| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Updated Crossrail 2 route protected
From
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/u...ng-development Extract: A proposed major infrastructure project, Crossrail 2, moved a step forward today (24 March 2015) as the government published updated plans to protect land for its route from conflicting development. Crossrail 2 is a high frequency, high capacity rail line that would run between south west and north east London. No decision has yet been taken on its construction, and the Department for Transport is working with Transport for London (TfL) and Network Rail on a business case, after the Chancellor made £2 million available to support this work. .... Michele Dix, TfL’s Managing Director for Crossrail 2, said: "The confirmed safeguarding marks a vital step forward in progressing Crossrail 2 which is significant in providing more rail capacity to support growth in London for the future, in particular up to 200,000 new homes. We’ll continue developing the scheme reflecting comments received to date with a public consultation later this year. We are working hard to deliver Crossrail 2 by 2030." The updated safeguarded route published today, following a 10-week consultation, extends from Wimbledon in the south-west to Tottenham Hale and New Southgate in the north-east. It will replace the previous directions and will ensure new development does not affect the ability to build and operate Crossrail 2 in the future. Under the new Crossrail 2 safeguarding directions, relevant planning applications in safeguarded areas will be referred to TfL for advice. If development interferes with Crossrail 2, either a compromise will be reached or the development will not be allowed. TfL currently has no plans to compulsorily purchase properties along the route. Any property or land owner who considers they may be eligible for statutory blight should seek advice or contact TfL. The government and TfL have made modifications to the proposed safeguarded route at Wandsworth Common, Chelsea, Soho Square and Angel to allay public concerns, after carefully considering the consultation responses. The updated direction will come into effect from today. Crossrail 2’s route now passes through the City of Westminster, the London Boroughs of Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Hackney, Haringey, Islington, Merton, Wandsworth, and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Among the most significant changes to the previous safeguarded route a - a new tunnel entrance south of Tottenham Hale station to take the line from above to below ground - a proposed extension to New Southgate - a station connecting to both Euston and King’s Cross, instead of at King’s Cross only - an altered route running from Angel to Tottenham Hale and Seven Sisters via Dalston Junction, instead of via Hackney Central to Epping - an altered route running from Victoria to Angel via Tottenham Court Road instead of via Piccadilly Circus - an altered route running from Wimbledon to Chelsea via Clapham Junction and Tooting Broadway, instead of via Putney Safeguarding is a planning process that enables the government to protect land needed for long term infrastructure projects from developments that would prevent them being built or make them more expensive. Safeguarding does not necessarily prevent developments taking place; it ensures that when they take place the design can accommodate nationally important infrastructure. |
Updated Crossrail 2 route protected
In message
-septem ber.org, at 15:54:07 on Tue, 24 Mar 2015, Recliner remarked: We are working hard to deliver Crossrail 2 by 2030." So given the track record (groan) of Thameslink 2000, we can expect it to open in about 2048? -- Roland Perry |
Updated Crossrail 2 route protected
Roland Perry wrote:
In message -septem ber.org, at 15:54:07 on Tue, 24 Mar 2015, Recliner remarked: We are working hard to deliver Crossrail 2 by 2030." So given the track record (groan) of Thameslink 2000, we can expect it to open in about 2048? Yes, if they're still moving the route around, completion by 2030 seems highly unlikely. Your guess seems as good as any. |
Updated Crossrail 2 route protected
So given the track record (groan) of Thameslink 2000, we can expect it to
open in about 2048? Yes, if they're still moving the route around, completion by 2030 seems highly unlikely. Your guess seems as good as any. ====================================== To quote from my rule book. "Expect movement on any track, in any direction at anytime." Cheers Roger T. |
Updated Crossrail 2 route protected
On 2015\03\24 21:04, Roger T. wrote:
So given the track record (groan) of Thameslink 2000, we can expect it to open in about 2048? Yes, if they're still moving the route around, completion by 2030 seems highly unlikely. Your guess seems as good as any. ====================================== To quote from my rule book. "Expect movement on any track, in any direction at anytime." Am I the only one who think the Seven Sisters - Alexandra Palace branch is like an April Fool joke? I might be able to see some sense in it if they could reopen the abandoned alignment and extend it to Stratford over existing lines, but as a new build tunnel linking to a line almost exactly at right angles to it, nuts! What's going on there? Has some survey determined that there is an unusually high proportion of transvestite dwarves in that area, a demographic hitherto neglected by transport planners? |
