| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
Robin9 wrote:
Tim Roll-Pickering;134793 Wrote: At this stage the emphasis is largely on joining up the dots rather than breaking new ground - the Victoria line kicked that off and the JLE followed suit by going where the demand was. The emphasis certainly should be on joining up the dots. Unfortunately the people who make the decisions seem to be totally unaware of how that would benefit London. The second major failing of this Battersea scheme is that is does not link up with other routes. My particular obsession - an extension from Kennington to Clapham Junction - would most definitely "join up the dots" as would other obvious - to practical people - proposals like extending the Bakerloo Line to Peckham Rye and the Victoria Line to Leytonstone. You might want to see http://www.londonreconnections.com/2...nsion-public-c onsultation-details/ which quotes the Tfl documents and notes "The associated consultation documents confirm that cost and the high passenger levels already found on the Victoria Line are the reasons why an interchange at Vauxhall is not being pursued. Future extension to Clapham Junction is, however, acknowledged as a possibility and the tunnel layout is designed to support this." -- Mark |
London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
"77002" wrote in message
... On 5 Dec, 16:39, wrote: If the line is intended to replace the two existing Battersea stations (accelerating services into Victoria and Waterloo), and would then continue to Clapham Junction (for interchange with the mainlines) it might make some sort of sense. Of one thing we can be very confident: Clapham Junction will *never* have an interchange with a tube line. Just imagine the cost. D A Stocks |
Quote:
provided by TfL would be astronomical. Everything done by TfL costs about twenty-five times as much as it should. Why should high costs prevent a Clapham Junction interchange station? Did high costs discourage TfL from rebuilding Victoria Underground Station? |
London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 12:45:05 -0000
"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote: Which is probably used by no one. I suspect the vast majority of people who get on at stratford get off at canary wharf. Not in my experience and I'm one of the many who use it for east to south trips. Quite a lot get off at London Bridge or Waterloo whilst many others travel further west. The same can be seen in reverse. Why would anyone use the jubilee from stratford to go west when they can just get on the central line? I'm sure it is useful to some, but it would have been a damn site more useful if it had opened up a whole new suburb rather than terminating somewhere that already has more railway lines than it knows what to do with. Lining up to such a major interchange is pretty useful already. What suburb would you have wanted to open up instead? West Silvertown is somewhat I already said more than once - Thamesmead. physically constrained and much of the rest of Newham had rail or tube or DLR links already. There are these new fangled things called tunnels that solve that particular issue. If the tube builders 100 years ago had thought the same way as the JLE route designers then half of north london wouldn't exist in its present form. Cockfosters? Who wants to go there , lets send the piccadilly line to tottenham instead. Edgware? Nothing there, we'll terminate at Kilburn - good interchange with the Bakerloo! Etc. At this stage the emphasis is largely on joining up the dots rather than Why? The dots were already joined quite enough at stratford. breaking new ground - the Victoria line kicked that off and the JLE followed suit by going where the demand was. Demand from who? By definition there won't be any demand from an area thats not developed but sending a tube line there usually is the spur to that. I'm sorry but terminating the JLE at stratford was down to nothing more than money or lack thereof, don't pretend there was any great plan. B2003 |
London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
Boltar wrote
I'm sorry but terminating the JLE at stratford was down to nothing more than money or lack thereof, don't pretend there was any great plan. The motivations for the JLE route were serving Canary Wharf from Waterloo, serving Canary Wharf from Stratford (DLR did not have enough capacity), the Dome aka O2, regenerating Bermondsey and Canada Water, and regenerating the Canning Town area. There were plans for a branch from North Greenwich to Thamesmead (there may even be passive provision for a junction) but no funding for this at the time. Now Thamesmead will do better, with the Abbey Wood branch of Crossrail. Peter |
London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
wrote in message ... On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 12:45:05 -0000 "Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote: Which is probably used by no one. I suspect the vast majority of people who get on at stratford get off at canary wharf. Not in my experience and I'm one of the many who use it for east to south trips. Quite a lot get off at London Bridge or Waterloo whilst many others travel further west. The same can be seen in reverse. Why would anyone use the jubilee from stratford to go west when they can just get on the central line? I'm sure it is useful to some, but it would have been a damn site more useful if it had opened up a whole new suburb rather than terminating somewhere that already has more railway lines than it knows what to do with. Lining up to such a major interchange is pretty useful already. What suburb would you have wanted to open up instead? West Silvertown is somewhat I already said more than once - Thamesmead. physically constrained and much of the rest of Newham had rail or tube or DLR links already. There are these new fangled things called tunnels that solve that particular issue. If the tube builders 100 years ago had thought the same way as the JLE route designers then half of north london wouldn't exist in its present form. Cockfosters? Who wants to go there , lets send the piccadilly line to tottenham instead. Edgware? Nothing there, we'll terminate at Kilburn - good interchange with the Bakerloo! Etc. At this stage the emphasis is largely on joining up the dots rather than Why? The dots were already joined quite enough at stratford. breaking new ground - the Victoria line kicked that off and the JLE followed suit by going where the demand was. Demand from who? By definition there won't be any demand from an area thats not developed but sending a tube line there usually is the spur to that. I'm sorry but terminating the JLE at stratford was down to nothing more than money or lack thereof, don't pretend there was any great plan. B2003 |
London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:26:39 -0000
"Peter Masson" wrote: Boltar wrote I'm sorry but terminating the JLE at stratford was down to nothing more than money or lack thereof, don't pretend there was any great plan. The motivations for the JLE route were serving Canary Wharf from Waterloo, serving Canary Wharf from Stratford (DLR did not have enough capacity), the The DLR had and has plenty of capacity mainly because it has a much more frequent service. funding for this at the time. Now Thamesmead will do better, with the Abbey Wood branch of Crossrail. You mean to the abbey wood station that already exists? Yes, I'm sure the residents of thamesmead will be thrilled. Who'd want a tube line where you live when you can have an old station with a new logo a mile away? B2003 |
London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
|
Quote:
|
London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
On 10 Dec, 12:59, "Richard J." wrote:
wrote on 10 December 2012 12:34:47 ... On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:26:39 -0000 "Peter Masson" wrote: Boltar wrote I'm sorry but terminating the JLE at stratford was down to nothing more than money or lack thereof, don't pretend there was any great plan. The motivations for the JLE route were serving Canary Wharf from Waterloo, serving Canary Wharf from Stratford (DLR did not have enough capacity), the The DLR had and has plenty of capacity mainly because it has a much more frequent service. Not true. *The Jubilee from Stratford to Canary Wharf has 24 tph in the peaks; the DLR from Stratford to Canary Wharf has 10 tph with lower-capacity trains, and is limited by part of the route being single-track. The NLL could have been upgraded for longer, more frequent trains and diverted under the river. An Interchange with a Jubilee extension to Thamsmead would have been entirely possible. |
London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
|
London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
|
Quote:
would have been an extension of the current service between Stratford and Richmond. Upgrading for longer trains would have meant platform lengthening at all stations. An attractive idea but very expensive. |
Quote:
|
London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:16:57 +0000
David Cantrell wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:26:32AM +0000, d wrote: Why would anyone use the jubilee from stratford to go west when they can just get on the central line? You might as well ask why would anyone use the Central Line from Notting Hill Gate to go east when they can use the Circle Line. The Central Line is obviously pointless and should be closed immediately on those grounds. And if they want to go west they can use the District Line. The Central Line should therefore be closed *twice*! Way to go on getting the analogy arse about face. The jubilee line IS the circle line in that one. B2003 |
Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
Robin9 wrote:
77002;134875 Wrote: The NLL could have been upgraded for longer, more frequent trains and diverted under the river. An Interchange with a Jubilee extension to Thamsmead would have been entirely possible. If your idea had been adopted, the service via Silvertown to South London would have been an extension of the current service between Stratford and Richmond. Upgrading for longer trains would have meant platform lengthening at all stations. An attractive idea but very expensive. It would also have got in the way of Crossrail. |
Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
On 12 Dec, 17:17, Robin9 wrote:
77002;134875 Wrote: The NLL could have been upgraded for longer, more frequent trains and diverted under the river. *An Interchange with a Jubilee extension to Thamsmead would have been entirely possible. If your idea had been adopted, the service via Silvertown to South London would have been an extension of the current service between Stratford and Richmond. Upgrading for longer trains would have meant platform lengthening at all stations. An attractive idea but very expensive. Not so, the NLL would have continued south under the Thames to North Greenwich and Westcombe Park instead of Turning East towards North Woolwich. The North Woolwich route would then be have been available for the Jubilee connection to Thamesmead. Although Crossrail is not a bad alternative. Sure platforms between Stratford and Canning town may have needed lengthening. Although AFIK the Overground trains are only five cars long. |
Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
77002 wrote:
On 12 Dec, 17:17, Robin9 wrote: 77002;134875 Wrote: The NLL could have been upgraded for longer, more frequent trains and diverted under the river. An Interchange with a Jubilee extension to Thamsmead would have been entirely possible. If your idea had been adopted, the service via Silvertown to South London would have been an extension of the current service between Stratford and Richmond. Upgrading for longer trains would have meant platform lengthening at all stations. An attractive idea but very expensive. Not so, the NLL would have continued south under the Thames to North Greenwich and Westcombe Park instead of Turning East towards North Woolwich. The North Woolwich route would then be have been available for the Jubilee connection to Thamesmead. Although Crossrail is not a bad alternative. Sure platforms between Stratford and Canning town may have needed lengthening. Although AFIK the Overground trains are only five cars long. Not yet, they're not. |
Quote:
would that have cost? |
Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
On 13 Dec, 16:45, Robin9 wrote:
77002;134900 Wrote: On 12 Dec, 17:17, Robin9 wrote:- 77002;134875 Wrote: - The NLL could have been upgraded for longer, more frequent trains and diverted under the river. *An Interchange with a Jubilee extension to Thamsmead would have been entirely possible.- If your idea had been adopted, the service via Silvertown to South London would have been an extension of the current service between Stratford and Richmond. Upgrading for longer trains would have meant platform lengthening at all stations. An attractive idea but very expensive. - Not so, the NLL would have continued south under the Thames to North Greenwich and Westcombe Park instead of Turning East towards North Woolwich. The North Woolwich route would then be have been available for the Jubilee connection to Thamesmead. *Although Crossrail is not a bad alternative. Sure platforms between Stratford and Canning town may have needed lengthening. *Although AFIK the Overground trains are only five cars long. So your idea was to build two rail tunnels under Thames? Make that three; the Jubilee would have crossed the Thames again between North Woolwich and Thamesmead. How much would that have cost? It would have cost less than a new tube route from Kennington to Battersea. The wellbeing of London's financial sector will materially affect the prosperity of the United Kingdom. Good transportation links to Docklands are an investment in the future of every resident of the UK. As opposed to a new tube to Battersea which is a vanity project for politicians, and a nice to have for train spotters. |
Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
77002 wrote:
On 13 Dec, 16:45, Robin9 wrote: 77002;134900 Wrote: On 12 Dec, 17:17, Robin9 wrote:- 77002;134875 Wrote: - The NLL could have been upgraded for longer, more frequent trains and diverted under the river. *An Interchange with a Jubilee extension to Thamsmead would have been entirely possible.- If your idea had been adopted, the service via Silvertown to South London would have been an extension of the current service between Stratford and Richmond. Upgrading for longer trains would have meant platform lengthening at all stations. An attractive idea but very expensive. - Not so, the NLL would have continued south under the Thames to North Greenwich and Westcombe Park instead of Turning East towards North Woolwich. The North Woolwich route would then be have been available for the Jubilee connection to Thamesmead. Although Crossrail is not a bad alternative. Sure platforms between Stratford and Canning town may have needed lengthening. Although AFIK the Overground trains are only five cars long. So your idea was to build two rail tunnels under Thames? Make that three; the Jubilee would have crossed the Thames again between North Woolwich and Thamesmead. How much would that have cost? It would have cost less than a new tube route from Kennington to Battersea. The wellbeing of London's financial sector will materially affect the prosperity of the United Kingdom. Good transportation links to Docklands are an investment in the future of every resident of the UK. As opposed to a new tube to Battersea which is a vanity project for politicians, and a nice to have for train spotters. .... and the new US embassy. |
Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
On 14/12/2012 15:18, Recliner wrote:
wrote: On 13 Dec, 16:45, wrote: 77002;134900 Wrote: On 12 Dec, 17:17, Robin9 wrote:- 77002;134875 Wrote: - The NLL could have been upgraded for longer, more frequent trains and diverted under the river. *An Interchange with a Jubilee extension to Thamsmead would have been entirely possible.- If your idea had been adopted, the service via Silvertown to South London would have been an extension of the current service between Stratford and Richmond. Upgrading for longer trains would have meant platform lengthening at all stations. An attractive idea but very expensive. - Not so, the NLL would have continued south under the Thames to North Greenwich and Westcombe Park instead of Turning East towards North Woolwich. The North Woolwich route would then be have been available for the Jubilee connection to Thamesmead. Although Crossrail is not a bad alternative. Sure platforms between Stratford and Canning town may have needed lengthening. Although AFIK the Overground trains are only five cars long. So your idea was to build two rail tunnels under Thames? Make that three; the Jubilee would have crossed the Thames again between North Woolwich and Thamesmead. How much would that have cost? It would have cost less than a new tube route from Kennington to Battersea. The wellbeing of London's financial sector will materially affect the prosperity of the United Kingdom. Good transportation links to Docklands are an investment in the future of every resident of the UK. As opposed to a new tube to Battersea which is a vanity project for politicians, and a nice to have for train spotters. ... and the new US embassy. And, of course all those investment bankers[1] in their luxury flats, sorry, apartments, in the new developments at Battersea. [1] Ryming slang alert… As for train spotters, ooh look it's a Northern Line train, ooh, another Northern Line train, err… -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 14/12/2012 15:18, Recliner wrote: wrote: On 13 Dec, 16:45, wrote: 77002;134900 Wrote: On 12 Dec, 17:17, Robin9 wrote:- 77002;134875 Wrote: - The NLL could have been upgraded for longer, more frequent trains and diverted under the river. *An Interchange with a Jubilee extension to Thamsmead would have been entirely possible.- If your idea had been adopted, the service via Silvertown to South London would have been an extension of the current service between Stratford and Richmond. Upgrading for longer trains would have meant platform lengthening at all stations. An attractive idea but very expensive. - Not so, the NLL would have continued south under the Thames to North Greenwich and Westcombe Park instead of Turning East towards North Woolwich. The North Woolwich route would then be have been available for the Jubilee connection to Thamesmead. Although Crossrail is not a bad alternative. Sure platforms between Stratford and Canning town may have needed lengthening. Although AFIK the Overground trains are only five cars long. So your idea was to build two rail tunnels under Thames? Make that three; the Jubilee would have crossed the Thames again between North Woolwich and Thamesmead. How much would that have cost? It would have cost less than a new tube route from Kennington to Battersea. The wellbeing of London's financial sector will materially affect the prosperity of the United Kingdom. Good transportation links to Docklands are an investment in the future of every resident of the UK. As opposed to a new tube to Battersea which is a vanity project for politicians, and a nice to have for train spotters. ... and the new US embassy. And, of course all those investment bankers[1] in their luxury flats, sorry, apartments, in the new developments at Battersea. [1] Ryming slang alert… As for train spotters, ooh look it's a Northern Line train, ooh, another Northern Line train, err… .... running in a tunnel deep underground... |
Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
"Robin9" wrote in message
... 'D A Stocks[_2_ Wrote: ;134830']"77002" wrote in message ... On 5 Dec, 16:39, wrote: - If the line is intended to replace the two existing Battersea stations (accelerating services into Victoria and Waterloo), and would then continue to Clapham Junction (for interchange with the mainlines) it might make some sort of sense.- Of one thing we can be very confident: Clapham Junction will *never* have an interchange with a tube line. Just imagine the cost. D A Stocks I imagine the unavoidable costs would be quite high and the costs provided by TfL would be astronomical. Everything done by TfL costs about twenty-five times as much as it should. Why should high costs prevent a Clapham Junction interchange station? Did high costs discourage TfL from rebuilding Victoria Underground Station? I'm not sure what 'rebuilding' at Victoria you are talking about. The Victoria line itself offered clear benefits in terms of giving mainline passengers access to West End and opened up the possibility of cross-London access to Eauston and Kings Cross/St Pancras. The interchange provided then was largely an extension to what was there before. It's getting some much needed improvements now that will benefit a large number of existing users, especially the large number of Victoria Line users who want to get to and from the Victoria area as a destination in its own right, rather than as an interchange with the mainline station. Providing mainline travellers with an interchange to the Northern Line at Clapham Junction would be a vast cost for very little additional benefit given that the money has already been spent to provide interchanges with the Northern at Waterloo and London Bridge. -- DAS |
Quote:
Tfl's own website is very coy about the astronomical costs but before starting work they quoted £900 million! As I stated previously, everything done by TfL costs 25 times as much as it should. |
Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
"Robin9" wrote in message
... 'D A Stocks[_2_ Wrote: ;134945']"Robin9" wrote in message ...- 'D A Stocks[_2_ Wrote:- ;134830']"77002" wrote in message ... On 5 Dec, 16:39, wrote: - If the line is intended to replace the two existing Battersea stations (accelerating services into Victoria and Waterloo), and would then continue to Clapham Junction (for interchange with the mainlines) it might make some sort of sense.- Of one thing we can be very confident: Clapham Junction will *never* have an interchange with a tube line. Just imagine the cost. D A Stocks- I imagine the unavoidable costs would be quite high and the costs provided by TfL would be astronomical. Everything done by TfL costs about twenty-five times as much as it should. Why should high costs prevent a Clapham Junction interchange station? Did high costs discourage TfL from rebuilding Victoria Underground Station? - I'm not sure what 'rebuilding' at Victoria you are talking about. The Victoria line itself offered clear benefits in terms of giving mainline passengers access to West End and opened up the possibility of cross-London access to Eauston and Kings Cross/St Pancras. The interchange provided then was largely an extension to what was there before. It's getting some much needed improvements now that will benefit a large number of existing users, especially the large number of Victoria Line users who want to get to and from the Victoria area as a destination in its own right, rather than as an interchange with the mainline station. Providing mainline travellers with an interchange to the Northern Line at Clapham Junction would be a vast cost for very little additional benefit given that the money has already been spent to provide interchanges with the Northern at Waterloo and London Bridge. -- DAS Information about the Victoria Underground Station rebuilding project can be found on-line. Tfl's own website is very coy about the astronomical costs but before starting work they quoted £900 million! As I stated previously, everything done by TfL costs 25 times as much as it should. I am very aware of what is going on at Victoria - I used to pass through the station every day on my to work until quite recently. However, they aren't "rebuilding" it, they are making some (quite substantial) additions to what's already there, and even the online articles don't claim it as a rebuilding, although "redevelopment" does creep in to one or two press releases. To be awarded 'rebuilding' status they would have to do something like the changes at London Bridge when the Jubilee Line was added to the station; if you're interchanging between the mainline and the Northern (OMG we're almost getting back on topic) you see very little of the undergound station that was there before. As someone who has had the full experience of Victoria it's very clear what the problems are, what's being done about it, and what the benefits will be when it has been completed. What you haven't explained is why it is so desirable to create an interchange with the Northern Line extension at Clapham Junction. I'm particularly interested to know what new journey opportunities would be created that aren't provided substantially by the current services that serve the station? If you can give a convincing answer to that one you then need to come up with a convincing proposal for the interchange at Clapham Junction. I doubt that bringing it to the surface and re-opening platform 1 would be a viable option, and you need to bear in mind that a) the current station is effectively three (or more) stations behind a common set of ticket barriers. b) the current interchange facilities for the existing station(s) are inadequate. c) any improvements to the existing station(s) are likely to involve substantial reconstruction; probably moving and extending platforms to provide additional circulation space. d) you need to sell this as a package to both National Rail as owners of the current station(s) and TfL as providers of the new line. -- DAS |
Quote:
large structural changes. Playing with semantics is a tedious game and one I'm not willing to play. I'm glad you are very clear about the benefits of the work done at Victoria. Judging from radio traffic reports and from public statements from TfL and LU, the main problem at Victoria does not involve people with business in the Victoria area. The main problem is the capacity of the Underground Station in the morning peak period. Frequently LU have to stop passengers from entering the Underground Station because it is over subscribed. Why are those passengers trying to board a LU train? Because they do not want to be in Victoria and have no business there! TfL have said on several occasions that the work being done to Victoria Underground Station is to rectify that situation. One of the benefits of extending the Northern Line to Clapham Junction is that it would greatly reduce that pressure on Victoria, and on Waterloo too of course. A second reason for such an extension is that as Clapham Junction is the busiest railway station in the country, it is absurd that it is not connected to the Underground system. Injecting new capacity into public transport is not exclusively about providing new journey opportunities. It is also about improving quality and convenience. It is already possible to travel by public transport from anywhere in the Greater London area to anywhere else but many journeys are slow, irksome and in overcrowded conditions. For example, someone living in Croydon with tickets for the Dominion Theatre can make the journey by travelling to Clapham junction, changing to a Waterloo train and changing to a crowded Northern Line train. Two train changes. Alternatively they can go through to Victoria and change to an overcrowded Victoria Line train and change again to a overcrowded Central Line train. Again two changes. If the Northern Line were extended to Clapham Junction, only one change would be required, and that would would be to a train that was almost empty. The improvement in quality and convenience would be substantial. As London's population has hugely outgrown the infrastructure, enormous investment in new infrastructure is urgently needed. (Even politicians now recognise that far more housing is required) Because the cost of building entirely new railways is so expensive, it is unrealistic to imagine that five or six new lines will be constructed in the next twenty years. Instead we will have to add capacity by increasing the opportunities to change trains and by squeezing more use out of the existing routes. (It was interesting to hear Peter Hendy last Saturday say that the Victoria Line will soon be running 33 trains an hour) One way of increasing the Northern Line's capacity is to split it into two separate lines and to re-signal the two parts so that they can each run trains reliably every three minutes. As Wandsworth Council have already said that they would pay for a further extension to Wandsworth, there is a potential extra benefit in bringing the Northern Line to Clapham Junction. The final advantage of such an extension is that it would be very heavily used and would not be a huge loss-maker. I'm puzzled by your ideas about a Northern Line station at Clapham Junction. The Northern Line is a tube line so it would be underground, perhaps right underneath the main station, as is the case with many other Underground Stations. I imagine such a station would require a long passageway from both St. John's Hill and Grant Road, ideally with two travelators. London Underground do know how to do this. They built the Jubilee Line station at London Bridge and they kept it underground. I don't understand why you feel that doing something similar at Clapham Junction would be so difficult. |
Quote:
London not to use the Northern Line between Tooting and Clapham South during the morning peak period, can anyone still maintain that providing extra capacity in South London is not a good idea, far better than that silly, wasteful scheme to Battersea? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:24 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk