TfL plan to rebuild Bank to make it more accessible and less cramped,
starting construction in 2018 or so.

It strikes me that the easiest way to do that is to abandon the DLR
plaforms, and rebuild the DLR in a more east-west direction (east
south east to west north west, to be precise), near the monument end,
but stretching near (but under) the Waterloo & City platforms at the
other end.

That way, the northern line can be rebuilt to go deeper - to the
abandoned DLR platforms

The existing northern line platforms can become a huge concourse /
station offices / both

The DLR can extend west to ludgate circus without having to abandon /
fork from the route to bank. Admittedly it would have to miss out
cannon street, but the new entrance to the waterloo & city platforms
in the middle of walbrook should mitigate that (the entrance is
already going to be built once bucklersbury house is demolished, as
part of the Walbrook Square development).

The waterloo & city line would be able to be extended without blocking
access to it (because the new DLR concourse would still provide an
access route that could be easily used while they build a new one at
the eastern end)

And the northern line won't be in the way of the northern city line
being extended south any more.

But is that the best option?

On May 25, 12:14*pm, lonelytraveller
wrote:
TfL plan to rebuild Bank to make it more accessible and less cramped,
starting construction in 2018 or so.

It strikes me that the easiest way to do that is to abandon the DLR
plaforms, and rebuild the DLR in a more east-west direction (east
south east to west north west, to be precise), near the monument end,
but stretching near (but under) the Waterloo & City platforms at the
other end.

That way, the northern line can be rebuilt to go deeper - to the
abandoned DLR platforms

The existing northern line platforms can become a huge concourse /
station offices / both

The DLR can extend west to ludgate circus without having to abandon /
fork from the route to bank. Admittedly it would have to miss out
cannon street, but the new entrance to the waterloo & city platforms
in the middle of walbrook should mitigate that (the entrance is
already going to be built once bucklersbury house is demolished, as
part of the Walbrook Square development).

The waterloo & city line would be able to be extended without blocking
access to it (because the new DLR concourse would still provide an
access route that could be easily used while they build a new one at
the eastern end)

And the northern line won't be in the way of the northern city line
being extended south any more.

But is that the best option?

Well, it'd be a massively expensive, disruptive and wholly unrealistic
option, so, er, no!

On 25 May, 12:30, Mizter T wrote:
On May 25, 12:14*pm, lonelytraveller



wrote:
TfL plan to rebuild Bank to make it more accessible and less cramped,
starting construction in 2018 or so.

It strikes me that the easiest way to do that is to abandon the DLR
plaforms, and rebuild the DLR in a more east-west direction (east
south east to west north west, to be precise), near the monument end,
but stretching near (but under) the Waterloo & City platforms at the
other end.

That way, the northern line can be rebuilt to go deeper - to the
abandoned DLR platforms

The existing northern line platforms can become a huge concourse /
station offices / both

The DLR can extend west to ludgate circus without having to abandon /
fork from the route to bank. Admittedly it would have to miss out
cannon street, but the new entrance to the waterloo & city platforms
in the middle of walbrook should mitigate that (the entrance is
already going to be built once bucklersbury house is demolished, as
part of the Walbrook Square development).

The waterloo & city line would be able to be extended without blocking
access to it (because the new DLR concourse would still provide an
access route that could be easily used while they build a new one at
the eastern end)

And the northern line won't be in the way of the northern city line
being extended south any more.

But is that the best option?

Well, it'd be a massively expensive, disruptive and wholly unrealistic
option, so, er, no!

They are going to massively reconstruct the station anyway, and its
fairly clear that one of the congestion problems is the arrangement of
the northern line platforms - its fairly likely that the northern line
will have to be rerouted into at least one new platform.

So I don't see why its any more unrealistic, disruptive, or much more
expensive than any other plans they might have for the reconstruction.

On 25 May, 12:33, lonelytraveller
wrote:
On 25 May, 12:30, Mizter T wrote:



On May 25, 12:14*pm, lonelytraveller

wrote:
TfL plan to rebuild Bank to make it more accessible and less cramped,
starting construction in 2018 or so.

It strikes me that the easiest way to do that is to abandon the DLR
plaforms, and rebuild the DLR in a more east-west direction (east
south east to west north west, to be precise), near the monument end,
but stretching near (but under) the Waterloo & City platforms at the
other end.

That way, the northern line can be rebuilt to go deeper - to the
abandoned DLR platforms

The existing northern line platforms can become a huge concourse /
station offices / both

The DLR can extend west to ludgate circus without having to abandon /
fork from the route to bank. Admittedly it would have to miss out
cannon street, but the new entrance to the waterloo & city platforms
in the middle of walbrook should mitigate that (the entrance is
already going to be built once bucklersbury house is demolished, as
part of the Walbrook Square development).

The waterloo & city line would be able to be extended without blocking
access to it (because the new DLR concourse would still provide an
access route that could be easily used while they build a new one at
the eastern end)

And the northern line won't be in the way of the northern city line
being extended south any more.

But is that the best option?

Well, it'd be a massively expensive, disruptive and wholly unrealistic
option, so, er, no!

They are going to massively reconstruct the station anyway, and its
fairly clear that one of the congestion problems is the arrangement of
the northern line platforms - its fairly likely that the northern line
will have to be rerouted into at least one new platform.

So I don't see why its any more unrealistic, disruptive, or much more
expensive than any other plans they might have for the reconstruction.

And they want to extend the DLR to Charing Cross, in the long term, so
they would have to build a huge new tunnel from the bank branch
somewhere and a set of platforms at Cannon Street, if they avoid bank,
so its not as if a new tunnel and platforms for the DLR in that area
is an expense or plans that they don't already intend to make.

So the following are already planned for, and the expense is already
likely to be made
-at least one new platform and linking tunnel for the northern line
-new tunnel for the DLR from the bank branch
-new platforms and concourse for the DLR near Cannon Street

All I'm suggesting is
-instead of making the DLR route to Bank a branch off the route to
Charing Cross, have it as part of the main route to Charing Cross
(meaning that the frequency of DLR trains to Bank - and Charing Cross
- won't be halved)
-instead of putting the DLR station immediately next to Cannon Street,
link it to the Waterloo & City line platforms (it still has an exit
near Cannon Street, but this way, it also massively relieves
congestion on the Waterloo & City line platforms by offering an exit
near the other end, and allows future extension of the Waterloo & City
without necessitating the complete closure of the line for lack of
passenger access)
-instead of digging yet another north-south tunnel under lombard
street, use the ones you already have for a different purpose (meaning
that the foundations of the buildings on lombard street aren't
weakened even further)
-instead of building a new northern line tunnel diverting to the east
or west of where it currently is, just divert it downwards (meaning
that the Northern City line can be extended, because the Northern line
would no longer be in the way)

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?

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.

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.

The station area is so massive they wold have to use Topkill. Destroy
the station from the bottom down and start again.
When they do it they will find Parker robbing the Bank of England.

On 26 May, 20:28, Offramp wrote:
The station area is so massive they wold have to use Topkill. Destroy
the station from the bottom down and start again.
When they do it they will find Parker robbing the Bank of England.

They are planning to massively rebuild the station in 2018-2025
anyway, and the arrangement of the Northern Line platforms is a prime
target, so I'm not sure they would be any more likely to use "Topkill"
than they were already planning to do.

On 26 May, 03:14, Alistair Bell 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. 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?

On 29 May, 15:35, lonelytraveller
wrote:
On 26 May, 03:14, Alistair Bell 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 -

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?