Paul Cummins wrote:

In article .com,
(Mizter T) wrote:

I'm far from convinced that taking the DLR down this route to CX
would
be a good idea - I forsee the potential demand far outstripping the
capacity the DLR could provide.

Not exactly the Docklands any more!


Though one should of course be careful of such logic - Epping and West
Ruislip aren't 'Central', Chesham and Amersham aren't 'Metropolitan',
Morden isn't 'Northern', and much of the Underground isn't 'under'!

Mizter T wrote:

The use for Moorgate - Farringdon I'd argue for is to retain at least
some of the track as sidings for use if and when Thameslink (and the
'upcoming' extension thereof, Thameslink 5000) went snafu. It would be
a useful place to put a defective train out of harms way, thus helping
with service recovery.

Isn't the reason for the deletion of the Farringdon to Moorgate line,
with Thameslink Millenium edition, due to the lengthening of the
Farringdon platforms to 12 cars across the Moorgate trackbed towards
the tunnel mouth. They can't lengthen the platforms the other way, due
to the gradient. So there would be no access to the old route from the
Thameslink lines. There would, of course, be the possibility of using
said area to extend the Met line sidings at Farringdon in that
direction.

Andy wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

The use for Moorgate - Farringdon I'd argue for is to retain at least
some of the track as sidings for use if and when Thameslink (and the
'upcoming' extension thereof, Thameslink 5000) went snafu. It would be
a useful place to put a defective train out of harms way, thus helping
with service recovery.

Isn't the reason for the deletion of the Farringdon to Moorgate line,
with Thameslink Millenium edition, due to the lengthening of the
Farringdon platforms to 12 cars across the Moorgate trackbed towards
the tunnel mouth. They can't lengthen the platforms the other way, due
to the gradient. So there would be no access to the old route from the
Thameslink lines. There would, of course, be the possibility of using
said area to extend the Met line sidings at Farringdon in that
direction.

Aha - I hadn't realised that, thanks for the info. It makes perfect
sense as the Farringdon platforms can't be extended the other way as
the line is on a steep gradient.

The trackbed could be used for Met line sidings, if LU thought that
useful. I guess the trackbed could be built on - but given the
location, in a cutting, it's not ideal. It'll probably just lie empty,
for several years at least.

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Mizter T wrote:

Dave Arquati wrote:

kytelly wrote:
Mizter T wrote:

The only other central london extension for the DLR that has been
speculated about (Albeit mainly on here!) is an extension from Bank
station, somehow linking up with the soon to be abandoned Moorgate to
Faringdon Thameslink line.

I think that route is proposed on here for its own sake (UTLers don't
like good railway alignments to go to waste...). If a route were
actually proposed in this direction, a new tunnel would probably be
much more practical.

All the ideas I've read on here for using the Moorgate to Farringdon
alignment are pretty wacky and fantastically unlikely!

I presume you're not including my idea of running a permanent Steam On The
Met service on it in that.

tom

--
Taking care of business

In article . com,
(Mizter T) wrote:

AIUI the Jubilee line doesn't use CX for day to day operational
purposes (I don't think they use it to stable trains there at all).

I've seen Green Park reversers go that way regularly after emptying. It's
uncanny how straight the tunnel is from Green Park, unlike the EJL which
turns off the old route almost on the platform ends.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Mizter T wrote:

Dave Arquati wrote:

kytelly wrote:

The only other central london extension for the DLR that has been
speculated about (Albeit mainly on here!) is an extension from Bank
station, somehow linking up with the soon to be abandoned Moorgate to
Faringdon Thameslink line.

I think that route is proposed on here for its own sake (UTLers don't
like good railway alignments to go to waste...). If a route were
actually proposed in this direction, a new tunnel would probably be
much more practical.

All the ideas I've read on here for using the Moorgate to Farringdon
alignment are pretty wacky and fantastically unlikely!

I presume you're not including my idea of running a permanent Steam On The
Met service on it in that.


