|
|
Post by superteacher on Apr 9, 2016 19:37:27 GMT
So does anyone know if passive provision was at least provided for an interchange with the Victoria line? I know it cannot link with Vauxhall now but what about a new station in the far future? As the tunnel hasn't been bored yet why can't there be an interchange?  It would require a major redesign, then approval would need to be given. That takes time. Furthermore, it would considerably increase the cost of the project. |
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Apr 9, 2016 20:39:42 GMT
The article states:
A TfL spokesperson said: “In a project of this scale and complexity, modifications sometimes need to be made to the work schedule. However, the Northern Line Extension remains on target for completion in 2020.”
I don't think, even given 'wriggle-room' potential, there's anything to suggest they are thinking twice about station placing, new interchanges or anything else at this stage. They might give thought to some of it in 10-20 years time if traffic develops, but it's pretty we are gonna get what it says on the tin-Nine Elms & Battersea Poncy Palace and not a lot else.
|
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Apr 10, 2016 8:37:00 GMT
The extension and the Camden Town split will enable a much more frequent Northern line service.
Given that you can already travel from Battersea Park to Victoria why do you need an expensive extra interchange?
Nine Elms station is a short walk from Vauxhall and the 436 bus is being diverted away from Victoria to serve the area.
|
|
|
|
Post by bassmike on Apr 10, 2016 9:53:38 GMT
A Bakerloo extension would be about twice as long and more circuitous unless your destination was the Elephant. And the bakerloo is earmarked for an extension to the south east. (and it points in the wrong direction) I actually said --a branch off the Bakerloo -which could start just after E&C and pick up the planned route near Kennington. This would only involve extra tunnel for a few hundred yards and would point in the right direction. |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Apr 10, 2016 11:23:20 GMT
A Bakerloo extension would be about twice as long and more circuitous unless your destination was the Elephant. And the bakerloo is earmarked for an extension to the south east. (and it points in the wrong direction) I actually said --a branch off the Bakerloo -which could start just after E&C and pick up the planned route near Kennington. This would only involve extra tunnel for a few hundred yards and would point in the right direction. But this would not allow the improved Northern line service which is highly desirable. The Old Kent Road merits the Lewisham extension. |
|
|
|
Post by bassmike on Apr 10, 2016 12:34:00 GMT
It would preserve the Kennington loop which is useful and would be pretty well impossible to use regularly in the present proposal. Also, I meant a junction --split-- after E&C . The other one could go to Camberwell. Old kent road or wherever
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Apr 10, 2016 13:45:30 GMT
start just after E&C and pick up the planned route near Kennington. This would only involve extra tunnel for a few hundred yards and would point in the right direction. About half a mile. yes the Kennington loop is useful for reversing trains that can't fit down the pipe to Morden. But that function will be taken over by the Battersea reversing siding extension |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Apr 10, 2016 16:45:25 GMT
It would preserve the Kennington loop which is useful and would be pretty well impossible to use regularly in the present proposal. Also, I meant a junction --split-- after E&C . The other one could go to Camberwell. Old kent road or wherever Do you realise they are talking 28 trains per hour off the Battersea extension after the Camden Town split? This could not happen with just the Kennington loop. The Bank branch will also get an improved service. The short platforms and tight bends on the Bakerloo are very serious constraints. |
|
|
|
Post by jpd888 on Apr 10, 2016 20:02:41 GMT
How serious exactly? Trains similar to those on the Bakerloo line were once used on the northern line anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Apr 10, 2016 20:23:41 GMT
How serious exactly? Trains similar to those on the Bakerloo line were once used on the northern line anyway. It's referring to the constraints on proving a high frequency service, although the Bakerloo once ran 36 tph with 1938 stock, so maybe not such a constraint after all. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Apr 10, 2016 21:32:15 GMT
Trains similar to those on the Bakerloo line were once used on the northern line anyway. Similar right down to the car numbers! Those exact trains started out on the Northern, before going to the Jubilee when it opened, and then some went back to the Northern when the first batch of 1983 stock arrived, until in turn swapped with 1959 stock from the Bakerloo when they were converted to OPO. |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Apr 11, 2016 4:28:19 GMT
I did not refer to trains, I said platforms.
The thread is supposed to be about the Northern line extension which is already in progress. Tunnelling is just a little late in getting under way .
Sorry but get real people.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Apr 11, 2016 7:05:09 GMT
It would preserve the Kennington loop which is useful and would be pretty well impossible to use regularly in the present proposal. Also, I meant a junction --split-- after E&C . The other one could go to Camberwell. Old kent road or wherever So we are talking not only of two extra half mile lengths of tunnel, but a junction as well. That is serious money. And only half the Bakerloo freqency to each branch. |
|
Dom K
Global Moderator
The future is bright
Posts: 1,831 
|
Post by Dom K on Apr 11, 2016 7:52:15 GMT
We are in danger of going off topic (already started) and heading into RIPAS or even its younger sibling. Let's realign our comments. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by patrickb on Apr 11, 2016 16:51:55 GMT
I'm aware of the fact that the tunnels will have a much larger diameter compared to the JLE. Is this to facilitate extra room for an emergency side-path?
also
Will the platforms have PED's?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,781
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 11, 2016 17:21:31 GMT
A quick google finds thus LURS document from 2013 which states that (at that time) there was only passive provision for PEDs. I've not found anything reliable in more recent search results, but I've not got time to look in detail now. |
|
|
|
Post by bassmike on Apr 11, 2016 17:36:59 GMT
It would preserve the Kennington loop which is useful and would be pretty well impossible to use regularly in the present proposal. Also, I meant a junction --split-- after E&C . The other one could go to Camberwell. Old kent road or wherever So we are talking not only of two extra half mile lengths of tunnel, but a junction as well. That is serious money. And only half the Bakerloo freqency to each branch. As proposed you've got TWO junctions off each side of the Kennington loop which would need involved segment work etc: and complicated changeovers when being brought into use ,whereas my suggestion has just ONE which would be built as the work progresses. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Apr 11, 2016 18:40:37 GMT
my suggestion has just ONE which would be built as the work progresses. Your proposal will also need two - one northbound and one southbound. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Apr 11, 2016 19:32:41 GMT
Mod comment: Despite previous reminders by various staff to keep on topic, some people are still discussing other proposals. I will reiterate once again - this thread is about the Northern line Battersea extension. I will rename the thread just to clarify that. Any further off topic posts will be deleted. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 20, 2016 0:17:39 GMT
A new paper has come forward to an extra Finance and Policy Cttee meeting on 21 April 2016. Details are (unfortunately) scant but it seems the ramifications of the developer of Battersea Power Station wanting a redesign of the over station development (OSD) at BPS are now clearer. LU has had to go through a station redesign process to cater for the OSD changes. Authority is now being sought to process the necessary legal authorities to allow a revised design to proceed. Finance for the design work for this has previously been sought. I'd love to know quite what the timescale implications are with all this because the overall Battersea extension was previously on an extremely tight timescale before the developer changed his mind about the OSD design. tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/fpc-20160421-item04a-part1-nle.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on Nov 2, 2016 17:35:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by toby on Nov 2, 2016 18:02:32 GMT
In the entire process will there be anything visible that isn't station works? I see that the access holes are in Kennington, will the TBMs arriving be an interesting sight?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Nov 2, 2016 19:19:47 GMT
The TBMs are already on site and are being reconstructed after delivery in pieces from France.
They will be launched into the box constructed for the crossover outside Battersea Power Station station.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Nov 4, 2016 11:29:54 GMT
In the entire process will there be anything visible that isn't station works? I see that the access holes are in Kennington, will the TBMs arriving be an interesting sight? The only worksites are at Battersea and Nine Elms stations, plus the two mid-tunnel shaft sites at Kennington Park and Kennington Green. There will also be evidence of work visible in the Kennington Loop, best viewed from the front of a train or track walk unfortunately. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 20, 2017 18:48:59 GMT
I note with interest that the Deputy Mayor for Transport said on BBC News today that the two new stations on the extension will be equipped with platform edge doors. A first for the Northern Line. I assume that the signalling on the line and the kit on the train fleet will cope with those new PEDs seamlessly (by using what the JLE does).
|
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jan 21, 2017 10:42:58 GMT
I note with interest that the Deputy Mayor for Transport said on BBC News today that the two new stations on the extension will be equipped with platform edge doors. A first for the Northern Line. I assume that the signalling on the line and the kit on the train fleet will cope with those new PEDs seamlessly (by using what the JLE does). This sort of ties up with a TFL paper discussed on here last year? linkWhen considering an ITT for extra Jubilee and Northern rolling stock, the paper ruled out the NTFL(New deep tube) because of the impact on the existing PED configuration on the JLE especially given the residual operational life of the current rolling stock, despite examining opportunities for cascades. I guess this announcement confirms that both lines will be operating trains with essentially the current door configuration for a long, long time to come. I have not seen any sign that proposed ITT has translated into firm orders. However as the paper acknowledged there was sufficient existing 1995 stock to provide some service to the Battersea extension, the lack of an order is no surprise especially given the current "no fare increases" policy. I somehow doubt extra trains will be ordered any time soon, and TFL are building up problems for themselves as they will surely miss the chance to purchase extra trains for both lines at affordable prices. I assume that by now a lot of the original Alsthom production line facilities (and experience) have been re-tasked. Meantime anyone traveling on rush hour Northern services will know they are already unpleasantly full and the line needs extra capacity now.
*ITT = Invitation To Tender. When using abbreviations can we please use the full length version in the first instance for clarity? Many thanks.  |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jan 21, 2017 20:13:10 GMT
Meantime anyone traveling on rush hour Northern services will know they are already unpleasantly full and the line needs extra capacity now. Good luck with that. My personal view is the TBTC system will need a lot of development if the Northern Line is to offer a more intense service than we see today. The Northern Line doesn't often go completely up the wall for various reasons, but when it does the shortcomings of TBTC show up quite heavily, and the throughput of out-of-course trains through the various junctions is not impressive at all. The Victoria Line upgrade appears to have paid a *lot* more attention to fine detail, chasing seconds here and there, which is why that line is now delivering a level of service intensity once thought impossible. Notwithstanding the deficiencies of TBTC, a more cost-effective solution for extra Northern Line capacity could well be to invest in additional turnback capacity at the northern end of the line, turning trains short of Barnet or Edgware. I think there's a plan to remodel East Finchley to utilise the middle platforms for turnback purposes. The Edgware branch is trickier as it's rather desirable to keep the middle platform at Golders Green free for service recovery reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Jan 21, 2017 20:18:12 GMT
Actually the new train bids are currently being evaluated.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jan 21, 2017 20:59:29 GMT
Meantime anyone traveling on rush hour Northern services will know they are already unpleasantly full and the line needs extra capacity now. Good luck with that. My personal view is the TBTC system will need a lot of development if the Northern Line is to offer a more intense service than we see today. The Northern Line doesn't often go completely up the wall for various reasons, but when it does the shortcomings of TBTC show up quite heavily, and the throughput of out-of-course trains through the various junctions is not impressive at all. The Victoria Line upgrade appears to have paid a *lot* more attention to fine detail, chasing seconds here and there, which is why that line is now delivering a level of service intensity once thought impossible. Notwithstanding the deficiencies of TBTC, a more cost-effective solution for extra Northern Line capacity could well be to invest in additional turnback capacity at the northern end of the line, turning trains short of Barnet or Edgware. I think there's a plan to remodel East Finchley to utilise the middle platforms for turnback purposes. The Edgware branch is trickier as it's rather desirable to keep the middle platform at Golders Green free for service recovery reasons. not sure how you make the middle platforms at East Finchley accessible from the south. The layout was designed for Northern Heights and the tracks in the middle go up to the depot whilst the other tracks ascend from/descend to the tunnels. To get back on thread the additional trains are really needed if the northern branches are split at Camden Town. The Battersea extension will then get a much improved service. |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Jan 21, 2017 21:02:26 GMT
Good luck with that. My personal view is the TBTC system will need a lot of development if the Northern Line is to offer a more intense service than we see today. The Northern Line doesn't often go completely up the wall for various reasons, but when it does the shortcomings of TBTC show up quite heavily, and the throughput of out-of-course trains through the various junctions is not impressive at all. The Victoria Line upgrade appears to have paid a *lot* more attention to fine detail, chasing seconds here and there, which is why that line is now delivering a level of service intensity once thought impossible. Notwithstanding the deficiencies of TBTC, a more cost-effective solution for extra Northern Line capacity could well be to invest in additional turnback capacity at the northern end of the line, turning trains short of Barnet or Edgware. I think there's a plan to remodel East Finchley to utilise the middle platforms for turnback purposes. The Edgware branch is trickier as it's rather desirable to keep the middle platform at Golders Green free for service recovery reasons. not sure how you make the middle platforms at East Finchley accessible from the south. The layout was designed for Northern Heights and the tracks in the middle go up to the depot whilst the other tracks ascend from/descend to the tunnels. From what I understand, it's technically feasible - although I imagine a fair bit of work will be required. The difference in levels isn't actually that great until some way south of the Great North Road bridge. |
|
>>
