Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Nov 10, 2008 1:08:55 GMT
History is against you on both points, Stephenk, but the future is undoubtably with you!
|
|
|
Post by Alight on Nov 15, 2008 19:46:05 GMT
daves67, A nice idea I have thought of too. I do however have to consider what the other members comment on as well in the respect it is too impractical.. and the size of the trains unfortunately not beneficial in the modern times where bigger is better when it comes to the LU!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2008 23:45:46 GMT
Forget the W&C, connect the GNC to Canon Street with a route west of the nightmare at Bank and the BoE. For the price of 3/4 mile of tunnel you get a second Thameslink. Add a station somewhere in the middle (and link it by escalators to Bank if you must) if you're feeling flush. Neat.
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Nov 23, 2008 14:26:15 GMT
Except, to reach Cannon St. you'd need to demolish several very expensive buildings for the ramp. No, for that to work you'd need to stay in tunnel, at which point you may as well stay there until you're clear of London Bridge. Which was pretty much part of one of my plans
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Nov 23, 2008 14:49:02 GMT
And you'd be limited to six car trains unless you rebuild the 5 NC stations. Cannon Street currently handles 12 car trains, so you'd have to at least double the frequency of trains from wherever you're coming from to compensate.
(I'd suggest connecting it to Elephant would be a better idea, because Blackfriars has very limited capacity and the network south of there is all 8 car, and the current plan is to send these trains through the otherwise [in future] 12-car Thameslink as there's nowhere else for them to go. It'll also get rid of the flat junction where via Elephant and via London Bridge Thameslink services merge)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2008 14:55:58 GMT
Yeah I see what you mean.
This is fanciful stuff but I guess Elephant isn't such a bad idea; you could include a 'bankside' station near the Tate Modern and the Globe which would please the tourists. Getting an underground alignment onto the Elephant viaduct would be a challenge though - you'd need a fair amount of demolition unless you stayed underground to Camberwell or beyond. And then it becomes the old Bakerloo extension.
|
|
|
Post by mikebuzz on Jun 4, 2009 16:30:40 GMT
Hi all first proper post, a bit long I know. It's a route built under central London with a lot of potential. Imagine building a route through Waterloo, Blackfriars and Bank if it didn't already exist. Just think of the costs and practical problems. Its tube-size but I'm sure I read somewhere it was built partly to mainline tunnel size but the money ran out leaving it something like top-half mainline-size tunnels, bottom-half tube size. At the bank end diverge north of Mansion house and west of Bank, continue eastward (instead of north-east to the current short platforms) then above the Northern and DLR the lines and instead of crossing the Central curve northwards to the south and east of it. New W&C long platforms could be placed somewhere between Mansion house and east of Bank avoiding existing lines and the Bank staton complex on the straight or gentle curve of the new route (no need to rise in gradiant to Bank either). The line would then go on to Liverpool Street where it would remain in tunnel under the GE lines out of Liverpool Street surfacing in the Shoreditch station area (with the GE lines being widened from here to Bethnal Green NR station). The line would preferably surface on the north side of the line and take over the Chingford and Enfield Town services sharing the lines with express suburban services to Hertford East and Stansted. The line currently turns to the west then through a sharp curve facing east into Waterloo. A southern extension could diverge to the south of the line as it goes in a westerly direction north of Waterloo without rising to a new platforms under Waterloo which could hold longer platforms and head south west serving the LSW corridor, though it might have to it come out of tunnel at Vauxhall or Battersea if it doesn’t surface at Waterloo. If in tunnel, it could serve the Battersea Park development instead of the Northern Line. Alternatively the line could head West across the Thames and go through Victoria to join the NR routes, or further west through Chelsea. Inbetween, Blackfriars is the only new station needed but you could have a South Bank station somewhere along Stamford Street, probably between Broadwall and Hatfields. The Blackfriars station would be on the straight section north-east of the NR/D&C station where long platforms can be accommodated. A route from the west/southwest (via Clapham/Vauxhall, Clapham/Victoria or Chelsea/Victoria) through Waterloo, Blackfriars, Bank, Liverpool Street and Northeast/East (Bethnal Green to Hackney and Chingford/Enfield Town or possibly Leyton/Epping) is a cheap Chelney line alternative. The W&C is busy mainly in one direction morning peak times as passengers join at Waterloo from the LSW lines for the City and go in the opposite direction evening peak. A northern extension to Liverpool Street would pick up journeys from the GE lines (and Central) to the City without overloading existing Waterloo to city patronage. SW/W extension would bring in passengers who would likely be using the service from waterloo anyway. Sure it will be another crowded central London tube line in both directions like the Victoria, Piccadilly and Northern, but isn’t that what we already have in one direction along the W&C?
|
|
|
Post by dw54 on Dec 29, 2009 15:40:04 GMT
Mike: you're not alone in thinking along these lines.
I called the idea to extend GN & C south to Cannon St "CityLink 1"
This extended W&C I called "CityLink 2".
My CityLink 3 concept branches at the proposed SouthBank station and connects through to Holborn Kingsway with an updated Aldwych station having escalator links to Temple as well as to the surface either along Aldwych or The Strand.
CityLink 3 would use the old W&C terminal platforms at Waterloo.
CityLink 2 would involve platforms underneath/alongside and parallel to Waterloo International. At the Bank end, I thought in terms of duplicating the Central Line through there and relocating the platforms on straight sections of track. CityLink 2 would use the north-west most eastbound platform, Central Line could use both. Eastbound from there, Liverpool St receives 1 new platform, giving 2 for eastbound central and 1 for eastbound CityLink 2. CL2 would then run to Shoreditch High St and quite probably beyond.
Westbound, there would be 2 additional platforms at Liverpool St, both accessible to Central Line trains, the south-eastern most accessible also to CL2. The existing WB platform would be used for Central Line trains terminating/starting at Liverpool St.
A new tunnel adds a second westbound track to Bank, with a junction before Bank on the SE-most tunnel. The southern leg of the junction goes to a new platform for CL2 at Bank, while the western leg goes to a new 2 platform station on the straight section of line immediately west of the existing westbound Central line platform at Bank.
So, they're my CityLink ideas.
I wonder if they are at all practical, let alone feasible.
DW downunder
|
|