Bakerloo Line Extension
 

"Mrs Redboots" wrote in message
...
Nick Cooper wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 1 Nov 2004:

I'd hate to see what the in-car track diagram would look like, though!

Presumably they'd do as they do on the District/Circle lines and have
some and some, according to which destination the particular train
normally served.

Or perhaps, as with the Met/H&C/Circle in the early 1990s, the 'new' branch
would have been badged as a line in its own right.

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

Dave Arquati wrote in message ...
TheOneKEA wrote:
ISTR hearing a long time ago that there were murmurings of this
proposal staging Yet Another Comeback.

Personally I think it will never see the light of day, unless Kenny L
can find the cash in his 3bilGBP TfL package.

Certainly little likelihood at the moment at Cross River Transit covers
a significant proportion of Walworth and Peckham (although not Camberwell).
http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/2

Fascinating.


Transport plans for Walworth Road and Camberwell include re-opening the
former stations there, on the Thameslink service to Sutton/Wimbledon.
Those plans are very sketchy though.
http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/57

Anything is better than nothing; it's just that old frequency chestnut
popping up again - Camberwell would likely have three platforms for
reversing, which means higher, more stable Bakerloo frequencies.
Meaning a better service for Camberwell.

How many tph run on the Sutton/Wimbledon lines near Walworth Road and
Camberwell, and if they stop, how much service wreckage will there be?
(This assumes that the route is double track).

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

TheOneKEA wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote in message ...

TheOneKEA wrote:

ISTR hearing a long time ago that there were murmurings of this
proposal staging Yet Another Comeback.

Personally I think it will never see the light of day, unless Kenny L
can find the cash in his 3bilGBP TfL package.

Certainly little likelihood at the moment at Cross River Transit covers
a significant proportion of Walworth and Peckham (although not Camberwell).
http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/2


Fascinating.


Transport plans for Walworth Road and Camberwell include re-opening the
former stations there, on the Thameslink service to Sutton/Wimbledon.
Those plans are very sketchy though.
http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/57


Anything is better than nothing; it's just that old frequency chestnut
popping up again - Camberwell would likely have three platforms for
reversing, which means higher, more stable Bakerloo frequencies.
Meaning a better service for Camberwell.

I don't think there's any doubt that a Bakerloo extension would provide
a much better service to Camberwell; it's all about the cost really. A
cost-benefit analysis would prove illuminating; this is a busy bus
corridor and the Bakerloo must have unused capacity on northbound trains
from Elephant & Castle in the morning peak (and vice versa in the evening).

How many tph run on the Sutton/Wimbledon lines near Walworth Road and
Camberwell, and if they stop, how much service wreckage will there be?
(This assumes that the route is double track).

4tph in each direction with little scope for increase under the current
Thameslink 2000 proposals.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

Dave Arquati wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 1 Nov 2004:

I don't think there's any doubt that a Bakerloo extension would provide
a much better service to Camberwell; it's all about the cost really. A
cost-benefit analysis would prove illuminating; this is a busy bus
corridor and the Bakerloo must have unused capacity on northbound
trains from Elephant & Castle in the morning peak (and vice versa in the
evening).

It certainly does in the evening - if I want to go to Paddington, as
very occasionally I do, from where I live between Brixton and Clapham, I
find I have an infinitely more pleasant journey if I take the Northern
Line to the Elephant, or even to Waterloo, and change there, rather than
trying to get on a Bakerloo Line train at Oxford Circus. The train
fills at Waterloo and Charing Cross, but between Elephant and Waterloo
it's practically empty.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 31 October 2004

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message k...
"Mrs Redboots" wrote in message
...
Nick Cooper wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 1 Nov 2004:

I'd hate to see what the in-car track diagram would look like, though!

Presumably they'd do as they do on the District/Circle lines and have
some and some, according to which destination the particular train
normally served.

Or perhaps, as with the Met/H&C/Circle in the early 1990s, the 'new' branch
would have been badged as a line in its own right.

The Palace Line? Alexandra Palace to Moorgate via Finsbury Park?

It could be treated like the Wimbleware service on the District, with
some peak-time interworkings from the Northern Line High Barnet
branch; during the peaks we could have Kennington-Alexandra Palace via
Highgate LL, or High Barnet to Moorgate via Highgate HL.

It would definitely lessen the pressure on Camden Town, and even more
so on the City branch. If the HSE could be talked into allowing 1995TS
and 313s to interwork like they do on the Bakerloo Line, you'd get
even better use of the old GN&CR.

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message k...
"Mrs Redboots" wrote in message
...
Nick Cooper wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 1 Nov 2004:

I'd hate to see what the in-car track diagram would look like, though!

