Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Updated London Crossrail 2 route protected
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Updated London Crossrail 2 route protected
I've walked along that section of abandoned line, and you could squeeze a double track through, although it would pass uncomfortably close to the building. Compulsory purchase the block, rebuild the line, then sell the flats again at a slightly reduced price.
However, Copthall only sees a match once a fortnight and seems to be coping with free shutt buses from Mill Hill Broadway. If you wanted to go all the way to Edgware, you've got the M1 and an industrial estate on the track bed, and they're just in the process of building a small housing development immediately west of the A1/A41. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Updated London Crossrail 2 route protected
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. -- Spud |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Updated London Crossrail 2 route protected
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Updated London Crossrail 2 route protected
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Updated London Crossrail 2 route protected
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? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Updated London Crossrail 2 route protected
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Updated London Crossrail 2 route protected
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.
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Updated London Crossrail 2 route protected
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 |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Safeguarding for Crossrail 2 updated | London Transport | |||
Updated TfL Real Time Web Page | London Transport | |||
Oyster travel cap (z2-6 ) if travel is within 2-6 but fare is via Z1(UPDATED !!!) | London Transport | |||
Updated (ATOC) Staff Guide to Oyster (long) | London Transport | |||
DLR website updated recently? | London Transport |