| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
London Overground Expansion
First time lurker, first time poster.
Just a bit furious as to why they won't extend the London Overground to Streatham- especially when no new track needs to be built. Crystal Palace to Clapham Junction would join up Balham, Wandsworth and Streatham Hill/Common and all would be well with the world. Thoughts? |
London Overground Expansion
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 11:16:49 +0100
BumYoghurt wrote: Just a bit furious as to why they won't extend the London Overground to Streatham- especially when no new track needs to be built. Crystal Palace to Clapham Junction would join up Balham, Wandsworth and Streatham Hill/Common and all would be well with the world. I think they are planning on making it circular at some point no? Thoughts? Yes, its a pity it doesn't share stations with the central , piccadilly and northern lines which it crosses. Then it may be genuinely useful to a lot more people. B2003 |
London Overground Expansion
wrote: On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 11:16:49 +0100 BumYoghurt wrote: Just a bit furious as to why they won't extend the London Overground to Streatham- especially when no new track needs to be built. Crystal Palace to Clapham Junction would join up Balham, Wandsworth and Streatham Hill/Common and all would be well with the world. I think they are planning on making it circular at some point no? Sort of, depending upon your definition of circular - phase 2, due to open in December 2012, will add a new branch to the East London Line from Surrey Quays to Clapham Jn (via Queens Rd Peckham, Peckham Rye, Denmark Hill, Clapham High St, Wandsworth Rd, then Clapham Jn). Trains won't actually run through onto the West London Line though - pax will need to change trains at Clapham Jn if they want to head to say Kensington Olympia (this change will be v easy though). There are I think various thoughts about further London Overground services south of the river, specifically from Crystal Palace via Streatham to Clapham Jn, but nothing's imminent on that front. Thoughts? Yes, its a pity it doesn't share stations with the central , piccadilly and northern lines which it crosses. Then it may be genuinely useful to a lot more people. Clapham High Street to Clapham North (Northern line) is a pretty easy interchange. |
London Overground Expansion
"BumYoghurt" wrote in message ...
First time lurker, first time poster. Just a bit furious as to why they won't extend the London Overground to Streatham- especially when no new track needs to be built. Crystal Palace to Clapham Junction would join up Balham, Wandsworth and Streatham Hill/Common and all would be well with the world. Thoughts? There are already 4 Southern trains an hour between Crystal Palace and Clapham Junction so I am not sure why you would need LO running on that section as well? Peter Smyth |
London Overground Expansion
On 2011\10\05 18:27, Peter Smyth wrote:
"BumYoghurt" wrote in message ... First time lurker, first time poster. Just a bit furious as to why they won't extend the London Overground to Streatham- especially when no new track needs to be built. Crystal Palace to Clapham Junction would join up Balham, Wandsworth and Streatham Hill/Common and all would be well with the world. Thoughts? There are already 4 Southern trains an hour between Crystal Palace and Clapham Junction so I am not sure why you would need LO running on that section as well? Because being on the tube map would put up the value of his house. |
London Overground Expansion
"Basil Jet" wrote in message
... On 2011\10\05 18:27, Peter Smyth wrote: There are already 4 Southern trains an hour between Crystal Palace and Clapham Junction so I am not sure why you would need LO running on that section as well? Because being on the tube map would put up the value of his house. ....and everyone knows that travelling in a 8/10/12 car Electrostar with loads of seats, isn't anything like as much fun as travelling in a 4 car Electrostar with loads of standing space. Paul S |
London Overground Expansion
On Oct 5, 11:16*am, BumYoghurt
wrote: First time lurker, first time poster. Just a bit furious as to why they won't extend the London Overground to Streatham- especially when no new track needs to be built. Crystal Palace to Clapham Junction would join up Balham, Wandsworth and Streatham Hill/Common and all would be well with the world. Thoughts? -- BumYoghurt There was once a plan to link the East London Railway (as was) with the Lea Valley Line somewhere between Bethnal Green and Cambridge Heath. Also it would have been nice if there were platforms reinstated on the mainline (maybe Lea Valley tracks only) almost directly beneath Shoreditch High Street, as the ELL has no interchange with the Central line or with National Express. |
London Overground Expansion
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 17:07:09 +0100
"Mizter T" wrote: Yes, its a pity it doesn't share stations with the central , piccadilly and northern lines which it crosses. Then it may be genuinely useful to a lot more people. Clapham High Street to Clapham North (Northern line) is a pretty easy interchange. I was thinking more of the NLL where it whizzes past a load of tube lines without stopping. Obviously this isn't TfLs fault but I can't help wondering why for example North Acton on the central line was built about 300 metres away from where the NLL crosses it instead of building a station there. But then it doesn't even interchange with the piccadilly line which also crosses it which is Gold standard ****wittedness on the part of the original builders of both lines. B2003 |
