Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2005 11:24:52 GMT
I've read in all sorts of places that one recurring theme during the life of the Aldwych branch was that it ought to be extended via Temple to Waterloo and connect into the W&C, thus providing a second route from that station to the City (or near to it, at least).
Was this idea ever seriously considered?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,388
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 14, 2005 12:57:27 GMT
Assuming that the connections at Holborn and the capacity on the Picc allow, I imagine that a Waterloo-Temple-Aldwych-Holborn-Russel Square-Kings Cross route that gave a direct connection between Waterloo and Kings Cross would not suffer from a lack of patronage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2005 14:17:26 GMT
Assuming that the connections at Holborn and the capacity on the Picc allow, I imagine that a Waterloo-Temple-Aldwych-Holborn-Russel Square-Kings Cross route that gave a direct connection between Waterloo and Kings Cross would not suffer from a lack of patronage. Unfortunately, such a thing would require a flying junction to be built at Holborn, connecting the northbound Aldwych tunnel to the northbound Picc tunnel to the south of Holborn n/b. You would also need to find somewhere to terminate the service from Waterloo. |
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Sept 14, 2005 14:36:20 GMT
You'll never get an Aldwych connection with the WC (which by the way is why it's called the Drain) as the cost of the step plates makes it a no-no from the off.
It's more likely it would be connected to the Central at Bank or the Bakerloo/Northern at Waterloo. This would only require a length of plain tunnel albiet a bit convoluted.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,096 
|
Post by Tom on Sept 14, 2005 15:57:00 GMT
It's more likely it would be connected to the Central at Bank or the Bakerloo/Northern at Waterloo. This would only require a length of plain tunnel albiet a bit convoluted. And very very bendy... ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2005 1:40:32 GMT
It's more likely it would be connected to the Central at Bank or the Bakerloo/Northern at Waterloo. This would only require a length of plain tunnel albiet a bit convoluted. And very very bendy... ;D .... with lots of 5-chain curves like the Piccadilly Line, which is 'a bit convoluted' between South Ken and Brompton Rd, and also between Covent Gdn and Holborn!  'CONVOLUTED'Now there's a good word!! ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Sept 19, 2005 4:27:06 GMT
It may be 'bendy' 'convoluted' 'twisty' or pi$$ed as a fart but it would only be used by empty stock anyway so what doees it matter?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2005 5:31:51 GMT
but would it.....
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Apr 25, 2006 16:07:47 GMT
Surely though if the pic was ever extended from aldwych would it not be worth terminating it in the w&c platforms, so a new platform wouldnt have to be built?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2006 18:00:41 GMT
Surely though if the pic was ever extended from aldwych would it not be worth terminating it in the w&c platforms, so a new platform wouldnt have to be built? Holy, and completely pointless thread revival ! 1) There is no need to extend the Aldwych branch to Waterloo. 2) Terminating it in the W&C platforms would reduce the W&C Line's capacity. |
|
|
|
Post by thc on Apr 28, 2006 6:26:27 GMT
I've read in all sorts of places that one recurring theme during the life of the Aldwych branch was that it ought to be extended via Temple to Waterloo... Was this idea ever seriously considered? AIUI powers for an extension from Aldwych to Waterloo lapsed as recently as 1972. (I think JF Howson can be thanked for that little nugget...) THC |
|