No - I hadn't read that, but it would naturally be excluded from my
mental list of "wacky and fantastically unlikely", as it would be
serving a genuinely useful purpose. The rest of the plans however
appear to be obsessed with turning this dog-leg of trackbed into the
most important public transport nexus this side of the Milky Way.

I've just thought of how it could come in useful - Crossrail is
(apparently) coming to Farringdon, so could perhaps make use of some of
the trackbed for digging an access shaft or, more likely, for storage
of materials (such as the site foreman's portacabin!).

Once construction is finished then it would of course them be turned
over to Steam On The Met. Only problem is I suspect every last steam
engine might have completely oxidised by then. And people will be long
extinct. Nevermind - the Crossrail tunnels will come in handy for the
new-breed of super rat to get about London quickly.

On 17 Oct 2006 15:59:26 -0700, Mizter T wrote:

I've just thought of how it could come in useful - Crossrail is
(apparently) coming to Farringdon, so could perhaps make use of some of
the trackbed for digging an access shaft or, more likely, for storage
of materials (such as the site foreman's portacabin!).

The Crossrail plans did involve using this trackbed (I can't remember
if it was for construction or for new parts of Farringdon station).
But a year or two ago, as TL2k receded further and further into the
mists of the future, such usage was removed from the plans, to prevent
Crossrail from being contingent on TL2k (which might happen after
Crossrail, or never).

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article . com,
(Mizter T) wrote:

AIUI the Jubilee line doesn't use CX for day to day operational
purposes (I don't think they use it to stable trains there at all).

I've seen Green Park reversers go that way regularly after emptying. It's
uncanny how straight the tunnel is from Green Park, unlike the EJL which
turns off the old route almost on the platform ends.

I still don't really understand why they didn't keep CX open for peak
hour
or occasional trains so instead of reversing at green park the train
and
passengers just continue to CX. After all , apart from not having to
clean the platforms so often wheres the gain in closing them? I know
theres always the alternative routes argument but you could use that
argument for any number of central london stations but I don't see a
rush to close them too.

B2003

Boltar wrote:
I still don't really understand why they didn't keep CX open for peak
hour
or occasional trains so instead of reversing at green park the train
and
passengers just continue to CX. After all , apart from not having to
clean the platforms so often wheres the gain in closing them? I know
theres always the alternative routes argument but you could use that
argument for any number of central london stations but I don't see a
rush to close them too.

The problem is that if you reverse an EB Jubilee line train at CX it
can't serve the extension - any trains reversed at CX mean a gap in
service from Westminster to Stratford.

If the service to CX was frequent enough to make it worthwhile - say
one train in three - that would mean a 4-6 minute gap in the service on
the extension every 6-10 minutes or so. Unacceptable for extension
passengers, and there's no corresponding facility to reverse trains
clear of service trains on the extension until you're as far east as
North Greenwich.

If the service to CX was infrequent - say a train every 20 minutes - it
would almost invariably be quicker for any potential passengers for CX
to change to the Bakerloo at Baker Street or to walk from Green Park or
Westminster.

There was talk in the mid-90s of having CX available for occasional
extra services to Wembley Park. As far as I know this doesn't happen,
but perhaps it might be considered when Wembley Stadium opens - not for
passenger use at CX, but simply to allow extra shuttles to serve the
Baker Street to Wembley Park section.

Whether leaving the stub in the first place was the right decision is
an entirely different matter though! I remember seeing some rationale
about why the decision was taken to go Green Park - Westminster -
Waterloo - London Bridge rather than another routing using the CX
branch, but can't remember the exact conclusions or the relative merits
of about four or five options considered for the Green Park - Docklands
route of the extension.

On 17 Oct 2006 12:02:32 -0700, Andy wrote:

Isn't the reason for the deletion of the Farringdon to Moorgate line,
with Thameslink Millenium edition, due to the lengthening of the
Farringdon platforms to 12 cars across the Moorgate trackbed towards
the tunnel mouth.

I'm reminded of the erstwhile arrangement at Wood Lane on the Central
Line, where IIRC the track leading to the depot was occupied by a
hinged part of the platform, which could be swung away if a train
needed to access the depot. Not sure they'd be too keen on that today
though...