|
|
Post by chrisvandenkieboom on Dec 3, 2011 14:18:47 GMT
Basically, why wasn't the Northern City line at Moorgate linked up to the Bank branch?
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Dec 3, 2011 14:45:56 GMT
They were owned by different railway companies and were built to different loading gauges is the simple answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisvandenkieboom on Dec 3, 2011 14:47:19 GMT
But couldn't it have been done during the Northern Heights program, using the 38TS?
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Dec 3, 2011 15:47:07 GMT
It was never considered. The main reasons being cost and the different levels at which the tracks ran at Moorgate. There could have been a cross over installed near Old Street however.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisvandenkieboom on Dec 3, 2011 17:21:05 GMT
Why wasn't that done, then?
|
|
|
|
Post by ianvisits on Dec 3, 2011 17:30:41 GMT
Why wasn't that done, then? There is a safety policy on the Underground that goes back probably about 80 years that you avoid crossovers/junctions unless absolutely necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisvandenkieboom on Dec 3, 2011 17:36:20 GMT
But on the Northern City, for instance, it would be useful, to have direct trains from Morden to say, Finsbury Park.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Dec 3, 2011 17:40:46 GMT
It is less useful now the Victoria Line has been built. I think the long term goal for the GN&City was to run mainline trains to Moorgate. This was finally realised 71 years after construction.
If the Northern Heights scheme had been completed who knows what would have happened. We can only guess.....
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 3, 2011 18:50:06 GMT
There is a safety policy on the Underground that goes back probably about 80 years that you avoid crossovers/junctions unless absolutely necessary. There are indeed very few running junctions added to the network since LT came into existence, other than those inherited from lines taken over: Baker Street, during the period when the Stanmore branch was plumbed into the Bakerloo Leytonstone North Acton Hatton Cross and Heathrow Central - when the T5 extension was built. To this we might add the two junctions on ELLX2 between Surrey Quays and Queens Road Peckham |
|
|
|
Post by chrisvandenkieboom on Dec 3, 2011 19:25:58 GMT
Don't forget Finsbury Park; that crossover has been made redundant by the 09ts not fitting inside the Piccadilly. Unless LU cascades the 73ts to the Vic and withdraws the 09ts or replaces it with something smaller.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 3, 2011 21:52:41 GMT
I was only counting junctions used by trains in service - there are others such as green Park (Jubilee) where all service trains take the same route
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2011 0:08:51 GMT
quite apart from safety considerations, the other snag with running junctions is that they tend to reduce line capacity and have the potential to cause delays - for example at Baker Street, eastbound circle / H&C trains have to stop if there is a northbound Met Main line train crossing over.
If absolutely everything runs to time, all it means is you can get less trains per hour round the circle. As soon as anything is more than a few seconds late, it can cause delays to back up.
With the train frequency on the northern line, I'm not sure it would have been a good idea.
Although the number of potential routes for a train to go from Morden to Highgate (for example) would have been entertaining...
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisvandenkieboom on Dec 4, 2011 9:54:26 GMT
This train terminates at Morden, via Finsbury Park?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2011 20:26:25 GMT
The Picc-Vic (and vice versa) crossovers at Finsbury Park are due to be re-commissioned from start of traffic tomorrow, 5/12/11 - if it happens. Don't forget they will still be needed for engineers trains from time to time.
|
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Dec 4, 2011 23:04:34 GMT
Seeing that the Metropolitan had acquired the GN&C prior to the formation of the LPTB was it the intention to connect it to the Metropolitan at Moorgate?
|
|
|
|
Post by mikebuzz on Dec 4, 2011 23:10:47 GMT
Seeing that the Metropolitan had acquired the GN&C prior to the formation of the LPTB was it the intention to connect it to the Metropolitan at Moorgate? After acquiring the GNC, the Met proposed an extension to the W&C at Bank but quickly dropped the idea as impractical, they then proposed to connect to the northern circle between Moorgate and Liverpool Street but hit problems around Finsbury Circus. |
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Dec 4, 2011 23:14:07 GMT
Thank you.
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Dec 5, 2011 1:01:30 GMT
But couldn't it have been done during the Northern Heights program, using the 38TS? <tongue very firmly in cheek> - Not a chance, there weren't enough TD combinations! In all seriousness, the Northern City was really the orphan child of the Northern Heights, but would have served a purpose in keeping the Alexandra Palace service self-contained, plus I suspect alternate trains southbound north of Edgware would sort themselves into a cycle - I really need to develop those thoughts further into a workable trial WTT for the Northern Heights - I had a go at one many moons ago, before knowing what I know now. Essentially, I think we'd be looking at Moorgate - Ally Pally, with ..er.. at a first approximation every fourth train from further north than Park Junction with these trains falling into a cycle of self-contained origin/destination, but I wouldn't like to make a guess at the pattern just yet. |
|
|
|
Post by Harsig on Dec 5, 2011 9:41:26 GMT
Seeing that the Metropolitan had acquired the GN&C prior to the formation of the LPTB was it the intention to connect it to the Metropolitan at Moorgate? I can't now remember where I got this information, but I've always been under the impression that the Met acquired the GN&C, when the opportunity presented itself, in order to safeguard its own position. Remember that the GN&C's original raison d'etre was to provide a direct route for GNR suburban traffic to the city. At the time such traffic was routed via the Met's City Widened Lines and was presumably of sufficient value to the Met that this company would be loath to lose it to an alternative route. While relations between the GNR and GN&C deteriorated such that the diversion of suburban services did not occur when construction of the latter was completed, the possibility remained that such a change would be made at a later date. By acquiring the GN&C the Met ensured that such a diversion would either never occur, or if it did happen, would still see the GNR suburban traffic passing over lines owned by the Met. Given this I doubt the Met had any active plans to develop the GN&C in any way. |
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Dec 5, 2011 11:04:08 GMT
Would a westward connection have been possible to the widened lines? If the eastward connection via Finsbury Circus had been made the intention was probably to run trains to Aldgate.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Dec 5, 2011 12:03:48 GMT
Not Aldgate, but possibly the East London line and points south.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisvandenkieboom on Dec 5, 2011 12:41:25 GMT
Like, an ELL replacement. (like some Fleet line plans showed, using the Thames Tunnel)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2011 9:39:26 GMT
Firther to my post of 4/12/11 - It didn't happen! Latest latest date for crossovers to be re-commissioned is start of traffic this coming Sunday - maybe  |
|
|
|
Post by abe on Dec 7, 2011 13:21:39 GMT
There is a safety policy on the Underground that goes back probably about 80 years that you avoid crossovers/junctions unless absolutely necessary. It was a recommendation from the Board of Trade in a report issued in 1904, partly as a response to the Couronnes fire (Paris Metro, 1903), and partly (probably) as a slightly belated response to the glut of tube railway schemes being proposed. And in answer to the original question, lack of space. Because the C&SLR and GN&CR were/are one above the other, any connection would mean tunnels out to the sides, under property. This implies lots of cost, especially in the pre-Victoria line days of having to acquire wayleaves. Also, the gradients involved would, at a guess, make this difficult to achieve between the existing stations. |
|
|
|
Post by mikebuzz on Dec 7, 2011 17:32:11 GMT
And in answer to the original question, lack of space. Because the C&SLR and GN&CR were/are one above the other, any connection would mean tunnels out to the sides, under property. This implies lots of cost, especially in the pre-Victoria line days of having to acquire wayleaves. Also, the gradients involved would, at a guess, make this difficult to achieve between the existing stations. The planned connection to the Met was to come off the existing tunnels north of Moorgate I believe at Finsbury Square, the problems were at Finsbury Circus rather than along City Road/Moorgate. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 7, 2011 22:58:53 GMT
The planned connection to the Met was to come off the existing tunnels north of Moorgate I believe at Finsbury Square, the problems were at Finsbury Circus rather than along City Road/Moorgate. According to "Londons Lost tube Schemes", there would have been a flat junction on the NCL with the existing line to Moorgate, the southbound curve taking off befiore the crossover outside the station, the northbound curve first joining the existing southbound line and then using the existing crossover to gain the northbound - essentially a ladder junction. |
|
