77002 wrote:

Fast forward to the Jubilee Line extension: This one was much less
well planned, but did manage provide a useful route with some
Useful until it heads of to stratford pointlessly duplicating the DLR.

It provides a direct link from east to south London, starting from east
London's biggest interchange station. It provides much needed pressure
relief for the DLR. It regularly fills up before it first hits the
Thames.
How is that not useful?

A role which previously the North London line filled. The Jubilee
Line is an expensive replacement. By now the North London Line to
Docklands would have been an Overground Link.

The North London Line in that part of town was okay if you wanted to go to
north London and if you could bear the infrequent service it was fine for
Silvertown and North Woolwich. But it was utterly useless for getting from
Stratford/West Ham/Canning Town to places south of the river. The
development in the docks was not adequately served - even three car DLR
trains are still slow (and the Waterloo & City heaving at the other end) and
no great substitute for a proper tube lin to the centre.

--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c

d wrote:

Fast forward to the Jubilee Line extension: This one was much less
well planned, but did manage provide a useful route with some

Useful until it heads of to stratford pointlessly duplicating the DLR.

It provides a direct link from east to south London, starting from east

Which is probably used by no one. I suspect the vast majority of people
who
get on at stratford get off at canary wharf.

Not in my experience and I'm one of the many who use it for east to south
trips. Quite a lot get off at London Bridge or Waterloo whilst many others
travel further west. The same can be seen in reverse.

I'm sure it is useful to some, but it would have been a damn site more
useful
if it had opened up a whole new suburb rather than terminating somewhere
that already has more railway lines than it knows what to do with.

Lining up to such a major interchange is pretty useful already. What suburb
would you have wanted to open up instead? West Silvertown is somewhat
physically constrained and much of the rest of Newham had rail or tube or
DLR links already.

With 3
car trains I'm pretty sure the DLR would be quite able to cope with the
loading from Stratford in the rush hour.

Have you seen the size of the loadings at Stratford at that time?

If the tube builders 100 years ago
had thought the same way as the JLE route designers then half of north
london
wouldn't exist in its present form. Cockfosters? Who wants to go there ,
lets
send the piccadilly line to tottenham instead. Edgware? Nothing there,
we'll
terminate at Kilburn - good interchange with the Bakerloo! Etc.

At this stage the emphasis is largely on joining up the dots rather than
breaking new ground - the Victoria line kicked that off and the JLE followed
suit by going where the demand was.

--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c

On 7 Dec, 12:36, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:
77002 wrote:
Fast forward to the Jubilee Line extension: This one was much less
well planned, but did manage provide a useful route with some
Useful until it heads of to stratford pointlessly duplicating the DLR.
It provides a direct link from east to south London, starting from east
London's biggest interchange station. It provides much needed pressure
relief for the DLR. It regularly fills up before it first hits the
Thames.
How is that not useful?
A role which previously the North London line filled. *The Jubilee
Line is an expensive replacement. *By now the North London Line to
Docklands would have been an Overground Link.

The North London Line in that part of town was okay if you wanted to go to
north London and if you could bear the infrequent service it was fine for
Silvertown and North Woolwich. But it was utterly useless for getting from
Stratford/West Ham/Canning Town to places south of the river. The
development in the docks was not adequately served - even three car DLR
trains are still slow (and the Waterloo & City heaving at the other end) and
no great substitute for a proper tube lin to the centre.

Which is why I believe the NLL needed to be diverted from Silvertown
and North Woolwich, and instead run under the Thames to an interchange
with the Dartford lines. There would nothing to prevent an
interchange staion with a Jubilee route to Thamesmead.

A role which previously the North London line filled. *The Jubilee
Line is an expensive replacement. *By now the North London Line to
Docklands would have been an Overground Link.

The North London Line in that part of town was okay if you wanted to go to
north London and if you could bear the infrequent service it was fine for
Silvertown and North Woolwich. But it was utterly useless for getting from
Stratford/West Ham/Canning Town to places south of the river. The
development in the docks was not adequately served - even three car DLR
trains are still slow (and the Waterloo & City heaving at the other end) and
no great substitute for a proper tube lin to the centre.