Quote:
The circular route that is planned is a joke, as people mentioned, you need to change at Clapham Junction (the LO platform is a joke there too, covered in weeds, even after they closed it for 4 weeks for maintenance). You'll probably be dropped from Crystal Palace/Surrey Quays at Clapham on platform 17, leaving a 1-2 minutes walk to platform 2 for the LO interchange. |
London Overground Expansion
"Dr. Sunil" wrote in message
... Also it would have been nice if there were platforms reinstated on the mainline (maybe Lea Valley tracks only) almost directly beneath Shoreditch High Street, as the ELL has no interchange with the Central line or with National Express. The lack of a Central Line interchange was intentional, it was decided early on that an interchange with Crossrail at Whitechapel would be better for distributing passengers more evenly. Paul S |
London Overground Expansion
|
London Overground Expansion
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 11:16:09 +0100
"Paul Scott" wrote: "Dr. Sunil" wrote in message ... Also it would have been nice if there were platforms reinstated on the mainline (maybe Lea Valley tracks only) almost directly beneath Shoreditch High Street, as the ELL has no interchange with the Central line or with National Express. The lack of a Central Line interchange was intentional, it was decided early on that an interchange with Crossrail at Whitechapel would be better for distributing passengers more evenly. Ie making their life easier instead of doing something for the benefit of the passengers. Yup, that sounds about right. B2003 |
London Overground Expansion
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 11:26:38 +0100
Paul Terry wrote: In message , d writes Obviously this isn't TfLs fault but I can't help wondering why for example North Acton on the central line was built about 300 metres away from where the NLL crosses it instead of building a station there. Rivalry between competing private companies. Figures. B2003 |
London Overground Expansion
Paul Scott wrote:
The lack of a Central Line interchange was intentional, it was decided early on that an interchange with Crossrail at Whitechapel would be better for distributing passengers more evenly. Isn't Shoreditch High Street positioned so that an interchange could be built if future generations deem it necessary and possible? |
London Overground Expansion
"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote in message
... Paul Scott wrote: The lack of a Central Line interchange was intentional, it was decided early on that an interchange with Crossrail at Whitechapel would be better for distributing passengers more evenly. Isn't Shoreditch High Street positioned so that an interchange could be built if future generations deem it necessary and possible? That's definitely been mentioned, because they expect significantly altered loadings on the Central after Crossrail opens. Paul |
London Overground Expansion
|
London Overground Expansion
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 15:00:17 +0100
Basil Jet wrote: How is opening an extra station on one of the most crowded parts of the network a good idea? They made passive provision for a Central Line station, that was the right thing to do. Yes , good point. And taking that further - Oxford Street is very crowded so lets get rid of the central line interchange there and make everyone walk from Bond Street. Sorted. B2003 |
London Overground Expansion
"BumYoghurt" wrote in message
... The circular route that is planned is a joke, as people mentioned, you need to change at Clapham Junction (the LO platform is a joke there too, covered in weeds, even after they closed it for 4 weeks for maintenance). You'll probably be dropped from Crystal Palace/Surrey Quays at Clapham on platform 17, leaving a 1-2 minutes walk to platform 2 for the LO interchange. But they didn't close for maintenance of platform 1, the closure was for double tracking of the approach tracks. You definitely won't end up in P17 from the SLL, because there is no rail connection. The SLL service will run into a new platform 2, which will be the current platform 2 extended out by one track width over half its length, at the Wandsworth end. The WLL will run from the existing platform face, which will be renumbered as P1. I'd expect that resurfacing of the whole platform, and reopening the second set of stairs, will be done once the work actually starts at the station.... Paul S |
London Overground Expansion
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 10:40:31 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote: Figures. The NYC Subway is as bad... Neil -- Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK |
London Overground Expansion
In message , Paul Scott
writes The SLL service will run into a new platform 2, which will be the current platform 2 extended out by one track width over half its length, at the Wandsworth end. The WLL will run from the existing platform face, which will be renumbered as P1. Handy diagram he http://www.sucs.org/~cmckenna/diagra..._2a_and_2b.png It describes the SLL platform as 2b and the WLL as 2a, but the latter may well be renumbered as 1, as there is no hope of getting the original platform 1 back in service. The important thing is that there is easy and step-free interchange between the two segments of the orbital route. -- Paul Terry |
London Overground Expansion
On Oct 6, 10:49*am, BumYoghurt
wrote: The circular route that is planned is a joke, as people mentioned, you need to change at Clapham Junction (the LO platform is a joke there too, covered in weeds, even after they closed it for 4 weeks for maintenance). You'll probably be dropped from Crystal Palace/Surrey Quays at Clapham on platform 17, leaving a 1-2 minutes walk to platform 2 for the LO interchange. I think some are missing the (potential) bigger picture. Extending the (outer SLL) Crystal Palace service to Clapham Junction would use platforms 16 & 17, which could then be extended up the WLL to Willesden Junction. The SLL service would then have platforms 2a & 2b all to itself. As has been mooted elsewhere, they could conceivably then extend these to Wimbledon via East Putney if they rebuilt the flyover at the very least...though they'd probably have to reinstate platform 1 for that as well, depending on whether 2b is obtained by building out the platform to make a bay or by dividing the platform and using a crossover. |
London Overground Expansion
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 11:16:49AM +0100, BumYoghurt wrote:
Just a bit furious as to why they won't extend the London Overground to Streatham- especially when no new track needs to be built. Crystal Palace to Clapham Junction would join up Balham, Wandsworth and Streatham Hill/Common and all would be well with the world. You can't just extend it to Streatham Hill/Common, because there's no facilities for turning trains around - no bay platform, and not enough capacity to let them tie up a through line for a few minutes without seriously screwing up all the other routes. Instead of terminating at Streatham Common, they'd have to go through Norbury and Thornton Heath to Selhurst and then reverse in the depot, or go through to West Croydon (but the bay platform is already in use there for other services) or to East Croydon (which also already has trains being reversed there. Similar for Streatham Hill. Not to mention that those trains would have to cross several more junctions, and share track with several more services, all of which serves to make a service less reliable. -- David Cantrell | even more awesome than a panda-fur coat comparative and superlative explained: Huhn worse, worser, worsest, worsted, wasted |
London Overground Expansion
On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 04:57:58PM +0100, Paul Scott wrote:
I'd expect that resurfacing of the whole platform, and reopening the second set of stairs, will be done once the work actually starts at the station.... One has to wonder why that wasn't done at the same time as they laid the extra track just north of the platform. Presumably platform 2 will have to be closed *again* while those works are going on. -- David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic 23.5 degrees of axial tilt is the reason for the season |
Quote:
Currently we have services from New Cross etc terminating at Highbury And Islington while other services from Stratford go through Highbury And Islington to Clapham Junction. Why is this arrangement better than a straightforward Outer Circle system? |
London Overground Expansion
On Oct 7, 7:41*pm, Robin9 wrote:
David Cantrell;123554 Wrote: There will be no Overground services going *through* Clapham Junction, and no services starting at Clapham Junction, going all the way round the circle, and ending at Clapham Junction. Does anyone know why not? I distinctly remember hearing Ken Livingstone in his day saying that the London Overground would provide London for the first time ever with a circular service through the suburbs. He quite obviously saw the London Overground as a kind of Outer Circle Line. Currently we have services from New Cross etc terminating at Highbury And Islington while other services from Stratford go through Highbury And Islington to Clapham Junction. Why is this arrangement better than a straightforward Outer Circle system? -- Robin9 Because it provides terminating points where the service can recover as well as provide isolation from disruptions on the other half. Think about what happens on the inner Circle Line when a train breaks down. Nothing can pass it, so services back up, and until you get to a point where you can reverse trains, everything grinds to a halt. In an ideal world, you'd perhaps have two semi-circular services operating on the Circle instead: Something like Kings Cross to South Kensington via Liverpool St., and Kings Cross to South Kensington via Notting Hill Gate. Problem is that some will want to get from one half to the other without changing. Notting Hill to Liverpool St is easy - use the Central Line, but something like Paddington to Aldgate is a bit more problematic. Have another pair of overlapping services perhaps, maybe between Tower Hill & Paddington...but space for the terminating platforms needed is hard to find, so the ideal locations aren't always possible. |
London Overground Expansion
"Jamie Thompson" wrote in message
On Oct 7, 7:41 pm, Robin9 wrote: David Cantrell;123554 Wrote: There will be no Overground services going *through* Clapham Junction, and no services starting at Clapham Junction, going all the way round the circle, and ending at Clapham Junction. Does anyone know why not? I distinctly remember hearing Ken Livingstone in his day saying that the London Overground would provide London for the first time ever with a circular service through the suburbs. He quite obviously saw the London Overground as a kind of Outer Circle Line. Currently we have services from New Cross etc terminating at Highbury And Islington while other services from Stratford go through Highbury And Islington to Clapham Junction. Why is this arrangement better than a straightforward Outer Circle system? -- Robin9 Because it provides terminating points where the service can recover as well as provide isolation from disruptions on the other half. Think about what happens on the inner Circle Line when a train breaks down. Nothing can pass it, so services back up, and until you get to a point where you can reverse trains, everything grinds to a halt. In an ideal world, you'd perhaps have two semi-circular services operating on the Circle instead: Something like Kings Cross to South Kensington via Liverpool St., and Kings Cross to South Kensington via Notting Hill Gate. Problem is that some will want to get from one half to the other without changing. Notting Hill to Liverpool St is easy - use the Central Line, but something like Paddington to Aldgate is a bit more problematic. Have another pair of overlapping services perhaps, maybe between Tower Hill & Paddington...but space for the terminating platforms needed is hard to find, so the ideal locations aren't always possible. Well, that's why the Circle line is no longer circular: it's two services that meet at Edgware Road. If you want to go from Bayswater to Baker St, you have to change trains (unless you choose to go the much longer wrong way round). |
London Overground Expansion
"David Cantrell" wrote in message
... One has to wonder why that wasn't done at the same time as they laid the extra track just north of the platform. Presumably platform 2 will have to be closed *again* while those works are going on. I expect because the works just done were part of the NLR improvement project for the enhanced WLL frequency, and the work yet to be done is part of the SLL project. A different type of money probably... Paul S |
Quote:
Incidentally if splitting the service to provide a safety margin is so advantageous, why not use the idea to incorporate some of the extensions to the London Overground that have been suggested in this forum over the past few months. For example, instead of the current Richmond to Stratford service, why not Richmond to Caledonian Road and Queens Park to Stratford? |
Some lovely insight here chaps, thanks!
|
London Overground Expansion
"Robin9" wrote in message
... Incidentally if splitting the service to provide a safety margin is so advantageous, why not use the idea to incorporate some of the extensions to the London Overground that have been suggested in this forum over the past few months. For example, instead of the current Richmond to Stratford service, why not Richmond to Caledonian Road and Queens Park to Stratford? Because Richmond to Stratford is already about as straightforward as it gets, an end to end route for LO into dedicated terminal platforms, even though it is overlaid with freight movements. What you are suggesting would add at least three more areas of complexity; reversing at Caledonian Rd, additional flat crossing conflicting movements at Camden Rd West Jn, and reversing at Queens Park, where the existing service already has to be pathed with the Bakerloo line. Also, you'd presumably expect to have space for more trains along the section where the two routes overlap - if not you'd have to reduce the number of departures from Richmond and Stratford... Paul S |
London Overground Expansion
On Oct 9, 12:15*pm, Robin9 wrote:
You may well be right but that's a very negative line of reasoning. First, how often do they have train break-downs? Second, why not have a contingency plan for that kind split system in the event of a train break-down but in normal circumstances operate a conventional circular service? A break down is the most obvious case. The far more common one is gradual accumulation of delay seconds. A held door, a delay of a Met service beyond Baker St., A District service running late due to a passenger alarm...all these things can cause the Circle service to start running late. Without a terminus...it can only get later and later, and eventually, the lateness builds up and it starts missing it's path at junctions and controller intervention is needed to fix things by taking something out of service, probably at Edgware Road as it's one of the few locations with the correct trackwork. It's why I'd like to have the former widened lines as part of the SSL system. Assuming connections made at Farringdon and Moorgate, give the centre roads over to the Circles, and run the Mets on the outer lines. Circles could be scheduled to simply bypass delayed units on these sections. A similar arrangement could be instituted between Gloucester Road and South Kensington (where it already kinda does, as the westbound District and Circle are kept separate). Knock though the bays at Mansion House and Tower Hill and you have another couple of locations where you can do this as well. Maybe Aldgate too ;) |
London Overground Expansion
"Jamie Thompson" wrote in message ... It's why I'd like to have the former widened lines as part of the SSL system. Assuming connections made at Farringdon and Moorgate, give the centre roads over to the Circles, and run the Mets on the outer lines. It is known that connections can't be made at Moorgate without spending 100s of millions though - the alterations to have a junction east of the platforms involve adjacent building foundations - and there is basically no way a business case would ever stand up. Circles could be scheduled to simply bypass delayed units on these sections. A similar arrangement could be instituted between Gloucester Road and South Kensington (where it already kinda does, as the westbound District and Circle are kept separate). Knock though the bays at Mansion House and Tower Hill and you have another couple of locations where you can do this as well. Maybe Aldgate too ;) By the time the SSR resignalling is complete in 2018, it is not intended to have any Mansion House terminators, and the bay platform there is to be taken over by the through route. However there is a plan to make Tower Hill's central platform accessible from both directions... Paul S |
London Overground Expansion
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 12:15:41PM +0100, Robin9 wrote:
Jamie Thompson;123577 Wrote: Because it provides terminating points where the service can recover as well as provide isolation from disruptions on the other half. You may well be right but that's a very negative line of reasoning. First, how often do they have train break-downs? Often enough for it to be worth thinking about. They also get vandalised by feral passengers, or have to wait for ages in a station because someone is ill, or get delayed by inconsiderate suicides, or ... Second, why not have a contingency plan for that kind split system in the event of a train break-down but in normal circumstances operate a conventional circular service? That might be practical if LO was the only operator using those tracks - they could just have two timetables and flip between them at will. But they're not in that lucky position, so the other operators would have to also have two timetables. Imagine if LO wanted to change the timetable between Clapham Junction and Willesden Junction. That means that Southern have to change their timetable on that bit of track, which means Southern also have to change their timetable both south and north of it, which means that whoever it is they share track with to the north also has to change timetables, and so on. -- David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic The test of the goodness of a thing is its fitness for use. If it fails on this first test, no amount of ornamentation or finish will make it any better, it will only make it more expensive and foolish. -- Frank Pick, lecture to the Design and Industries Assoc, 1916 |
London Overground Expansion
On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 12:51:35PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 04:57:58PM +0100, Paul Scott wrote: I'd expect that resurfacing of the whole platform, and reopening the second set of stairs, will be done once the work actually starts at the station.... One has to wonder why that wasn't done at the same time as they laid the extra track just north of the platform. Presumably platform 2 will have to be closed *again* while those works are going on. Well, it looks like that work started over the weekend, with trains now stopping further along the platform where there are some new buffers installed. The southern half of the platform is now hidden behind wooden hoardings. Platform 2 is still open, but because of the hoardings and the pointless unused buildings that are still standing in the middle of it, is even narrower than normal and even more crowded when southbound trains empty. No evidence of re-surfacing the northern end of the platform. -- David Cantrell | Bourgeois reactionary pig Eye have a spelling chequer / It came with my pea sea It planely marques four my revue / Miss Steaks eye kin knot sea. Eye strike a quay and type a word / And weight for it to say Weather eye am wrong oar write / It shows me strait a weigh. |
London Overground Expansion
On Oct 10, 10:04*am, "Paul Scott"
