|
Post by Geoffram on Dec 11, 2010 6:11:07 GMT
Just after the First World War, we know that the CSLR was running between Euston and Stockwell, and plans were being formulated to extend the line to Morden. We also know that the CCEHR ran between Golders Green/Highgate to Charing Cross, with plans to extend to Edgware, and that the Bakerloo line ran between Watford Junction and Elephant & Castle. So it seems to me there were several different possibilities for the newly-formed LER to chew over. One would have been to extend the CSLR to Camden Town, take over one of the branches of the CCHER, but keeping them separate; another to extend the CCHER to Kennington and beyond into South-East London, also keeping it separate from the CSLR at Kennington; another to join up the Bakerloo line with the CSLR at Elephant & Castle. All of these would have resulted in a relatively simple operating structure, with at the most one branch. But instead, they opted for the most complicated: joining up the CSLR and the CCHER, which necessitated comlicated flying junctions at both Camdedn Town and Kennington. Granted, it offered a great choice to passengers at the extremities of the new line, both North and South - to travel either into the West End or the City. But did Lord Ashfield's team give a lot of consideration as to how complicated it would be to operate the new line, not to say potentially different traffic flows in all branches of the line? I'm interested in finding out who it was that came up with the present structure and how much consideration there was to other - seemingly easier - alternatives.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Dec 11, 2010 8:44:55 GMT
They weren't allowed to join the Bakerloo and CSLR; got a feeling the Met was responsible for that.
At the time maximum flexibility and ease for the passenger were favoured above opperational simplicity, so to offer both city and west end services from the same platform was a deffinite boon.
|
|
|
Post by abe on Dec 15, 2010 16:09:47 GMT
The Met objected to the C&SLR being extended west of Euston parallel to their line (i.e., towards a junction with the Bakerloo between Baker Street and Regent's Park). A four-way junction was planned between the Hampstead and Bakerloo lines between Waterloo and Elephant & Castle. One of the tunnels would have passed beneath Waterloo main-line station, and the SR objected on the grounds that it would prevent them from building a tube railway of their own (not stated to where). There is a plan of the proposed tunnels in The Hampstead Tube (Capital Transport 2007).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2010 18:16:45 GMT
Wasnt the SR's own tube railway the W&C?
|
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Dec 15, 2010 18:32:00 GMT
Yes. After 1947 of course it became part of the Southern Region of BR.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2010 18:38:33 GMT
The L&SWR wasn't owned by SR until 1922.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 15, 2010 18:43:09 GMT
Wasnt the SR's own tube railway the W&C? Yes,(originally built by the LSWR in 1898), so it was there before either the Bakerloo or the Hampstead. This must have been a proposal for a second LSWR-sponsored tube. I thought I read somewhere that, before the CSLR became part of the Combine, ther had been a Met-sponsored proposal to extend it to the Finchley Road area to provide a bypass to the congested section of the Met between Finchley Road and the City, rather more neatly than the eventual solution using the Bakerloo - as it removed half the trains from the branch serving major centres such as Paddington). (A connection to Thameslink at West Hampstead could achieve a similar result, and provide a better balance between branches on Thameslink north and south of the Thames)
|
|