|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Dec 26, 2012 19:37:58 GMT
Maybe this thread repeats something that's already been discussed, but what should we call the two future Northern Lines after/if they are split in the future? (Batterware/Edgesea and Barden/Mornet are hardly memorable and suggest cheap hardware suppliers).
And then there's the question of their colour on the map - from memory at the time LU took on the Drain, there aren't many options left now that LOROL has taken the orange - I seem to recall we were offered a lime green and some lightbrown/fawn shade as well as the turquoise we chose.
GH
|
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Dec 26, 2012 20:00:13 GMT
I think the Bank branch should be named the "City & South London" Line after its predecessor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2012 20:10:08 GMT
It isn't being split. All that is likely to happen is that services will be mostly (but not entirely) separated requiring interchange at Camden.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Dec 26, 2012 20:39:08 GMT
In Brussels there was ligne 1a and 1b! They have now been split. Not really sure what they should be called. Perhaps just keep them to the Northern Line but make very clear divides as to the routes they run - like the District Edgware Rd-Wimbledon branch (but on a bigger scale!).
|
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Dec 26, 2012 21:22:51 GMT
I had understood that Upgrade 2 involved complete operational separation at Camden so that the bank and Embankment services would be no more connected than the Bakerloo and the Jubilee.
GH
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2012 21:31:47 GMT
I had understood that Upgrade 2 involved complete operational separation at Camden so that the bank and Embankment services would be no more connected than the Bakerloo and the Jubilee. GH Would probably be more accurate to say separation of the services. The crossovers will remain in place at Camden and Kennington so it would still be possible to divert trains over the other branch in the event of a blockage somewhere (assuming the staff remain route trained - which has not been proposed to be stopped AFAIK). So not quite as separate as Bakerloo and Jubilee I believe. Early days yet though as far as operational detail is concerned. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 26, 2012 22:25:16 GMT
I have heard it suggested that one of them (the CX branch I think) might be named the Albert Line, as it sort of partners the Victoria Line
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2012 23:05:02 GMT
Northern Line (west) and Northern Line (east)?
XF
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Dec 27, 2012 12:24:36 GMT
If they were to be split as suggested, I sincerely hope they do a prolonged trial run, as they did with the modified Circle, to see if it would work in practice, especially the threatened crises at Camden Town due to the connecting passages being unable to cope with all the interchangers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2012 12:38:12 GMT
If they were to be split as suggested, I sincerely hope they do a prolonged trial run, as they did with the modified Circle, to see if it would work in practice, especially the threatened crises at Camden Town due to the connecting passages being unable to cope with all the interchangers. Otherwise both branches would be renamed as Northern Line (gone west)! ;D XF |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Dec 27, 2012 14:33:44 GMT
If they were to be split as suggested, I sincerely hope they do a prolonged trial run, as they did with the modified Circle, to see if it would work in practice, especially the threatened crises at Camden Town due to the connecting passages being unable to cope with all the interchangers. I don't think that the split can happen until Camden Town is 'sorted out', with a new station capable of coping with the interchanging passengers. |
|
|
|
Post by 1018509 on Dec 27, 2012 20:24:22 GMT
Northern Line (west) and Northern Line (east)? XF This I like. It has the beginnings of something wonderful!  |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,233 
|
Post by rincew1nd on Dec 27, 2012 20:41:58 GMT
what should we call the two future Northern Lines after/if they are split in the future? I did think of calling the Bank Branch the "Northern (City) Line" with the other becoming the "Northern ([something else]) Line", but I guess the former has too many links to the other bit. Perhaps it would be best if we gave up the "Northern" moniker all together? After all, in my neck of the wood the Northern Line serves Hunts Cross in the south and Kirky, Ormskirk and Southport in the north! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2012 20:55:28 GMT
Given the current trend in naming things, I think the Queen Elizabeth Line would be a likely name. Completion of separation in around ten years would put it at the 70th Jubilee too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2012 21:02:43 GMT
As has been said Camden would need a complete rebuild. The set-up there is dreadful, and would be far worse if you couldn't get a Ch. X train at HB/ Bank train at Edgware.
Really it needs open island platforms, but that would require an almost total rebuild of the station.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 27, 2012 21:16:14 GMT
The Angel Line and the Goodge Line, after stations that are exclusively served by the respective branches of the Northern Line. They also have the advantage that the inkitial letters are not shared with any existing lines (otherwise I'd have gone for the Mornington Line)
|
|
|
|
Post by londonstuff on Dec 27, 2012 21:35:24 GMT
what should we call the two future Northern Lines after/if they are split in the future? And on that note is the split, albeit in an ad-hoc way rather than permanent separation, budgeted for or a timescale put on it yet or are we still in the realms of the far off days? Obviously the extension to Battersea will have a lot of bearing on it all - is it now confirmed that this now definitely happening as it's been backed up financially by Mr Osbourne et al.? If the line is indeed split presumably other things to think about, at the very minimum are depots and additional rolling stock. On the subject of a semi-split, at one point didn't northbound trains in the morning peak only go to one destination on one branch and one destination on the other? I'd heard that it had made a lot of difference to the reliability of points at Camden but this was a long time ago now, it may have changed. |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Dec 27, 2012 22:51:17 GMT
The main depots will be at Edgware, Golders Green, Highgate and Morden.
I'd like to see the whole retained as one but running separate services. The main issue is rolling stock. How many extra trains are going to be required to split the services and with the extension?
The issue then is that if you purchase a new fleet for one line, there are excess trains on the other line!
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Dec 27, 2012 23:05:03 GMT
On the subject of a semi-split, at one point didn't northbound trains in the morning peak only go to one destination on one branch and one destination on the other? I'd heard that it had made a lot of difference to the reliability of points at Camden but this was a long time ago now, it may have changed. They still do, from sometime shortly after start-up (between 06.30 and 06.45ish) until sometime after 10.00. Trains from the City run to High Barnet / Mill Hill East, whilst Charing Cross trains run to Edgware. |
|
|
|
Post by londonstuff on Dec 27, 2012 23:14:50 GMT
The main depots will be at Edgware, Golders Green, Highgate and Morden. I'd like to see the whole retained as one but running separate services. The main issue is rolling stock. How many extra trains are going to be required to split the services and with the extension? The issue then is that if you purchase a new fleet for one line, there are excess trains on the other line! And then do you have new trains on one and old on another, etc. etc. I can see it's going to be a bit of a headache for someone to sort out with no easy solution. Without branches though it should surely be possible to get somewhere near to Victoria line-frequency running on each branch, which would be a major boost for the line. |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Dec 27, 2012 23:16:39 GMT
The main depots will be at Edgware, Golders Green, Highgate and Morden. I'd like to see the whole retained as one but running separate services. The main issue is rolling stock. How many extra trains are going to be required to split the services and with the extension? I don't think any additional stock would be needed to split the current service. The frequencies will be the same on either of the northern branches, no matter where they run to south of Camden Town. One question is whether the peak through services to/from Morden, from the Charing Cross branch, would be retained. If not, then more trains may be needed to maintain frequencies south of Kennington with trains taking the slightly longer route via the City. Of course, with ATO allowing increased frequencies, even when coupled with decreased running times, more stock would likely be needed even without the extension. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2012 9:02:27 GMT
The main depots will be at Edgware, Golders Green, Highgate and Morden. I'd like to see the whole retained as one but running separate services. The main issue is rolling stock. How many extra trains are going to be required to split the services and with the extension? I don't think any additional stock would be needed to split the current service. The frequencies will be the same on either of the northern branches, no matter where they run to south of Camden Town. One question is whether the peak through services to/from Morden, from the Charing Cross branch, would be retained. If not, then more trains may be needed to maintain frequencies south of Kennington with trains taking the slightly longer route via the City. Of course, with ATO allowing increased frequencies, even when coupled with decreased running times, more stock would likely be needed even without the extension. The point of the split is to facilitate increased frequencies on the branches by avoiding junction conflicts at Camden. I recall the aim is to get to c28tph on both Bank and X branches and also to High Barnet and Edgware. To do this requires about an extra 15-20 trains (I think) in addition to the 5 or 6 extra for Battersea. Battersea extension will come before the split service (known as NLU2 - Northern line Upgrade 2) because NLU2 requires congestion relief works at Camden and Kennington to be in place. Rolling Stock purchasing strategy is not yet agreed. |
|
Fahad
In memoriam
Posts: 459
|
Post by Fahad on Dec 28, 2012 11:36:04 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised if they're both called the Northern line, despite being completely segregated - much like the "Northern line"'s Moorgate-Finsbury Park service was
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2012 11:54:38 GMT
I believe the first phase is separation at Kennington, whether or not Battersea proceeds. This enables at least 28 tph on all branches, and with cross platform interchange at Stockwell and Kennington is as customer friendly as it could be without through trains.
The second phase I see as a seriously retrograde step. The Camden junctions are laid out to allow theoretical maximum frequencies on both branches, though in practice probably 1-2 tph would be lost compared to total separation to allow for imprecise running and contigencies. To my mind this pales into insignificance compared with the loss of convenience for customers having through services. The TfL guff about points wear and tear is a smokescreen; consider Earl's Court, Edgware Road, Aldgate, the entire NR network! How often are delays down to point as opposed to signal failure? Rarely!
Separate the Northern Line at Kennington, but keep integrated otherwise, even if Camden Town is eventually rebuilt.
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Dec 28, 2012 12:52:20 GMT
The point of the split is to facilitate increased frequencies on the branches by avoiding junction conflicts at Camden. The junction layout at Camden doesn't have conflicts, when the timetable is running properly. Running services alternating between the branches, rather than all taking one route or the other, makes little difference to the operation here. However, part of the original reason behind the split was to improve the reliability of the timetable, back when the stock wasn't as behaving as well as now. |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Dec 28, 2012 12:58:19 GMT
I believe the first phase is separation at Kennington, whether or not Battersea proceeds. This enables at least 28 tph on all branches, and with cross platform interchange at Stockwell and Kennington is as customer friendly as it could be without through trains. Of course, this split already occurs off-peak. A question does remain though, why should passengers from the Charing Cross branch also lose their through peak trains to/from Morden, whilst passengers from the northern branches retain their choice of destinations. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2012 18:02:28 GMT
A question does remain though, why should passengers from the Charing Cross branch also lose their through peak trains to/from Morden, whilst passengers from the northern branches retain their choice of destinations.
[/quote]
Very good question, and ideally they would all continue to have a choice. But TfL want up to 32 tph on the City branch, which works best with all Morden trains routed via Bank. Unless of course Battersea were built with a fully non-conflicting set of junctions like Camden, and I fear that would be prohibitively expensive, and probably not enough space.
Actually, there is a reversing siding for the Bank branch at Kennington, so you could reverse 6 tph from Bank and infill with Ch X - Morden, but I doubt TfL would want the additional complexity. I think the bottom line remains the fact that the cross platform options on the south branch are much better than those in the north, so the inconvenience is minimal.
|
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on Dec 28, 2012 19:32:44 GMT
Has anyone considered the Southern Line?
|
|
|
|
Post by djlynch on Dec 28, 2012 23:30:01 GMT
Wasn't there a de facto split for a while after the Camden Town derailment? How well did that work (or not work) at Camden Town?
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisvandenkieboom on Dec 29, 2012 1:46:38 GMT
Wasn't there a de facto split for a while after the Camden Town derailment? How well did that work (or not work) at Camden Town? Giant overcrowding in the narrow tunnels between the High Barnet and Edgware branches.. of course, that traffic can also be recommended to change at Euston which is better designed to cope with the crowds, but Camden Town will be a big reason why the split won't happen for a long time... because they also want a new ticket hall, requiring cut and cover, which requires the demolishing of buildings. I'm not sure whether they already considered (possibly expensive though) a deep level ticket hall, but I'm not a tunnel engineering expert. |
|
