|
Post by cetacean on Jul 26, 2007 16:16:43 GMT
Because there aren't two branches, there are four, and four different services, allowing you to get from anywhere to anywhere without changing at Camden:
High Barnet (or Mill Hill East) - Morden via Bank Edgware - Kennington (or sometimes Morden) via Charing Cross
High Barnet (or Mill Hill East) - Kennington (or Morden) via Charing Cross Edgware - Morden via Bank
The plan is to pick one of these two pairs, which would give you two segregated lines, but while all four services are running it makes sense to run it all as one entity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2007 17:58:26 GMT
Okay, so todays arrangements causes problems. Just think how much diferent it would have been if the line from Oval to Streatham had opened as well as the Morden.. Two southern terminii, as well as Edgware, Mill Hill, High Barnet AND the planned Elstree and Ally Pally. That would have been one headache through Camden!
|
|
|
Post by programmes1 on Jul 26, 2007 18:13:43 GMT
The programme rolls would be working a lot harder.
|
|
|
Post by mandgc on Jul 27, 2007 1:15:33 GMT
A lot of Northern Passengers would be unhappy if they did not have the option of either branch served by both City or West End lines. An ideal solution would be to have Cross Platform Interchange between the Edgware and Barnet branches (Kennington style) It's all a question of MONEY ! A pity they didn't arrange this in 1924 ,at the time of the new junctions or in 1935 when they had plenty of money to splash around !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2007 8:02:52 GMT
An ideal solution would be to have Cross Platform Interchange between the Edgware and Barnet branches (Kennington style) It's all a question of MONEY ! A pity they didn't arrange this in 1924 ,at the time of the new junctions or in 1935 when they had plenty of money to splash around ! The problem was that Camden's platform layout was unchanged from 1907 when the junction was rebuilt in 1924. It wouldn't have been cost effective to rebuild the platforms as well, especially given that at the time tube lines were still built under roads, and rebuilding with cross platform interchange would have required building under properties. .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2007 16:21:33 GMT
A lot of Northern Passengers would be unhappy if they did not have the option of either branch served by both City or West End lines. An ideal solution would be to have Cross Platform Interchange between the Edgware and Barnet branches (Kennington style) It's all a question of MONEY ! A pity they didn't arrange this in 1924 ,at the time of the new junctions or in 1935 when they had plenty of money to splash around ! I think that if anyone would be willing to make an extra interchange (that they often have to make already) in favour of a more reliable, frequent and predictable line, it'd be Northern Line passengers. Now, how about names for the two new lines? Edgington/Kenware and Mornet / Barden? Or something more original?
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Jul 27, 2007 16:32:23 GMT
City & South London Railway (for via Bank) and Northern Line for via Charing X
|
|
|
Post by abe on Jul 30, 2007 7:28:03 GMT
The problem was that Camden's platform layout was unchanged from 1907 when the junction was rebuilt in 1924. It wouldn't have been cost effective to rebuild the platforms as well, especially given that at the time tube lines were still built under roads, and rebuilding with cross platform interchange would have required building under properties. . Absolutely right - given the alignment of the platforms it would involve lengthy curving tunnels under Camden to provide cross-platform interchange. It would probably be cheaper to build new platforms... Of course, one of the reasons that the platforms are arranged as they are is that the original plan was for the Highgate branch to be operated as a shuttle service, and therefore needed two platforms of its own; otherwise a single NB platform could have been provided south of the junction, rather like Baker Street (Bakerloo) before the Jubilee line. Another advantage of this layout was that it permitted the lifts to descend to a point between all four platforms, close to the apex of the junction, thus minimizing the length of the low-level subways. The CCE&HR was not particularly keen on operating the Highgate branch as a shuttle. The logic stemmed from the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on London Underground Railways of 1901, which was very concerned about passenger trains operating over junctions in tunnels. Around 1903 (after construction had started) the railway company decided to operate both northern branches with services to Charing Cross, and then engaged in a lengthy debate with the Board of Trade, who wanted catch points and overrun tunnels between the SB platforms and the junction to prevent trains from colliding. These demands were finally dropped when the stopping positions for SB trains was moved northwards (possible because the trains were shorter than the platforms). Even if the Highgate branch had been operated as a shuttle, cross-platform interchange would still have been useful. However, the streets just don't allow for it. If the platforms are under Camden High St and Kentish Town Rd (as they are) then you need a lot of tunnelling under properties to make it work - this would have been very expensive. The platforms could have been moved southwards, but Camden High St isn't wide enough to take four abreast. The NB and SB tunnels could have been placed at different levels, but I have a feeling that this would have made the gradients a problem. Given the desire to keep the tunnels beneath streets, it is difficult to find any easy solution - even with a single NB platform - that works with a straightforward access from a single surface station with lifts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2007 7:46:36 GMT
One of the main problems of splitting the line, IMO, would be the loss of flexibility. A few examples:
firstly, service suspension Finchley Central to High Barnet, too many trains scheduled for Barnet to reverse them all Finchley/Mill Hill/Archway, solution divert some to Edgware/Colindale/Golders and keep the bulk of your service running on both central branches; secondly, person under train Angel SB, apart from the trains immediately stalled your SB service can all run via Charing X keeping the NB city running (and indeed providing a limited Kennington-Moorgate shuttle also);
thirdly, train stalled across the points exiting Golders depot, service completely shut-down on the Edgware branch, NB trains can divert to Archway/Finchley/Mill Hill rather than completely shutting the service down through the centre of town on one branch.
