|
|
Post by rebeltc130 on Nov 13, 2019 22:18:59 GMT
On the subject of Chelsea-Hackney Tube Line (as opposed to the later mainline proposals which became Crossrail 2), was wondering if someone could clarify whether the proposed routes between Hackney Central / Downs and Leyton was planned to travel anywhere near the site that later became Stratford International or was a more northern route envisioned?
|
|
|
|
Post by rebeltc130 on Nov 16, 2019 0:06:01 GMT
Basically some of the Chelney tube schemes proposed the route heading to Leyton via either Homerton or Hackney Wick, while it is likely the former took a more northern route roughly parallel and just south of what became the A12, is it known how close the proposed route between Hackney Wick and Leyton was to travel nearby what became Stratford International (or was the latter envisioned to run closer to Chobham Manor / East Village)?
|
|
|
|
Post by hptraveller on Nov 16, 2019 7:41:26 GMT
Unless my memory is completely failing me, the detailed safeguarding plans that I saw around 10-15 years ago had the alignment between Hackney and Leytonstone running underneath Coronation Gardens in Leyton, so that would have meant a route completely to the north of the A12 and Olympic Park. Bear in mind though that this safeguarding was based on a route planned in the 1990s, so before any notion of the Olympics and possibly even before the CTRL (Channel Tunnel Rail Link - now HS1) alignment was planned through Stratford.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Nov 16, 2019 19:24:36 GMT
I believed back in the 60s that there was an idea to surface east of Dalston to cut tunnelling costs, and use the freight surface route that later became the North London Line over to Leyton. When that was reopened to passengers, the new line could have tunnelled beneath the embankment to reduce impact on adjoining properties.
|
|
slugabed
Zu lang am schnuller.
Posts: 1,480
|
Post by slugabed on Nov 16, 2019 20:12:51 GMT
As I understand it,the Dalston Eastern Curve formation is reserved as a consequence of that routing,now subsumed into Crossrail 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by rebeltc130 on Nov 17, 2019 23:12:57 GMT
Unless my memory is completely failing me, the detailed safeguarding plans that I saw around 10-15 years ago had the alignment between Hackney and Leytonstone running underneath Coronation Gardens in Leyton, so that would have meant a route completely to the north of the A12 and Olympic Park. Bear in mind though that this safeguarding was based on a route planned in the 1990s, so before any notion of the Olympics and possibly even before the CTRL (Channel Tunnel Rail Link - now HS1) alignment was planned through Stratford. It is strange for Leyton to be omitted in favour of Leytonstone as reputedly considered in the 1990s Express Metro scheme compared to the earlier schemes in 1974/1989 let alone be for another route north of the A12 and Olympic Park to be considered running beneath Coronation Gardens (to a possible stop at Leyton north of the A12), was under the impression a Chelsea-Hackney takeover of one of the Central Line branches entailing the route sharing stops with the Central from Leyton and Leytonstone onwards. Not sure how they planned having the route link up to the Central Line if it was envisioned as running beneath Coronation Gardens. Appears there was indecision about whether the route from Hackney eastwards to travel towards Leyton or some indirect way to Leytonstone as late as May 2001. - husk.org/www.geocities.com/athens/acropolis/7069/tpftla_Chelney.html |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Nov 18, 2019 13:44:14 GMT
Jimbo has it. It is entirely plausible that Chelney would have used the now-NLL formation east of Dalston, which at the time was without passenger service.
|
|
|
|
Post by rebeltc130 on Nov 20, 2019 0:43:15 GMT
I see. Was the now-NLL formation east of Dalston always the only option for the Chelsea-Hackney on grounds of cost or were options considered prior to surfacing before Leyton depending on previous proposals?
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Nov 20, 2019 2:01:42 GMT
North of Parsons Green to east of Dalston was a much shorter route than current Crossrail 2 development of that proposal!
|
|
|
|
Post by rebeltc130 on Nov 21, 2019 3:16:26 GMT
North of Parsons Green to east of Dalston was a much shorter route than current Crossrail 2 development of that proposal! Indeed. Capacity and any other issues aside, had the option been available it makes one wonder whether the Chelsea-Hackney tube route south of Victoria and north of King's Cross St Pancras (and even the core route to a lesser extent) would have been better off as (less ambitious) branches of an expanded Victoria line (in tandem with a further eastward extension from Walthamstow Central) as well as theoretically cheaper too compared to the current Crossrail 2 proposal. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Dec 18, 2019 22:11:48 GMT
North of Parsons Green to east of Dalston was a much shorter route than current Crossrail 2 development of that proposal! Indeed. Capacity and any other issues aside, had the option been available it makes one wonder whether the Chelsea-Hackney tube route south of Victoria and north of King's Cross St Pancras (and even the core route to a lesser extent) would have been better off as (less ambitious) branches of an expanded Victoria line (in tandem with a further eastward extension from Walthamstow Central) as well as theoretically cheaper too compared to the current Crossrail 2 proposal. That's a categorical "no". You have to remember that almost always in the history of transport in London, the authorities in charge have been playing catch up with demand. Case and point:The 1974 London Rail study, written at a time when London was experiencing a population drop and urban travel was decreasing, still, in its modest assessment of the needs for the next 20 years, saw enough demand for two Crossrails, Chelney, and the Fleet/River line. We've got half of that (almost) in well over twice the time, AND with population and travel booming. And the reasons are, ultimately, spending priorities, ideology, and politics. Whereas the Victoria line in planning briefly considered running initially southwest towards Fulham, as Route D / Chelney would too, it was dropped; and a subsequent resiting of the platforms and tunnels at Victoria station in the ~1960 plans would suggest that the ability for cross platform interchange with a future route was also lost. Even in the 70s as traffic was stagnating, the Victoria line was busy busy. Funnelling more people from the southwest and northeast onto it would have been ludicrous. You can't ignore capacity and demand. Capacity eventually (hopefully!) exists because of demand. For the very same reason, a staged Victoria line built initially to only KX was rejected because of the effect it would have on the rest of the network. What London still needs, rather than additional suburban corridors, is a way of linking services across the CBD and Zone 1. I think it was tubeprune who related in the distant past that the Vic works as well as it does because it's a simple shuttle that confines itself to the urban area. Compare to the Pic, which shares tracks out to zone 6 and throws in the busiest airport in western Europe, as sub-optimal in structure. |
|