Which is why I believe the NLL needed to be diverted from Silvertown
and North Woolwich, and instead run under the Thames to an interchange
with the Dartford lines. *There would nothing to prevent an
interchange staion with a Jubilee route to Thamesmead.

In my eyes, the ideal situation given hindsight would have been for
the NLL's Poplar branch to have been renovated and tunnelled under the
river as the DLR was and linked to a rebuilt Greenwich Park branch,
which would then run through to Clapham Junction via Peckham Rye.
Likewise, there would have been little need to wait for Crossrail to
run from North Woolwich to Abbey Wood had the NLL been extended the
same way, with a service from the North Kent line running via Canning
Town and Stratford to the Goblin at South Tottenham, thence onward to
Willesden Junction and Richmond.

Given the demand between Stratford and Canary Wharf I believe a grade-
separated curve linking the two Crossrail branches would serve this
demand far better than the Jubilee line does, and it would enable more
use to be made of the capacity on the two branches (i.e. every train
to Canary Wharf from Whitechapel is a train to Shenfield that has to
use up capacity at Liverpool Street). Accordingly, the Jubilee could
then have it's branch to Thamesmead, with the DLR running alongside
the NLL up to Stratford.

....swinging back on topic, the Northern Line extension to Battersea
couldn't be more of a pig's ear if they tried, and funding it with a
loan is disgraceful. The capacity of the CX branch should be used to
extend south east, e.g. down to Crystal Palace via Loughborough
Junction, Herne Hill et. al. en route to the Hayes branch. A major
redevelopment of the drain (including lengthening the existing Bank
platforms to 8 car length and building new ones at Waterloo) would be
the ideal way to serve the Battersea area, with stations at Bank,
Blackfriars, Waterloo, Lambeth, Vauxhall, Nine Elms, Battersea Park,
Battersea High Street and Clapham Junction, with depot facilities
provided by London Road (the Bakerloo getting a new depot on its own
southern extension.)

Even if you accept that the drain proposal above is dependant on the
Bakerloo works to free up London Road, then simply building Clapham
Junction to Vauxhall then linking to Kennington is the way to do
things for the time being so you can just reuse the infrastructure
later in doing things properly. Likewise, the reasons given for not
interchanging with Vauxhall are bunk of the highest order. Routing the
line as required and hollowing out the platform tunnels is all that is
needed for passive provision until Crossrail 2 relieves the Victoria
line enough to permit the interchange being brought into use.

On 07/12/2012 17:54, Jamie Thompson wrote:
..swinging back on topic, the Northern Line extension to Battersea
couldn't be more of a pig's ear if they tried, and funding it with a
loan is disgraceful.

How else are you going to fund it?

The capacity of the CX branch should be used to
extend south east, e.g. down to Crystal Palace via Loughborough
Junction, Herne Hill et. al. en route to the Hayes branch. A major
r

IIRC Crystal Palace et al already have a railway service.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Dec 7, 5:59*pm, Graeme Wall wrote:
How else are you going to fund it?

From the developers whom will reap the financial benefits perhaps? I'm
not against a loan in the general per se, just against a taxpayer-
subsidised and guaranteed one, especially given the site's history of
financial imploding.

IIRC Crystal Palace et al already have a railway service.
It does indeed, however it operates on a two track railway that has to
be shared with longer-distance suburban services. Compare and contrast
the service provision of Crystal Palace and Hendon Central, both zone
3/4 stations...not to mention that removing the current services from
their respective termini frees up capacity there.

The emphasis certainly should be on joining up the dots. Unfortunately
the people who make the decisions seem to be totally unaware of how
that would benefit London. The second major failing of this Battersea scheme
is that is does not link up with other routes.

My particular obsession - an extension from Kennington to Clapham Junction
- would most definitely "join up the dots" as would other obvious - to practical
people - proposals like extending the Bakerloo Line to Peckham Rye and the
Victoria Line to Leytonstone.

