On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 10:59:21 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 30/03/2015 10:55, d wrote:
Just because they're square doesn't mean they're flats. They're houses.
Though
looks like there are 4 in the way, not 2. Even so, still irrelevant in the
scheme of things. Maybe a million or 2 to buy out compared to the cost of the
extension which would probably run to 7 or 8 digits.


Still don't see what you would achieve by extending unless you could get
across the M1 to the main line.

What would be achieved is better tube access for residents of that part of
Mill Hill and easier access to copthall stadium for people who don't live
there.

Anyway , its all moot since it'll never happen. TfL would far rather spend
billions digging new holes in south london (northern & bakerloo extension)
which is already over served with rail transport, than upgrading anything in
north london for a tenth the price. IMO.

--
Spud

On 2015\03\30 10:59, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 30/03/2015 10:55, d wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 17:10:52 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 27/03/2015 13:04, d wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:34:37 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
Your small houses appear to be 2 blocks of 8 flats each and you still
end up the wrong side of the M1. Can't really see the great advantage
of extending to Copthall.

Not sure where you're looking but they're definately houses.



https://goo.gl/maps/PaOGs The block in the background is right on the
extended line from Mill Hill East.

Just because they're square doesn't mean they're flats. They're
houses. Though
looks like there are 4 in the way, not 2. Even so, still irrelevant in
the
scheme of things. Maybe a million or 2 to buy out compared to the cost
of the
extension which would probably run to 7 or 8 digits.


Still don't see what you would achieve by extending unless you could get
across the M1 to the main line.

This argument is cracking me up. I'm trying to picture the architects of
the M1 saying "We can't build a motorway from London to Leeds because
there are 37 railways in the way."

If there was demand for the Northern Line to go to Mill Hill Broadway, a
tunnel would be dug. Single would probably be enough, although you'd
want to redouble the surface part from Finchley Central to Copthall. But
the fact that they've never bothered putting an interchange by Colindeep
Lane where the Edgware branch crosses the Thameslink route makes me
query the business case for a Mill Hill interchange, even if a surface
alignment could be found and the existing bridges were double track.

Incidentally, I just realized how ironic it is that Belsize Park had
deep level shelters constructed beneath the Northern Line platforms,
when they could have dug two platform tunnels on the Thameslink line and
used them as shelters instead. Although, perhaps they wouldn't have been
deep enough for the purpose, and their construction would have probably
required several months of closure of two tracks on interrupted
operation of the Thameslink Line. Having said that, wouldn't
construction of the deep level tubes have caused settlement in the
Northern Line? Were speed restrictions imposed during their construction?

On 30/03/2015 12:02, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2015\03\30 10:59, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 30/03/2015 10:55, d wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 17:10:52 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 27/03/2015 13:04, d wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:34:37 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
Your small houses appear to be 2 blocks of 8 flats each and you still
end up the wrong side of the M1. Can't really see the great
advantage
of extending to Copthall.

Not sure where you're looking but they're definately houses.



https://goo.gl/maps/PaOGs The block in the background is right on
the
extended line from Mill Hill East.

Just because they're square doesn't mean they're flats. They're
houses. Though
looks like there are 4 in the way, not 2. Even so, still irrelevant in
the
scheme of things. Maybe a million or 2 to buy out compared to the cost
of the
extension which would probably run to 7 or 8 digits.


Still don't see what you would achieve by extending unless you could get
across the M1 to the main line.

This argument is cracking me up. I'm trying to picture the architects of
the M1 saying "We can't build a motorway from London to Leeds because
there are 37 railways in the way."

It's not that the M1 is an insuperable barrier but the only point in
extending the Northern Line from Mill Hill East would be to link it to
Broadway station which lies the other side of the M1/A1 corridor.
There's also an extensive housing development to negotiate, presumably
in tunnel, before that. Oh and Spud's two or four houses actually near
the tube station.

Oh and the architects of the M1 probably said, don't worry about the
railways they'll all be gone in a couple of years :-)


If there was demand for the Northern Line to go to Mill Hill Broadway, a
tunnel would be dug. Single would probably be enough, although you'd
want to redouble the surface part from Finchley Central to Copthall. But
the fact that they've never bothered putting an interchange by Colindeep
Lane where the Edgware branch crosses the Thameslink route makes me
query the business case for a Mill Hill interchange, even if a surface
alignment could be found and the existing bridges were double track.

Precisely my point. It is relatively trivial from an engineering point
of view to get the line from East to Broadway, it just takes money but I
can't see that there is any business case for it. Apart from a putative
link to Copthall stadium where is the traffic going to come from to
make it worthwhile doing? Rugby Union crowds are still a fraction of
those attending soccer matches. A couple of thousand fans once a
fortnight between September and May is not a major traffic flow.


Incidentally, I just realized how ironic it is that Belsize Park had
deep level shelters constructed beneath the Northern Line platforms,
when they could have dug two platform tunnels on the Thameslink line and
used them as shelters instead. Although, perhaps they wouldn't have been
deep enough for the purpose, and their construction would have probably
required several months of closure of two tracks on interrupted
operation of the Thameslink Line.

The Northern Line tunnels were, of course, intended to be part of a post
war express line.


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

What could be done relatively cheaply would be to build a second platform at Mill Hill East. Combined with reversing trains at Finchley Central in the reversing siding to the south of the station, rather than in a platform as at present, you could increase service frequency to Mill Hill East. Or run a Finsbury Par to Mill Hill East service at a decent frequency.

On 2015-03-30, Steve Lewis wrote:
What could be done relatively cheaply would be to build a second platform
at Mill Hill East.

A platform may be relatively cheap. Passenger access to it, not so much.
And all you get is that a train can depart as soon as the following
train arrives.

Combined with reversing trains at Finchley Central in the reversing siding
to the south of the station, rather than in a platform as at present,

As soon as you do that you have to path them between High Barnet trains in
both directions, with consequent problems for both services. And you've
just added to the turnaround time at that end. The current shuttle
frequency is 15 minutes, 10 minutes is possible (though not reliably
so) at the moment. I don't think your suggestions could make 10 viable,
let alone doing any better.

you could increase service frequency to Mill Hill East. Or run a Finsbury
Par to Mill Hill East service at a decent frequency.

Finsbury Park? There's an awful lot of missing infrastructure before
that's possible! When through services (to anywhere) run, they take a
path that could otherwise be a High Barnet train, and because of the
conflict at Finchley Central they either risk an extra path loss, or add
a delay which makes any frequency gain impossible.

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 10:09:14 +0000 (UTC),
d wrote:

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 10:59:21 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 30/03/2015 10:55, d wrote:
Just because they're square doesn't mean they're flats. They're houses.
Though
looks like there are 4 in the way, not 2. Even so, still irrelevant in the
scheme of things. Maybe a million or 2 to buy out compared to the cost of the
extension which would probably run to 7 or 8 digits.


Still don't see what you would achieve by extending unless you could get
across the M1 to the main line.

What would be achieved is better tube access for residents of that part of
Mill Hill and easier access to copthall stadium for people who don't live
there.

Anyway , its all moot since it'll never happen. TfL would far rather spend
billions digging new holes in south london (northern & bakerloo extension)
which is already over served with rail transport, than upgrading anything in
north london for a tenth the price. IMO.

Despite the efforts of the SR and its predecessors there are still
assorted holes in the railway coverage of South London.

On Monday, 30 March 2015 12:37:24 UTC+1, Steve Lewis wrote:
What could be done relatively cheaply would be to build a second platform at
Mill Hill East. Combined with reversing trains at Finchley Central in the
reversing siding to the south of the station, rather than in a platform as at
present, you could increase service frequency to Mill Hill East. Or run a
Finsbury Par to Mill Hill East service at a decent frequency.

Apart from the other snags already raised, there is no spare platform capacity or even space at Finsburyt Park any more.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 2015\03\25 10:15, Robin9 wrote:

It is one of the several anomalies in London's public transport
infrastructure
that Muswell Hill, like Roehampton, has no rail service of any kind.
That
abandoned route has now been partly built over (near Muswell Hill Road)
so it is unlikely to be fully reopened.

A more likely candidate for reopening is the route between Highgate and
Finsbury Park which still exists as a popular walkway (aka public
footpath)
as far as the ECML. The flyover bridge of course is long gone.

If that route were re-adopted and a bridge re-installed, your
long-championed
route via Finsbury Park through Canonbury Tunnel would become feasible.
Obviously the idea would suffer from not-invented-here syndrome as the
so-called experts would immediately poo-poo the proposal.

In the very very long term, London Underground should examine the
feasiblity
of a new Underground line starting at Arnos Groves, proceeding via
New Southgate, Muswell Hill, Highgate, Upper Holloway and Camden Road to

Euston and through the centre of London.

How about this.

