On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:42:17 -0000
"Basil Jet" wrote:
wrote:

Even without the Olympics it would be an extremely useful relief
route for the northern line and a godsend for the residents of the
crouch end and upper hornsey.

Opposition from the residents of Crouch End and Upper Hornsey is one of the
reasons the ELL wasn't extended up there.

The "residents" no doubt being the usual bunch of small but vocal nimbies whose
gardens back onto the old route (if thats where it was going to go). I suspect
if they polled everyone in that area "would you like a new tube line within
5 minutes walk" I'd wager the majority would say yes.

B2003

On Dec 29, 11:13*am, "DW downunder" noname wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:08:20 -0600
wrote:
In article , ()
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:05:32 -0600
wrote:
I remember reading somewhere many moons ago that the bridge taking
the northern heights line over the main line was knackered and beyond
economic repair and the cost of replacing it was the death knell for
the line. Whether thats the whole story or even true I have no idea.

I rather doubt that as it continued in use till 1970, long after the
passenger service ceased.

Only for very infrequent stock transfer. Thats a bit different to
having a train cross it every 10 minutes.

The Edgware and High Barnet branches of the LNER never had trains anything
near like every 10 minutes.

But if it had become a tube line running from moorgate to east finchley
as was planned then it would have. In fact given it would have been a much
quicker route into the City than going around the houses via camden it
might had had an even more frequent service.

B2003

I'm strongly inclined to agree. And I suspect that there are those in LU who
rue the day the plan was abandoned. With the Olympics coming up, direct
services would be the order of the day.

Now, back to the bridge - AIUI, the bridge was for Up traffic, and a ramp
catered for Down traffic. Was this correct?

Nonetheless, MU Tube or SSL cars would probably have been lighter than the
tank engines used, and the bridge been usable with speed restrictions for a
while until traffic built up. By then, a bridge strengthening or replacement
project could have got onto the agenda.

DW downunder

I was of the impression that the bridge over the ECML was fine, but
removed due to the pending electrification of said ECML (for
clearance). IIRC, the bridges that caused the lines to be lifted were
those between Highgate and Finsbury.

wrote

[snip]

The "residents" no doubt being the usual bunch of small but vocal
nimbies

[snip]

Indeed. Few of them are over four feet tall

Jeremy Parker

In message , DW downunder
wrote:
Now, back to the bridge - AIUI, the bridge was for Up traffic, and a
ramp catered for Down traffic. Was this correct?

Almost: the ramp ended in a separate bridge, since it was between two
running tracks and not against the western wall of the cutting.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: