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)

"Boltar" wrote in message
om...


Isn't there a lack of platform space at Liverpool Street?

I'm sure they could squeeze in another few trains an hour. Anyway , BR
were
quite happy to flog off Broad Street station so they couldn't have been
short
of platforms in the 80s even if now there might be an issue plus up until
recently there was plenty of derelict land behind liverpool street that a
couple of new platforms could have been shoehorned into.


I agree about the 80s, but I dno't see them getting in any extra trains at
Liverpool Street as it stands now - it's about one a minute during rush hour
I think.

Jonn

"Mark Brader" wrote in message
...
Robin Payne:
I tend to beleive the more probably explanation that the Southern
Railway took suburban commuters seriously as a market, and provided
frequent, electric commuter trains. The other 3 of the big 4
basically ignored this market...

I tend to believe this one as well. And I'll add that the reason behind
the reason is that London is in the southeast of Great Britain -- so that
lines running north or west from London could carry lucrative
long-distance
traffic, but other lines could not, because there were no long distances.
The southern railways, and later the Southern Railway, *had* to concen-
trate on short- and middle-distance traffic, because except for one line
to Exeter that competed with the GWR, that was all there was.


Of course, the SER and the LCDR did have the lucrative route to Dover and
other Channel ports (and the South Coast resorts to a lesser extent, if you
include the LB&SCR), but this only increased railway penetration in what was
northern Kent and Surrey, as the railway companies sought to gain some
return on the massive capital outlay they made on competing lines and rival
West End and City terminii.

In the inter-war period, the SR simply had greater financial advantages than
LU. Slapping on a third rail brought in as many new surburan passengers as a
Tube line would, at much less cost (even if an existing line had simply been
converted for use by Tube stock). I think the SR in these years could boast
a 14% return on capital for electrification against the 1% for an
Underground extenstion produced. The SR wasn't going to give up any of these
profits to the Tube easily, and fought so hard over the extension to Morden
that expanding elsewhere in South London just wasn't practical.

I sometimes wonder whether I would gain from a Tube line serving me locally.
I live on the Hayes line, which would be a prime candidate for incorporation
into an extended Bakerloo line (for example). As it stands (assuming normal
service and no nasty surprises in forthcoming timetables) I can reach large
parts of both the West End and the City within 30-40 minutes of my
departure. If the line were wholly given over to LUL, the City would no
longer be directly accessible, and journey times to London would probably be
slower on the most likely route. There should be no problem about ensuring
the off-peak 4tph to London could still be maintained if both services were
allowed to run, but NR trains at peak times would still be fairly crowded.

(TheOneKEA) wrote in message om...
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.

Patrick

"juvenal" wrote in message ...
I sometimes wonder whether I would gain from a Tube line serving me locally.
I live on the Hayes line, which would be a prime candidate for incorporation
into an extended Bakerloo line (for example).

That'd be fantastic! Elephant & Castle, Camberwell, Peckham,
Brockley, Lewisham, Ladywell, Catford Bridge, Lower Sydenham, New
Beckenham, Clock House, Elmers End, Eden Park, West Wickham and Hayes.
Does any freight run on the Hayes line? If it's passengers only, it
surely wouldn't be too hard to come to some sort of arrangement to
hand the line south of Lewisham over to LU. And the cost of the
tunnel from Walworth Road to Lewisham would surely be far cheaper than
the JLE, to deliver similar benefits. I wonder if such a scheme has
ever been considered by LU?

Patrick

"The Only Living Boy in New Cross" wrote in
message om...
"juvenal" wrote in message
...
I sometimes wonder whether I would gain from a Tube line serving me
locally.
I live on the Hayes line, which would be a prime candidate for
incorporation
into an extended Bakerloo line (for example).

That'd be fantastic! Elephant & Castle,

Walworth next, surely...

Camberwell, Peckham,
Brockley, Lewisham, Ladywell, Catford Bridge, Lower Sydenham, New
Beckenham, Clock House, Elmers End, Eden Park, West Wickham and Hayes.


Personally, I'd rather see it head along the more direct route down the Old
Kent Road:

Elephant & Castle, Bricklayer's Arms, Surrey Canal Road, New Cross, St
Johns, Lewisham.

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.

Jonn

"The Only Living Boy in New Cross" wrote in
message om...
(TheOneKEA) wrote in message
om...

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.



That tunnels through South London soil are more expensive than those in the
North?

Jonn

"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message ...
"The Only Living Boy in New Cross" wrote in
message om...
"juvenal" wrote in message
...
I sometimes wonder whether I would gain from a Tube line serving me
locally.
I live on the Hayes line, which would be a prime candidate for
incorporation
into an extended Bakerloo line (for example).

That'd be fantastic! Elephant & Castle,

Walworth next, surely...

It's only a five minute walk from E&C to East Street, so I left out
Walworth. They can walk! grin

Camberwell, Peckham,
Brockley, Lewisham, Ladywell, Catford Bridge, Lower Sydenham, New
Beckenham, Clock House, Elmers End, Eden Park, West Wickham and Hayes.


Personally, I'd rather see it head along the more direct route down the Old
Kent Road:

Elephant & Castle, Bricklayer's Arms, Surrey Canal Road, New Cross, St
Johns, Lewisham.

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?

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.

Do you mean there would be too many passengers to get on the trains?
So just like the rest of the tube network, then? Seriously, though,
if an extended Bakerloo were in tunnel from E&C to Ladywell, you could
run a 10/12 tph service, surely, which would take lots of passengers?

Patrick

"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?


Have you been South of the river ??

Nasty place. Who wants to get to Streatham quicker, and as for
Woolwich...... urghhhh :-)

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

"The Only Living Boy in New Cross" wrote in
message m...
"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message
...
"The Only Living Boy in New Cross" wrote in
message om...
"juvenal" wrote in message
...

(snip)

Camberwell, Peckham,
Brockley, Lewisham, Ladywell, Catford Bridge, Lower Sydenham, New
Beckenham, Clock House, Elmers End, Eden Park, West Wickham and Hayes.

If this route were taken, there would probably be a station at Loughborough
Junction as well.

Personally, I'd rather see it head along the more direct route down the
Old
Kent Road:

Elephant & Castle, Bricklayer's Arms, Surrey Canal Road, New Cross, St
Johns, Lewisham.

I thought about this route. It would probably cut down journey times to
Central London, but would areas along the Old Kent Road, within either E&C,
JLE and East London line service areas, really benefit as much as
Camberwell, where one has to travel to Oval, Brixton or E&C to make a tube
connection?

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.