Updated Crossrail 2 route protected
On 24/03/2015 21:46, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2015\03\24 21:04, Roger T. wrote: So given the track record (groan) of Thameslink 2000, we can expect it to open in about 2048? Yes, if they're still moving the route around, completion by 2030 seems highly unlikely. Your guess seems as good as any. ====================================== To quote from my rule book. "Expect movement on any track, in any direction at anytime." Am I the only one who think the Seven Sisters - Alexandra Palace branch is like an April Fool joke? I might be able to see some sense in it if they could reopen the abandoned alignment and extend it to Stratford over existing lines, but as a new build tunnel linking to a line almost exactly at right angles to it, nuts! What's going on there? Has some survey determined that there is an unusually high proportion of transvestite dwarves in that area, a demographic hitherto neglected by transport planners? You've not see the TD-TSI amendment in the fourth railway package, then? -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Updated Crossrail 2 route protected
On 2015\03\24 22:00, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 24/03/2015 21:46, Basil Jet wrote: Am I the only one who think the Seven Sisters - Alexandra Palace branch is like an April Fool joke? I might be able to see some sense in it if they could reopen the abandoned alignment and extend it to Stratford over existing lines, but as a new build tunnel linking to a line almost exactly at right angles to it, nuts! What's going on there? Has some survey determined that there is an unusually high proportion of transvestite dwarves in that area, a demographic hitherto neglected by transport planners? You've not see the TD-TSI amendment in the fourth railway package, then? I have no idea what this means! |
Updated Crossrail 2 route protected
On 2015\03\24 21:04, Roger T. wrote:
To quote from my rule book. "Expect movement on any track, in any direction at anytime." That's a reassuring thought as you do 125 through a converging junction. |
Updated Crossrail 2 route protected
On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 21:46:55 +0000
Basil Jet wrote: Am I the only one who think the Seven Sisters - Alexandra Palace branch is like an April Fool joke? I might be able to see some sense in it if Given how up and coming Muswell Hill is these days and the amount of bus traffic that crawls around there, I'd suggest re-opening the Highgate to Alexandra Palace branch wouldn't be a bad idea. The trackbed is still mostly extant and there could be a shuttle service to highgate high level where pax could walk down to the main northern line at the low level. -- Spud |
Quote:
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. |
Updated Crossrail 2 route protected
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:32:06 +0000
Paul Corfield wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:16:11 +0000 (UTC), wrote: On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 21:46:55 +0000 Basil Jet wrote: Am I the only one who think the Seven Sisters - Alexandra Palace branch is like an April Fool joke? I might be able to see some sense in it if Given how up and coming Muswell Hill is these days and the amount of bus traffic that crawls around there, I'd suggest re-opening the Highgate to Alexandra Palace branch wouldn't be a bad idea. The trackbed is still mostly extant and there could be a shuttle service to highgate high level where pax could walk down to the main northern line at the low level. Unfortunately the rare bats that roost in the disused tunnels would stop that. I have been lucky enough to visit Highgate High Level and walk on the old track bed and up to the tunnel entrance. Big warning signs about not disturbing the bats! I think it's a criminal offence to disturb them. Cue rant by way of reply. ;-) Meh. I'm sure they could be moved. Besides, this short branch would probably only require one of the tunnels to be re-opened. Obviously it'll never happen but it would be a real boon for that area which is badly snarled with traffic all the time. God knows why those idiots back in the day took up the track in the first place. What were they thinking? If they were at all. -- Spud |
Updated London Crossrail 2 route protected
|
Updated London Crossrail 2 route protected
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 12:07:24 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:16:11 +0000 (UTC), wrote: On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 21:46:55 +0000 Basil Jet wrote: Am I the only one who think the Seven Sisters - Alexandra Palace branch is like an April Fool joke? I might be able to see some sense in it if Given how up and coming Muswell Hill is these days and the amount of bus traffic that crawls around there, I'd suggest re-opening the Highgate to Alexandra Palace branch wouldn't be a bad idea. The trackbed is still mostly extant and there could be a shuttle service to highgate high level where pax could walk down to the main northern line at the low level. Corrected version. The closure of the Northern City route to Muswell Hill never made sense. AFAIR it was somewhat under-used at the time and was closed even before the dreaded Doctor came on the scene. Nor did cutting back the Northern Line to Mill Hill East. It did to the motorway builders. Big Mistake 2 didn't help a lot either but Green-belting took away much of what had been intended future traffic. Had the extension been built to Mill Hill Broadway, today North Londoners would have had a short cut to Thameslink. cough 221, 240 /cough |
Updated London Crossrail 2 route protected
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 20:22:54 +0000
Charles Ellson wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 12:07:24 +0000, e27002 aurora wrote: The closure of the Northern City route to Muswell Hill never made sense. AFAIR it was somewhat under-used at the time and was closed even before the dreaded Doctor came on the scene. The usual short term thinking we excel in in the UK. Of course if they'd bothered to electrify it instead of running some wheezing steam service people even then might have been more inclined to use it. If it was open today I can guarantee it would be packed. It did to the motorway builders. Big Mistake 2 didn't help a lot either but Green-belting took away much of what had been intended future traffic. Had the extension been built to Mill Hill Broadway, today North Londoners would have had a short cut to Thameslink. cough 221, 240 /cough Pffft. You ever travelled by bus in london in the rush hour? Might as well walk. -- Spud |
Updated London Crossrail 2 route protected
|
Updated London Crossrail 2 route protected
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 20:04:06 +0000
Charles Ellson wrote: On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:28:23 +0000 (UTC), wrote: Pffft. You ever travelled by bus in london in the rush hour? Might as well walk. If it was the rush hour, I'd probably use a train instead to get to a Thameslink station. And if they hadn't ripped up the track west of Mill Hill East you could have done. Actually apart from a couple of small houses which could easily be compulsory purchased the trackbed is clear all the way to Copthall and a bit beyond. If LU ever has any spare cash lying around they could do worse than re-extend back there since its a large housing area plus a sports stadium. -- Spud |
Updated London Crossrail 2 route protected
|
Updated London Crossrail 2 route protected
On 27/03/2015 09:27, d wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 20:04:06 +0000 Charles Ellson wrote: On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:28:23 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: Pffft. You ever travelled by bus in london in the rush hour? Might as well walk. If it was the rush hour, I'd probably use a train instead to get to a Thameslink station. And if they hadn't ripped up the track west of Mill Hill East you could have done. Actually apart from a couple of small houses which could easily be compulsory purchased the trackbed is clear all the way to Copthall and a bit beyond. If LU ever has any spare cash lying around they could do worse than re-extend back there since its a large housing area plus a sports stadium. Isn't that the section cut by the construction of the M1 or am I thinking of the wrong branch? -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Updated London Crossrail 2 route protected
On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 09:43:06 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote: On 27/03/2015 09:27, d wrote: On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 20:04:06 +0000 Charles Ellson wrote: On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:28:23 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: Pffft. You ever travelled by bus in london in the rush hour? Might as well walk. If it was the rush hour, I'd probably use a train instead to get to a Thameslink station. And if they hadn't ripped up the track west of Mill Hill East you could have done. Actually apart from a couple of small houses which could easily be compulsory purchased the trackbed is clear all the way to Copthall and a bit beyond. If LU ever has any spare cash lying around they could do worse than re-extend back there since its a large housing area plus a sports stadium. Isn't that the section cut by the construction of the M1 or am I thinking of the wrong branch? Copthall is before that section. Beyond that the trackbed is long buried first under an office block now a housing estate so the M1 isn't the only obstacle. Google maps gives a nice view. -- Spud |
Updated London Crossrail 2 route protected
On 27/03/2015 09:51, d wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 09:43:06 +0000 Graeme Wall wrote: On 27/03/2015 09:27, d wrote: On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 20:04:06 +0000 Charles Ellson wrote: On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:28:23 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: Pffft. You ever travelled by bus in london in the rush hour? Might as well walk. If it was the rush hour, I'd probably use a train instead to get to a Thameslink station. And if they hadn't ripped up the track west of Mill Hill East you could have done. Actually apart from a couple of small houses which could easily be compulsory purchased the trackbed is clear all the way to Copthall and a bit beyond. If LU ever has any spare cash lying around they could do worse than re-extend back there since its a large housing area plus a sports stadium. Isn't that the section cut by the construction of the M1 or am I thinking of the wrong branch? Copthall is before that section. Beyond that the trackbed is long buried first under an office block now a housing estate so the M1 isn't the only obstacle. Google maps gives a nice view. 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. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Updated Crossrail 2 route protected