Presumably they'd do as they do on the District/Circle lines and have
some and some, according to which destination the particular train
normally served.

Or perhaps, as with the Met/H&C/Circle in the early 1990s, the 'new' branch
would have been badged as a line in its own right.

That would have made the most sense, especially with the absence of
Edgware+. Trains running - "on paper" - purely as Finsbury Park to
Alexandra Palace or FP to Edgware would create an elongated Y-shaped
line, with only minimal track-sharing between just south of East
Finchley and just north of Finchley Central:


Edg.
\ \ [etc.]
\ \ MH(TH) |
\ \____|_______ |
\ | \ |-WF
\ MHE \|
\- BO |
\ |\
\ |-|- FC
[etc.] | |
|-|- EF
| |
| | ____________| AP
| |/ | |
H'e -|-| CG MH
| \
A'y -| \- CE
| \
[etc.] \ SG FP
\__|___|_____ [To Moorgate?]

Although obviously feasible, I can see less of an imperitive to run
High Barnet to Finsbury Park, since both Finchley Central and East
Finchley have plenty of platform capacity for interchange, although
that doesn't rule out "peak hours only" services during the rush hour.

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

In article , Nick
Cooper 625 writes
That would have made the most sense, especially with the absence of
Edgware+. Trains running - "on paper" - purely as Finsbury Park to
Alexandra Palace or FP to Edgware

Moorgate, not FP.

would create an elongated Y-shaped
line, with only minimal track-sharing between just south of East
Finchley and just north of Finchley Central:
[...]

CULG has a list of the planned services and some diagrams.

Given the existence of Highgate Depot, I really can't see them trying to
keep separate fleets for the various routes. Just like we don't keep the
Bank and CX branch fleets separate now.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

In message , Clive D. W. Feather
writes

Given the existence of Highgate Depot, I really can't see them trying
to keep separate fleets for the various routes. Just like we don't keep
the Bank and CX branch fleets separate now.
But could this just be because both CX and Bank trains go to both
destinations?
--
Clive.

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

In article , Clive Coleman
writes
Given the existence of Highgate Depot, I really can't see them trying
to keep separate fleets for the various routes. Just like we don't
keep the Bank and CX branch fleets separate now.
But could this just be because both CX and Bank trains go to both
destinations?

No, it's because it's a damn site easier to keep one fleet of trains
than split it.

As I said, I can't see a Northern-with-Ally-Pally Line having two
fleets. It means you can't stable a Moorgate fleet train at High Barnet
and use it for a Camden Town fleet service the next day.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:10:10 +0000, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote:

In article , Nick
Cooper 625 writes
That would have made the most sense, especially with the absence of
Edgware+. Trains running - "on paper" - purely as Finsbury Park to
Alexandra Palace or FP to Edgware

Moorgate, not FP.

Yes, I did mention the NCL/Moorgate earlier, although I'm not 100% up
on how firm that linkage was in the planning compared to FP to AP.
The latter, of course, was all surface, so this raises the question as
to how the "join" would have been handled: either the surface line
going into tube before FP - perhaps keeping the surface capability for
terminating trains - or after, which raises the question of either to
keep or abandon the NCL tube platforms.

We know what was planned for the Northern Heights in its entirety, but
it's quite easy to compartmentalise the various components on if in
terms of feasibility:

1) FP-AP/HB "only" needed electrification, as the track and stations
were all there (not too up on signalling, but IIRC some work was done
in this area) and, indeed, in use.

2) MHE branch to Edgware, which needed far more work (track doubling,
bridges, new track into Northern Line Edgware, etc.), but again this
is all on the surface.

3) The physical linkage of the AP branch and the NCL, with a
relatively short length of tunnel, where ever it's placed.

4) The line and stations beyond Edgware.

At the very least - in the first instance - we could have had
passengers interchanging with the NCL at FP, and usage patterns would
have determined whether or not stage 3) would have been worthwhile,
although the advent of the Victoria line - if at all - would have
raised questions in the case of a tube-level linkage, rather than a
surface one.

would create an elongated Y-shaped
line, with only minimal track-sharing between just south of East
Finchley and just north of Finchley Central:
[...]

CULG has a list of the planned services and some diagrams.

Given the existence of Highgate Depot, I really can't see them trying to
keep separate fleets for the various routes. Just like we don't keep the
Bank and CX branch fleets separate now.

I know - that's why I said "on paper." :-) In terms on in-car
diagrams I would imagine one similar to the "with NCL" one of the
early-1970s, showing both distinct sections under a common management.
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk