‘north’ of King’s Cross, i.e.,
reversing the original reason for closing the station. This section of line
is already overcrowded in the peak hour, and adding an extra stop, more
people, and more time to journeys would not help.
2. It would cause more interchange at King’s Cross Underground station,
and increase congestion at the lower levels of this station.
The small increase in overall revenue for TfL if the station was reopened
would be outweighed by the two issues listed above combined with the annual
operating costs (which is estimated at £620,000). It is therefore not
surprising to find that the scheme has a very low benefit cost ratio (BCR)
of 0.03 : 1 – in other words, for every pound spent, there is a benefit to
society of just 3 pence. Calculations were also performed to look at less
quantifiable aspects of reopening, such as the reduction in walking time to
get to the Underground, the possibility that passenger numbers would be
higher than estimated, and that congestion might not be caused at King’s
Cross. In none of the cases did the BCR exceed 0.8 : 1. Typically TfL
requires the BCR to be 1.5 : 1 to justify major projects.
Overall, it is therefore very unlikely that York Road station will be
reopening again, especially given the constraints on public spending at
present.