wrote: It is known that connections can't be made at Moorgate without spending 100s of millions though - the alterations to have a junction east of the platforms involve adjacent building foundations - and there is basically no way a business case would ever stand up. I know...but it's still unfortunate. Interestingly, these foundations don't seem to be a problem for Crossrail... It's such a shame...as once you get past those foundations you have a clear run for four tracks across Finsbury Circus to Liverpool St. East of there...well. I don't think you'll even be able to widen the former bay for an extra platform, let alone have a junction east of there...but I guess if you could redevelop the building sitting over where that needs to happen it could... By the time the SSR resignalling is complete in 2018, it is not intended to have any Mansion House terminators, and the bay platform there is to be taken over by the through route. * However there is a plan to make Tower Hill's central platform accessible from both directions... Quite. However, rather than projecting Mansion House's centre bay to the eastbound line and severing the western connection to the westbound, how about projecting it to the westbound and retaining it's western layout (turning it into a westbound loop). Knock through the disused northern bay and connect it at both ends to the eastbound line, and hey presto, you have a pair of island platforms where services can be reformed. Having a shared bidirectional centre loop is easier and cheaper...but not as flexible by a long shot. ....I suspect a shared centre road is the plan at Tower Hill, but likewise, I think a pair of loops (a-la the old Whitechapel - I really wish they'd found a solution that kept the centre roads) would be *much* more useful. |
London Overground Expansion
On Oct 7, 7:41*pm, Robin9 wrote:
David Cantrell;123554 Wrote: There will be no Overground services going *through* Clapham Junction, and no services starting at Clapham Junction, going all the way round the circle, and ending at Clapham Junction. Does anyone know why not? I distinctly remember hearing Ken Livingstone in his day saying that the London Overground would provide London for the first time ever with a circular service through the suburbs. He quite obviously saw the London Overground as a kind of Outer Circle Line. Currently we have services from New Cross etc terminating at Highbury And Islington while other services from Stratford go through Highbury And Islington to Clapham Junction. Why is this arrangement better than a straightforward Outer Circle system? -- Robin9 Practicality and customer demand. Joining the SLL and WLL would mean missing Clapham Junction, a major traffic objective. Westwards from Highbury to join ELL and NLL is possible (current track arrangements notwithstanding), but would be an operational nightmare given 7½ minute services on each and a lot of freight on the latter. And the major traffic objective for the ELL is Highbury & Islington with its Victoria Line and GN Electrics connections. All the lines are shared with other services, some of which permeate far into the Home Counties and bring all their operational baggage with them. You really don't want to perpetuate all the accumulated delays in a circular service. Circular itineraries propagate any problems indefinitely around the service, which is why even the Circle Line has been de-circlified. The projected service pattern is the best one to fit travel patterns and operational practicalities. Onward connections at Clapham Junction will be as easy as possible – just shuffle down the platform. At Highbury, either cross-platform or over a short bridge. |
London Overground Expansion
In message
, at 07:43:51 on Mon, 10 Oct 2011, Jamie Thompson remarked: It is known that connections can't be made at Moorgate without spending 100s of millions though - the alterations to have a junction east of the platforms involve adjacent building foundations - and there is basically no way a business case would ever stand up. I know...but it's still unfortunate. Interestingly, these foundations don't seem to be a problem for Crossrail... It's sufficiently 'underground' presumably. -- Roland Perry |
London Overground Expansion
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 07:43:51 on Mon, 10 Oct 2011, Jamie Thompson remarked: It is known that connections can't be made at Moorgate without spending 100s of millions though - the alterations to have a junction east of the platforms involve adjacent building foundations - and there is basically no way a business case would ever stand up. I know...but it's still unfortunate. Interestingly, these foundations don't seem to be a problem for Crossrail... It's sufficiently 'underground' presumably. Yes, but the point is that the greater depth allows a wider choice of route. You still have to avoid the foundations, because many of them are piles that were bored upwards of 30m deep, starting from a deep basement. Also, it's not about avoiding physically hitting the piles themselves, but about avoiding where they put their loads into the soil below. ;-) |
London Overground Expansion
On Oct 10, 9:57*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 07:43:51 on Mon, 10 Oct 2011, Jamie Thompson remarked: It is known that connections can't be made at Moorgate without spending 100s of millions though - the alterations to have a junction east of the platforms involve adjacent building foundations - and there is basically no way a business case would ever stand up. I know...but it's still unfortunate. Interestingly, these foundations don't seem to be a problem for Crossrail... It's sufficiently 'underground' presumably. -- Roland Perry ....and by Crossrail, I also meant the passenger walkway tunnels et al, which are very close to the surface (and will block anything like this quite comprehensively). |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:37 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk