West London Line - what recession?
 

On Oct 26, 9:37*pm, EE507 wrote:

The real issue is platforms 16 and 17 at CLJ. SDO can't be used with
the sort of loadings these trains experience, but straightening and
lengthening the platforms won't happen any time soon.

CLJ 16 and 17 will never be sorted out, so why bother when LOROL will
be a 4-car max railway forever more?


I would have thought the most significant length constraint would be
Willesden Junction (for LO trains obviously not SN). To extend that to
8-car would involve bridging WCML and that would not come cheap. As
there would be no benefit to LO in 8car trains if Willesden Junycion
were never done, the entire cost of 8car works on WLL would be born by
the SN operation.


IMHO a fundamental flaw in the LO / WLL / NLL / ELL shceme is being
geared around 4car trains. At this period in 21st century we should be
talking *absolute mnimum* 8-car trains by 2015 with passive provision
for 12car, and I'd say even 15-car (300 m length).


Crossrail should certainly be passively provided for 300 m; I'd like
to have seen TL likewise too.

What is going on with these lengthening schemes is fixing yesterdays
after tomorrow has started; there is minimal provision for todays
problems, and none for tomorrows.

This is why NEW tube lines - be they tube size or main line size -
need to get under way now as they take 10 years to build even once
planning is done, and that takes years too.

--
Nick

West London Line - what recession?
 

In message , Chris Read
writes

Allowing pensioners who live in £500k houses, with £100k plus in
the bank, totally free travel, whilst charging full rate to a supermarket
worker on £6 an hour, is an interesting take on social justice. But there is
no political will to challenge the status quo here.

Politicians also have to remember the environmental issue: pensioners in
that position have cars, which many would undoubtedly use if free travel
was withdrawn, thus adding to congestion and pollution.
--
Paul Terry

West London Line - what recession?
 

On 28 Oct, 04:05, D7666 wrote:
On Oct 26, 9:37*pm, EE507 wrote:

The real issue is platforms 16 and 17 at CLJ. SDO can't be used with
the sort of loadings these trains experience, but straightening and
lengthening the platforms won't happen any time soon.
CLJ 16 and 17 will never be sorted out, so why bother when LOROL will
be a 4-car max railway forever more?

I would have thought the most significant length constraint would be
Willesden Junction (for LO trains obviously not SN). To extend that to
8-car would involve bridging WCML and that would not come cheap. As
there would be no benefit to LO in 8car trains if Willesden Junycion
were never done, the entire cost of 8car works on WLL would be born by
the SN operation.

IMHO a fundamental flaw in the LO / WLL / NLL / ELL shceme is being
geared around 4car trains. At this period in 21st century we should be
talking *absolute mnimum* 8-car trains by 2015 with passive provision
for 12car, and I'd say even 15-car (300 m length).

Similar problem on the ELL, due to stringing together bits of old
infrastructure and then contaminating all the main routes that now
feed into them.

I can see the case for extending the ELL up the old viaduct to Dalston
and beyond, but Croydon to London Bridge is one of the most
ludicrously overcrowded stretches on the network. Taking up paths
with short trains diverted off to Dalston is insanity gone mad.

The ELL should terminate at NX/NXG, at least in the peaks. Maybe it
still will.

West London Line - what recession?
 

On 28 Oct, 04:05, D7666 wrote:

I would have thought the most significant length constraint would be
Willesden Junction (for LO trains obviously not SN). To extend that to
8-car would involve bridging WCML and that would not come cheap.

Which would put the high-level station back just about where it used
to be. I'm certainly not holding my breath for that to happen.
They've been talking about re-building the platforms on the slow lines
almost since the old ones were demolished. I'm not expecting that to
happen in my lifetime either.

How long were the platforms at the old station? Given the previous
platform lengths at various other North London Line stations, I'm
guessing that they were rather longer than at the present station.

The original station also had a third platform, generally known as the
'Earls Court Bay', though I believe it was actually a through
platform, rather than a real bay. If this was still available it
would have avoided the situation which existed a few years ago, I'm
not sure if it still does now as I haven't used the line for some
time, where a train arriving from the WLL is held just before the
junction while trains run through in both directions on the NLL, so
you then have a long wait for a connection on that line.

This is why NEW tube lines - be they tube size or main line size -
need to get under way now as they take 10 years to build even once
planning is done, and that takes years too.

An LU person at a LURS meeting at the time that the Jubilee Line
extension was being either planned or constructed stated that this was
being built to traditional tube dimensions only because the rest of
the tube section of the line was that size, and that any future tube
line would almost certainly be to take surface stock size trains, as
the cost of tunneling to the larger size would not be much greater
using modern equipment and techniques.

West London Line - what recession?
 

In message
Paul Terry wrote:

In message , Chris Read
writes

Allowing pensioners who live in £500k houses, with £100k plus in the
bank, totally free travel, whilst charging full rate to a supermarket
worker on £6 an hour, is an interesting take on social justice. But there
is no political will to challenge the status quo here.

Politicians also have to remember the environmental issue: pensioners in
that position have cars, which many would undoubtedly use if free travel
was withdrawn, thus adding to congestion and pollution.

There are far more pemsioners who are emphatically not in that bracket, he
said feelingly! The point being that the cost, both economically and
politically, of discriminating against your favourite hate-group is far
higher than any savings you might notionally make.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

West London Line - what recession?
 

E27002 wrote:
On Oct 27, 3:14 pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:07:45 -0700 (PDT), E27002
wrote:

Compared with other urban transit systems that I utilize, London's
fares seem unreal. Journeys cost many times their equivalent in say
Atlanta, Louisville, or Los Angeles.
But ignoring the "penalty" cash fares, they compare very favourably
with the rest of the UK.

But, they are high compared with competing international business
centers. And, for that matter tourist destinations.

When I have worked in Edinburgh, the monthly, all routes, bus pass has
seemed reasonable. Although it has been several years since I have
had that pleasure.

The all /carriers/ pass in the former metropolitan county of West
Midlands (the transit authority is still indirectly elected for the
whole area) is excellent value, with the three month version best of
all. It even includes intercity trains on the part of the
(London-Glasgow) main line within the county. The single trolley line
has street running at the Wolverhampton end. We'd love to see your
company here, and you don't have to put up with London poseurs.

--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.

Woody Guthrie

West London Line - what recession?
 

E27002 wrote:
On Oct 27, 3:37 pm, "Chris Read" wrote:
"E27002" wrote:
London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making London
and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.
Really? People won't do business here because a bus fare costs about half
the price of a small coffee in Starbucks?

When we have people hiding in trucks at Dover, trying to escape the UK, as
opposed to hiding in trucks at Calais trying to get in, I'll accept that
we're no longer a good place to do business.

When I choose an IT contract there are certain cost that I take into
account, the rate, the cost of temporary accommodation, food and
transportation costs. I then factor in issues like safety and the
local environment.

London tends to be less attractive than Edinburgh, Los Angeles, or
Omaha. But, you needn't be concerned; you have plenty of folks
waiting in trucks at Calais. I am sure they will be able to install
and maintain software at your companies, financial institutions, etc.


There's the Gas Street Basin/Brindley Place area, on a historic canal
junction. Boy, are you in for a treat, and it's less dangerous than
Baltimore.

--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.

Woody Guthrie

West London Line - what recession?
 

D7666 wrote:

I would have thought the most significant length constraint would be
Willesden Junction (for LO trains obviously not SN). To extend that to
8-car would involve bridging WCML and that would not come cheap. As
there would be no benefit to LO in 8car trains if Willesden Junycion
were never done, the entire cost of 8car works on WLL would be born by
the SN operation.

I expect WJ (HL) won't be anything like as difficult to extend to 8 car
length once the current 4 car extension is completed. Getting across the LL
tracks, which is underway now, is the main problem to solve. Having said
that - I'm not too sure where the new reversing siding is going with respect
to the new platform ends - that could prove a limiting factor in the
eastward direction as well...

A bit academic though unless Shepherds Bush and Imperial Wharf have room for
extension.

Paul S

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:49:50 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

On 28 Oct, 04:05, D7666 wrote:
On Oct 26, 9:37*pm, EE507 wrote:

The real issue is platforms 16 and 17 at CLJ. SDO can't be used with
the sort of loadings these trains experience, but straightening and
lengthening the platforms won't happen any time soon.
CLJ 16 and 17 will never be sorted out, so why bother when LOROL will
be a 4-car max railway forever more?

I would have thought the most significant length constraint would be
Willesden Junction (for LO trains obviously not SN). To extend that to
8-car would involve bridging WCML and that would not come cheap. As
there would be no benefit to LO in 8car trains if Willesden Junycion
were never done, the entire cost of 8car works on WLL would be born by
the SN operation.

IMHO a fundamental flaw in the LO / WLL / NLL / ELL shceme is being
geared around 4car trains. At this period in 21st century we should be
talking *absolute mnimum* 8-car trains by 2015 with passive provision
for 12car, and I'd say even 15-car (300 m length).

Similar problem on the ELL, due to stringing together bits of old
infrastructure and then contaminating all the main routes that now
feed into them.

I can see the case for extending the ELL up the old viaduct to Dalston
and beyond, but Croydon to London Bridge is one of the most
ludicrously overcrowded stretches on the network. Taking up paths
with short trains diverted off to Dalston is insanity gone mad.

The ELL should terminate at NX/NXG, at least in the peaks. Maybe it
still will.

Or stop trains twice at the stations with short platforms (once for
the front half, then for the rear).

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Oct 28, 4:05*am, D7666 wrote:
On Oct 26, 9:37*pm, EE507 wrote:

The real issue is platforms 16 and 17 at CLJ. SDO can't be used with
the sort of loadings these trains experience, but straightening and
lengthening the platforms won't happen any time soon.
CLJ 16 and 17 will never be sorted out, so why bother when LOROL will
be a 4-car max railway forever more?

I would have thought the most significant length constraint would be
Willesden Junction (for LO trains obviously not SN). To extend that to
8-car would involve bridging WCML and that would not come cheap. As
there would be no benefit to LO in 8car trains if Willesden Junycion
were never done, the entire cost of 8car works on WLL would be born by
the SN operation.

IMHO a fundamental flaw in the LO / WLL / NLL / ELL shceme is being
geared around 4car trains. At this period in 21st century we should be
talking *absolute mnimum* 8-car trains by 2015 with passive provision
for 12car, and I'd say even 15-car (300 m length).

Crossrail should certainly be passively provided for 300 m; I'd like
to have seen TL likewise too.

What is going on with these lengthening schemes is fixing yesterdays
after tomorrow has started

I agree that a lack of future proofing is adding to the cost of
incremental capacity enhancements. 'Locking in' 4-car capability can't
make sense in the context of the almost inevitable reigning in of car
use for congestion and climate change mitigation reasons in the years
ahead, on top of London's population growth and the location of new
development.

A general problem is having such a long list of capacity-constraining
and cost-escalating legacy issues:
1. Structure gauge - no DD. You can be sure the next wave of
electrification will not make provision for it.
2. Having to move signals as well as extend platforms to accommodate
trains of longer than 240 m on many routes.
3. A lack of terminal capacity.
4. The need to tunnel in London (and Birmingham).
5. The cancelling of new DMU orders with no replacement plan for the
next 8 years, supposing electrification starts next year, longer if
not.
6. Dealing with high platforms when converting heavy rail into tram
systems. Manchester is now stuck with them.

We're not alone in all of these issues: Zurich has the headache that
12-car DD EMUs are reaching capacity in the peaks, although they
haven't as yet adopted peak pricing.

There can't be much money left over after TL3000, Crossrail, the
Olympics, etc. but I agree with your points.

West London Line - what recession?
 

Paul Scott wrote on 28 October 2009
10:14:47 ...
D7666 wrote:

I would have thought the most significant length constraint would be
Willesden Junction (for LO trains obviously not SN). To extend that to
8-car would involve bridging WCML and that would not come cheap. As
there would be no benefit to LO in 8car trains if Willesden Junycion
were never done, the entire cost of 8car works on WLL would be born by
the SN operation.

I expect WJ (HL) won't be anything like as difficult to extend to 8 car
length once the current 4 car extension is completed. Getting across the LL
tracks, which is underway now, is the main problem to solve.

On the current track alignment, an extension to 8 cars would have a very
narrow platform at the eastern end. You'd have to move the tracks
further apart, and there could be problems with adjacent lines and the
curvature at that point.

Having said that - I'm not too sure where the new reversing siding is going
with respect to the new platform ends - that could prove a limiting factor in the
eastward direction as well...

The siding will almost certainly go in the space between the NLL tracks
between the Harrow Road bridge and Kensal Green junction. There's
certainly room for a 6-car siding there, possibly longer. In fact there
used to be a siding there, the remains of which are still visible.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

West London Line - what recession?
 

E27002 wrote:


London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making London
and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.
I'm not sure that those making such decisions for big business care
about the price of using buses and trains, as such people will tend to
use chauffeur-driven car services instead (or at the very least
taxis).

It certainly affects employees. I would think that employee
accommodation and transportation costs would at least be a
consideration. London scores badly on both.

