Plus also the proposal for TLK2000 Blackfriars has a station entance on
the south bank which would a quick stroll from any Southwark station.
Also you would be able to catch more services from there.

What about simply pushing the Tower Gateway direction a bit further
until it reaches London Bridge?

Ian Tindale wrote:
What about simply pushing the Tower Gateway direction a bit further
until it reaches London Bridge?

Does "simply" mean just carrying on at the same level from Tower
Gateway? I think there might be a few problems getting planning
permission for an elevated line right by the Tower of London.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, kytelly wrote:

Plus also the proposal for TLK2000 Blackfriars has a station entance on
the south bank which would a quick stroll from any Southwark station.

Over 500 metres - 5-10 minutes walk, at least. Certainly practical,
although enough to put most commuters off, i'd imagine.

Also you would be able to catch more services from there.

How do you mean?

tom

--
It involves police, bailiffs, vampires and a portal to hell under a
tower block in Hackney.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, MIG wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2006, Paul Weaver wrote:

And would that axis be better served by a Thameslink station at
Southwark, linking up with the Jubilee?

Would that be possible without a long walk? Even if you ignore the
London Bridge branch it's a long way on the map.

Potentially. It rather depends on where the platforms are at Southwark,
and i'm afraid i have absolutely no idea about that. The worst-case
scenario is that they're to the west of the booking hall on Blackfriars
Road;

Yes, I think that's where they are.

Foiled again!

tom

--
It involves police, bailiffs, vampires and a portal to hell under a
tower block in Hackney.

Having now read the article in Captain Deltic's Monthly, I've got to
say that some comments here are perhaps a little too critical of MR's
crucading editorial staff.

They are, yes a little vague in what they are saying, but it is clear
that they are not saying that the DLR is proposing to build onwards
from the existing Bank Terminus to CX. What they are saying is that
DLR are floating the proposal of an additional terminus at CX,
utilising where possible the protected Fleet line tunnel wayleve, and
the unused ex Jubilee station at CX.

Now hell knows what the issue is here with structure gauge, but MR are
only making the point that the cost of underground lines tends to be in
the stations, there is therefor the suggestion that this new branch
would have no intermediate stations. Ie the trains would run non-stop
from Shadwell to CX.

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, TedJrr wrote:

Now hell knows what the issue is here with structure gauge,

AIUI, DLR trains are narrower but taller than tube trains; i would guess
that means that a tube-gauge safeguarded route would be usable for the
DLR. Not sure how you'd actually dig the tunnel, though.

but MR are only making the point that the cost of underground lines
tends to be in the stations, there is therefor the suggestion that this
new branch would have no intermediate stations. Ie the trains would run
non-stop from Shadwell to CX.

Oh, now *that* is taking the ****.

tom

--
agriculture, animal husbandry, and plains-like landscape