|
Bakerloo Line Extension
Whatever happened to the extension south of E&C? and where was it gonna be
extended to? You can see it here on this old tube map http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...ayphotohosting |
Bakerloo Line Extension
In message , Bored Of The
Rings writes Whatever happened to the extension south of E&C? The 1949 plan shown on the map was abandoned because of cost (before the war a similar plan had been curtailed to just a 515-foot siding beyond Elephant). and where was it gonna be extended to? In that particular incarnation, Camberwell (Green). For more detail, see the History section of: http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/bakerloo.html -- Paul Terry |
Bakerloo Line Extension
Paul Terry wrote in message ...
In message , Bored Of The Rings writes Whatever happened to the extension south of E&C? The 1949 plan shown on the map was abandoned because of cost (before the war a similar plan had been curtailed to just a 515-foot siding beyond Elephant). and where was it gonna be extended to? In that particular incarnation, Camberwell (Green). For more detail, see the History section of: http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/bakerloo.html Later, as http://www.addington3.freeserve.co.uk/tranmon3.html explains, the JLE proposal was originally a BLE proposal. |
Bakerloo Line Extension
Paul Terry wrote in message ...
In message , Bored Of The Rings writes Whatever happened to the extension south of E&C? The 1949 plan shown on the map was abandoned because of cost (before the war a similar plan had been curtailed to just a 515-foot siding beyond Elephant). and where was it gonna be extended to? In that particular incarnation, Camberwell (Green). For more detail, see the History section of: http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/bakerloo.html 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. |
Bakerloo Line Extension
TheOneKEA wrote:
Paul Terry wrote in message ... In message , Bored Of The Rings writes Whatever happened to the extension south of E&C? The 1949 plan shown on the map was abandoned because of cost (before the war a similar plan had been curtailed to just a 515-foot siding beyond Elephant). and where was it gonna be extended to? In that particular incarnation, Camberwell (Green). For more detail, see the History section of: http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/bakerloo.html 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 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 -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Bakerloo Line Extension
"Bored Of The Rings" wrote in message ...
Whatever happened to the extension south of E&C? and where was it gonna be extended to? You can see it here on this old tube map http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...ayphotohosting The map is quite interesing, in a couple of ways. It shows the proposed Northern Line extension from Finsbury Park to Alexandra Palace (via Highgate HL), but not the section from Mill Hill East to Bushey Heath (via Edgware). I hadn't realised that abandonment of these schemes wasn't simultaneous. Also, the roundel on the front uses the word 'Railways', rather than 'Underground' - when, and for how long, was this practice current? |
Bakerloo Line Extension
|
Bakerloo Line Extension
In message , Chippy
writes Also, the roundel on the front uses the word 'Railways', rather than 'Underground' - when, and for how long, was this practice current? 1948 to 1956 inclusive, according to the lists in Anne Letch's catalogue of LT maps. -- Paul Terry |
Bakerloo Line Extension
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 |
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 |
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 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:32 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk