Northern Heights (was Bakerloo Line Extension)
 

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
...
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.

They could easily have marketed the service as three different lines (via
Finsbury Pk, via Kings Cross and via Charing Cross), but use a single fleet
with a single map showing all three, as currently happens on the Circle /
H&C / Wimbleware fleet.

The fact that the lines would serve the same northern termini is not a
reason to portray them as the same line, in fact it's a reason to portay
them as different lines. I'm sure the residents and visitors in Uxbridge
would find life more confusing if LT decided that trains from Cockfosters to
Uxbridge and trains from Aldgate to Uxbridge should be portrayed as the same
line, as would anyone using Kings Cross, or trying to get from Finchley Rd
to Hyde Pk Corner (just as groups of people can be found every ten minutes
or so on the Northern Line platforms at Leicester Square staring at the line
map verbally arguing over where Kings Cross has gone.)

(BTW, why am I the only one here who ever changes subject lines?)

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

Northern Heights (was Bakerloo Line Extension)
 

In message , John Rowland
writes

(BTW, why am I the only one here who ever changes subject lines?)

Unless you can change the references too it will make no difference to
many of us - this still appeared in a thread called 'Bakerloo Line
Extension'
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

Northern Heights (was Bakerloo Line Extension)
 

Steve Fitzgerald wrote:
In message , John Rowland
writes

(BTW, why am I the only one here who ever changes subject lines?)


Unless you can change the references too it will make no difference to
many of us - this still appeared in a thread called 'Bakerloo Line
Extension'

That looks OK though (on my newsreader anyway) - it shows that a new
topic of discussion has arisen from this thread but is still related.

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

Northern Heights (was Bakerloo Line Extension)
 

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

The fact that the lines would serve the same northern termini is not a
reason to portray them as the same line, in fact it's a reason to portay
them as different lines. I'm sure the residents and visitors in Uxbridge
would find life more confusing if LT decided that trains from Cockfosters
to
Uxbridge and trains from Aldgate to Uxbridge should be portrayed as the
same
line, as would anyone using Kings Cross, or trying to get from Finchley Rd
to Hyde Pk Corner (just as groups of people can be found every ten minutes
or so on the Northern Line platforms at Leicester Square staring at the
line
map verbally arguing over where Kings Cross has gone.)

Conversely, the Northern Line platforms at Kings Cross have people wondering
where Leicester Square and Waterloo have gone.

Because you're the only one anal enough was Northern Heights
 

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:

Steve Fitzgerald wrote:
In message , John Rowland
writes

(BTW, why am I the only one here who ever changes subject lines?)

Unless you can change the references too it will make no difference to
many of us - this still appeared in a thread called 'Bakerloo Line
Extension'

That looks OK though (on my newsreader anyway) - it shows that a new
topic of discussion has arisen from this thread but is still related.

Whereas on my newsreader, it looks like a new thread. However, my
newsreader is utter rubbish. Kids - winners don't do pine!

tom

--
Demolish serious culture!

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

In article , Nick Cooper
writes
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.

Highgate High Level was completely rebuilt, from outside platforms to a
central island.

And you still have the problem of how to reverse trains at Finsbury
Park. Doing it in the existing platforms just wouldn't work - there was
far too much surface traffic to handle (say) 6 to 10 tph reversing. So
you need the new flyover and the new platforms. Once that's done,
upgrading the slope to Drayton Park is a no-brainer.

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

Why? Drayton Park is on the surface.

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.

Now there's a question: what would the Victoria Line have done if the
Northern Line had been extended? Actually, the answer is simple: do what
was actually done with the tube platforms, including abandoning the
MOG-FP shuttles. Cockfosters to Moorgate passengers have a choice of two
cross-platform changes or one staircased one.

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.

That sounds quite a good approach, actually.

--
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:

Because you're the only one anal enough was Northern Heights
 

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:


Steve Fitzgerald wrote:

In message , John Rowland
writes


(BTW, why am I the only one here who ever changes subject lines?)

Unless you can change the references too it will make no difference to
many of us - this still appeared in a thread called 'Bakerloo Line
Extension'

That looks OK though (on my newsreader anyway) - it shows that a new
topic of discussion has arisen from this thread but is still related.


Whereas on my newsreader, it looks like a new thread. However, my
newsreader is utter rubbish. Kids - winners don't do pine!

tom

If your newsreader is rubbish, then I assume change isn't an option for
you - otherwise you'd be changing...?

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

Bakerloo Line Extension
 

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 22:09:29 +0000, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote:

In article , Nick Cooper
writes
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.

Highgate High Level was completely rebuilt, from outside platforms to a
central island.

True, but the other five stations didn't need rebuilding.

And you still have the problem of how to reverse trains at Finsbury
Park. Doing it in the existing platforms just wouldn't work - there was
far too much surface traffic to handle (say) 6 to 10 tph reversing. So
you need the new flyover and the new platforms. Once that's done,
upgrading the slope to Drayton Park is a no-brainer.

Which, that being the case, affects the feasibility of bypassing the
surface route in favour of the line going into tube before FP and
linking with the NCL from the outset.

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

Why? Drayton Park is on the surface.

Okay, I always forget about Drayton Park being in a cutting (no matter
how many times I go through it!), but again that presupposes taking
the surface route through FP.

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.

Now there's a question: what would the Victoria Line have done if the
Northern Line had been extended? Actually, the answer is simple: do what
was actually done with the tube platforms, including abandoning the
MOG-FP shuttles. Cockfosters to Moorgate passengers have a choice of two
cross-platform changes or one staircased one.

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.

That sounds quite a good approach, actually.

I may dummy one up when I have the time. But then, I say that about a
lot of things....
--
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

Because you're the only one anal enough was Northern Heights
 

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:

Steve Fitzgerald wrote:

In message , John Rowland
writes

(BTW, why am I the only one here who ever changes subject lines?)

Unless you can change the references too it will make no difference to
many of us - this still appeared in a thread called 'Bakerloo Line
Extension'

That looks OK though (on my newsreader anyway) - it shows that a new
topic of discussion has arisen from this thread but is still related.

Whereas on my newsreader, it looks like a new thread. However, my
newsreader is utter rubbish. Kids - winners don't do pine!

If your newsreader is rubbish, then I assume change isn't an option for
you - otherwise you'd be changing...?

No, as i'm extremely lazy. Also, i really like having mail and news in one
app, and none of the other big console mailers seem to do that (or did
when i last checked; there seem to be unofficial NNTP patches for mutt
now, which might be worth a go).

tom

--
Understand the world we're living in