On Jan 25, 6:17*am, "Recliner" wrote:
"Yokel" wrote in message







"D7666" wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 10:39 pm, "Peter Masson"
wrote:

It is already at capacity. Thats why it is getting re-signalled -

The idea is to run all Morden trains via Bank, with the Charing Cross
branch
extended from Kennington to Nine Elms and Battersea. This is said to
enable
an increased frequency through Central London on both branches.

They already do that north of Kennington anyway, except for a few
trains in the peaks. The line is at capacity already, *and TBTC will
do nothing more than provide a little growth for the line as it is.

If they already run all the Morden trains via Bank and all the
Charing Cross route terminate at Kennington, then how will extending
the Kennington service onward require any extra train paths? *Extra
trains, perhaps, as the end-to-end journey on the Charing Cross route
will take longer. *But the same number of trains would run between
Camden Town and Kennington - they would just run along the extension
and back instead of going round the reversing loop.

Or have I missed something?

Yes, the extra demand that will be stimulated by the extension will
funnel more passengers into the already crowded central sections of the
line. As the trains won't be longer, more will need to run, hence the
need for extra paths (and trains). A complete split at Camden Town would
help even more, but that's not practical without a hugely expensive
redevelopment of the station.

IMHO The Waterloo and City may be a better candidate for extension to
Battersea, and perhaps on to Wimbledon.

On 25 Jan, 16:07, E27002 wrote:
On Jan 25, 6:17*am, "Recliner" wrote:





"Yokel" wrote in message



"D7666" wrote in message
....
On Jan 23, 10:39 pm, "Peter Masson"
wrote:

It is already at capacity. Thats why it is getting re-signalled -

The idea is to run all Morden trains via Bank, with the Charing Cross
branch
extended from Kennington to Nine Elms and Battersea. This is said to
enable
an increased frequency through Central London on both branches.

They already do that north of Kennington anyway, except for a few
trains in the peaks. The line is at capacity already, *and TBTC will
do nothing more than provide a little growth for the line as it is.

If they already run all the Morden trains via Bank and all the
Charing Cross route terminate at Kennington, then how will extending
the Kennington service onward require any extra train paths? *Extra
trains, perhaps, as the end-to-end journey on the Charing Cross route
will take longer. *But the same number of trains would run between
Camden Town and Kennington - they would just run along the extension
and back instead of going round the reversing loop.

Or have I missed something?

Yes, the extra demand that will be stimulated by the extension will
funnel more passengers into the already crowded central sections of the
line. As the trains won't be longer, more will need to run, hence the
need for extra paths (and trains). A complete split at Camden Town would
help even more, but that's not practical without a hugely expensive
redevelopment of the station.

IMHO The Waterloo and City may be a better candidate for extension to
Battersea, and perhaps on to Wimbledon.

Maybe operationally, but physically it comes to the surface at
Waterloo facing southeast. The Northern Line idea probably came out
of the fact that it would be relatively straightforward to branch off
from the Kennington loop.

In article
,
(MIG) wrote:

On 25 Jan, 16:07, E27002 wrote:
On Jan 25, 6:17*am, "Recliner" wrote:

IMHO The Waterloo and City may be a better candidate for extension to
Battersea, and perhaps on to Wimbledon.

Maybe operationally, but physically it comes to the surface at
Waterloo facing southeast. The Northern Line idea probably came out
of the fact that it would be relatively straightforward to branch off
from the Kennington loop.

Having seen some details from the promoters at a transport conference last
year I appreciate that is exactly the reason for preferring the Northern
Line, as well as the ability to fit within line capacity by diverting the
West End service there.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 25 Jan, 16:26, MIG wrote:
On 25 Jan, 16:07, E27002 wrote:



On Jan 25, 6:17*am, "Recliner" wrote:

"Yokel" wrote in message



"D7666" wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 10:39 pm, "Peter Masson"
wrote:

It is already at capacity. Thats why it is getting re-signalled -

The idea is to run all Morden trains via Bank, with the Charing Cross
branch
extended from Kennington to Nine Elms and Battersea. This is said to
enable
an increased frequency through Central London on both branches.

They already do that north of Kennington anyway, except for a few
trains in the peaks. The line is at capacity already, *and TBTC will
do nothing more than provide a little growth for the line as it is..

If they already run all the Morden trains via Bank and all the
Charing Cross route terminate at Kennington, then how will extending
the Kennington service onward require any extra train paths? *Extra
trains, perhaps, as the end-to-end journey on the Charing Cross route
will take longer. *But the same number of trains would run between
Camden Town and Kennington - they would just run along the extension
and back instead of going round the reversing loop.

Or have I missed something?

Yes, the extra demand that will be stimulated by the extension will
funnel more passengers into the already crowded central sections of the
line. As the trains won't be longer, more will need to run, hence the
need for extra paths (and trains). A complete split at Camden Town would
help even more, but that's not practical without a hugely expensive
redevelopment of the station.

IMHO The Waterloo and City may be a better candidate for extension to
Battersea, and perhaps on to Wimbledon.

