On 25 Apr, 10:35, MIG wrote:
I remember having trouble getting my head round this before. *It
seemed that in order to justify the splitting of the line, it was
necessary to claim that the resignalling wasn't going to achieve very
much. *But at the same time, the resignalling had to be worth the
money spent on it. *The justification did seem to be working backwards
from the decision already made.

The idea is that once the resignalling is done the junction will be
the bottleneck. So resignalling + splitting gives you a much bigger
boost in capacity than one or the other alone.

(and considering the resignalling is definitely happening, one can
only assume the split will as well. The northbound morning peak split
seems to now be a permanent fixture)

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London