--- Alistair Bell said:

I'd be more interested in the feasibility of turning the Northern City
into a DLR line to East Finchley... the tunnelling would be much
shorter (but again with vault issues)

And also the issue of getting the DLR from directly below the Northern
line at Bank to directly above it at Moorgate. Apart from that, it's a
great idea, Alistair. It would relieve overcowding of the Northern
line's City and Edgware And it would give people in Essex Rd and
Drayton Pk a proper weekend/evening service for the first time in ages!

Divert existing Moorgate services over TL3K to South London (hey, the
313s are ideal for that job)

Aren't there loading guage problems on the Thameslink tunnel? IIRC only
319s are ideal, anything else is adequate at best. But maybe enlarging
the tunnel is part of TL3K. It's been so long since it was first
proposed, I can't even remember!

It would be nice to run the DLR all the way on to Mill Hill (or even
via Mill Hill to Edgware!), but track-sharing and/or grade separation
issues might stymie that.

It'd need a flyover to take the DLR over the northbound Northern track
(Still cheaper than all that tunnelling between Moorgate and Bank!) and
an extra platform at Finchley Central if there's space. Otherwise,
single-track it through FC, add a passing loop between there and Mill
Hill East, and rely on the computers and moving blocks to schedule the
trains round it efficiently. (cf. Pudding Mill Lane)

--- Tom Anderson said:


It does. I reckon it should be extended east from Moorgate, to
Liverpool
Street, then Whitechapel, then turning north to a portal around the
Bethnal Green junction thing, where it could take over the West Anglia
slow lines. Doing that would decouple those lines from the mainline
part
of Liverpool Street, which would relieve the station _and_ allow the
line
to run more frequent trains. It would also give that line more reach
into
town.

The western end would either be some new platforms on the existing
track
at Farringdon (cheap, and still useful), or down into more tunnel to
some
new deep platforms at Farringdon, and then off on some sort of
Crossrail N
jaunt: i like Holborn, Embankment, Westminster, Victoria, then a bit
of
Chelsea-Hackney action to Sloane Square, King's Road Chelsea, Chelsea
Harbour, Clapham Junction, then another portal to take over the slow
pair
on the LSW main line as far as Hampton Court, plus perhaps the
Leatherhead
(IIRC) line down to Epsom (with mainline trains through Epsom going
into
London via Sutton, unless someone feels like four-tracking from Epsom
to
the mainline).

Might be a bit expensive just to save a mile of track, though.


Oooh... this looks like fun. Can I have a go?

As the Met and the widened lines leave Barbican, they're heading SW,
before turning east for Farringdon. Immediately after leaving Barbican,
drop the WLs down into a new tube tunnel, still heading SW to Chancery
Lane and Covent Gdn, then terminate in the Jubilee platforms at Charing
X.

It would provide a missing tube link NW from Charing X and SW from
Moorgate. And might even be cheaper than Tom's option.

"Andrew" wrote in message ...
"Jim Brown" wrote in message
om...
If the Bank of England sacrificed its vaults (Very little use for them
now, with the gold sold off) and Cannon Street St was put underground
(Plus a new tunnel under the Thames), would a tunnel connecting
Moorgate and London Bridge be feasible? Or do the tube lines around
there make it impossible?

This is highly speculative and I'm sure the engineering feats involved
would be considerable, but how about connecting the Northern City / WAGN
line with the Thameslink spur into Moorgate, and restoring the 3rd curve at
Farringdon Junction making it a triangular junction again. Would create
more direct North-South journey possibilities without building a second
tunnel. However after Thameslink 2000 is complete this might prove rather
superfluous anyway as there will be a direct route from the ECML through the
new Kings Cross Thameslink station and on to Farringdon. It seems a shame
to abandon the Moorgate Thameslink route though.

Andrew

Who says it has to be abandoned?

If Farringdon Junction does need to be lifted and replaced with plain
track in order to extend the platforms, what's to stop the third leg
of the Thameslink Triangle, from City Thameslink to Barbican, from
being restored in response?

This way, the old Ludgate Hill/Holborn Viaduct scenario is recreated:
Thameslink gets the through route to Midland Road, as well as the
alternate terminus at Moorgate if things go up the wall; anybody who
wants to go to Moorgate from Midland Road can use the Met from
Farringdon.

Has this ever been proposed? If it hasn't, how could something so
obvious be missed? Is there anything preventing the third side of the
triangle from being restored?

"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
...
John Rowland wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 13 Oct 2004:

The current 92 stock are still in NSE livery.

Last time I went, at an Open Day
a few years ago, the line were in ordinary LUL livery.

That's a shame. I'd love to know how the business case for the repainting
stacked up. I bet it contained words like "synergy".

--
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

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
...
On 13 Oct 2004, Boltar wrote:

"Andrew" wrote in message
...

how about connecting the Northern City /
WAGN line with the Thameslink spur into
Moorgate, and restoring the 3rd curve at
Farringdon Junction making it a triangular
junction again.

I suspect the gradiants and curves required to
join the 2 would be too severe unless a new line
split off from blackfriars since from Barbican you'd
have to drop about 20 metres and do a 90 degree turn

More like a 120 degree turn, i think.

in the space of 1/4 mile.

Think outside the box! Don't do it with a curve to the north,
do with with a curve to the south - a spiral tunnel heading
down and round. Not only does that give you the space to
do it, but it spreads the height change out over a greater distance.

And it could call at Moorgate twice, just in case you missed your stop the
first time.

--
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

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:52:04 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

That's a shame. I'd love to know how the business case for the repainting
stacked up. I bet it contained words like "synergy".

I'm fairly sure they were in NSE livery last time I checked. I guess
either one set is in one livery and the other in the other, or the OP
is confused because NSE livery and Tube livery contain more or less
the same base colours (red/white/blue).

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To e-mail use neil at the above domain

Annabel Smyth wrote the following in:


John Rowland wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 13 Oct 2004:

They were certainly NSE trains, but approximately tube gauge. The
current 92 stock are still in NSE livery.

Er - when did you last go on the W&C? Last time I went, at an
Open Day a few years ago, the line were in ordinary LUL livery.

You must be mistaken. The Waterloo and City line definitely still has
trains painted in NSE livery.

--
message by the incredible Robin May.
"The British don't like successful people" - said by British failures

Who is Abi Titmuss? What is she? Why is she famous?
http://robinmay.fotopic.net

Benjamin Nunn:
I thought the W&C tunnels were big enough to take regular stock...

John Rowland:
No, in fact they had to be enlarged slightly to take the 92 stock.

CULG gives the Waterloo & City Line tunnel diameter as 3.70 m
(12' 1.75"), which if I remember correctly was taken from Rails
Through the Clay. This is *larger* than the nominal 11' 8.25"
of the Central Line, so what had to be enlarged?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Do people confuse me with Mark Brader?"
--Mark Barratt

"Mark Brader" wrote in message
...
Benjamin Nunn:
I thought the W&C tunnels were big enough to take regular stock...

John Rowland:
No, in fact they had to be enlarged slightly to take the 92 stock.

CULG gives the Waterloo & City Line tunnel diameter as 3.70 m
(12' 1.75"), which if I remember correctly was taken from Rails
Through the Clay. This is *larger* than the nominal 11' 8.25"
of the Central Line, so what had to be enlarged?

The metal ribs (I don't know the correct name) on the inside of the rings
had to be trimmed on some of the curves. This may be more to do with the
length of the 92 stock than their width, or it may be to do with their
kinematic envelope differing from that of the previous stock. Perhaps the
Central Line already used larger rings on some or all of the curves.

--
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

"TP" wrote in message
...
(Jim Brown) wrote:

If the Bank of England sacrificed its vaults (Very little use for them
now, with the gold sold off) and Cannon Street St was put underground
(Plus a new tunnel under the Thames), would a tunnel connecting
Moorgate and London Bridge be feasible? Or do the tube lines around
there make it impossible?


Unfortunately, you started with a false premise. You can be assured
that the Bank of England has plenty of reasons to use its vaults.

In the days of higher gold reserves, the gold was in any case mostly
held elsewhere.

aye its only one of a number of repositries around the country they use. im
sure they keep a lot of important paper work in them such as treasury bond
certificates. vaults arent just full of gold like fort knox in goldfinger.
cheers
james