Maybe operationally, but physically it comes to the surface at
Waterloo facing southeast. *The Northern Line idea probably came out
of the fact that it would be relatively straightforward to branch off
from the Kennington loop.

But at Waterloo, there's a large expanse of open ground in front of
it, so there's ample room to turn south. And there are conveniently
long southward roads adjacent to the railway, suitable for cut and
cover, that connect that open ground to vauxhall.

On 26 Jan, 00:40, wrote:
Maybe operationally, but physically it comes to the surface at
Waterloo facing southeast. *The Northern Line idea probably came out
of the fact that it would be relatively straightforward to branch off
from the Kennington loop.

Having seen some details from the promoters at a transport conference last
year I appreciate that is exactly the reason for preferring the Northern
Line, as well as the ability to fit within line capacity by diverting the
West End service there.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Diverting implies that its being diverted from somewhere else. But it
isn't. Kennington is the terminus.

On 26 Jan, 00:40, wrote:
Maybe operationally, but physically it comes to the surface at
Waterloo facing southeast. *The Northern Line idea probably came out
of the fact that it would be relatively straightforward to branch off
from the Kennington loop.

Having seen some details from the promoters at a transport conference last
year I appreciate that is exactly the reason for preferring the Northern
Line, as well as the ability to fit within line capacity by diverting the
West End service there.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

If you look at a map of S london, you'll realise the Northern Line has
to head south east, not south west.

The recent bakerloo extension survey (as well as the original plans)
has it headed East SouthEast, to New Cross and Lewisham. The Victoria
line is headed SE from brixton, and extension plans have it heading to
Herne Hill as a minimum.

That leaves a huge area - around camberwell - utterly without any rail
connection, and certainly without one that's useful for getting into
town.

The only way to plug the gap is for the northern line to go to
camberwell. Which means extending the west end branch that way.

Taking the northern line to battersea really messes that possibility
up, and essentially precludes it ever occurring.

lonelytraveller wrote:

That leaves a huge area - around camberwell - utterly without any rail
connection, and certainly without one that's useful for getting into
town.

The only way to plug the gap is for the northern line to go to
camberwell.

The fact that Camberwell contains a road called "Camberwell Station Road"
shows the flaw in that argument.

Taking the northern line to battersea really messes that possibility
up, and essentially precludes it ever occurring.

No - sending half the trains to Battersea and half to Camberwell probably
matches supply with demand better than a single extension.

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

On Jan 26, 6:00*pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:

lonelytraveller wrote:
That leaves a huge area - around camberwell - utterly without any rail
connection, and certainly without one that's useful for getting into
town.

The only way to plug the gap is for the northern line to go to
camberwell.

The fact that Camberwell contains a road called "Camberwell Station Road"
shows the flaw in that argument.

Taking the northern line to battersea really messes that possibility
up, and essentially precludes it ever occurring.

No - sending half the trains to Battersea and half to Camberwell probably
matches supply with demand better than a single extension.

Two new branches of the Northern line you mean?

I kinda think a straightforward separate extension of the Bakerloo to
Camberwell would be preferable, though doing that would inevitably
exclude the option of a direct route for a Bakerloo extension from E&C
to Lewisham via New Cross, more or less along the course of the Old
Kent Road.

However my basic take on it is that extending the Bakerloo to
Camberwell should take precedence - and from there it could go on to
Peckham, Herne Hill, East Dulwich etc. Can't see anything of the sort
happening any time soon though!

"Tim Fenton" wrote in message

"lonelytraveller" wrote
in message
...

But at Waterloo, there's a large expanse of open ground in front of
it, so there's ample room to turn south. And there are conveniently
long southward roads adjacent to the railway, suitable for cut and
cover, that connect that open ground to vauxhall.

Mind you, the new development around Battersea has lots of housing,
doesn't it? Extending the Drain would connect that to the City, but
the Northern Line extension would connect it to the West End, with a
cross platform change at Kennington for the City. Northern Line might
be better there?

Northern Line trains are also longer and more frequent, and of course
it's a seven days a week railway. There wouldn't be much point running
the Drain's line to Bank on Sundays.

"Recliner" wrote in message
news
"Tim Fenton" wrote in message

"lonelytraveller" wrote
in message
...

But at Waterloo, there's a large expanse of open ground in front of
it, so there's ample room to turn south. And there are conveniently
long southward roads adjacent to the railway, suitable for cut and
cover, that connect that open ground to vauxhall.

Mind you, the new development around Battersea has lots of housing,
doesn't it? Extending the Drain would connect that to the City, but
the Northern Line extension would connect it to the West End, with a
cross platform change at Kennington for the City. Northern Line might
be better there?

Northern Line trains are also longer and more frequent, and of course
it's a seven days a week railway. There wouldn't be much point running
the Drain's line to Bank on Sundays.




But if the drain *was* extended the reason why it doesn't run on a Sunday
would no longer apply because there would be traffic from the southern
extension. Not saying I agree with extending the drain simply that if it
happened it would make sense to run the drain at all times.