On 24/03/2015 15:54, Recliner wrote:
- a station connecting to both Euston and King’s Cross, instead of at King’s Cross only That seems very sensible. If only they had thought of that when planning HS2. But it just occurs to me, perhaps they could add to the new station a pair of moving walkways connecting Euston with the King's Cross-St.Pancras complex? This would be greatly appreciated by all those who currently slog along the uneven pavements, exposed to the weather, between these two locations. It would also connect Eurostar/HS1 services and HS2, which currently have this large air gap between them. -- Clive Page |
Updated Crossrail 2 route protected
In message , at 11:03:54 on Fri, 27
Mar 2015, Clive Page remarked: - a station connecting to both Euston and King’s Cross, instead of at King’s Cross only That seems very sensible. If only they had thought of that when planning HS2. But it just occurs to me, perhaps they could add to the new station a pair of moving walkways connecting Euston with the King's Cross-St.Pancras complex? This would be greatly appreciated by all those who currently slog along the uneven pavements, exposed to the weather, between these two locations. It would also connect Eurostar/HS1 services and HS2, which currently have this large air gap between them. This idea crops up regularly (for as long as I can remember). I think the problem is the number existing things both above and below the ground over the route. -- Roland Perry |
Updated London Crossrail 2 route protected
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. -- Spud |
Updated Crossrail 2 route protected
On 2015\03\27 12:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:03:54 on Fri, 27 Mar 2015, Clive Page remarked: - a station connecting to both Euston and King’s Cross, instead of at King’s Cross only That seems very sensible. If only they had thought of that when planning HS2. But it just occurs to me, perhaps they could add to the new station a pair of moving walkways connecting Euston with the King's Cross-St.Pancras complex? This would be greatly appreciated by all those who currently slog along the uneven pavements, exposed to the weather, between these two locations. It would also connect Eurostar/HS1 services and HS2, which currently have this large air gap between them. This idea crops up regularly (for as long as I can remember). I think the problem is the number existing things both above and below the ground over the route. I'm not sure there's much under Brill Place / Phoenix Road. I wonder if there would be enough demand for a constant walkway in each direction... the distance is about half the distance between Gatwick North and South terminals, so perhaps a shuttle vehicle might have a narrower footprint and work out both quicker and cheaper. Or maybe a tram, and extend it to Peckham :-) |
Updated London Crossrail 2 route protected
|
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. |
Updated London Crossrail 2 route protected
On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 09:43:06 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote: On 27/03/2015 09:27, d wrote: On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 20:04:06 +0000 Charles Ellson wrote: On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:28:23 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: Pffft. You ever travelled by bus in london in the rush hour? Might as well walk. If it was the rush hour, I'd probably use a train instead to get to a Thameslink station. And if they hadn't ripped up the track west of Mill Hill East you could have done. Actually apart from a couple of small houses which could easily be compulsory purchased the trackbed is clear all the way to Copthall and a bit beyond. If LU ever has any spare cash lying around they could do worse than re-extend back there since its a large housing area plus a sports stadium. Isn't that the section cut by the construction of the M1 or am I thinking of the wrong branch? Much of the remaining (i.e. not prevented by the Green Belt) potential traffic that existed in the 1930s will have been taken away by Oyster, Thameslink etc. Boring through the foundations of the M1 now probably requires a serious reason to provide a second route to/from Edgware station. |
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 |
Updated London Crossrail 2 route protected
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. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
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 |
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? |
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 |
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.
|
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 |
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. |
Updated London Crossrail 2 route protected
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 |
Updated Crossrail 2 route protected
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Updated Crossrail 2 route protected
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:13 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk