|
|
Post by bringbackcrouchhil on Mar 6, 2012 7:37:28 GMT
As much as I like Westminster tube station, why wasn't the jubilee line extended via Victoria? Then there would have been a direct link between Victoria, Waterloo and London Bridge--all the main south London termini.
Jc
|
|
|
|
Post by v52gc on Mar 6, 2012 10:05:01 GMT
I don't know the official reason but I would guess because it's the wrong way and would have been quite a detour.
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Mar 6, 2012 10:12:51 GMT
Interesting question. If they'd extended the Jubilee as planned (due East from the Charing Cross platforms), then the present JLE could have carried on through Westminster, St. James Park and Victoria. A natural continuation then would be under Eaton Square and into Chelsea - a Chelsea to Docklands link-line.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Mar 6, 2012 18:18:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by abe on Mar 7, 2012 7:50:22 GMT
Interesting question. If they'd extended the Jubilee as planned (due East from the Charing Cross platforms), then the present JLE could have carried on through Westminster, St. James Park and Victoria. A natural continuation then would be under Eaton Square and into Chelsea - a Chelsea to Docklands link-line. I'm not sure which map you're using, but there is no way to reach Westminster by extending the original overrun tunnels east of Charing Cross. I presume that by "the present JLE" you are suggesting that there would be two lines - one from Stanmore to Fenchurch Street (and perhaps further), and another from Docklands to Chelsea. If this is the case, then I think that the original Jubilee route would have served Docklands and therefore there would have been no new line along the JLE route. |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Mar 7, 2012 9:56:26 GMT
Interesting question. If they'd extended the Jubilee as planned (due East from the Charing Cross platforms), then the present JLE could have carried on through Westminster, St. James Park and Victoria. A natural continuation then would be under Eaton Square and into Chelsea - a Chelsea to Docklands link-line. I'm not sure which map you're using, but there is no way to reach Westminster by extending the original overrun tunnels east of Charing Cross. Quite. That was not what I meant at all. I was suggesting that if they had carried on the Jubilee line to Bank and possibly London Bridge, and constructed a new line from Victoria (possibly Chelsea) via Waterloo etc, then that would have served them better, but the construction of a whole new line, with the rolling stock, signalling, control rooms etc would probably have been prohibitively expensive. As it stands, the JLE was massively expensive - £4m per metre I believe. |
|
|
|
Post by abe on Mar 9, 2012 7:36:40 GMT
That's what I thought you meant  The first time I read it, I was confused. I re-read it, and thought that I'd just check your meaning. And yes, the JLE was massively expensive. Another item on the list of 'infrastructure that costs far more to do in the UK than anywhere else'... |
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Mar 25, 2012 16:58:10 GMT
Routing the JLE via Victoria would have been quite useful considering the useful connections to NW and E London it would have given. Also would have linked all the major southern termini.
I also don't think it would have been too much of a detour, considering other parts of the tube network.
|
|
|
|
Post by fleetline on May 28, 2012 9:06:21 GMT
Fleet/Jubilee could have continued through Fenchurch Street and onwards while a new Fleet Line linked Thamesmead, Woolwich, Royal Docks and Canary Wharf to London Bridge, Waterloo and Victoria.
Remember both of Crossrail's eastern arms where once proposed routes of the Fleet Line.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2012 11:21:49 GMT
As much as I like Westminster tube station, why wasn't the jubilee line extended via Victoria? Then there would have been a direct link between Victoria, Waterloo and London Bridge--all the main south London termini. Jc I do like the idea of a direct Victoria - Waterloo route. It would speed up several journeys remarkably. But wouldn't it be headed in the wrong direction for London Bridge, and Green Park? There'd need to be a sharp kink to the right to head to London Bridge, and a very sharp kink back towards Green Park at the other end - almost a complete U turn. I'm not sure that's going to work well; if you try and make the curves in any way reasonable you'd probably end up having to dig directly under Buckingham Palace. And there's already a Waterloo-London Bridge route. Two, in fact, if you include the mainline; a suitably sited station wouldn't cause that much inconvenience having to change. The natural direction for a victoria-waterloo route would be to continue roughly NNE, which would take you to Aldwych, and then Holborn. I'm not sure where you could go after holborn. Perhaps take over the picadilly line, and take the existing western part somewhere else, like farringdon/barbican/moorgate for example. |
|
