Joe Keane:
Run the Hammersmith & City more west, and have it take over the branch to
Richmond.

Peter Masson:
Too much has been built over, but the LSWR used to run a service from
Waterloo to Richmond via West London Junction, Addison Road (now
Kensington Olympia), a long-lost curve from south of Shepherds Bush
to South of Goldhawk Road, then parallel with the Hammersmith (H&C)
line, with a spur from it, to the L&SW Hammersmith station, then a
curve to the District west of Hammersmith at Studland Road Junction.

Rather, onto what is now the District. The line to Richmond opened
in 1869 as an LSWR route alone. The District was extended to meet it
in 1877, creating Studland Road Junction. The line remained in LSWR
and then BR ownership until 1950 (although after 1926 it was leased
to the Underground group and its successors); when the District
started building branches off it from Turnham Green, its trains had
to use running rights over the LSWR to access them.

The Metropolitan Railway also began operating to Richmond in 1877,
just as Joe suggests. This service ran until 1906. (But as Peter said,
that doesn't mean it could just be restarted now.)

In 1905 the line was quadrupled between Studland Road Junction and
Turnham Green, the District being given exclusive use of the southern
pair.

Actually 1911. 1905 was the date the subsurface lines electrified.
I believe the two northern tracks were not electrified at that time.
But the LSWR service was moribund, as the District had a straighter
route, and...

After 1916 the northern L&SW pair were left derelict, until 1932,
when the Piccadilly was projected over the centre pair, with the
District taking the outer pair.

At the same time, the section from Barons Court to Hammersmith was
also reconfigured to give the Piccadilly the two middle tracks;
previously it had used the two northern tracks.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable
| from a feature." -- Rich Kulawiec (after Clarke)

My text in this article is in the public domain.

On Mar 7, 8:36*pm, mark townend wrote:
See my proposals here -

http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf

--
Mark

1. What exactly does swapping things at Aldgate achieve?

Circle line trains still cross the H&C tracks, so you haven't resolved
any conflict issues.

And what does the district line need extension to Aldgate for - that
bit of the circle isn't that busy, its not like there are loads of
people who need to get to that bit of the city via the district line.

And theres some structural supports right in the middle of where your
tracks would go.

2. Why curtail the Met line at Moorgate?

It may be connected by crossrail to liverpool street, but thats still
a massive walk - virtually the same distance as it is on the surface.
Its really not the same thing as a platform at liverpool street.

A very large number of people take the Met line to the city. The main
SSL line stations on the north side of the city are Moorgate,
Liverpool Street, and Aldgate - cutting it off at Moorgate would
massively inconvenience thousands of people.

3. Why use the former thameslink route from farringdon?

It won't relieve congestion / increase capacity, because there's still
only the existing amount of track between Baker Street and Farringdon,
so there's still the same number of trains having to fit into that
track.

So why not just branch off at moorgate? Branching from farringdon just
seems like a very thinly disguised excuse for reusing those tracks,
without any genuine justification behind it.

4. Paddington. Why?

Theres that expensive new ticket hall above platforms 16 & 15, with
lifts direct to platform.

Moving the main line to a seperate platform means expensive new lifts
have to be built, just to keep the station's newly built disabled
access.

This seems completely irrational.

5. Edgware Road - why have platform 5 the westbound through platform?

You've got an expensive change to the junction - why not just have
platform 4 the westbound through platform, as it is now, and have
platform 5 as a new terminating platform?

Creating a new platform, just means that you've got rid of cross-
platform interchange. Which removes interchange entirely for disabled
passengers. That's not a good thing. Why would you willingly do that?

Also, the sidings are already removed. There's a big new electricity
supply thing being built there, with a "green wall", so your platform
5 would be a massively expensive demolition job, with a replacement
for the new electricity supply thing, which has only just been built,
having to be rebuilt again. For what reason would you do that?

6. How does the new tunnel at Baker Street get past building
foundations?

It would have to go under the Baker Street station building - which is
quite big, so must have fairly deep foundations.

That doesn't preclude a deeper tunnel, but how would a passenger get
to platform x? How would you put in the access?

One of the few practical options would be to put escalators / lifts in
instead of the existing eastbound platform and track - but then you
couldn't have the siding you've suggested, and you'd also risk the ire
of English Heritage for altering the appearance of that part of the
station (which is one of the oldest in the world).

But you couldn't have it coming from the existing underground
concourse area either, because there isn't any room on the southern
concourse wall, and having access from the northern wall would be
peverse.

So that really leaves I suppose the area around the existing entrance
to the eastbound platform, but then you'd be restricting access to
that platform again, and English Heritage would again be against you
for harming the appearance.

You could gut the gents toilet, and use the space to provide the
access route, but that's a bit off to the side, which wouldn't be good
from a pedestrian flow point of view. And you'd **** off people who
needed one.

I suppose you could shorten platform 1, and use the space at the
southern end, but that might run into strutural problems, as its near
the wall of the surface building, several other walls, and some
trackside buildings that english heritage may well regard as
important. And its quite out of the way from the rest of the platform
- its a bit hidden, which isn't good for passengers.

You could perhaps massively rebuild the southern ticket office (the
one south of the westbound platform), so that it provides access to
the new platform, but if you are going to do that, then it would be
much more convenient for passengers if the new tunnel ran directly
under the existing tracks, rather than round to the north. And that
area isn't exactly convenient - the bridge is very low-ceilinged, and
narrow, so its not a good idea to have even more people using it.

Most of your proposals seem like they'd be massively expensive vanity
projects, for zero actual benefit.

On Mar 10, 9:02*pm, (Joe keane) wrote:
In article ,

77002 wrote:
The better solution would be to simplify the District Line.

Run the Hammersmith & City more west, and have it take over the branch to
Richmond.

That doesn't simplify the District Line. It complicates things. It may
simplify it on the map, but it complicates all the stations on the
shared bit of track in the bit beyond hammersmith; people now need to
work out which train it is they need to get if they want to go to
Victoria or the like. That's an inconvenience, that's a complication,
not a simplifying.

On 10/03/2012 21:02, Joe keane wrote:
In ,
wrote:
The better solution would be to simplify the District Line.

Run the Hammersmith& City more west, and have it take over the branch to
Richmond.

They took out the junction decades ago.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Mar 11, 3:11*pm, lonelytraveller
wrote:
On Mar 7, 8:36*pm, mark townend wrote:

See my proposals here -

http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf

--
Mark

1. What exactly does swapping things at Aldgate achieve?

Circle line trains still cross the H&C tracks, so you haven't resolved
any conflict issues.

Agreed but the conflict between H&C and terminating Met at Aldgate is
removed from there.

The larger capacity of 4 Met platforms at the Moorgate terminus
coupled with the independent approach and departure tracks provided by
the 4 tracking means that trains can have a longer layover and can be
better regulated in both crossing the Westbound H&C/Circle flow at the
west end of the station and merging them back in east of Farringdon.

And what does the district line need extension to Aldgate for - that
bit of the circle isn't that busy, its not like there are loads of
people who need to get to that bit of the city via the district line.

Based on no Metropolitan terminators remaining there, 2 platforms
would become spare. These could be abandoned and removed completely or
become reversing sidings for stabling 1 or 2 spare District/Circle
sets. Yet another possibility would be to run the 'circle' as a 'U'
between Aldgate and Edgware Rd, filling the paths given up on the the
north side with additional H&Cs, and removing all the junction
conflicts at the Liverpool Street end of Aldgate.

And theres some structural supports right in the middle of where your
tracks would go.

Fair enough. Not insurmountable but adding expense.


2. Why curtail the Met line at Moorgate?

It may be connected by crossrail to liverpool street, but thats still
a massive walk - virtually the same distance as it is on the surface.
Its really not the same thing as a platform at liverpool street.

Agreed its a fair walk, but at least covered, and the shorter walk to
the Crossrail platforms themselves, rather than all the way through to
LS main line would suffice for many suburban GE destinations.

A very large number of people take the Met line to the city. The main
SSL line stations on the north side of the city are Moorgate,
Liverpool Street, and Aldgate - cutting it off at Moorgate would
massively inconvenience thousands of people.

Perhaps they could change or walk a little further. It might be a
price worth paying for greater dependability.