That's just a few little scenarios - all real ones which have happened in the last few months when I was on duty - where if the line was split there would be less of the service running than we were actually able to do. Of course there may be a case for splitting the line from a capacity point of view - but there are also potential down sides.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2007 8:26:14 GMT
tfc: why would a split mean that during exceptional circumstances like that, trains wouldn't be able to be diverted? Trains from different lines can use each other's tracks; when there are problems they could just go back to the old situation that we have now. I think that there definitely should still be a connection between the lines, just like there are between say, the Jubilee and the Bakerloo. It just shouldn't be used in normal operations so frequency and reliability can be improved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2007 9:54:27 GMT
tfc: why would a split mean that during exceptional circumstances like that, trains wouldn't be able to be diverted? Trains from different lines can use each other's tracks; when there are problems they could just go back to the old situation that we have now. I think that there definitely should still be a connection between the lines, just like there are between say, the Jubilee and the Bakerloo. It just shouldn't be used in normal operations so frequency and reliability can be improved. But the connection between the Jubilee and the Bakerloo (to use your example) is not used during day-to-day operations, even in times of operating problems, it's only used for stock transfers, engineers trains and the like. Jubilee and Bakerloo drivers are not road trained on the other lines so they couldn't drive a train there without a 2nd person in the cab. And the examples that I quoted are not all that unusual, like I say they are all real scenarios which have happened during my shift in the last few months. I'm not saying that there isn't a case for splitting the line, just that you might sometimes lose as well as gain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2007 10:13:31 GMT
The book Underground Maps After Beck has a mock-up drawn for LU in the late 1980s, showing a black Northern line running from Edgware to Kennington via West End, and an unnamed orange line running from Barnet to Morden via Bank. So there must have been some serious thought then.
The main problem would be that people on the Edgware line would scream about the loss of direct access to the City; and those on the Barnet and Morden lines would be equally vocal about access to the West End. And I don't want to even think about the chaos of interchanging passengers at Camden Town, Euston, and Kennington.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jul 30, 2007 10:58:36 GMT
Just a thought here:
If the fast line from Golders to TCR had been constructed and the connection from Highgate to the GN&CR had been finished both northern termini would have a line to the city and the west end without passing through Camden. I'd do a diagram of what I mean but I don't know how to post it up here. If one can imagine two upside down 'Y's...
|
|
|
Post by CSLR on Jul 30, 2007 11:18:06 GMT
The book Underground Maps After Beck has a mock-up drawn for LU in the late 1980s, showing a black Northern line running from Edgware to Kennington via West End, and an unnamed orange line running from Barnet to Morden via Bank. So there must have been some serious thought then. It was still being thought about in the early 1990s, as was a short extension of the line from Mill Hill East. The latter actually going so far as to be added to a large wall map at Coburg Street as a project in progress.
|
|
|
Post by Tubeboy on Jul 30, 2007 15:30:11 GMT
The book Underground Maps After Beck has a mock-up drawn for LU in the late 1980s, showing a black Northern line running from Edgware to Kennington via West End, and an unnamed orange line running from Barnet to Morden via Bank. So there must have been some serious thought then. It was still being thought about in the early 1990s, as was a short extension of the line from Mill Hill East. The latter actually going so far as to be added to a large wall map at Coburg Street as a project in progress. To Barnet Copthall stadium I recollect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2007 15:55:37 GMT
tfc: why would a split mean that during exceptional circumstances like that, trains wouldn't be able to be diverted? Trains from different lines can use each other's tracks; when there are problems they could just go back to the old situation that we have now. I think that there definitely should still be a connection between the lines, just like there are between say, the Jubilee and the Bakerloo. It just shouldn't be used in normal operations so frequency and reliability can be improved. But the connection between the Jubilee and the Bakerloo (to use your example) is not used during day-to-day operations, even in times of operating problems, it's only used for stock transfers, engineers trains and the like. Jubilee and Bakerloo drivers are not road trained on the other lines so they couldn't drive a train there without a 2nd person in the cab. And the examples that I quoted are not all that unusual, like I say they are all real scenarios which have happened during my shift in the last few months. I'm not saying that there isn't a case for splitting the line, just that you might sometimes lose as well as gain. Connections between District and Piccadilly and Jubilee and Met along their parallel tracks would have been better examples, I guess. The point is that a split would always allow us to go back to the old situation in case it's needed, as long as drivers stay trained for both lines. Although I'm not sure if this is an issue at all since we will be having ATO by the time something like this is done. But I agree with you that we will both be gaining and losing things; it's just I think the pluses are bigger than the minuses here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2007 7:57:01 GMT
Connections between District and Piccadilly and Jubilee and Met along their parallel tracks would have been better examples, I guess. The point is that a split would always allow us to go back to the old situation in case it's needed, as long as drivers stay trained for both lines. Although I'm not sure if this is an issue at all since we will be having ATO by the time something like this is done. Drivers still need to be road trained with ATO! After all you never know when some bit of kit might fail and they have to take over and drive manually. I'm not sure whether District/Picc is a better example as they run parallel rather than splitting as the Northern does at Camden. I can see all sorts of practical problems with crewing and stock in running the 2 branches as separate lines but diverting in the case of service disruption. Ending up with trains which "belong" on one line stuck over on the other branch or in the wrong depot. Or drivers - rather than as now "yes I know you're on grub at Golders but we physically can't get you there, divert to Finchley Central then East Finchley for grub and we'll find you another train after your meal relief" well it just makes things far more complicated! I'd imagine that diverting would not be done as regularly and quickly as it is now, because it would be far harder to sort out the knock-ons.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2007 13:35:21 GMT
The book Underground Maps After Beck has a mock-up drawn for LU in the late 1980s, showing a black Northern line running from Edgware to Kennington via West End, and an unnamed orange line running from Barnet to Morden via Bank. So there must have been some serious thought then. The main problem would be that people on the Edgware line would scream about the loss of direct access to the City; and those on the Barnet and Morden lines would be equally vocal about access to the West End. And I don't want to even think about the chaos of interchanging passengers at Camden Town, Euston, and Kennington. Think about Sydney CityRail
|
|
|
Post by tubenetwork on Aug 1, 2007 10:11:17 GMT
Exactly.
Would the points be retained to allow stock transfers and or emergency use when required?
If so how would a "wrong route taken" as often happens be solved?
If the points were to be secured to stop this then the separate branches are condemned to death if something goes wrong.
If there is a signal or points failure the points would not necessarily be secured in the correct direction for that service hence shutting half the line down or deciding to divert all trains.
Anyway thankfully it may never happen and the new signaling will cope with the traffic levels as they might level off. Who knows.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2007 11:43:05 GMT
But how do all the other - more reliable - lines cope without the option of diverting trains to a separate line?
And isn't the complicated situation now the source of those 'wrong route takens' in the first place?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2007 11:49:18 GMT
The book Underground Maps After Beck has a mock-up drawn for LU in the late 1980s, showing a black Northern line running from Edgware to Kennington via West End, and an unnamed orange line running from Barnet to Morden via Bank. So there must have been some serious thought then. The main problem would be that people on the Edgware line would scream about the loss of direct access to the City; and those on the Barnet and Morden lines would be equally vocal about access to the West End. And I don't want to even think about the chaos of interchanging passengers at Camden Town, Euston, and Kennington. Think about Sydney CityRail I don't want to think about CityRail either: check my avatar!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2007 12:47:51 GMT
I understand.
Ok, how about this:
One line (e.g. West End Line) running from Kennington loop to Edgeware and another (e.g. City Line) from Morden to High Barnet, leaving Mill Hill East as a shuttle to East Finchley.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2007 9:40:27 GMT
I understand. Ok, how about this: One line (e.g. West End Line) running from Kennington loop to Edgeware and another (e.g. City Line) from Morden to High Barnet, leaving Mill Hill East as a shuttle to East Finchley. Well, if you are going to have a MHE shuttle, it would be best to run it from Finchley Central: what is the point of occupying the track to East Finchley? And if you split the line the way you suggest, what about the plight of someone who works near Goodge Street and lives in Clapham? In the evening peak, they get a southbound train and get tipped out at Kennington, where they have to force their way onto an already-full train from the City. Or if this person lives at Highgate, they have to change through totally inadequate subways at either Euston or Camden Town. Against a strong flow of people changing in the opposite direction. I wonder what the H&S people would make of such a proposal?
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Aug 2, 2007 10:43:46 GMT
And if you split the line the way you suggest, what about the plight of someone who works near Goodge Street and lives in Clapham? In the evening peak, they get a southbound train and get tipped out at Kennington, where they have to force their way onto an already-full train from the City. Lots of people's commutes involve changing lines, and they seem to cope. The line is already partly split at Kennington, with only a few trains from Goodge St running through (not sure how few - anyone know?), so they already have this problem. Hence splitting the line being dependent on rebuilding Camden.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2007 9:56:12 GMT
Hence splitting the line being dependent on rebuilding Camden. Right. I'll get the pigs polished and ready for take-off.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2007 6:44:54 GMT
I understand. Ok, how about this: One line (e.g. West End Line) running from Kennington loop to Edgeware and another (e.g. City Line) from Morden to High Barnet, leaving Mill Hill East as a shuttle to East Finchley. Well, if you are going to have a MHE shuttle, it would be best to run it from Finchley Central: what is the point of occupying the track to East Finchley? Oops. I meant Finchley Central. Sorry, but I don't really know the tracks very well.
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Sept 18, 2007 19:18:16 GMT
And if you split the line the way you suggest, what about the plight of someone who works near Goodge Street and lives in Clapham? In the evening peak, they get a southbound train and get tipped out at Kennington, where they have to force their way onto an already-full train from the City. Lots of people's commutes involve changing lines, and they seem to cope. The line is already partly split at Kennington, with only a few trains from Goodge St running through (not sure how few - anyone know?), so they already have this problem. Hence splitting the line being dependent on rebuilding Camden. Think it's about 1 in 3 trains that runs to Morden from the Charing X branch (peak hours only). To me, the whole proposal of splitting is a non starter. They'd need to spend millions reconstructing Camden Town. A lot of money to spend on inconveniencing passengers and reducing flexibility.
|
|
|
Post by johnb on Sept 19, 2007 9:10:23 GMT
To me, the whole proposal of splitting is a non starter. They'd need to spend millions reconstructing Camden Town. A lot of money to spend on inconveniencing passengers and reducing flexibility. They need to spend millions reconstucting Camden Town *whether or not the line gets split*, so that isn't the major obstacle.
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Sept 19, 2007 12:42:59 GMT
To me, the whole proposal of splitting is a non starter. They'd need to spend millions reconstructing Camden Town. A lot of money to spend on inconveniencing passengers and reducing flexibility. They need to spend millions reconstucting Camden Town *whether or not the line gets split*, so that isn't the major obstacle. Well there is also Kennington I suppose. I still think it would inconvenience a lot of passengers, and reduce the flexibility that currently serves the Northern so well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2007 13:10:14 GMT
All this talk of splitting the line, and with me a regular Colindale-Bank traveller...
If any kind of split is to happen, then perhaps the lines could be called the Threadneedle Line and the Trafalgar Line. It wouldn't help that all my ideas on this have Threadneedles going High Barnet and Colindale to Morden, and Trafalgars Edgware and Mill Hill East to Kennington - in other words, retain some service between each of the central and northern branches. Of course, limited services could be considered to the other destinations, but it doesn't really do anything to help the situation at Camden Town.
It would, however, remove the confusion at Euston. A single stock type saying both line names could of course still be used. Also, I'm not claiming that Colindale's reversing capacity would be good enough, though I understand something like this was once on the timetable, and of course Colindale was the end of the line for two weeks in 1994.
If it is going to be split, it needs to be decided which way. If Bank to Colindale ceased to be a regular no-change option, then I would probably be looking to make my way across to the current Charing Cross branch via the Jubilee, District or Central lines, or Crossrail once that's up.
I know there are probably other people who will be equally inconvenienced by whatever is done.
|
|