"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message ...
"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
Who knows what the actual thinking behind it is. Though as with most
things
these days I suspect its partly a case of "wouldn't it look good if..."
and
then worry about minor details such as running a train service later. Its
all
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 and terminate the trains there so the people who use
the ELL regularly would have had someone useful to go to direct rather
than
having to change at whitechapel all the time. But no, why spend a million
or so on a bit of track and signalling mods when you can spend 100 million
on a politicians wet dream that'll probably turn out as you say to be as
much of a turkey as the NLL.



Isn't there a lack of platform space at 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.

Chetoph wrote:
"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message
...
"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
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 and terminate the trains
there so the people who use the ELL regularly would have had
someone useful to go to direct rather than having to change at
whitechapel all the time.

Isn't there a lack of platform space at 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 old link (removed 1907) was to the western side of Liverpool Street,
whereas the ELL connection was to the eastern side, so through running
would have been difficult without a major redesign, quite apart from the
impact on passenger circulation on the concourse at the mainline station.
It would be yet another flat junction on the Circle Line, and yet another
service to run on those tracks (in addition to Circle, H&C, Met, and two
District services). Platform space is the least of your worries.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

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