On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:10:10 +0000, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote:

In article , Nick
Cooper 625 writes
That would have made the most sense, especially with the absence of
Edgware+. Trains running - "on paper" - purely as Finsbury Park to
Alexandra Palace or FP to Edgware

Moorgate, not FP.

Yes, I did mention the NCL/Moorgate earlier, although I'm not 100% up
on how firm that linkage was in the planning compared to FP to AP.
The latter, of course, was all surface, so this raises the question as
to how the "join" would have been handled: either the surface line
going into tube before FP - perhaps keeping the surface capability for
terminating trains - or after, which raises the question of either to
keep or abandon the NCL tube platforms.

We know what was planned for the Northern Heights in its entirety, but
it's quite easy to compartmentalise the various components on if in
terms of feasibility:

1) FP-AP/HB "only" needed electrification, as the track and stations
were all there (not too up on signalling, but IIRC some work was done
in this area) and, indeed, in use.

2) MHE branch to Edgware, which needed far more work (track doubling,
bridges, new track into Northern Line Edgware, etc.), but again this
is all on the surface.

3) The physical linkage of the AP branch and the NCL, with a
relatively short length of tunnel, where ever it's placed.

4) The line and stations beyond Edgware.

At the very least - in the first instance - we could have had
passengers interchanging with the NCL at FP, and usage patterns would
have determined whether or not stage 3) would have been worthwhile,
although the advent of the Victoria line - if at all - would have
raised questions in the case of a tube-level linkage, rather than a
surface one.

would create an elongated Y-shaped
line, with only minimal track-sharing between just south of East
Finchley and just north of Finchley Central:
[...]

CULG has a list of the planned services and some diagrams.

Given the existence of Highgate Depot, I really can't see them trying to
keep separate fleets for the various routes. Just like we don't keep the
Bank and CX branch fleets separate now.

I know - that's why I said "on paper." :-) In terms on in-car
diagrams I would imagine one similar to the "with NCL" one of the
early-1970s, showing both distinct sections under a common management.
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk