Basil Jet wrote:

Wouldn't it be better and possibly profitable to extend all of the
Crossrail Paddington terminators to North Pole, then on a new track to
near Harlesden Station , then on the freight line up to Neasden where
they could take over the entire Chiltern service (both Amersham and High
Wycombe), allowing the line from Neasden to Marylebone including the
Marylebone Station site to be sold off and also allowing the Met to
terminate at Baker Street?


Great idea.

Then you could turn Marylebone into a coach terminal with links to the
A40/M40. I wonder why no-one has ever thought of that before. ;-)

On 09/03/12 23:20, Joe keane wrote:
In article
mark townend wrote:
http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf

The real solution is to extend the Metropolitan, near to/over/under the
Bakerloo. Terminate at Oxford Circus for now, later at Embankment,
later a lot further.

Hasn't that already been done with the Jubilee?

Roger

On Mar 10, 9:51*am, Roger Lynn wrote:
On 09/03/12 23:20, Joe keane wrote:

In article
mark townend wrote:
http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf

The real solution is to extend the Metropolitan, near to/over/under the
Bakerloo. *Terminate at Oxford Circus for now, later at Embankment,
later a lot further.

Hasn't that already been done with the Jubilee?

Roger

Moorgate bufferstops are around half a mile as the raven flies from
those at Cannon Street. Yet another 'Crossrail' idea would be to link
these 2 stations and thereby combine the Met services with the South
Eastern suburban to Greenwich, Dartford Etc. All DC lines, give or
take the power return rail, no pantographs required. Imagine 2 or 2
platforms removed from east side of Cannon street, making way for a
steep descent into tunnel, then snaking right, then left to a new
underground station near and approx parallel with Gracechurch Street/
Bishopsgate at its junction with Cornhill/Leadenhall, perhaps linked
to Bank by walkway then curving left to join at Met bufferstops. Total
length of rail tunnels about 1400m.

--
Mark

"mark townend" wrote in message
...

Linking platform 6 at Moorgate to the east is a very good idea but I
fear that both that or a potental dive-under west of the station would
be unjustifiably expensive. The conflict at Moorgate between
terminating Mets and westbound is not such a headache anyway.

You should try commuting westbound from Aldgate in the evening peak when
disruption on the eastern end of the H&C has resulted in them turning back
trains in the Moorgate bays. Last week I left work, next to Aldgate station,
at 17:35 and hadn't reached Moorgate by 18:00!

Strangely, I hadn't been following this thread until now but had had some
similar thoughts myself (based on 25 years of using that section of line). I
agree with you (Mark) that most solutions suggested are ludicrously
expensive and impractical. However, my solution would be a slight variant of
the reconfiguration of Moorgate described.

The main problem at Moorgate is that to turn back an eastbound service
requires fouling both through lines to get the train into the terminating
bay and then the westbound again when it leaves. At various other locations
(Tower Hill, Mansion House) the turnback is between the two running lines,
reducing conflicts. This could be achieved at Moorgate, by realigning where
the westbound dog-legs into platform 2, taking it into platform 3 (currently
a bay) and making platforms 2/3 an island, with 2 becoming the turnback -
there's rarely a need for both bays to be used and 4 would still be
available in severe situations. This would need the removal of the subway
access from platform 1 and relocation of it - but, compared to the other
solutions, ought to be *relatively* easier to achieve.

The Met/Circle/H&C is now such a farce, especially eastbound in the
mornings, that it now takes me 10-15 minutes longer to get to work than it
used to fifteen years ago (making for a 2hr+ commute). It's now become such
a pain in the backside that I handed in my notice last week. Life is
stressful enough without having to put up with that additional crap five
days a week!

"Jack Taylor" wrote

The main problem at Moorgate is that to turn back an eastbound service
requires fouling both through lines to get the train into the terminating
bay and then the westbound again when it leaves. At various other
locations (Tower Hill, Mansion House) the turnback is between the two
running lines, reducing conflicts. This could be achieved at Moorgate, by
realigning where the westbound dog-legs into platform 2, taking it into
platform 3 (currently a bay) and making platforms 2/3 an island, with 2
becoming the turnback - there's rarely a need for both bays to be used and
4 would still be available in severe situations. This would need the
removal of the subway access from platform 1 and relocation of it - but,
compared to the other solutions, ought to be *relatively* easier to
achieve.

Turnback at Moorgate only happens during disruptions, and you've identified
the demand from Aldgate and Liverpool Street which means it would be
undesirable to turn back some or all Aldgate trains at Moorgate. So does
turnback at Moorgate happen often enough to justify investment? If it does
your idea would be worthwhile, though why not divert the WB into platform 4,
leaving 2 and 3 for turnback? It would also be possible to use the Up
Thameslink line as the WB Circle, etc, with the existing WB used for trains
starting back from Moorgate. This would avoid delays as occur at Tower Hill,
when the turnback train has been given the road, but isn't actually ready.
Meanwhile a through train is held waiting a path. All WB trains would be
either side of an island at Barbican.

Peter

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.

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 21:02:52 +0000 (UTC), (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.

How would it get on to that branch?

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 21:02:52 +0000 (UTC), (Joe keane)
wrote:

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

How would it get on to that branch?

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

Peter

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 21:43:50 -0000, "Peter Masson"
wrote:



"Recliner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 21:02:52 +0000 (UTC), (Joe keane)
wrote:

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

How would it get on to that branch?

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

Exactly: the old viaduct would bring the Hammersmith trains on to the
Picc, not the District. Also, trains taking that route would not
actually stop at either LU Hammersmith station.

In article ,
Richard J. wrote:
What problem are you trying to solve with your Crossrail 3?

service to Chislehurst