|
Post by Dstock7080 on Jun 20, 2008 16:11:19 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2008 16:34:02 GMT
...I'll believe it when I see it? Or at least the presentation of a blank cheque for it...
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jun 20, 2008 17:48:59 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2008 18:54:58 GMT
why don't they work on Crossrail 2 instead as its Clapham Junction branch could serve the development much better than an extension of the Northern Line ever could!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2008 18:58:55 GMT
this would mean also that the Bakerloo will probably be extended into Camberwell and Beyond
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2008 19:15:25 GMT
It's good to see they want to extend the line from Kennington, which is a very logical thing to do once the line is split. I would go towards SE London though, and use Crossrail for Battersea - Clapham Junction - Wandsworth - Wimbledon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2008 20:36:06 GMT
OK. Get the pigs out of their hangers and polish them ready for takeoff.........
|
|
|
Post by Alight on Jun 20, 2008 20:57:17 GMT
It's good to see they want to extend the line from Kennington, which is a very logical thing to do once the line is split. When are they splitting the line again?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2008 23:09:24 GMT
It's good to see they want to extend the line from Kennington, which is a very logical thing to do once the line is split. When are they splitting the line again? It's a long term plan and the long-awaited Camden Town refurbishment will have to happen first. Although we can already see them gradually splitting the service in the current timetable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2008 23:27:14 GMT
I think this is highly unlikely. I would rather see Battersea added to a Chelney/Crossrail 2 style line (Starting at Clapham Juction) as the Chelney/Crossrail 2 proposals are designed to relieve the overcrowded Victoria Line.
However, it's far from the worst idea I've seen. The Northern Line (Charing X branch) does have spare capacity (it's not particularly overcrowded at 20tph), so it does make sense for an extension. Personally I would extend it to run express in new tubes to Balham (to ease the pressure on the Northern Line in the Clapham area), and then branch off to Streatham.
In the unlikely event of this proposal actually getting built, I would like to see it running Kennington, Vauxhall, Battersea Power Station, Clapham Junction. Of course, a grade seperated crossover on approach to the terminus would be good for high capacity reversing!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2008 0:38:07 GMT
The new plans look no more or less likely to happen than others previously mooted. If the developers are going to pay for it let them build an extension from Kennington to Clapham Junction, could stop at Vauxhall on the way also. The money would be better spent on extending the Bakerloo line or building Crossrail 2 though.
|
|
|
Post by max on Jun 21, 2008 7:23:37 GMT
The JLE came about as a result of property development and the Canaryloo proposal, so you never know your luck.
On the other hand, with the current uncertainties of property, now is not a good time to expect a big cash handout from a property developer as a part contribution. Did Olympiay & York ever pay their contribution for the JLE in the end.
I suspect that extending the Northern Line to Brixton, Brixton Hill, Streatham Hill and Streatham would attract many more passengers from what we already know is a major transport corridor. Would be well-placed to take over the Southern line from Streatham Common to Selhurst and a Croydon too.
|
|
SE13
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2013
Glorious Gooner
Posts: 9,737
|
Post by SE13 on Jun 21, 2008 15:45:49 GMT
I would have thought an extention to The Bakerloo, via Vauxhall to Battersea (and beyond) would be a better option. Surely The Northern and Victoria are clogged up enough as it is?
|
|
|
Post by Alight on Jun 21, 2008 19:48:42 GMT
I agree, SE13, as I was looking at a map book today and noticed that it seems rather silly to have the Northern Line extended from Kennington as Battersea is in the opposite direction - just doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Jun 21, 2008 20:21:44 GMT
I would have thought an extention to The Bakerloo, via Vauxhall to Battersea (and beyond) would be a better option. Surely The Northern and Victoria are clogged up enough as it is? Sure Victoria is pretty jammed (still needs a 1 stop extension to increase capacity though) and City branch is in dire need of 30+tph (following the split) but the Charing X branch could go a little further into Southern territory. If you think extending the Northern would go the long way round then surely the Bakerloo is pointing the wrong way completely? Bakerloo wants to go further southeast not southwest. On another note wouldn't Chelney via Battersea affect plans to take over the Wimbledon branch of the District?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2008 2:39:40 GMT
The Charing Cross branch isn't facing the 'wrong' way since you could create a pair of junctions on the Kennington loop, it would be a bit of a turn but nothing major. The Bakerloo is plain in the wrong direction and depending on who you believe has anything from empty tunnels to military installations beyond Elephant and Castle. Best solution there would be a southern equivalent to the Victoria, providing interchange across several NR branches.
For a property developer the best way to boost profits in uncertain times would be to enhance local transport provision with the jewel in the crown being a new tube line or station. Of course only major developments would merit the investment required for a tube extension but this is what we potentially have at Battersea. Still a long shot though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2008 10:06:59 GMT
On another note wouldn't Chelney via Battersea affect plans to take over the Wimbledon branch of the District? The Chelney/Crossrail 2 routes SW of Victoria are not quite set in stone, with there being many suggested routes. Personally I don't think that it should take over the District's Wimbledon branch, but should travel from Victoria to Clapham Junction via Battersea.
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Jul 7, 2008 11:50:01 GMT
Really? But there are already loads of services on that route. Seems a bit of a waste to just just have Chelney terminate at Clapham Junction ?
Taking over the Wimbledon branch would be good because it might have a positive knock-on effect for the SSL. If Crossrail ends up hitting another stumbling block then I'd agree with whoever suggested merging Chelney and Crossrail. I'd run it Shenfield - Liverpool St - Victoria - Wimbledon.
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Jul 7, 2008 12:56:22 GMT
I prefer the via Battersea route too. I wouldn't terminate it at Clapham though, I'd leave it in tunnel until somewhere where it was practical to run extra surface lines (hopefully removing a branch junction if possible) then run it to somewhere like Hampton Court, Chessington South, or Leatherhead. It could take over the stopping services, leaving more capacity for outer fast services.
|
|
|
Post by ducatisti on Jul 7, 2008 16:45:14 GMT
If it fed direct into Kennington, it would be about the one place you could put extra capacity onto the system.
But the cost of the civils makes my eyes water. Anyone know how badly that area got bombed in the war? the geological situation (I think it's the Reading beds of gravel and sand there, which would be pretty 'orrible tunnelling teritory).
If you kinked the route carefully, could you get the material out to rail? (Although I'm not sure how popular spoil trains would be on that part of the network)
|
|
SE13
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2013
Glorious Gooner
Posts: 9,737
|
Post by SE13 on Jul 7, 2008 18:19:30 GMT
Having thought about it a bit more, I still can't see how it would be viable to run The Northern to Battersea, and I still think it would be better going on The Bakerloo.
Taking everything into consideration, and the fact that The Bakerloo probably does need to head more Catford-ish, why can't that be branched so that one branch runs South East, and the other is split from (say for instance) Lambeth North to run via Vauxhall to a new station at Battersea, with maybe something in between (open to suggestions on that one) and onward maybe even to Richmond.
South London is badly served really by The Tube system, and with DLR shifting right into the like of Lewisham, New Cross being lost to Overground, perhaps time to invest some money on The South Bank, and relieve some of the pressure on the current lines.
Someone in another thread mentioned a complete circle, which in itself is a great idea, linking everyone of the outer reaches, but would (at this time) be probably too costly given 2012, but some sort of South London Line linking with The Northern, Vic and District wouldn't go amiss, surely?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2008 21:46:57 GMT
Really? But there are already loads of services on that route. Seems a bit of a waste to just just have Chelney terminate at Clapham Junction ? Taking over the Wimbledon branch would be good because it might have a positive knock-on effect for the SSL. If Crossrail ends up hitting another stumbling block then I'd agree with whoever suggested merging Chelney and Crossrail. I'd run it Shenfield - Liverpool St - Victoria - Wimbledon. It doesn't have to terminate at Clapham Junction, but as Clapham Junction is a busy station and not served by the tube, it makes sense to build a tube line to serve it! As for the Wimbledon branch, why take over an existing line when you can build a new one to serve areas not currently served by tube?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,430
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 7, 2008 21:51:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Jul 7, 2008 22:51:38 GMT
Clapham Junction already has trains practically every minute to Waterloo and Victoria. What's it need the tube for?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,430
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 7, 2008 23:54:30 GMT
A tube connection to Central London would presumably reduce some of the strain at those two stations and Vauxhall (and thus the Victoria Line). However what would seem to be most needed at Clapham Junction would be routes to south central and south east London.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2008 4:04:57 GMT
Other than small extensions to improve the service and interchange with other lines there's no point in having tube lines in South London. As pointed out above it's a civil engineering nightmare with the geology and human infrastructure/debris, and the money would be better invested in more Crossrail routes.
|
|
|
Post by max on Jul 8, 2008 7:24:36 GMT
As a South Londoner born and bred, few things make my blood boil more than people telling us that we don't need tube connections direct to Central London. Walthamstow had a perfectly good line to Liverpool Street, so why give it the Victoria Line?
Extending the tube to South London is easy, capture various under-used southern branches and join them to the current tube stubs. The lines are currently built, its just that they terminate at stupid places, have awful 18th century-style everywhere-to-everywhere-else style services, and the sort of line speeds that a good cyclist could beat.
Its an interesting exercise comparing station usage figures for any Underground station versus any similar looking 'Southern Electric' station (distance from London, site of station, local population). Typically. Underground stations have between double and four times the usage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2008 11:04:35 GMT
Clapham Junction already has trains practically every minute to Waterloo and Victoria. What's it need the tube for? To take pressure off Waterloo and Victoria! Other than small extensions to improve the service and interchange with other lines there's no point in having tube lines in South London. As pointed out above it's a civil engineering nightmare with the geology and human infrastructure/debris, and the money would be better invested in more Crossrail routes. More Crossrail routes, you say? But where would these go, South London? I think you have just gone around in a circle!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2008 12:30:09 GMT
I'm not sure what is meant by Crossrail routes here in the first place. I think we should be going for tube lines, by which I mean commuter lines inside the London area, and not a la Crossrail to Maidenhead and Shenfield.
It looks like the Crossrail 2 line is being called a tube line again (Chelsea Hackney), instead of Crossrail, so it looks like it'll be more of a 'real' metro than Crossrail 1.
Anyway, I would say: Bakerloo line via Camberwell and Peckham to Lewisham to take over the Hayes Branch. Interchange at Brockley with the London Overground and interchange with DLR at Lewisham. The Camberwell area is the biggest 'rail service gap' in London pretty much, and deserves a much better service. Plus the Bakerloo runs under capacity, especially at the southern end.
Northern Line split and the Kennington line extended towards Croydon ideally.
Chelsea Hackney line serving Wimbledon, Wandsworth Town and Battersea before going towards Epping via the proposed central / north-east London route.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jul 8, 2008 13:29:03 GMT
Ive never understood the North East part of chelney. The route from Dalston Junction onwards to the central dates from the early 70s, when there wasnt a passenger service on that section of the North London Line. The main section through london has changed since then, so why not this bit? It seems outdated. It could take over the Chingford branch, as suggested before instead. Or perhaps follow the route of the North East London Railway to Waltham Abbey.
|
|