"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...
lonelytraveller wrote:

That leaves a huge area - around camberwell - utterly without any rail
connection, and certainly without one that's useful for getting into
town.

The only way to plug the gap is for the northern line to go to
camberwell.

The fact that Camberwell contains a road called "Camberwell Station Road"
shows the flaw in that argument.

Taking the northern line to battersea really messes that possibility
up, and essentially precludes it ever occurring.

No - sending half the trains to Battersea and half to Camberwell probably
matches supply with demand better than a single extension.

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.


I'm missing something. Not so many years ago the Northern Line was a joke.
That was partly about the state of the physical plant but also about the
amount of traffic on offer that couldn't fit through the system. So they
did something about the plant and now the situation is better but by no
means perfect and we're talking about increasing the load again?

How much of the traffic from Battersea will want to go to the West End?
How much will be transferring at Kennington? Probably an imponderable at
the moment but there has to be some and I suspect a bit more than a small
amount.

Like I say, I must be missing something. The Northern Line feels like it's
been chosen simply because it's the cheapest solution.

On 27 Jan, 20:24, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
"Basil Jet" wrote in message

...





lonelytraveller wrote:

That leaves a huge area - around camberwell - utterly without any rail
connection, and certainly without one that's useful for getting into
town.

The only way to plug the gap is for the northern line to go to
camberwell.

The fact that Camberwell contains a road called "Camberwell Station Road"
shows the flaw in that argument.

Taking the northern line to battersea really messes that possibility
up, and essentially precludes it ever occurring.

No - sending half the trains to Battersea and half to Camberwell probably
matches supply with demand better than a single extension.

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

I'm missing something. * Not so many years ago the Northern Line was a joke.
That was partly about the state of the physical plant but also about the
amount of traffic on offer that couldn't fit through the system. * So they
did something about the plant and now the situation is better but by no
means perfect and we're talking about increasing the load again?

How much of the traffic from Battersea will want to go to the West End?
How much will be transferring at Kennington? * Probably an imponderable at
the moment but there has to be some and I suspect a bit more than a small
amount.

Like I say, I must be missing something. * The Northern Line feels like it's
been chosen simply because it's the cheapest solution.

A solution looking for a problem.

What is this vast area between the route from Waterloo to Clapham
Junction and the parallel route from Waterloo to Clapham North (etc)
that is so desperately underserved by railways?

On Jan 27, 8:34*pm, MIG wrote:

On 27 Jan, 20:24, "Graham Harrison"
[snip]
I'm missing something. * Not so many years ago the Northern Line was a joke.
That was partly about the state of the physical plant but also about the
amount of traffic on offer that couldn't fit through the system. * So they
did something about the plant and now the situation is better but by no
means perfect and we're talking about increasing the load again?

How much of the traffic from Battersea will want to go to the West End?
How much will be transferring at Kennington? * Probably an imponderable at
the moment but there has to be some and I suspect a bit more than a small
amount.

Like I say, I must be missing something. * The Northern Line feels like it's
been chosen simply because it's the cheapest solution.

A solution looking for a problem.

What is this vast area between the route from Waterloo to Clapham
Junction and the parallel route from Waterloo to Clapham North (etc)
that is so desperately underserved by railways?

The Nine Elms area is one that developers have big plans for. The idea
of a Battersea extension is on the agenda because they've put in
there. Apparently the idea is that they could essentially pay for it.
At least, that was the idea - I recall something recently about
various doubts over whether this was a realistic proposal.

*If* a private developer basically pays for it, fair enough. But I'm
sceptical. How much of the originally promised dosh did/has LU managed
to extract from the Canary Wharf developers/owners for the Jubilee
Line Extension? (I know that money was - and poss. still is -
forthcoming in that regards, but I don't think the early promises from
Olympia & York came close to being fulfilled, not least because O&Y
then collapsed.)

On Jan 27, 12:19*pm, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message

news




"Tim Fenton" wrote in message

"lonelytraveller" wrote
in message
....

But at Waterloo, there's a large expanse of open ground in front of
it, so there's ample room to turn south. And there are conveniently
long southward roads adjacent to the railway, suitable for cut and
cover, that connect that open ground to vauxhall.

Mind you, the new development around Battersea has lots of housing,
doesn't it? Extending the Drain would connect that to the City, but
the Northern Line extension would connect it to the West End, with a
cross platform change at Kennington for the City. Northern Line might
be better there?

Northern Line trains are also longer and more frequent, and of course
it's a seven days a week railway. There wouldn't be much point running
the Drain's line to Bank on Sundays.

But if the drain *was* extended the reason why it doesn't run on a Sunday
would no longer apply because there would be traffic from the southern
extension. * Not saying I agree with extending the drain simply that if it
happened it would make sense to run the drain at all times.

Any extension to the W&C would dictate some reconstruction. It would
need to be realigned as it surfaces at Waterloo. It would also need
longer platforms. If this leads to a useful mass transit line thru
Southwest London, is it a bad thing?

On Jan 27, 12:49*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On Jan 27, 8:34*pm, MIG wrote:





On 27 Jan, 20:24, "Graham Harrison"
[snip]
I'm missing something. * Not so many years ago the Northern Line was a joke.
That was partly about the state of the physical plant but also about the
amount of traffic on offer that couldn't fit through the system. * So they
did something about the plant and now the situation is better but by no
means perfect and we're talking about increasing the load again?

How much of the traffic from Battersea will want to go to the West End?
How much will be transferring at Kennington? * Probably an imponderable at
the moment but there has to be some and I suspect a bit more than a small
amount.

Like I say, I must be missing something. * The Northern Line feels like it's
been chosen simply because it's the cheapest solution.

A solution looking for a problem.

What is this vast area between the route from Waterloo to Clapham
Junction and the parallel route from Waterloo to Clapham North (etc)
that is so desperately underserved by railways?

The Nine Elms area is one that developers have big plans for. The idea
of a Battersea extension is on the agenda because they've put in
there. Apparently the idea is that they could essentially pay for it.
At least, that was the idea - I recall something recently about
various doubts over whether this was a realistic proposal.

*If* a private developer basically pays for it, fair enough. But I'm
sceptical. How much of the originally promised dosh did/has LU managed
to extract from the Canary Wharf developers/owners for the Jubilee
Line Extension? (I know that money was - and poss. still is -
forthcoming in that regards, but I don't think the early promises from
Olympia & York came close to being fulfilled, not least because O&Y
then collapsed.)

Maybe the taxpayer should demand advance "phased payments". OTOH,
there should be some public input with regard to this extension. The
approaches to Waterloo and Victoria are some of the most intensely
operated sections of Railway in the world. This extension has the
potential to offer some relief. It needs to be planned as
strategically as was the Victoria line in its day.

On Jan 27, 9:58*pm, E27002 wrote:

On Jan 27, 12:49*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Jan 27, 8:34*pm, MIG wrote:

On 27 Jan, 20:24, "Graham Harrison"
[snip]
I'm missing something. * Not so many years ago the Northern Line was a joke.
That was partly about the state of the physical plant but also about the
amount of traffic on offer that couldn't fit through the system. * So they
did something about the plant and now the situation is better but by no
means perfect and we're talking about increasing the load again?

How much of the traffic from Battersea will want to go to the West End?
How much will be transferring at Kennington? * Probably an imponderable at
the moment but there has to be some and I suspect a bit more than a small
amount.

Like I say, I must be missing something. * The Northern Line feels like it's
been chosen simply because it's the cheapest solution.

A solution looking for a problem.

What is this vast area between the route from Waterloo to Clapham
Junction and the parallel route from Waterloo to Clapham North (etc)
that is so desperately underserved by railways?

The Nine Elms area is one that developers have big plans for. The idea
of a Battersea extension is on the agenda because they've put in
there. Apparently the idea is that they could essentially pay for it.
At least, that was the idea - I recall something recently about
various doubts over whether this was a realistic proposal.

*If* a private developer basically pays for it, fair enough. But I'm
sceptical. How much of the originally promised dosh did/has LU managed
to extract from the Canary Wharf developers/owners for the Jubilee
Line Extension? (I know that money was - and poss. still is -
forthcoming in that regards, but I don't think the early promises from
Olympia & York came close to being fulfilled, not least because O&Y
then collapsed.)

Maybe the taxpayer should demand advance "phased payments". *OTOH,
there should be some public input with regard to this extension. *The
approaches to Waterloo and Victoria are some of the most intensely
operated sections of Railway in the world. *This extension has the
potential to offer some relief. *It needs to be planned as
strategically as was the Victoria line in its day.

Erm, I don't really think Clapham Junction to Waterloo or Victoria
needs relieving, at least not by an extension of the Northern line
(anyway an extension of said tube line wouldn't provide a direct
alternative to CJ to Vic journeys). The mainline trains offer a very
frequent service and hence lots of capacity between CJ and Waterloo/
Vic, and would continue to run on to these terminal stations
regardless, so a tube line extension wouldn't mean the approaches were
any less intensively operated. Unless you're proposing terminating
some mainline trains at Clapham Junction instead of Waterloo (and even
Victoria), which I don't think would go down very well!

Nine Elms is of course to be the location of the new American Embassy,
so maybe we can get them to pay for it somehow - perhaps the line
could be built as a byproduct of the excavations for the secret
subterranean lair?

On Jan 27, 4:31*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On Jan 27, 9:58*pm, E27002 wrote:





On Jan 27, 12:49*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Jan 27, 8:34*pm, MIG wrote:

On 27 Jan, 20:24, "Graham Harrison"
[snip]
I'm missing something. * Not so many years ago the Northern Line was a joke.
That was partly about the state of the physical plant but also about the
amount of traffic on offer that couldn't fit through the system. * So they
did something about the plant and now the situation is better but by no
means perfect and we're talking about increasing the load again?

How much of the traffic from Battersea will want to go to the West End?
How much will be transferring at Kennington? * Probably an imponderable at
the moment but there has to be some and I suspect a bit more than a small
amount.

Like I say, I must be missing something. * The Northern Line feels like it's
been chosen simply because it's the cheapest solution.

A solution looking for a problem.

What is this vast area between the route from Waterloo to Clapham
Junction and the parallel route from Waterloo to Clapham North (etc)
that is so desperately underserved by railways?

The Nine Elms area is one that developers have big plans for. The idea
of a Battersea extension is on the agenda because they've put in
there. Apparently the idea is that they could essentially pay for it.
At least, that was the idea - I recall something recently about
various doubts over whether this was a realistic proposal.

*If* a private developer basically pays for it, fair enough. But I'm
sceptical. How much of the originally promised dosh did/has LU managed
to extract from the Canary Wharf developers/owners for the Jubilee
Line Extension? (I know that money was - and poss. still is -
forthcoming in that regards, but I don't think the early promises from
Olympia & York came close to being fulfilled, not least because O&Y
then collapsed.)

Maybe the taxpayer should demand advance "phased payments". *OTOH,
there should be some public input with regard to this extension. *The
approaches to Waterloo and Victoria are some of the most intensely
operated sections of Railway in the world. *This extension has the
potential to offer some relief. *It needs to be planned as
strategically as was the Victoria line in its day.

Erm, I don't really think Clapham Junction to Waterloo or Victoria
needs relieving, at least not by an extension of the Northern line
(anyway an extension of said tube line wouldn't provide a direct
alternative to CJ to Vic journeys). The mainline trains offer a very
frequent service and hence lots of capacity between CJ and Waterloo/
Vic, and would continue to run on to these terminal stations
regardless, so a tube line extension wouldn't mean the approaches were
any less intensively operated. Unless you're proposing terminating
some mainline trains at Clapham Junction instead of Waterloo (and even
Victoria), which I don't think would go down very well!

Nine Elms is of course to be the location of the new American Embassy,
so maybe we can get them to pay for it somehow - perhaps the line
could be built as a byproduct of the excavations for the secret
subterranean lair?

Allow me to share a couple of presumptions and then explain why I
think this extension may be useful:
1. On longer distance lines local stations were/are placed at point
convenient for the route not the locality. So, a line does not curve
into and out of a settlement. It simple has a station nearby.
2. Calls at local stations close to termini, typically, are
inconvenient delays for commuters from further afield. I bet not many
Maidenhead commuters complained about the closure of Westbourne Park
(WR).

So, in the unlikely event that this line is constructed it could call
at:
Vauxhall, for interchange with the Victoria Line possibly replacing
the underused SW station above.
Nine Elms, at a convenient centrally located station.
Battersea, at a convenient station possibly replacing the two existing
Battersea Stations
Clapham Junction, for obvious interchange convenience
Earlsfield, better located than, and replacing the surface station.
The line then surfacing to terminate at
Wimbledon in the underused terminal platforms

This means that locals would have a convenient line linking the
"downtown" areas of their communities. And, longer distance commuters
(Hampton Court, Kingston loop, Shepperton, etc.) have accelerated
journeys into Waterloo.

Having written the foregoing, I am not entirely sure that it would be
cost effective.

Your thoughts Mr. T?

"Mizter T" wrote

Erm, I don't really think Clapham Junction to Waterloo or Victoria needs
relieving,

I'm not sure that the passengers on platform 10 at Clapham Junction during
the morning peak, who often can't squeeze onto the train, would agree with
that.

On Jan 28, 12:59*am, "John Salmon" wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote

Erm, I don't really think Clapham Junction to Waterloo or Victoria needs
relieving,

I'm not sure that the passengers on platform 10 at Clapham Junction during
the morning peak, who often can't squeeze onto the train, would agree with
that.

True. The (or at least a) question is whether that factor would add
enough to the various other factors in justifying continuing any
prospective extension on from Battersea to CJ (well, CJ is already in
Battersea really, but you know wot I mean!).

(Questions would also need to be asked about whether the Northern
line's CX branch could handle the injection of extra pax that running
to/from CJ would bring.)

Essentially I kinda find this whole proposal a bit difficult to take
seriously though - i.e. enough for me to give it anything other than a
cursory flight of fantasy analysis. A developer is going to pay for a
tube line extension... ok, I'll believe it when I see it. It was
difficult enough getting the developer funded Imperial Wharf station
built - and that's a 4-car above ground station on an pre-existing
embankment with a pre-existing line!

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:49:16 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:

*If* a private developer basically pays for it, fair enough. But I'm
sceptical. How much of the originally promised dosh did/has LU managed
to extract from the Canary Wharf developers/owners for the Jubilee
Line Extension? (I know that money was - and poss. still is -
forthcoming in that regards, but I don't think the early promises from
Olympia & York came close to being fulfilled, not least because O&Y
then collapsed.)


Let's not forget that one of the reasons Olympia and York collapsed
was the failure of UK PLC to deliver the Jubilee Line Extension by the
date promised. JLE was years late, and the fact that Canary Wharf was
served only by light rail put an enormous brake on its development.

Nevertheless, my recollection is that Canary Wharf's contribution to
the cost of the JLE was made in full.