London is in the top two cities worldwide, with New York, according to
the Global Power City Index 2009, which tries to compare different
cities in a sort of objective manner. Tokyo and Paris form a pair just
behind, then you get the rest*. I'm not sure *fares* so much as
generally being able to get around the place matter more. Los Angeles
isn't a top ranking city by these measures and furthermore, all the top
ones are notable as having excellent dense public transportation, which
has to count for something, surely?

For the record, London scored very highly on the culture and
accessibility (transport, basically) categories, high on economy and
poor on livability (including cost of living) and environment, which is
about right, having lived here long enough - yes, it's expensive to get
around but the system is excellent and works well. This is actually
true of New York as well, and no one's claiming that's not an attractive
metropolis to do business, surely?

The point about being attractive/unattractive is that it's across a
range of factors, and overall London's good points more than outweigh
the bad. For the record the three most livable cities according to this
report are Paris, Berlin and Vancouver and the most environmental ones
are Geneva, Zurich and Vienna.

t

* Singapore, Berlin, Vienna, Amsterdam, Zurich, Hong Kong... - the 'goo
city has good public transport' aspect holds true, I suggest. LA is 13th.

West London Line - what recession?
 

On 28 Oct, 07:10, Stephen Furley wrote:
On 28 Oct, 04:05, D7666 wrote:

I would have thought the most significant length constraint would be
Willesden Junction (for LO trains obviously not SN). To extend that to
8-car would involve bridging WCML and that would not come cheap.

Which would put the high-level station back just about where it used
to be. *I'm certainly not holding my breath for that to happen.
They've been talking about re-building the platforms on the slow lines
almost since the old ones were demolished. *I'm not expecting that to
happen in my lifetime either.

How long were the platforms at the old station? *Given the previous
platform lengths at various other North London Line stations, I'm
guessing that they were rather longer than at the present station.

The original station also had a third platform, generally known as the
'Earls Court Bay', though I believe it was actually a through
platform, rather than a real bay. *If this was still available it
would have avoided the situation which existed a few years ago, I'm
not sure if it still does now as I haven't used the line for some
time, where a train arriving from the WLL is held just before the
junction while trains run through in both directions on the NLL, so
you then have a long wait for a connection on that line.

This is why NEW tube lines - be they tube size or main line size -
need to get under way now as they take 10 years to build even once
planning is done, and that takes years too.

An LU person at a LURS meeting at the time that the Jubilee Line
extension was being either planned or constructed stated that this was
being built to traditional tube dimensions only because the rest of
the tube section of the line was that size, and that any future tube
line would almost certainly be to take surface stock size trains, as
the cost of tunneling to the larger size would not be much greater
using modern equipment and techniques.

Don't suppose you know of any diagrams of the old pre-1960's layout of
Willesden Junction?

I hear odd descriptions from time to time, but the best I've ever
managed were a few scattered old photos that didn't really give any
indication of how it all was laid out.

Something for the station's wikipedia page perhaps :)

West London Line - what recession?
 

In message
Tom Barry wrote:

E27002 wrote:


London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making London
and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.
I'm not sure that those making such decisions for big business care
about the price of using buses and trains, as such people will tend to
use chauffeur-driven car services instead (or at the very least
taxis).

It certainly affects employees. I would think that employee
accommodation and transportation costs would at least be a
consideration. London scores badly on both.

London is in the top two cities worldwide, with New York, according to
the Global Power City Index 2009, which tries to compare different
cities in a sort of objective manner. Tokyo and Paris form a pair just
behind, then you get the rest*. I'm not sure *fares* so much as
generally being able to get around the place matter more. Los Angeles
isn't a top ranking city by these measures and furthermore, all the top
ones are notable as having excellent dense public transportation, which
has to count for something, surely?

For the record, London scored very highly on the culture and
accessibility (transport, basically) categories, high on economy and
poor on livability (including cost of living) and environment, which is
about right, having lived here long enough - yes, it's expensive to get
around but the system is excellent and works well. This is actually
true of New York as well, and no one's claiming that's not an attractive
metropolis to do business, surely?

The point about being attractive/unattractive is that it's across a
range of factors, and overall London's good points more than outweigh
the bad. For the record the three most livable cities according to this
report are Paris, Berlin and Vancouver and the most environmental ones
are Geneva, Zurich and Vienna.

t

* Singapore, Berlin, Vienna, Amsterdam, Zurich, Hong Kong... - the 'goo
city has good public transport' aspect holds true, I suggest. LA is 13th.

A couple of years ago there was a survey that claimed Buenos Aires was the
most expensive city in the world to live in relative to the local cost of
living. I doubt it would rate anywhere in the list of good places to do
business but the public transport provision is cheap and plentiful.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 09:17:10PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote:

Even now, the link from MKC to Clapham Jn and beyond is *very* heavily
used. While there would be an issue with making the LO service 8
cars, the Southern one could easily be made so given a few units, had
the short-sighted decision to build a 4-car platform at Imperial Wharf
not been made.

Having trains be longer than the platforms at some stations isn't a
problem elsewhere on the network (eg at Battersea Park or
Billingshurst) so why is it a problem at Imperial Wharf?

And Shepherds Bush is just as short, so the "problem" isn't just
Imperial Wharf.

That said, given that said service is mainly about linking the WCML to
the SWML, it could I suppose be extended to 8 then not stop at
Imperial Wharf. How long is the platform at Shepherd's Bush?

Four coaches southbound, IIRC it's longer northbound, which strikes me
as being perverse.

--
David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information

Us Germans take our humour very seriously
-- German cultural attache talking to the Today Programme,
about the German supposed lack of a sense of humour, 29 Aug 2001

West London Line - what recession?
 

On 28 Oct, 12:53, David Cantrell wrote:
Four coaches southbound, IIRC it's longer northbound, which strikes me
as being perverse.

Trains reversing there (and heading south) need to stop north of the
signal under the footbridge.

There's passive provision for 8 car platforms given the location of
the emergency escape footbridge (some distance down the line). I can't
see any particular obstacle to extending Imperial Wharf either.

Anyway, I think TfL's 4-car strategy is fine. Once you multiply the 3
to 4 car lengthening with the planned frequency increases, you get
roughly double the capacity on every route. I don't think the demand
exists beyond that.

U

West London Line - what recession?
 

On 28 Oct, 11:42, "Richard J." wrote:
On the current track alignment, an extension to 8 cars would have a very
narrow platform at the eastern end. *You'd have to move the tracks
further apart

I'm not sure I follow. The tracks don't converge until a considerable
distance east, and in fact they go under Harrow Road bridge through
completely separate spans. I think you'd even be able to take the
siding through one of those spans, which would get you 8 car platforms
and an 8 car centre siding.

It all depends where they put the pointwork.

U

West London Line - what recession?
 

Mr Thant wrote on 28 October
2009 13:24:18 ...
On 28 Oct, 11:42, "Richard J." wrote:
On the current track alignment, an extension to 8 cars would have a very
narrow platform at the eastern end. You'd have to move the tracks
further apart

I'm not sure I follow. The tracks don't converge until a considerable
distance east, and in fact they go under Harrow Road bridge through
completely separate spans.

You're right. Sorry, I withdraw my earlier comment. I made it after a
quick look at the satellite image, but having got my ruler out I realise
that there is in fact plenty of room for an 8-car island platform, both
lengthwise and widthwise. So I don't know why Nick/D7666 thought that
an 8-car platform would have to be on a bridge over the WCML.

I'm assuming that, as an extension of an existing curved platform, it
would be allowed to continue the curve.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

West London Line - what recession?
 

On 28 Oct, 12:19, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On 28 Oct, 07:10, Stephen Furley wrote:



On 28 Oct, 04:05, D7666 wrote:

I would have thought the most significant length constraint would be
Willesden Junction (for LO trains obviously not SN). To extend that to
8-car would involve bridging WCML and that would not come cheap.

Which would put the high-level station back just about where it used
to be. *I'm certainly not holding my breath for that to happen.
They've been talking about re-building the platforms on the slow lines
almost since the old ones were demolished. *I'm not expecting that to
happen in my lifetime either.

How long were the platforms at the old station? *Given the previous
platform lengths at various other North London Line stations, I'm
guessing that they were rather longer than at the present station.

The original station also had a third platform, generally known as the
'Earls Court Bay', though I believe it was actually a through
platform, rather than a real bay. *If this was still available it
would have avoided the situation which existed a few years ago, I'm
not sure if it still does now as I haven't used the line for some
time, where a train arriving from the WLL is held just before the
junction while trains run through in both directions on the NLL, so
you then have a long wait for a connection on that line.

This is why NEW tube lines - be they tube size or main line size -
need to get under way now as they take 10 years to build even once
planning is done, and that takes years too.

An LU person at a LURS meeting at the time that the Jubilee Line
extension was being either planned or constructed stated that this was
being built to traditional tube dimensions only because the rest of
the tube section of the line was that size, and that any future tube
line would almost certainly be to take surface stock size trains, as
the cost of tunneling to the larger size would not be much greater
using modern equipment and techniques.

Don't suppose you know of any diagrams of the old pre-1960's layout of
Willesden Junction?

I hear odd descriptions from time to time, but the best I've ever
managed were a few scattered old photos that didn't really give any
indication of how it all was laid out.

Something for the station's wikipedia page perhaps :)

No sorry, and I don't know much about it. There was a track in the
second bay, next to platform 2, in the 'new' station. I have seen a
picture of the old high level station; the two main tracks were served
by side platforms as I remember, and one of these was an island with
the 'Earls Court' track on the other side of it. The signalbox seems
to have been just at the end of the ramps of the high-level platforms
in the pictures I've seen. The bridge which gives access to the high-
level platforms also used to serve the main line platforms, I know
this because until not too many years ago old painted over signs
pointing to these platforms could just be made out on this bridge.

Before the old ticket office was demolished, with the odd situation
that you had to cross a road to get from the ticket office to the
platforms, a bricked-up doorway could just be made out in one of the
walls, which I think would also have provided access to these
platforms.

In the South-West you have Clapham Junction, with lots of platforms on
all lines, and most trains stopping there. In the North-East you have
something similar at Stratford. it always seemed to me that Willesden
Junction should be the one in the North-West, though there's not
really an obvious one in the South-East.

West London Line - what recession?
 

"Paul Terry" wrote:

Chris Read wrote:

Allowing pensioners who live in £500k houses, with £100k plus in
the bank, totally free travel, whilst charging full rate to a supermarket
worker on £6 an hour, is an interesting take on social justice. But there
is
no political will to challenge the status quo here.

Politicians also have to remember the environmental issue: pensioners in
that position have cars, which many would undoubtedly use if free travel
was withdrawn, thus adding to congestion and pollution.

I'm not necessarily suggesting that pensioners are charged full fare. I
would favour a flat rate of 50p or £1 per journey.

I don't buy the supposed environmental case, that people who have a choice
of modes will use public transport only if it's *completely* free.

There aren't, and never have been, valid social justice or environmental
arguments to support free bus travel for all pensioners. It was purely a
matter of poltical calculation. In fact, on grounds of both social justice
and environmental protection, the arguments for free bus travel for
teenagers are much stronger, although in my view not strong enough.

Chris

West London Line - what recession?
 

"E27002" wrote in message

On Oct 27, 3:37 pm, "Chris Read" wrote:
"E27002" wrote:
London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making
London and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.

Really? People won't do business here because a bus fare costs about
half the price of a small coffee in Starbucks?

When we have people hiding in trucks at Dover, trying to escape the
UK, as opposed to hiding in trucks at Calais trying to get in, I'll
accept that we're no longer a good place to do business.

When I choose an IT contract there are certain cost that I take into
account, the rate, the cost of temporary accommodation, food and
transportation costs. I then factor in issues like safety and the
local environment.

London tends to be less attractive than Edinburgh, Los Angeles, or
Omaha. But, you needn't be concerned; you have plenty of folks
waiting in trucks at Calais. I am sure they will be able to install
and maintain software at your companies, financial institutions, etc.

That sort of work for British companies is now normally done in Mumbai
or Bangalore. They're a lot cheaper than Edinburgh, Los Angeles, or
Omaha.

West London Line - what recession?
 

On 28 Oct, 19:19, Stephen Furley wrote:
On 28 Oct, 12:19, Jamie *Thompson wrote:



On 28 Oct, 07:10, Stephen Furley wrote:

On 28 Oct, 04:05, D7666 wrote:

I would have thought the most significant length constraint would be
Willesden Junction (for LO trains obviously not SN). To extend that to
8-car would involve bridging WCML and that would not come cheap.

Which would put the high-level station back just about where it used
to be. *I'm certainly not holding my breath for that to happen.
They've been talking about re-building the platforms on the slow lines
almost since the old ones were demolished. *I'm not expecting that to
happen in my lifetime either.

How long were the platforms at the old station? *Given the previous
platform lengths at various other North London Line stations, I'm
guessing that they were rather longer than at the present station.

The original station also had a third platform, generally known as the
'Earls Court Bay', though I believe it was actually a through
platform, rather than a real bay. *If this was still available it
would have avoided the situation which existed a few years ago, I'm
not sure if it still does now as I haven't used the line for some
time, where a train arriving from the WLL is held just before the
junction while trains run through in both directions on the NLL, so
you then have a long wait for a connection on that line.

This is why NEW tube lines - be they tube size or main line size -
need to get under way now as they take 10 years to build even once
planning is done, and that takes years too.

An LU person at a LURS meeting at the time that the Jubilee Line
extension was being either planned or constructed stated that this was
being built to traditional tube dimensions only because the rest of
the tube section of the line was that size, and that any future tube
line would almost certainly be to take surface stock size trains, as
the cost of tunneling to the larger size would not be much greater
using modern equipment and techniques.

Don't suppose you know of any diagrams of the old pre-1960's layout of
Willesden Junction?

I hear odd descriptions from time to time, but the best I've ever
managed were a few scattered old photos that didn't really give any
indication of how it all was laid out.

Something for the station's wikipedia page perhaps :)

No sorry, and I don't know much about it. *There was a track in the
second bay, next to platform 2, in the 'new' station. *I have seen a
picture of the old high level station; the two main tracks were served
by side platforms as I remember, and one of these was an island with
the 'Earls Court' track on the other side of it. *The signalbox seems
to have been just at the end of the ramps of the high-level platforms
in the pictures I've seen. *The bridge which gives access to the high-
level platforms also used to serve the main line platforms, I know
this because until not too many years ago old painted over signs
pointing to these platforms could just be made out on this bridge.

Before the old ticket office was demolished, with the odd situation
that you had to cross a road to get from the ticket office to the
platforms, a bricked-up doorway could just be made out in one of the
walls, which I think would also have provided access to these
platforms.

In the South-West you have Clapham Junction, with lots of platforms on
all lines, and most trains stopping there. *In the North-East you have
something similar at Stratford. *it always seemed to me that Willesden
Junction should be the one in the North-West, though there's not
really an obvious one in the South-East.

Thank you. I'll try and work on my mental image of all that.

I agree about the four interchanges. In the south east I guess London
Bridge fulfils the role, dealing as it does with both the southern and
south-eastern mainlines. One of the options considered for Thameslink
was new tunnel from Kings Cross to Bermondsey, with the tunnel to St
Pancras being the cop-out. In my various musings about how things
could be, I usually settle on building a new station on the scale of
CJ/WJ/Stratford roughly where the lines converge next to Millwall's
ground, and downgrading London Bridge in some capacity as more trains
could be running through to Kings Cross (if they an manage 24tph down
the current Thameslink, two tunnels means 24x2 tph isn't out of the
question), and thus Cannon Street should be able to cope. Having the
station there could regenerate the area, and most importantly, provide
interchange with the orbital London overground route. A super-dooper-
surrey canal road junction station, if you will. This location would
be a great location for the line to surface after serving Cannon
Street/London Bridge in tunnel.

Anyway, I digress. Thanks you for your descriptions.

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Oct 28, 11:31*am, EE507 wrote:

2. Having to move signals as well as extend platforms to accommodate
trains of longer than 240 m on many routes.


IMHO 300 m should have been adopted as a default at least from WCML
PUG if not before, and should be used for all upgrades and new routes.

300 = 15x20 with 13x23 = 299 fits well with the basics exisitng 20/23
m car body lengths, 11x26 does waste a bit of space but that does
leave 10x26 with 2x20 for a power car at each end if one must think
that way.

That still leaves a major headache at BNS though.


3. A lack of terminal capacity.


Indeed, although of course thats negated where dead ends are converted
to or relieved by through routes.

SPI has been a waste in this respect. Cue list of whngers to comment
that would make the country end of the MML platforms ever further away
from Euston Road.

6. Dealing with high platforms when converting heavy rail into tram
systems. Manchester is now stuck with them.

Yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing, but that particular scheme does
seem to be an example of not quite how it should have been done.

--
Nick

West London Line - what recession?
 

"E27002" wrote in message

On Oct 27, 3:37 pm, "Chris Read" wrote:
"E27002" wrote:
London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making
London and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.

Really? People won't do business here because a bus fare costs about
half the price of a small coffee in Starbucks?

When we have people hiding in trucks at Dover, trying to escape the
UK, as opposed to hiding in trucks at Calais trying to get in, I'll
accept that we're no longer a good place to do business.

When I choose an IT contract there are certain cost that I take into
account, the rate, the cost of temporary accommodation, food and
transportation costs. I then factor in issues like safety and the
local environment.

London tends to be less attractive than Edinburgh, Los Angeles, or
Omaha. But, you needn't be concerned; you have plenty of folks
waiting in trucks at Calais. I am sure they will be able to install
and maintain software at your companies, financial institutions, etc.

That sort of work for British companies is now normally done in Mumbai
or Bangalore. They're a lot cheaper than Edinburgh, Los Angeles, or
Omaha.


grin and OT: but if you're gonna write "Mumbai" for Bombay, please
be consistent and use "Bengaluru" for Bangalore...

West London Line - what recession?
 

On 26 Oct, 21:44, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:37:16 -0700 (PDT), EE507
wrote:

In the short term I would prefer 2 tph of ECR-WFJ rather than 1 of ECR-
MKC, although the benefits would be greater if VT bothered to stop
more than 1 tph at WFJ.

I'd agree, but *only* if the timetable was set up for good connections
with LM services in both directions, which they traditionally haven't
been.

But is there room for 2tph even if there are units for it?

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

I was there last Sunday, getting a train from West Brompton to Clapham
Junction. The brand new Overground train arrived and was crush loaded,
thankfully a few minutes later the Southern service arrived which
still had spare seats.

I don't think I have ever seen so many mothers with prams waiting for
a train before - there must have been about ten of them at West
Brompton!

West London Line - what recession?
 

Nobody wrote:
"E27002" wrote in message

On Oct 27, 3:37 pm, "Chris Read" wrote:
"E27002" wrote:
London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making
London and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.
Really? People won't do business here because a bus fare costs about
half the price of a small coffee in Starbucks?

When we have people hiding in trucks at Dover, trying to escape the
UK, as opposed to hiding in trucks at Calais trying to get in, I'll
accept that we're no longer a good place to do business.
When I choose an IT contract there are certain cost that I take into
account, the rate, the cost of temporary accommodation, food and
transportation costs. I then factor in issues like safety and the
local environment.

London tends to be less attractive than Edinburgh, Los Angeles, or
Omaha. But, you needn't be concerned; you have plenty of folks
waiting in trucks at Calais. I am sure they will be able to install
and maintain software at your companies, financial institutions, etc.
That sort of work for British companies is now normally done in Mumbai
or Bangalore. They're a lot cheaper than Edinburgh, Los Angeles, or
Omaha.


grin and OT: but if you're gonna write "Mumbai" for Bombay, please
be consistent and use "Bengaluru" for Bangalore...

Or "Chennai" for "Madras". This could get complicated.

--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.

Woody Guthrie

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:14:47AM -0000, Paul Scott wrote:

I expect WJ (HL) won't be anything like as difficult to extend to 8 car
length once the current 4 car extension is completed. Getting across the LL
tracks, which is underway now, is the main problem to solve. Having said
that - I'm not too sure where the new reversing siding is going with respect
to the new platform ends - that could prove a limiting factor in the
eastward direction as well...

A bit academic though unless Shepherds Bush and Imperial Wharf have room for
extension.

There's nothing wrong with having one or two minor stations on a route
be shorter than the trains - Battersea Park springs to mind as an
example, as does Billingshurst.

Sure, everyone wanting to use the short stations has to cram into just a
few carriages, but those who don't want to use them will learn to use
the other carriages because they're more comfortable. The problem isn't
Shepherds Bush and Imperial Wharf, it's Clapham Junction. You need to
be able to fit the whole train into the platform at the major stations,
otherwise you'll just end up with half the train overcrowded and half
the train empty.

--
David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

Lesbian bigots try to put finger in linguistic dyke:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7376919.stm

West London Line - what recession?
 

Martin Edwards wrote:


grin and OT: but if you're gonna write "Mumbai" for Bombay, please
be consistent and use "Bengaluru" for Bangalore...

Or "Chennai" for "Madras". This could get complicated.


I work with a bloke from Madras, and he's very annoyed about the whole
Chennai thing, which he sees as a vain politician jumping on a
bandwagon. According to him it makes about as much sense as renaming
London, 'Kensington'.

Tom

West London Line - what recession?
 

In message
"Tim Fenton" wrote:

[snip]

I suspect Omaha isn't exactly bank breakingly expensive either.


Got a good beach I've heard...

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

West London Line - what recession?
 

"Tim Fenton" wrote in message

"Recliner" wrote in message
...

London tends to be less attractive than Edinburgh, Los Angeles, or
Omaha. But, you needn't be concerned; you have plenty of folks
waiting in trucks at Calais. I am sure they will be able to install
and maintain software at your companies, financial institutions,
etc.

That sort of work for British companies is now normally done in
Mumbai or Bangalore. They're a lot cheaper than Edinburgh, Los
Angeles, or Omaha.

Last year, I was doing an assignment with a large services company
which is, as they say, headquartered in the USA.

They had identified a number of low (or lower) cost locations, some
of which were *inside* the US. From memory, the Carolinas was one -
not all of the country is prosperous.

I suspect Omaha isn't exactly bank breakingly expensive either.

Probably not, even though Warren Buffet, one of the world's richest men
lives there.

West London Line - what recession?
 

"Nobody" wrote in message

"E27002" wrote in message

On Oct 27, 3:37 pm, "Chris Read" wrote:


That sort of work for British companies is now normally done in
Mumbai or Bangalore. They're a lot cheaper than Edinburgh, Los
Angeles, or Omaha.


grin and OT: but if you're gonna write "Mumbai" for Bombay, please
be consistent and use "Bengaluru" for Bangalore...

Yes, I did think of that, but felt that the former had caught on a lot
more than the latter. The latter is also not as cheap as it used to be.

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Oct 28, 2:54*pm, "Recliner" wrote:
"E27002" wrote in message







On Oct 27, 3:37 pm, "Chris Read" wrote:
"E27002" wrote:
London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making
London and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.

Really? People won't do business here because a bus fare costs about
half the price of a small coffee in Starbucks?

When we have people hiding in trucks at Dover, trying to escape the
UK, as opposed to hiding in trucks at Calais trying to get in, I'll
accept that we're no longer a good place to do business.

When I choose an IT contract there are certain cost that I take into
account, the rate, the cost of temporary accommodation, food and
transportation costs. *I then factor in issues like safety and the
local environment.

London tends to be less attractive than Edinburgh, Los Angeles, or
Omaha. *But, you needn't be concerned; you have plenty of folks
waiting in trucks at Calais. *I am sure they will be able to install
and maintain software at your companies, financial institutions, etc.

That sort of work for British companies is now normally done in Mumbai
or Bangalore. *They're a lot cheaper than Edinburgh, Los Angeles, or
Omaha.

They have been less expensive. I have heard the India is now enjoying
wage inflation in the IT sector.

My son, and I, have done rather well over the years correcting and
implementing some of the product of these off-shore facilities.

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Oct 28, 3:42*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On 28 Oct, 19:19, Stephen Furley wrote:





On 28 Oct, 12:19, Jamie *Thompson wrote:

On 28 Oct, 07:10, Stephen Furley wrote:

On 28 Oct, 04:05, D7666 wrote:

I would have thought the most significant length constraint would be
Willesden Junction (for LO trains obviously not SN). To extend that to
8-car would involve bridging WCML and that would not come cheap.

Which would put the high-level station back just about where it used
to be. *I'm certainly not holding my breath for that to happen.
They've been talking about re-building the platforms on the slow lines
almost since the old ones were demolished. *I'm not expecting that to
happen in my lifetime either.

How long were the platforms at the old station? *Given the previous
platform lengths at various other North London Line stations, I'm
guessing that they were rather longer than at the present station.

The original station also had a third platform, generally known as the
'Earls Court Bay', though I believe it was actually a through
platform, rather than a real bay. *If this was still available it
would have avoided the situation which existed a few years ago, I'm
not sure if it still does now as I haven't used the line for some
time, where a train arriving from the WLL is held just before the
junction while trains run through in both directions on the NLL, so
you then have a long wait for a connection on that line.

This is why NEW tube lines - be they tube size or main line size -
need to get under way now as they take 10 years to build even once
planning is done, and that takes years too.

An LU person at a LURS meeting at the time that the Jubilee Line
extension was being either planned or constructed stated that this was
being built to traditional tube dimensions only because the rest of
the tube section of the line was that size, and that any future tube
line would almost certainly be to take surface stock size trains, as
the cost of tunneling to the larger size would not be much greater
using modern equipment and techniques.

Don't suppose you know of any diagrams of the old pre-1960's layout of
Willesden Junction?

I hear odd descriptions from time to time, but the best I've ever
managed were a few scattered old photos that didn't really give any
indication of how it all was laid out.

Something for the station's wikipedia page perhaps :)

No sorry, and I don't know much about it. *There was a track in the
second bay, next to platform 2, in the 'new' station. *I have seen a
picture of the old high level station; the two main tracks were served
by side platforms as I remember, and one of these was an island with
the 'Earls Court' track on the other side of it. *The signalbox seems
to have been just at the end of the ramps of the high-level platforms
in the pictures I've seen. *The bridge which gives access to the high-
level platforms also used to serve the main line platforms, I know
this because until not too many years ago old painted over signs
pointing to these platforms could just be made out on this bridge.

Before the old ticket office was demolished, with the odd situation
that you had to cross a road to get from the ticket office to the
platforms, a bricked-up doorway could just be made out in one of the
walls, which I think would also have provided access to these
platforms.

In the South-West you have Clapham Junction, with lots of platforms on
all lines, and most trains stopping there. *In the North-East you have
something similar at Stratford. *it always seemed to me that Willesden
Junction should be the one in the North-West, though there's not
really an obvious one in the South-East.

Thank you. I'll try and work on my mental image of all that.

I agree about the four interchanges. In the south east I guess London
Bridge fulfils the role, dealing as it does with both the southern and
south-eastern mainlines. One of the options considered for Thameslink
was new tunnel from Kings Cross to Bermondsey, with the tunnel to St
Pancras being the cop-out. In my various musings about how things
could be, I usually settle on building a new station on the scale of
CJ/WJ/Stratford roughly where the lines converge next to Millwall's
ground, and downgrading London Bridge in some capacity as more trains
could be running through to Kings Cross (if they an manage 24tph down
the current Thameslink, two tunnels means 24x2 tph isn't out of the
question), and thus Cannon Street should be able to cope. Having the
station there could regenerate the area, and most importantly, provide
interchange with the orbital London overground route. A super-dooper-
surrey canal road junction station, if you will. This location would
be a great location for the line to surface after serving Cannon
Street/London Bridge in tunnel.

Anyway, I digress. Thanks you for your descriptions.

Rather than build a new tunnel from Kings Cross to Bermondsy, would it
not be easier to extend the GN Electric tunnel from Moorgate?

West London Line - what recession?
 

rail wrote:

In message
"Tim Fenton" wrote:

[snip]

I suspect Omaha isn't exactly bank breakingly expensive either.


Got a good beach I've heard...

Covered in towels, though...
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13309778.html
(50 050 and 73 111 at Basingstoke, 1992)

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Oct 29, 7:34*am, "Recliner" wrote:
"Tim Fenton" wrote in message







"Recliner" wrote in message
...

London tends to be less attractive than Edinburgh, Los Angeles, or
Omaha. *But, you needn't be concerned; you have plenty of folks
waiting in trucks at Calais. *I am sure they will be able to install
and maintain software at your companies, financial institutions,
etc.

That sort of work for British companies is now normally done in
Mumbai or Bangalore. *They're a lot cheaper than Edinburgh, Los
Angeles, or Omaha.

Last year, I was doing an assignment with a large services company
which is, as they say, headquartered in the USA.

They had identified a number of low (or lower) cost locations, some
of which were *inside* the US. From memory, the Carolinas was one -
not all of the country is prosperous.

I suspect Omaha isn't exactly bank breakingly expensive either.

Probably not, even though Warren Buffet, one of the world's richest men
lives there.

For one year I worked in Omaha doing a major reconfiguration of an
accounting package. I found a very inexpensive apartment ten minutes
walk from my client's campus.

My rate was slightly lower than my previous assignment which had been
in the San Francisco Bay area. However, because my costs were much
lower it was an entirely more profitable venture.

Moreover, the folks living in Douglas County, Nebraska where, by and
large, very friendly. The work environment was more than pleasant.
An unexpected bonus was a British Restaurant in nearby Belleview, NE.

Omaha is also home of the headquarters of the Union Pacific
Railroad. The town has much of railway interest. It is also Gerald
Ford’s birthplace.

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:34:26 -0700 (PDT), E27002
wrote:

An unexpected bonus was a British Restaurant in nearby Belleview, NE.


What food does it serve? Balti? Tandoori? Pizza and Pasta?

It seems odd that there should be such a thing as a "British
Restaurant" when British cuisine has largely vanished.

West London Line - what recession?
 

In article , Bruce
writes
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:34:26 -0700 (PDT), E27002
wrote:

An unexpected bonus was a British Restaurant in nearby Belleview, NE.


What food does it serve? Balti? Tandoori? Pizza and Pasta?

It seems odd that there should be such a thing as a "British
Restaurant" when British cuisine has largely vanished.

I do wish he'd said "British restaurant", not "British Restaurant".
Horrible memories of 1939-1945.
--
Bill Borland

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Oct 29, 7:34*am, "Recliner" wrote:
"Tim Fenton" wrote in message







"Recliner" wrote in message
...

London tends to be less attractive than Edinburgh, Los Angeles, or
Omaha. *But, you needn't be concerned; you have plenty of folks
waiting in trucks at Calais. *I am sure they will be able to install
and maintain software at your companies, financial institutions,
etc.

That sort of work for British companies is now normally done in
Mumbai or Bangalore. *They're a lot cheaper than Edinburgh, Los
Angeles, or Omaha.

Last year, I was doing an assignment with a large services company
which is, as they say, headquartered in the USA.

They had identified a number of low (or lower) cost locations, some
of which were *inside* the US. From memory, the Carolinas was one -
not all of the country is prosperous.

I suspect Omaha isn't exactly bank breakingly expensive either.

Probably not, even though Warren Buffet, one of the world's richest men
lives there.

For one year I worked in Omaha doing a major reconfiguration of an
accounting package. I found a very inexpensive apartment ten minutes
walk from my client's campus.

My rate was slightly lower than my previous assignment which had been
in the San Francisco Bay area. However, because my costs were much
lower it was an entirely more profitable venture.


Moreover, the folks living in Douglas County, Nebraska where, by and
large, very friendly. The work environment was more than pleasant.
An unexpected bonus was a British restaurant in nearby Bellevue, NE.
See http://tinyurl.com/yj7drwy


Omaha is also home of the headquarters of the Union Pacific
Railroad. The town has much of railway interest. It is also Gerald
Ford’s birthplace.

Given the oportunity I would not hesitate to work in Omaha again.

West London Line - what recession?
 

On 29 Oct, 15:22, E27002 wrote:
On Oct 28, 3:42*pm, Jamie *Thompson wrote:



On 28 Oct, 19:19, Stephen Furley wrote:

On 28 Oct, 12:19, Jamie *Thompson wrote:

On 28 Oct, 07:10, Stephen Furley wrote:

On 28 Oct, 04:05, D7666 wrote:

I would have thought the most significant length constraint would be
Willesden Junction (for LO trains obviously not SN). To extend that to
8-car would involve bridging WCML and that would not come cheap..

Which would put the high-level station back just about where it used
to be. *I'm certainly not holding my breath for that to happen.
They've been talking about re-building the platforms on the slow lines
almost since the old ones were demolished. *I'm not expecting that to
happen in my lifetime either.

How long were the platforms at the old station? *Given the previous
platform lengths at various other North London Line stations, I'm
guessing that they were rather longer than at the present station..

The original station also had a third platform, generally known as the
'Earls Court Bay', though I believe it was actually a through
platform, rather than a real bay. *If this was still available it
would have avoided the situation which existed a few years ago, I'm
not sure if it still does now as I haven't used the line for some
time, where a train arriving from the WLL is held just before the
junction while trains run through in both directions on the NLL, so
you then have a long wait for a connection on that line.

This is why NEW tube lines - be they tube size or main line size -
need to get under way now as they take 10 years to build even once
planning is done, and that takes years too.

An LU person at a LURS meeting at the time that the Jubilee Line
extension was being either planned or constructed stated that this was
being built to traditional tube dimensions only because the rest of
the tube section of the line was that size, and that any future tube
line would almost certainly be to take surface stock size trains, as
the cost of tunneling to the larger size would not be much greater
using modern equipment and techniques.

Don't suppose you know of any diagrams of the old pre-1960's layout of
Willesden Junction?

I hear odd descriptions from time to time, but the best I've ever
managed were a few scattered old photos that didn't really give any
indication of how it all was laid out.

Something for the station's wikipedia page perhaps :)

No sorry, and I don't know much about it. *There was a track in the
second bay, next to platform 2, in the 'new' station. *I have seen a
picture of the old high level station; the two main tracks were served
by side platforms as I remember, and one of these was an island with
the 'Earls Court' track on the other side of it. *The signalbox seems
to have been just at the end of the ramps of the high-level platforms
in the pictures I've seen. *The bridge which gives access to the high-
level platforms also used to serve the main line platforms, I know
this because until not too many years ago old painted over signs
pointing to these platforms could just be made out on this bridge.

Before the old ticket office was demolished, with the odd situation
that you had to cross a road to get from the ticket office to the
platforms, a bricked-up doorway could just be made out in one of the
walls, which I think would also have provided access to these
platforms.

In the South-West you have Clapham Junction, with lots of platforms on
all lines, and most trains stopping there. *In the North-East you have
something similar at Stratford. *it always seemed to me that Willesden
Junction should be the one in the North-West, though there's not
really an obvious one in the South-East.

Thank you. I'll try and work on my mental image of all that.

I agree about the four interchanges. In the south east I guess London
Bridge fulfils the role, dealing as it does with both the southern and
south-eastern mainlines. One of the options considered for Thameslink
was new tunnel from Kings Cross to Bermondsey, with the tunnel to St
Pancras being the cop-out. In my various musings about how things
could be, I usually settle on building a new station on the scale of
CJ/WJ/Stratford roughly where the lines converge next to Millwall's
ground, and downgrading London Bridge in some capacity as more trains
could be running through to Kings Cross (if they an manage 24tph down
the current Thameslink, two tunnels means 24x2 tph isn't out of the
question), and thus Cannon Street should be able to cope. Having the
station there could regenerate the area, and most importantly, provide
interchange with the orbital London overground route. A super-dooper-
surrey canal road junction station, if you will. This location would
be a great location for the line to surface after serving Cannon
Street/London Bridge in tunnel.

Anyway, I digress. Thanks you for your descriptions.

Rather than build a new tunnel from Kings Cross to Bermondsy, would it
not be easier to extend the GN Electric tunnel from Moorgate?

It might seem so, but things to consider:
a) It's size cannot handle OHLE, which any new infrastructure should
be built to support (one day the southern network will be brought into
line ;))
b) It has metro station-spacing, unsuitable for a service serving an
area as wide as Thameslink (Cambridge to Essex Road, anyone?).
c) Said station are too short, and would be expensive to extend.
d) Closing said stations to remedy b&c would be unpopular with
existing users.
....and finally, e) Extending the tunnel from Moorgate means cutting
through both the planned Crossrail station's escalators, as well as
the Northern line tunnels.

Ergo, I think a new Crossrail-gauge tunnel from either Finsbury or
Ally Pally would be best, with stations at Finsbury Park, Moorgate-
Bank, Cannon Street-London Bridge, and Surrey Canal Junction. However,
either tunnel option would miss out on interchanging with KXSP,
forcing an interchange at Liverpool St. and a trip back along the
Circle.

My preference for the NC tunnels would still have to deal with e), but
covering the other considerations, would be to link it to the W&C, and
from Finsbury up to Highgate, then along back to Ally Pally, before
taking over the majority of the Hertford loop. Plans for the other end
of the W&C take it down to Clapham and off elsewhere...but that's
another thing entirely.

West London Line - what recession?
 

On Oct 29, 9:51*am, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On 29 Oct, 15:22, E27002 wrote:


Rather than build a new tunnel from Kings Cross to Bermondsy, would it
not be easier to extend the GN Electric tunnel from Moorgate?

It might seem so, but things to consider:
a) It's size cannot handle OHLE, which any new infrastructure should
be built to support (one day the southern network will be brought into
line ;))
b) It has metro station-spacing, unsuitable for a service serving an
area as wide as Thameslink (Cambridge to Essex Road, anyone?).
c) Said station are too short, and would be expensive to extend.
d) Closing said stations to remedy b&c would be unpopular with
existing users.
...and finally, e) Extending the tunnel from Moorgate means cutting
through both the planned Crossrail station's escalators, as well as
the Northern line tunnels.

Ergo, I think a new Crossrail-gauge tunnel from either Finsbury or
Ally Pally would be best, with stations at Finsbury Park, Moorgate-
Bank, Cannon Street-London Bridge, and Surrey Canal Junction. However,
either tunnel option would miss out on interchanging with KXSP,
forcing an interchange at Liverpool St. and a trip back along the
Circle.

My preference for the NC tunnels would still have to deal with e), but
covering the other considerations, would be to link it to the W&C, and
from Finsbury up to Highgate, then along back to Ally Pally, before
taking over the majority of the Hertford loop. Plans for the other end
of the W&C take it down to Clapham and off elsewhere...but that's
another thing entirely.-

IIRC because of the way it is configured, extending the W&C from
Waterloo would be very difficult. There was once talk of adding a W&C
station at Blackfriars. That idea may have merrit. But there would
be little return for the very high investement.