"juvenal" wrote in message
...

ISTR reading somewhere that there are already Bakerloo tunnels half
way down Walworth Road as part of the proposed 1950 Camberwell
extension, hence why I suggested Camberwell. Your route does make
more geographic sense, I admit, but maybe runs a bit too close to the
JLE?

You wouldn't, IMO, even need tunnels. You could bring the Bakerloo to the
surface somewhere along Walworth Road and add an extra two tracks to the
existing lines to Lewisham (Lewisham station itself would probably need
major rebuilding though, however you expand it).

I don't even know if it would be needed any further - passenger
capacity
would get pretty tight, and Lewisham would be a good change for a lot
of
passengers; plus it would prevent the Hayes line from losing its
service
to
the City.

Thinking it over, termination at either Peckham or Lewisham might be the
best course.

One could alternatively extend the Bakerloo from Lewisham alongside the SER
main line to Grove Park and then take over the branch to Bromley North...

Angus

In article , The Only
Living Boy in New Cross writes
(TheOneKEA) wrote in message
. com...
The parent poster was asking about whether or not the primitive
tunnel-digging
technology of the early 20th century was what prevented the LUL engineers of
the day from digging tunnels beneath the Thames and building Tube stations
south of the river. IMVHO Morden's location is irrelevant; what is relevant
is that it wasn't opened until 1926 - approx. thirty years after the first
LUL tunnels were ever dug, which meant that the technology had time
to improve.

I wasn't specifically asking about tunnelling underneath the river. I
was asking about tunnelling in south London because, as I said in the
first post, an explanation you often see for the lack of tube in south
London is that the soil is unsuitable. This explanation completely
ignores the existence of the line to Morden, so I was looking for some
clarification on that point.

Whilst often quoted as an explanation, the actual reason is that South
London was already served with an extensive rail network, some of which
was electrified - and a large tram network, with workmens fares.

Too much competition.
--
Steve
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/B$ d++(-) s+:+ a+ C++ UL++ L+ P+ W++ N+++ K w--- O V
PS+++ PE- t+ 5++ X- R* tv+ b+++ DI++ G e h---- r+++ z++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

"Angus Bryant" wrote in message
...

One could alternatively extend the Bakerloo from
Lewisham alongside the SER main line to Grove Park
and then take over the branch to Bromley North...

Is there room?

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

One could alternatively extend the Bakerloo from
Lewisham alongside the SER main line to Grove Park
and then take over the branch to Bromley North...

Is there room?

No idea - just a vague suggestion :-)

Angus

"m.scharwies" wrote in message
om...

(snip)

Nasty how it sounds there may be a grain of salt in it. I don't recall
the author, but Metroland (the suburbs to the northwest) were quite
posh and could afford tube fares whereas the more proletarian southern
suburbs weren't as intersting for tube intvestors.
Matthias Scharwies

On balance, I think that the existing railways had sewn up most of the
prosperous commuting areas, (places such as Sidcup or Chiselhurst on the
Keantish side, for example) and simply had a much stronger competitive
advantage when it came to new or expanded services.

In article , Chetoph
writes
politics. A much cheaper way of making the ELL useful would have been to
extend the track all of 200 yards from shorditch to join up with the
tracks
into Liverpool street

When they redesigned Liverpool Street they should have thought about
reinstating the link between the Metropolitan line and the main line
platforms and then run through services onto the East London Line.
Misses out the need for the St Mary's curve. I'm sure platform space
could be found.

The issue with either of these ideas is not platform space - there's 18
platforms there - but rather capacity on the six tracks in and out of
the station. These tracks are full to capacity in the peaks; there's no
realistic chance of fitting yet another service on to them, particularly
with a flat junction at Shoreditch. [You might do a bit better by making
the Up Electric bidirectional into 17 and 18, but I suspect there still
wouldn't be the capacity.]

In the case of the Circle-Liverpool Street-ELL idea, you've got the
further problem that such services would have to cross the entire
station throat, losing a *huge* number of paths. The present
arrangement, as with many London termini, keeps each of the five service
groups (WA inner, WA outer, Anglia, GE inner, GE outer) separate as far
as possible, sorting them out at places with more capacity such as
Hackney, Ilford, and Shenfield.

--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address

(m.scharwies) wrote in message . com...
"Edward Cowling" wrote in message ...
"The Only Living Boy in New Cross" wrote in
message
m...
One of the commonest explanations you hear for the lack of tube lines
south of the river is that the soil is unsuitable for the tunnelling
equipment in use in the early years of the 20th century. If that's
the case, though, how did the Morden end of the Northern Line get
built?

Nasty how it sounds there may be a grain of salt in it. I don't recall
the author, but Metroland (the suburbs to the northwest) were quite
posh and could afford tube fares whereas the more proletarian southern
suburbs weren't as intersting for tube intvestors.
Matthias Scharwies

i)There was a better network of overground suburban rail services
across South London. These saw early electrification (The London
Brighton and South Coast Railway's lines had overhead electrification
before WW1 on the services on lines between Victoria, London Bridge
and Crystal Palace).

ii)Effective lobbying by the Southern Railway halted some tube plans
before they reached Parliament.

iii)The railway companies, took on the same role in promoting suburban
house building [in what are now the outer London boroughs/Surrey
hills]to develop additional commuter traffic that the Metropolitan
Railway did north of the river. It's just that they didn't market it
with a single "Metroland" identity that is still reproduced in
posters.