Chessington South / Shepperton etc
......
Earlsfield
enter tunnel...
Clapham Junction
Kings Road / Oakley Street
South Ken (with northern entrance near Imperial College)
Lancaster Gate / Paddington
South Hampstead / Swiss Cottage
Belsize Park / new Thameslink platforms / Hampstead Heath (I can't work
out if that's possible without demolishing the Royal Free)
Highgate
Muswell Hill Broadway (with an entrance by each roundabout)
Alexandra Palace
surface...
Bowes Park (surface walk to Bounds Green?)
Palmers Green, Winchmore Hill, Grange Park
some trains continue to Gordon Hill, others enter tunnel...
Enfield Town (not Chase)
Carterhatch Lane / Willow Road
surface...
Turkey Street, Theobalds Grove, Cheshunt... Stansted

I know it looks circuitous on a tube map, but it's nearly a straight
line. I also know that it avoids the West End, but it also takes a lot
of journeys out of the West End that don't need to be there. For
instance, if you want to get from South Ken to Luton Airport, you would
currently go via St Pancras or Green Park / West Hampstead, whereas this
would give you one change at Belsize Park. Most of the population of
North London would end up with shorter routes to Paddington and
Kensington that kept them out of the crowded trains. This route would
also take a lot of four wheel drives off the road in wealthy areas like
Muswell Hill, whereas Crossrail 2 looks designed to get people who can't
afford cars out of buses (which is actually pretty futile, especially
since they have no intention of cutting the buses in Hackney but will
just run them half empty). So I think it will achieve more than
Crossrail 2, but should be cheaper and less disruptive to build.

It's not as straight as you claim but it's no worse and no more fanciful than
the current "official" proposal. But, as you admit, it avoids Central London.
As the biggest requirement is for more capacity through the middle, I can't
imagine this would find favour among those who make the decisions.

I'm also sceptical about the need to go way out of London. In my opinion,
any new line must provide:

1) new capacity in the " middle" without duplicating existing lines
2) connections with as many other lines as possible, including London
Overground
3) filling in gaps in public transport provision, e. g. Muswell Hill.

On 2015\04\08 23:14, Robin9 wrote:
'Basil Jet[_4_ Wrote:
;147807']On 2015\03\25 10:15, Robin9 wrote:-

It is one of the several anomalies in London's public transport
infrastructure that Muswell Hill, like Roehampton, has no rail
service of any kind.
That abandoned route has now been partly built over (near Muswell Hill
Road)
so it is unlikely to be fully reopened.

A more likely candidate for reopening is the route between Highgate and
Finsbury Park which still exists as a popular walkway (aka public
footpath) as far as the ECML. The flyover bridge of course is long gone.

If that route were re-adopted and a bridge re-installed, your
long-championed route via Finsbury Park through Canonbury Tunnel
would become feasible. Obviously the idea would suffer from
not-invented-here
syndrome as the so-called experts would immediately poo-poo the
proposal.

In the very very long term, London Underground should examine the
feasiblity of a new Underground line starting at Arnos Groves,
proceeding via
New Southgate, Muswell Hill, Highgate, Upper Holloway and Camden Road
to
Euston and through the centre of London.-

How about this.

Chessington South / Shepperton etc
......
Earlsfield
enter tunnel...
Clapham Junction
Kings Road / Oakley Street
South Ken (with northern entrance near Imperial College)
Lancaster Gate / Paddington
South Hampstead / Swiss Cottage
Belsize Park / new Thameslink platforms / Hampstead Heath (I can't work
out if that's possible without demolishing the Royal Free)
Highgate
Muswell Hill Broadway (with an entrance by each roundabout)
Alexandra Palace
surface...
Bowes Park (surface walk to Bounds Green?)
Palmers Green, Winchmore Hill, Grange Park
some trains continue to Gordon Hill, others enter tunnel...
Enfield Town (not Chase)
Carterhatch Lane / Willow Road
surface...
Turkey Street, Theobalds Grove, Cheshunt... Stansted

I know it looks circuitous on a tube map, but it's nearly a straight
line. I also know that it avoids the West End, but it also takes a lot
of journeys out of the West End that don't need to be there. For
instance, if you want to get from South Ken to Luton Airport, you would
currently go via St Pancras or Green Park / West Hampstead, whereas this

would give you one change at Belsize Park. Most of the population of
North London would end up with shorter routes to Paddington and
Kensington that kept them out of the crowded trains. This route would
also take a lot of four wheel drives off the road in wealthy areas like
Muswell Hill, whereas Crossrail 2 looks designed to get people who can't

afford cars out of buses (which is actually pretty futile, especially
since they have no intention of cutting the buses in Hackney but will
just run them half empty). So I think it will achieve more than
Crossrail 2, but should be cheaper and less disruptive to build.

It's not as straight as you claim but it's no worse and no more fanciful
than
the current "official" proposal. But, as you admit, it avoids Central
London.
As the biggest requirement is for more capacity through the middle, I
can't
imagine this would find favour among those who make the decisions.

I'm also sceptical about the need to go way out of London. In my
opinion,
any new line must provide:

1) new capacity in the " middle" without duplicating existing lines

The connectivity there is so good already that a new line can't take
more than 3 minutes off any journey, whereas my line above would take
half an hour off some journeys, as well as reducing the need to use the
lines in the busiest area.