3. Why use the former thameslink route from farringdon?

It won't relieve congestion / increase capacity, because there's still
only the existing amount of track between Baker Street and Farringdon,
so there's still the same number of trains having to fit into that
track.

The main benefit of the bigger terminal and 4 track approach is in
regulating movements through the junctions at either end of the double
track section to maximise its actual delivered capacity and smooth
flow. The need to immediately turn all peak Aldgate terminators often
leads to convoys of westbound Mets queuing to get through platform 2
at Baker Street, delaying following Circle/H&Cs.

So why not just branch off at moorgate? Branching from farringdon just
seems like a very thinly disguised excuse for reusing those tracks,
without any genuine justification behind it.

4. Paddington. Why?

Theres that expensive new ticket hall above platforms 16 & 15, with
lifts direct to platform.

Moving the main line to a seperate platform means expensive new lifts
have to be built, just to keep the station's newly built disabled
access.

Fair enough, I haven't been to Paddigton for over 2 years and wasn't
aware of that development.

5. Edgware Road - why have platform 5 the westbound through platform?

You've got an expensive change to the junction - why not just have
platform 4 the westbound through platform, as it is now, and have
platform 5 as a new terminating platform?

To keep the terminating platforms in the middle whilst allowing for an
overlap overrun spur so Westbound can arrive with signalling delay.

Creating a new platform, just means that you've got rid of cross-
platform interchange. Which removes interchange entirely for disabled
passengers. That's not a good thing. Why would you willingly do that?

Probably worth looking at lifts on all platforms.

Also, the sidings are already removed. There's a big new electricity
supply thing being built there, with a "green wall", so your platform
5 would be a massively expensive demolition job, with a replacement
for the new electricity supply thing, which has only just been built,
having to be rebuilt again. For what reason would you do that?

6. How does the new tunnel at Baker Street get past building
foundations?

It would have to go under the Baker Street station building - which is
quite big, so must have fairly deep foundations.

That doesn't preclude a deeper tunnel, but how would a passenger get
to platform x? How would you put in the access?

One of the few practical options would be to put escalators / lifts in
instead of the existing eastbound platform and track - but then you
couldn't have the siding you've suggested, and you'd also risk the ire
of English Heritage for altering the appearance of that part of the
station (which is one of the oldest in the world).

But you couldn't have it coming from the existing underground
concourse area either, because there isn't any room on the southern
concourse wall, and having access from the northern wall would be
peverse.

So that really leaves I suppose the area around the existing entrance
to the eastbound platform, but then you'd be restricting access to
that platform again, and English Heritage would again be against you
for harming the appearance.

You could gut the gents toilet, and use the space to provide the
access route, but that's a bit off to the side, which wouldn't be good
from a pedestrian flow point of view. And you'd **** off people who
needed one.

I suppose you could shorten platform 1, and use the space at the
southern end, but that might run into strutural problems, as its near
the wall of the surface building, several other walls, and some
trackside buildings that english heritage may well regard as
important. And its quite out of the way from the rest of the platform
- its a bit hidden, which isn't good for passengers.

You could perhaps massively rebuild the southern ticket office (the
one south of the westbound platform), so that it provides access to
the new platform, but if you are going to do that, then it would be
much more convenient for passengers if the new tunnel ran directly
under the existing tracks, rather than round to the north. And that
area isn't exactly convenient - the bridge is very low-ceilinged, and
narrow, so its not a good idea to have even more people using it.

Some excellent points. As with all projects, detailed design would
have many to overcome many heritage and station access issues.

Most of your proposals seem like they'd be massively expensive vanity
projects, for zero actual benefit.

You are entitled to your opinions!

On Mar 7, 8:36*pm, mark townend wrote:

Anyway purely for my own interest I've drawn up some of these ideas,
and any constructive comments from the group would be most welcome!

See my proposals here -

http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf

--
Mark

In response to the many useful comments here I have revised my
proposals.

Notable changes:

No work at Paddington - I had missed the new access improvements
already made for platforms 15/16, and I'm sure improved frequency of
service due to diverted Circles has reduced crowd build-up here.
Middle platforms and tracks at Aldgate completely removed, not used
for extending District Line.

http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf

--
Mark