Tom Anderson wrote:

On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Aidan Stanger wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006, Aidan Stanger wrote:

[Changing Mill Hill East branch to a shuttle service]

If they shortened the train length proportionally, it wouldn't even
cost any more to run.

What's the train length got to do with it? Going from 15 to 8 minutes
would be done by cutting down waiting time, not running more trains, AIUI.

Shorter trains use less electricity.

Aha. Is that a significant cost in running a train, then? I'd never though
of that.

It can be. Although electricity is quite cheap. It really depends on how
you shorten the trains - if splitting them is a labour intensive process
then it could eat up the cost savings.

After the peak, Thameslink used to split every alternate train into two
4 car trains until passenger numbers grew so much that overcrowding
forced them to abandon this policy. But it wasn't entirely due to the
cost of electricity. Trains were (and are) maintained on a "per mile"
basis, so taking half of them out of service also reduced the
maintenance cost.

The interesting thing to consider is how the MHE branch can be made
more useful in the long term. One idea I put on my website is to have
it as a branch of Crossrail Line 2, and extend it to Watford Junction
via MHB, Edgware and Stanmore. This would mean that nobody in North
London would have to detour to Euston to catch a train to The North,

Er, provided they can get to the High Barnet branch of the Northern line,

No, it would interchange with the other lines as well.

Where would it go south of Finchley?

Highgate, Crouch End, Finsbury Park, Dalston Junction. There it would
interchange with ELL and Stratford services, and join Crossrail Line 2
which would run underground to Clapham Junction (via Essex Road, Angel,
Kings Cross St.Pancras, Tottenham Court Road, Piccadilly Circus,
Victoria, Sloane Square, Kings Road and West Battersea).

and they don't want the ECML or MML!

If they did, they'd be detouring to Kings Cross or St.Pancras, not
Euston. However there would be a stop at Mill Hill Broadway to connect
with the Thameslink service, so some MML passengers would also benefit
albeit not to the same extent as the WCML passengers.

I suppose if this function was considered important enough, more trains
could be stopped at MHB.

Yes, but I doubt it would be - after all, not many stop at W Hampstead.

There's no GNER equivalent of Watford Junction. Stevenage is too far
out, and they couldn't get planning permission for their Hadley Wood
proposals. Potters Bar might be a better location, but their trains
don't stop there yet.

The closest equivalent is probably Finsbury Park. In terms of distance,
that's more like Willesden Junction, but i think it gets more trains
stopping there than that.

Under my Crossrail plans, Willesden Junction would become more like
Finsbury Park. For more details see my website at
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk

If they, or their successors, ever do start stopping their trains there,
it might be worth considering extending the Jubilee Line there. But it's
not going to become as important a station as Watford Junction any time
in the forseeable future.

The Northern or Piccadilly look better placed for that to me.

They are, but as they're quite near the GN line they wouldn't extend the
catchment area so much.

[snip]

Does anyone else have any other ideas for it?

The trouble with resurrecting the Northern Heights plan is the green
belt; the intention was always to drive development of new suburbs in
the north, as the Met did for Metroland, but post-WW2 planning policy
has put the kybosh on that. If the illustrious Mr Prescott or his
successor waves a wand and lets the golf courses and subsidy sinks of
Bushey be buried under an avalanche of Barratt boxes, this plan might
regain wings.

It wouldn't require that. There's enough of Bushey not already served by
rail to justify a station. The main destination's Watford.

It's not about justifying a station - it's about justifying a new railway,
a much more expensive proposition.

I know. This is a long term plan, mentioned on the "other stages" page
of my website. It's not intended to be built until well after the core
sections of Crossrail Lines 1, 2 and 3 (the latter being my own plan for
a line incorporating the Canary Wharf branch, which would be deleted
from the Line 1 scheme). Some freight bypass routes would have a higher
priority than this. It would probably also be a lower priority than some
new express tunnels (such as from Battersea to Purley, which would
greatly increase capacity on the South Coast route and slash journey
times on that and the reinstated Gatwick Express!)

However, linking it to the ELL would be folly, IMHO; better would be to
link it to the GN electrics from Finsbury Park to Moorgate. A graded
junction at Moorgate would allow this to be done without conflicting
with mainline traffic to KX; the branch to Moorgate itself might need
some upgrading to cope, but the frequency would be well within the
capability of modern (ie early 20th century signalling systems). Of
course, this all comes to pass anyway under my glorious plan to drive
the tunnel further south from Moorgate, under the Bank and the Thames,
to link up with the lines at London Bridge ...

Where would you link them up?

Do you mean where would the portal be? Good question. Is there room for a
portal around the bulge in the formation where the railway crosses Dockley
Road?

I don't think so BICBW.

if not, you'd need to take some land away from buildings beside the
line; some grim industrial buildings would be the cheapest option, perhaps
those by Tanner Road, Rouel Road, Saint James's Road, etc.

Central London land is expensive whatever it's currently used for!

Where you put the portal depends to some extent on which lines you want to
join up with, and i don't have strong views on that - i don't know enough
about the traffic patterns.

There's really two choices: South Eastern and South Central. Both have
capacity issues. South Eastern trains are more overcrowded, but that can
easily and relatively cheaply be solved with longer trains (IIRC BR
lengthened most platforms to take 12 car trains, but the work was
stopped by privatization and is yet to resume).

All South Central trains detour over 2km East. Constructing a more
direct line would slash journey times for the services that use it. It
would also boost line capacity, which isn't much of an issue now, but
may become one when the ELL Peckhan branch is constructed.

It would be possible to discontinue the SouthCentral service from
Victoria to London Bridge, and instead divert them onto the South
Eastern via the Peckham to Lewisham line. The main disadvantage is that
it would leave Denmark Hill without a direct service to London Bridge,
hence the suggestion of having the new tunnel serve Denmark Hill.
However there are direct buses, and light rail might be a better option
than a new tunnel.

I also wondered whether that line could be extended. There's nowhere
around London Bridge to surface, but some passengers would get a much
more direct journey if it ran straight to Denmark Hill and surfaced
somewhere around Dulwich or Tulse Hill.

That's quite a bit of tunnelling, though.

Yes it is. Tunnelling under the City and the Thames is going to be
expensive whatever you do, so if you do it, it's best to make the most
of it, and deliver the best possible service improvements.

However I have now thought of a cheaper option: surface near Elephant
and use two of the tracks that currently run to Blackfriars.

I also wonder whether rather than being extended from Moorgate it could
be extended from Old Street to Liverpool Street to give better
interchange, then run under Gracechurch Street to London Bridge.

Moorgate is a stone's throw from Liverpool Street anyway - it's a shorter
walk between them than between some of the more distant platforms at Bank,
i'd say. Ideally, there'd be a direct underground passage; Crossrail will
join the two stations up, although i would guess that the Crossrail
platform won't be usable as an ad hoc foot tunnel.

I don't see why it wouldn't. IIRC Crossrail platforms are planned to be
very wide.

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk