|
|
Post by underground2010 on Apr 30, 2011 15:37:03 GMT
I read in a Railway mag a while back that there are plans on extending the Northern line...I believe near Kennington or Stockwell. I saw a picture of the planned diagram for the extension and wondered whether anyone else has heard about this or knows about this extension?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2011 16:29:07 GMT
Might this be the Battersea extension |
|
|
|
Post by underground2010 on Apr 30, 2011 16:50:37 GMT
Might this be the Battersea extension Yeah, that has jogged my memory, cheers ;D |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Apr 30, 2011 17:51:47 GMT
Now that the Saudi's (or was it a different gulf state?) have got involved with the irish company doing the redevelopment, it the project likely to proceed again?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2011 18:57:15 GMT
Years ago, there was also a plan to extend the line to Streatham... instead Morden was chosen, but there was also the idea to go to Sutton, but the then Southern Railway was up in arms about its traffic being poached.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on May 1, 2011 12:59:27 GMT
...and I'd also like to highlight the "unusual" bend between South Wimbledon and Morden. I believe the intent there was to have the Morden branch run to Sutton, and the line to continue from South Wimbledon towards the LSWR Hampton Court branch under the Kingston Road. This was likely to have been related to the "express tubes" ideas, with one of the branches running as now, and the other operating as the new "express" services.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tubeboy on May 1, 2011 14:07:48 GMT
Wasnt there an idea, rather than a proposal, to go to Cheam and Leatherhead?
|
|
slugabed
Zu lang am schnuller.
Posts: 1,480
|
Post by slugabed on May 1, 2011 14:37:30 GMT
Wasnt there an idea, rather than a proposal, to go to Cheam and Leatherhead? What era might this have been? Might this explain the unusual layout of Cheam station,which has always intrigued me? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2011 15:55:47 GMT
Wasnt there an idea, rather than a proposal, to go to Cheam and Leatherhead? What era might this have been? Might this explain the unusual layout of Cheam station,which has always intrigued me? There used to be fast trains that passed through Cheam and such, believe that they went towards the Arun Valley. Those Middleton books are good for things like this. The depot at Morden is very close to the Wimbledon/Sutton loop line. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on May 1, 2011 17:01:19 GMT
North Cheam was a proposal, as was the more detailed route to Sutton, the express lines, the northern heights, an extension to Victoria from Charing X, and a spur Warren Street-Euston-Kings X.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2011 18:34:53 GMT
What era might this have been? Might this explain the unusual layout of Cheam station,which has always intrigued me? There used to be fast trains that passed through Cheam and such, believe that they went towards the Arun Valley. Those Middleton books are good for things like this. It used to be the London to Bognor Regis/Portsmouth trains that ran from via Sutton and Dorking to Horsham and then the Arun Valley Line until around the late-70's when they were diverted to run via Gatwick. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2011 17:10:55 GMT
TfL are now beginning a public consultation on this. The route they've chosen doesn't go to Clapham Junction in the present scope, nor does it connect at Vauxhall. It terminates at Battersea via Nine Elms.
Will these two extra stations have something of the JLE about them?
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on May 9, 2011 18:37:45 GMT
What, be an archetects wet dream, or lead to a powerful resurgance in the window-cleaning industry?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2011 19:05:51 GMT
I personally think it's silly not to have an interchange station at Vauxhall. I am curious if there will be provision for extending the line further to Clapham Junction should the finance become available.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on May 9, 2011 21:38:37 GMT
I personally think it's silly not to have an interchange station at Vauxhall. I am curious if there will be provision for extending the line further to Clapham Junction should the finance become available. They say an interchange at CJ would overload the line - Waterloo and Victoria between them have six lines to distribute passengers, (several with significant traffic in both directions).It might be different if Chelney were to go there. However, it looks like the Battersea station might be near enough to QTR and/or Battrersea Park to count as an OSI |
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on May 10, 2011 12:31:39 GMT
There are so many things wrong with this proposal I don't know were to begin.
Who, in their right mind, would get on the line at Clapham Junction when they could catch the same train at Waterloo? Tube lines are supposed to serve local markets, and the area between Clapham Junction and Waterloo has a poor local service due to demand for longer-distance NR services.
Stations at CJ, Battersea High St., Battersea Park, Nine Elms, & Vauxhall would do wonders for the local area. It doesn't need to be fast with few stations, as passengers have Clapham Junction<->Waterloo for that.
In addition, replacing both Battersea Queens Road and Vauxhall's mainline with tube stations form Clapham Junction platforms will help increase capacity up to Waterloo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deep Level on May 10, 2011 13:41:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on May 10, 2011 19:30:23 GMT
Who, in their right mind, would get on the line at Clapham Junction when they could catch the same train at Waterloo? Anyone who has to change at CJ (and again at Waterloo) anyway Anyone who wants the City branch (cross platfom interchange at Kennington) Anyone who wants a seat! |
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on May 10, 2011 23:22:37 GMT
Who, in their right mind, would get on the line at Clapham Junction when they could catch the same train at Waterloo? Anyone who has to change at CJ (and again at Waterloo) anyway Anyone who wants the City branch (cross platfom interchange at Kennington) Anyone who wants a seat! Touche. I counter than any commuter would gladly sacrifice a seat for an extra 10 or so minutes in bed, and a change down to tube platforms at CJ would be a lot longer than changing onto other mainline train, so not sure that holds up so well. ...I'll let you have the City branch one though. |
|
|
|
Post by edwin on May 11, 2011 0:53:40 GMT
This notion that we shouldn't build interchanges because it will just get "too busy" is just a cop-out and an excuse not to spend any money. I'm sure people would rather have an overcrowded Northern line service from Clapham Junction than nothing at all! Even if it is overcrowded, an overcrowded train is carrying more people than a non-existant one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2011 5:52:17 GMT
There seems to be some confusion. The proposal is to build a 3km spur from Kennington to Battersea Power Station with an intermediate station at Nine Elms. This will be paid for by the people redeveloping BPS and not by TfL who don't have the money to do anything.
Nothing is planned for Vauxhall or Clapham Junction. Full details on London Reconnections website.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2011 7:38:09 GMT
There seems to be some confusion. The proposal is to build a 3km spur from Kennington to Battersea Power Station with an intermediate station at Nine Elms. This will be paid for by the people redeveloping BPS and not by TfL who don't have the money to do anything. Nothing is planned for Vauxhall or Clapham Junction. Full details on London Reconnections website. Quite. But in building with the suggested alignment, there's zero possibility of an interchange at Vauxhall (ever). This reduces the flexibility of the network and exasperates existing problems where several stations are in a small area Acton, Finchley Road etc). I know there's no money to build an interchage at Vauxhall, but then Tfl haven't tried to get any either. They've simply decided that this project's financiers are king seemingly without having a joined up transport policy. Having said that, if they waited for the central government to provide some money, Battersea Power Station may just be a pile of rubble.  |
|
roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,275
|
Post by roythebus on May 11, 2011 14:59:34 GMT
BR were planning to build a new station to serve Battersea Power station site, remember the amusement park that was going to be there? luckily they didn't as would have been a bit of a white elephant.
If a developer wants to build a new line, fine. don't waste more public money on such a project.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on May 11, 2011 21:53:21 GMT
Anyone who has to change at CJ (and again at Waterloo) anyway Anyone who wants a seat! ...........any commuter would gladly sacrifice a seat for an extra 10 or so minutes in bed, and a change down to tube platforms at CJ would be a lot longer than changing onto other mainline train, so not sure that holds up so well. . Au contraire - if I'm standing I often bale out at Wimbledon to get the slower service to City TL simply in order to get a seat. And you've obviously not tried changing trains at CJ in the rush hour recently - it's not a simple cross platform interchange - a huge battle to negotiate the subway and narrow steps and once you get to the platform you often have to let several go before you can get onto one, which will eat into those ten minutes. Why would switching to the tube take any longer? Many people working near Victoria walk or bus there from Waterloo, or vice versa, rathere than change at CJ, but if you do change there, why would the tube be harder to get to than Platform 10? CJ to Waterloo via Kennington would only be two stops more than via Vauxhall. |
|
|
|
Post by abe on May 12, 2011 7:28:42 GMT
Quite. But in building with the suggested alignment, there's zero possibility of an interchange at Vauxhall (ever). This reduces the flexibility of the network and exasperates existing problems where several stations are in a small area Acton, Finchley Road etc). I know there's no money to build an interchage at Vauxhall, but then Tfl haven't tried to get any either. They've simply decided that this project's financiers are king seemingly without having a joined up transport policy. Having said that, if they waited for the central government to provide some money, Battersea Power Station may just be a pile of rubble. Normally I would completely support this view: better connectivity in networks is a good thing. However, it's worth reading the feasibility study by Parsons Brinkerhof (downloadable from the NLE web site). This explains the difficulties of the Vauxhall option, which include: - Interchange with the Victoria line would have to be via the ticket hall
- a "tortuous track alignment" for the length of the extension, including a combined horizontal transition curve and vertical curve
- closure of Vauxhall bus station
- risk of settlement affecting LU and BR stations and structures
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2011 18:41:40 GMT
Normally I would completely support this view: better connectivity in networks is a good thing. However, it's worth reading the feasibility study by Parsons Brinkerhof (downloadable from the NLE web site). This explains the difficulties of the Vauxhall option, which include: - Interchange with the Victoria line would have to be via the ticket hall
- a "tortuous track alignment" for the length of the extension, including a combined horizontal transition curve and vertical curve
- closure of Vauxhall bus station
- risk of settlement affecting LU and BR stations and structures
Yes, I agree! But the document then comes up with possible solutions which either negate or mitigate against problems found in this initial study. Further along in the same document it is stated, 'A more detailed study will be required to establish the viability of the Vauxhall scheme. This will include details of the existing LUL assets, surveys of the adjacent buildings, a report on the capacity of the existing Victoria Line vent shaft and details of the proposed step-free upgrade. Given the number of stakeholders involved it is likely that a proper feasibility study would take approximately three months to complete.' So the authors have concluded that at the point of writing the document, that option 3 (via Vauxhall) may be possible but would require further study. In essence, TfL seem not to have carried out the study instead (going back to a point I made in an earlier post) to have gone for the cheap option without much thought for long term transport policy. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on May 12, 2011 18:52:00 GMT
Except it isn't TfL who have gone to the cheap option, it is the developers.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikebuzz on Aug 30, 2011 22:25:43 GMT
Perhaps a proper feasibility study based on DLR Bank-Victoria-Clapham Junction and the Northern extension Kennington-Vauxhall-Battersea-Clapham Junction should be done to test what extra patronage the network as a whole will receive, and whether or not it is adequately distributed so as to not to compound overcrowding as per the Vic.
Maybe it's too impractical or costly to take the route too close to Vauxhall but it would be a shame if it was simply crossing off the interchange option now and a future possibility of it.
Yes the developer wants it and will pay for it but I can see the taxpayer bailing the scheme out if it ever gets off the ground.
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Sept 13, 2011 6:14:09 GMT
ADMIN:
The most recent post, by ricp, has been moved to the RIPAS board where it belongs. There is no place for fantasy or nostalgia in the boards concerning the current LU.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2011 16:43:49 GMT
To Phil ADMIN:
My post, was moved to the 'RIPAS board where it belongs' as it was deemed 'fantasy or nostalgia' in matters concerning the current LU. Since it was similar to another post, I've deleted it.
History yes, nostalgia, I think not. The possibility of a Northern Line extension following the A23 to Streatham was as serious as a Tramlink extension to Streatham. The Northern Heights network is definitely not 'nostalgia', it represented a very serious waste of public money, and even now one short section could beneficially be reinstated, for LB Barnet residents.
Fantasy definitely not, if our moderator has read the late Henry Howson's 'London Underground' published in the 60s, but maybe not the more recent re-writes.
The effectiveness of any southern extension to the Northern depends on the operations at the north side of the city, and whether the line is split.
Whether the Battersea extension becomes reality or remains fantasy is rather dependent on whether the private sector comes up with the hard cash. Remember Olympia & York and the machinations of the JLE? Do we want a repeat on the Northern?
My first reaction to this proposal was the need to continue on to Clapham Jct, and ensure there is an effective interchange, not so much for Waterloo passengers, but for Southern passengers bound for Victoria.
Cheers ricp
|
|
