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.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 31 October 2004

"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.

"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.

"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.

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:

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.

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:

"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

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

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: