Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2006 10:28:02 GMT
From time to time, threads have suggested that the W&C be extended in various ways, usually at the Bank end.
I have been reading a book on tube lines that did not get built, and it seems that the number of tubes around Bank makes it very difficult to extend the W&C.
In 1908, the Met (which had just bought the Great Northern & City) wanted to extend the GNC from Moorgate to Bank, join it to the W&C, and take over the W&C. This proposal was supported by the GNR and, rather more surprisingly, by the LSWR.
The Central London Railway was not supportive, as the new line would have to pass less than 18 inches above the Central tunnels. (Because the Central tunnels were enlarged in the 1930s, the clearance would probably be even less now.)
The topography was (and is) such that the tubes north from Bank would have had to pass below buildings and be quite close to the surface. This led to opposition from the (very wealthy) companies owning the buildings, and the City of London Corporation.
Not surprisingly, the bill for the extension was thrown out by Parliament. The same factors would apply today, so the chance of the W&C being extended at the eastern end seems small.
At the other end, I favour an extension to Exeter or, even better, Penzance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Apr 19, 2006 12:40:51 GMT
With South London being badly served by the tube, wouldn't any extension be going southwards anyway?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2006 15:47:33 GMT
Ah, but the W&C is already extremely busy at peaks. Any extension means more passengers, and I think the W&C is probably not going to be able to cope with the extra patronage, so can't see any extension, east or west, ever happening tbh.
|
|
|
|
Post by jp on Jul 17, 2008 17:14:42 GMT
extend it north to Shoreditch high street with possible stop at liverpool street, so that the new ELL has a route onto tube network which doesn't involve traveling on a detour to whitechapel or rotherhithe(canada water). Bank would have to be rebuilt but then the existing platform/train is probably too short for an extended line anyway. plus the line could get a surface connection through bishopsgate goodsyard.
|
|
|
|
Post by max on Jul 17, 2008 19:17:24 GMT
The line seems busy, but with only five coach trains, and two termini somewhat lacking in the capacity department, there is scope for extra traffic, especially as the demand is very tidal: from Waterloo AM, to Waterloo PM. An Eastward extension would fit well with the current pattern of demand.
I'm not convinced by the old chestnut about the Bank of England Vaults being in the way, there was discussion and planning of eastward extension in the 1930s, the days when Britain still had a gold reserve, surely somone at LT would have noticed.
Bank is a bit of a tangle, and the most straightforward route east to Liverpool Street would probably be via the Central Line tunnels. The Central Line could either take the Crossrail safeguarded route via Farringdon (disadvantage: St Paul's closes) or take over the DLR tunnels with stations at Tower Hill, Whitechapel, before regaining the line at Stratford. This has the added bonus of abandonment of those awkward curved Central Line tunnels at Bank.
Of course, Crossrail and DLR advocates will object, but a scheme like this solves many of the Central Line problems (reducing the need for Crossrail).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2008 7:52:48 GMT
I think the likelyhood of any extension to the W&C is virtually non-existant, and will only happen in trainspotter fantasy land. It is already packed to capacity in the peak directions. Extending at the Bank end is almost impossible. At the Waterloo End the line is heading South East, which would be better served by a Bakerloo extension.
|
|
|
|
Post by programmes1 on Jul 18, 2008 9:38:21 GMT
The line seems busy, but with only five coach trains, and two termini somewhat lacking in the capacity department, there is scope for extra traffic, especially as the demand is very tidal: from Waterloo AM, to Waterloo PM. An Eastward extension would fit well with the current pattern of demand. I'm not convinced by the old chestnut about the Bank of England Vaults being in the way, there was discussion and planning of eastward extension in the 1930s, the days when Britain still had a gold reserve, surely somone at LT would have noticed.Bank is a bit of a tangle, and the most straightforward route east to Liverpool Street would probably be via the Central Line tunnels. The Central Line could either take the Crossrail safeguarded route via Farringdon (disadvantage: St Paul's closes) or take over the DLR tunnels with stations at Tower Hill, Whitechapel, before regaining the line at Stratford. This has the added bonus of abandonment of those awkward curved Central Line tunnels at Bank. Of course, Crossrail and DLR advocates will object, but a scheme like this solves many of the Central Line problems (reducing the need for Crossrail). Most of the gold reserve was stored elsewhere there was only a small amount for show purposes. |
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Jul 18, 2008 10:49:05 GMT
I think the likelyhood of any extension to the W&C is virtually non-existant, and will only happen in trainspotter fantasy land. It is already packed to capacity in the peak directions. Extending at the Bank end is almost impossible. At the Waterloo End the line is heading South East, which would be better served by a Bakerloo extension. though surely another 90 degree turn is possible, giving a zig-zag at Waterloo. The problem is the short trains and platforms. It would be better mirrored by a new line and then probably mothballed. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Jul 19, 2008 0:21:27 GMT
The W&C will remain a stub until someone comes up with an idea that incorporates its route in something else. Failing that, it could be used for transfers with connections at Bank to the central and Waterloo to the Bakerloo.
|
|
|
|
Post by max on Jul 19, 2008 8:34:33 GMT
Why verge on the abusive when other people start discussing possibilities because they are interested in them? If you don't like posts like this then don't read them.
I don't know if you've noticed, but most extension plans in Britain end up being fantasies, not just the ones being posted by "trainspotters" which I am not, and I suspect other posters are not either.
Did you even bother to read my post in which I discussed tidal peak demand, and a possible way to solve the engineering problem?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2008 11:26:56 GMT
Why verge on the abusive when other people start discussing possibilities because they are interested in them? If you don't like posts like this then don't read them. I don't know if you've noticed, but most extension plans in Britain end up being fantasies, not just the ones being posted by "trainspotters" which I am not, and I suspect other posters are not either. Did you even bother to read my post in which I discussed tidal peak demand, and a possible way to solve the engineering problem? I apologise if you found my term "trainspotter fantasy land" abusive. It was meant to be more humerous than offensive. But still, I'll eat my computer if an extension to the W&C is ever built. At the Bank end the W&C would either need to go upwards (highly unlikely due to building foundations, larger tunnel diameters and lesser curve gradients and curve radiii required today), a long way downwards below the DLR (you might as well build a tube line to Australia), or join onto the existing lines (not at all likely - note that tube trains cannot run on DLR gradients, and DLR trains can't run down W&C tunnels). amershamsi had a good point. If the W&C were to be "extended" and to run full length trains, it would probably be cost effective to mothball the existing line and just duplicate it's route. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2008 3:50:43 GMT
Agree with the above the re-engineering wouldn't be worth an actual extension. The tunnels could be sold off for commercial use (believe this has happened in smaller sections) rather than mothballed. If there was suitable demand some suburban Waterloo services could go via Bank in new NR tunnels to another suburban route on the other side of the City. Although I'm sure a wide-ranging NR sub-surface network in London is another one for trainspotter fantasy land  |
|
SE13
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2013
Glorious Gooner
Posts: 9,737
|
Post by SE13 on Jul 20, 2008 8:01:21 GMT
Now, I don't know the precise geography of the lines at Waterloo, but with this talk of extending The Northern to Battersea, wouldn't it make better sense to extend the W & C down The Northern to, say, Kennington, then split off through to Battersea, and maybe beyond? That way, some of the traffic on The Northern would be lightened, and providing it went via Vauxhall, would help The Victoria as well........ Also leaving The Bakerloo free to be extended into South East London.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2008 11:16:21 GMT
That way, some of the traffic on The Northern would be lightened, But the Charing X branch only runs circa 20tph, and isn't exactly overcrowded. After resignalling it will be able to handle circa 30tph. Running the Northern Line to Battersea would provide more travel options than running the W&C Line to Battersea. |
|
SE13
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2013
Glorious Gooner
Posts: 9,737
|
Post by SE13 on Jul 20, 2008 12:11:52 GMT
So it would be the Charing Cross branch sent off to Battersea via Kennington then? If that's the case, it would make sense, but I do think whatever line goes there, it does need to be via Vauxhall.
|
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Jul 20, 2008 13:12:41 GMT
That way, some of the traffic on The Northern would be lightened, But the Charing X branch only runs circa 20tph, and isn't exactly overcrowded. After resignalling it will be able to handle circa 30tph and Waterloo-Kennington is the least busy section. It's the least crowded bit of line in zones 1 and 2 IIRC. At 30tph it would be like moving air until the Northern line extends beyond Kennington. |
|
|
|
Post by ianvisits on Jul 20, 2008 17:43:43 GMT
I'm not convinced by the old chestnut about the Bank of England Vaults being in the way, there was discussion and planning of eastward extension in the 1930s, the days when Britain still had a gold reserve, surely somone at LT would have noticed. I was chatting to someone at the Bank of England only the other week about their gold vaults - on a different subject, and she confirmed that there is still gold stored there (about 3 stories down) and in moderatly significant quantities. I understood though - that the main concern from the banks in the area was from even tiny subsidence causing their secure doors jamming shut (or open!) and rendering their vaults unusable. |
|
|
|
Post by ruislip on Jul 30, 2008 2:25:02 GMT
Here is a hypothetical westbound extension: Waterloo-St James Park-Hyde Park Corner-Knightsbridge-High Street Kensington-Olympia-Hammersmith-then following the existing Piccadilly to Heathrow. The advantage of this is a direct service between Heathrow and the City, relief of the overcrowded Piccadilly--allowing it to have solely the Uxbridge service.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2008 8:43:21 GMT
Here is a hypothetical westbound extension: Waterloo-St James Park-Hyde Park Corner-Knightsbridge-High Street Kensington-Olympia-Hammersmith-then following the existing Piccadilly to Heathrow. The advantage of this is a direct service between Heathrow and the City, relief of the overcrowded Piccadilly--allowing it to have solely the Uxbridge service. So how would the Piccadilly reverse 24tph on just the Uxbridge branch? This idea would reduce the options for travel, as the Piccadilly provides good access to Central London, North London (Piccadilly, Kings X/St Pancras, and Victoria Line catchment areas), and connections with every tube line apart from the W&C. Crossrail will link the City with Heathrow, so the tube does not need to do the same. Also, you have forgotten that the W&C ends up pointing SE at Waterloo, and can only handle 4 car trains. |
|
|
|
Post by ruislip on Jul 31, 2008 1:46:18 GMT
I read a similar suggestion on Tubeprune's website a couple of years ago. The problem is that the link to his website is now broken  |
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Jul 31, 2008 13:26:49 GMT
What about the other way round? Leave Heathrow with all of the Piccadilly's 24tph and tag the Rayners Lane branch onto the W&C. It's as likely as flying pigs but it's still an idea  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2008 19:25:53 GMT
Someone will probably correct me but I wouldn't like to say that Heathrow could handle 24tph.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruislip on Aug 1, 2008 1:45:34 GMT
Sans the Heathrow branch, the Piccy could possibly handle 24tph as follows"
Off-peak:
6tph Rayners-Cockfosters, 6tph Uxbridge-Cockfosters, 6tph Acton Town-Arnos Grove, 6tph Ealing Broadway-Cockfosters (of course the District would have to cede its Ealing Broadway branch).
Peak:4tph to each of Uxbridge, Ruislip, and Rayners (I'm not sure if Uxbridge could handle 6 Piccies per hour peak with the additional Mets scheduled). Acton and Ealing would keep 6tph. At the other end, trains would rotate between Cockfosters and Arnos as termini.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2008 22:28:07 GMT
Back to W&C:
It would be nice to have something like:
Waterloo -> Blackfriars -> Bank -> Liverpool Street
Or in extreme case:
Pimlico -> (new station at Albert Embankment) -> Lambeth North -> Waterloo -> Blackfriars -> Bank -> Liverpool Street -> Shoreditch High Street
This would be very nice Central London interchange line - solving problem with Shoreditch High Street interchanges.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Aug 18, 2008 23:37:17 GMT
From Bank, take over the central line to just south of stratford with new stations at Shoreditch High street and Pudding Mill Lane, then another new station at stratford before curving round and taking over the Chingford Branch.
The central runs express in new tunnels between Bank and stratford with a stop at Liverpool St.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,762
|
Post by Chris M on Aug 19, 2008 0:03:12 GMT
I like the idea of the express Central, but does the Pudding Mill Lane area need more than the DLR?
What would be the effect of smaller trains on the Chingford branch? I would extend the Chingford branch at the top to meet the Central at Loughton (tunneling under Epping Forest).
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Aug 19, 2008 0:16:51 GMT
PML is right by the site of the olympic thing. In fact it is so close that it'll be closed for events because it won't be able to cope.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2008 15:11:11 GMT
There are some very interesting ideas and thinking about it why not? the waterloo and city line crosses the river and connects into the heart off london, at a much smaller cost of a new line
it could be extended and there are several obtions. The one i like is extending the line to moorgate (then onto the great northern via highbury) ? but hay what ever they decide it might happen in 50 years lol
|
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Nov 9, 2008 20:30:52 GMT
It's a mile of awkwardly placed narrow tunnels and a couple of small stations and an even smaller depot. I can't see what value it offers to any project.
In other words, more trouble than it's worth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2008 21:24:41 GMT
The one i like is extending the line to moorgate (then onto the great northern via highbury) ? but hay what ever they decide it might happen in 50 years lol It won't happen. It almost impossible to build. Secondly, do you think the Great Northern commuters would like little tube trains replacing their mainline suburban trains? |
|
