On Thu, 24 May 2007 08:47:08 +0100, Paula wrote:
No, at Hoxton the extra width is being used for the platforms, and the
replacement bridges are all two-track only in the plans (haven't been
to look yet at what's been built). I presume the rest will be empty
space.

Oh well opportunities and the loosing of them!

I don't think there was ever much of an opportunity there. There would
be no real point in skipping Hoxton and Haggerston - Hackney is one of
the main areas that the line is supposed to serve. Even if some trains
were to skip those stops, there'd be no need for extra tracks unless
trains were going to overtake each other (which there probably
wouldn't be time for with just two stops, without delaying the train
being overtaken).

On May 25, 1:42 am, asdf wrote:
I don't think there was ever much of an opportunity there. There would
be no real point in skipping Hoxton and Haggerston - Hackney is one of
the main areas that the line is supposed to serve. Even if some trains
were to skip those stops, there'd be no need for extra tracks unless
trains were going to overtake each other (which there probably
wouldn't be time for with just two stops, without delaying the train
being overtaken).

You could run freight on the extra pair of tracks, arriving from the
Great Eastern Main Line, providing an alternative to the two track
section of the North London Line from Stratford to Daltson. We'll
ignore that the approach to Liverpool St is even more congested than
the NLL, because that pretty much kills the idea.

I went and had a look yesterday. All of the new bridges are much
narrower than the viaduct.

U

In article . com,
Mr Thant wrote:

I went and had a look yesterday. All of the new bridges are much
narrower than the viaduct.


Indeed. I think we should be thankful that it's happening at all given
the appalling transport record in this country.

E.

On 25 May, 08:33, eastender wrote:
In article . com,
Mr Thant wrote:

I went and had a look yesterday. All of the new bridges are much
narrower than the viaduct.

Indeed. I think we should be thankful that it's happening at all given
the appalling transport record in this country.

Its a fairly half hearted effort though. In reality what are they
building? 1 new viaduct and a few new bridges , refurbishing a disused
route and putting a link to NR down at new cross gate. Dalston
Junction is a pointless terminus and Highbury isn't much better since
it'll cause immense crowding on the victoria line as everyone goes 1
stop from Finsbury park. Finsbury was the obvious terminus but for
reasons best know to themselves thats not going to happen even though
they could still have had the NLL link anyway.

B2003

Boltar wrote:

Its a fairly half hearted effort though. In reality what are they
building? 1 new viaduct and a few new bridges , refurbishing a disused
route and putting a link to NR down at new cross gate. Dalston
Junction is a pointless terminus and Highbury isn't much better since
it'll cause immense crowding on the victoria line as everyone goes 1
stop from Finsbury park. Finsbury was the obvious terminus but for
reasons best know to themselves thats not going to happen even though
they could still have had the NLL link anyway.

The point is that this track should never have been taken out in the first
place. And Dalston is not a pointless terminus for those of us who live in
Dalston, and it will be extended to Highbury, which means people in E8 and
around will have a choice of getting onto the tube via Vic line or
District/H&C at Whitechapel. Plus Jubilee and at a pinch the DLR at
Shadwell. It's just a shame there's no exchange with the Central.

E.

On 25 May, 11:09, eastender wrote:
The point is that this track should never have been taken out in the first
place. And Dalston is not a pointless terminus for those of us who live in
Dalston, and it will be extended to Highbury, which means people in E8 and
around will have a choice of getting onto the tube via Vic line or

Yes , but with the best will in the world , the combined populations
of users from dalston and highbury are hardly going to make the
project worthwhile. In reality it should be a shortcut for people from
the north and south to get to docklands via changing at canada water
or shadwell and avoiding central london entirely, end of story. For
the south that will probably work , for the north it won't. If it
terminated at Finsbury you'd have the piccadilly & victoria line
catchment areas plus the whole of the east coast main line who could
switch to the ELL there. Instead they'll all pile on the victoria line
for one stop. Terminating it at Highbury is a poor solution and smacks
of treasury cost cutting.

B2003

Boltar wrote:

Yes , but with the best will in the world , the combined populations
of users from dalston and highbury are hardly going to make the
project worthwhile.

If you seriously think that these trains won't be heavily used you must be
living in a different London.

E.

On May 25, 2:16 pm, Boltar wrote:

For
the south that will probably work , for the north it won't. If it
terminated at Finsbury you'd have the piccadilly & victoria line
catchment areas plus the whole of the east coast main line who could
switch to the ELL there. Instead they'll all pile on the victoria line
for one stop. Terminating it at Highbury is a poor solution and smacks
of treasury cost cutting.

You're forgetting the Northern City Line, so all inner-suburban
services also call at H&I (except at weekends when it's closed, but
that's a separate issue). That means the only ECML passengers needing
to use the Victoria Line are coming from Potters Bar and points north.
For Piccadilly Line passengers the switch to the Victoria at Finsbury
Park is so easy as to be non-existent, though the overcrowding is a
fair point.

OTOH, going to Finsbury Park requires 8 movements on the flat every
hour across the NLL freight lines, which doesn't sound viable to me.

U

"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 25 May, 08:33, eastender wrote:
In article . com,
Mr Thant wrote:

I went and had a look yesterday. All of the new bridges are much
narrower than the viaduct.

Indeed. I think we should be thankful that it's happening at all given
the appalling transport record in this country.

Its a fairly half hearted effort though. In reality what are they
building? 1 new viaduct and a few new bridges , refurbishing a disused
route and putting a link to NR down at new cross gate. Dalston
Junction is a pointless terminus and Highbury isn't much better since
it'll cause immense crowding on the victoria line as everyone goes 1
stop from Finsbury park. Finsbury was the obvious terminus but for
reasons best know to themselves thats not going to happen even though
they could still have had the NLL link anyway.


In a joined up world they could have had GN services running through to
destinations in the south east (and vice versa obviously) - and probably
more cost effective than joining the GN into Thameslink at St Pancras,
perhaps?

Paul

On 25 May, 11:07, "Paul Scott" wrote:
In a joined up world they could have had GN services running through to
destinations in the south east (and vice versa obviously) - and probably
more cost effective than joining the GN into Thameslink at St Pancras,
perhaps?

The central destinations available on Thameslink are far more
attractive than the ELL, and you'd have to build a flyover at the
Canonbury Curve junction if you wanted to run more than a couple of
trains an hour that way and not kill all other NLL traffic (Thameslink
2000 has 14 tph from the GN).

Having the outer-suburban services go through central-ish London and
the ELL act as a local service between SE/East/NE London makes a lot
more sense to me.

U