On 07/12/2012 18:54, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On Dec 7, 5:59 pm, Graeme wrote:
How else are you going to fund it?

From the developers whom will reap the financial benefits perhaps? I'm
not against a loan in the general per se, just against a taxpayer-
subsidised and guaranteed one, especially given the site's history of
financial imploding.

So best not to invest in some wastrel scheme to redevelop old docks the
other end of London then? After all the docks business imploded.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 7 Dec, 09:54, Jamie Thompson wrote:
A role which previously the North London line filled. *The Jubilee
Line is an expensive replacement. *By now the North London Line to
Docklands would have been an Overground Link.

The North London Line in that part of town was okay if you wanted to go to
north London and if you could bear the infrequent service it was fine for
Silvertown and North Woolwich. But it was utterly useless for getting from
Stratford/West Ham/Canning Town to places south of the river. The
development in the docks was not adequately served - even three car DLR
trains are still slow (and the Waterloo & City heaving at the other end) and
no great substitute for a proper tube lin to the centre.

Which is why I believe the NLL needed to be diverted from Silvertown
and North Woolwich, and instead run under the Thames to an interchange
with the Dartford lines. *There would nothing to prevent an
interchange staion with a Jubilee route to Thamesmead.

In my eyes, the ideal situation given hindsight would have been for
the NLL's Poplar branch to have been renovated and tunnelled under the
river as the DLR was and linked to a rebuilt Greenwich Park branch,
which would then run through to Clapham Junction via Peckham Rye.
Likewise, there would have been little need to wait for Crossrail to
run from North Woolwich to Abbey Wood had the NLL been extended the
same way, with a service from the North Kent line running via Canning
Town and Stratford to the Goblin at South Tottenham, thence onward to
Willesden Junction and Richmond.

Given the demand between Stratford and Canary Wharf I believe a grade-
separated curve linking the two Crossrail branches would serve this
demand far better than the Jubilee line does, and it would enable more
use to be made of the capacity on the two branches (i.e. every train
to Canary Wharf from Whitechapel is a train to Shenfield that has to
use up capacity at Liverpool Street). Accordingly, the Jubilee could
then have it's branch to Thamesmead, with the DLR running alongside
the NLL up to Stratford.

...swinging back on topic, the Northern Line extension to Battersea
couldn't be more of a pig's ear if they tried, and funding it with a
loan is disgraceful. The capacity of the CX branch should be used to
extend south east, e.g. down to Crystal Palace via Loughborough
Junction, Herne Hill et. al. en route to the Hayes branch. A major
redevelopment of the drain (including lengthening the existing Bank
platforms to 8 car length and building new ones at Waterloo) would be
the ideal way to serve the Battersea area, with stations at Bank,
Blackfriars, Waterloo, Lambeth, Vauxhall, Nine Elms, Battersea Park,
Battersea High Street and Clapham Junction, with depot facilities
provided by London Road (the Bakerloo getting a new depot on its own
southern extension.)

Even if you accept that the drain proposal above is dependant on the
Bakerloo works to free up London Road, then simply building Clapham
Junction to Vauxhall then linking to Kennington is the way to do
things for the time being so you can just reuse the infrastructure
later in doing things properly. Likewise, the reasons given for not
interchanging with Vauxhall are bunk of the highest order. Routing the
line as required and hollowing out the platform tunnels is all that is
needed for passive provision until Crossrail 2 relieves the Victoria
line enough to permit the interchange being brought into use.

Excellent thinking sir. I cannot fault it.

On 07/12/2012 18:54, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On Dec 7, 5:59 pm, Graeme Wall wrote:
How else are you going to fund it?

From the developers whom will reap the financial benefits perhaps? I'm
not against a loan in the general per se, just against a taxpayer-
subsidised and guaranteed one, especially given the site's history of
financial imploding.

The Nine Elms and Battersea developments aren't just about the power
station site, which has been undeveloped through at least two boom and
bust cycles.
--
Phil Cook