I'm going to assume that extensive tunneling is out of the question
here for reasons of expense but could the Bakerloo be linked up
'easily' to any of the NR lines around there? The tube is fairly deep
at E&C so it would be quite a lot of work to raise the line up to
viaduct level but could it join the line to Peckam via Denmark hill
and then maybe on to Hays via Lewisham freeing up terminal space in
London and utilising the Bakerloo infrastructure more efficently?

Any thoughts?

Jim Brown wrote:
I'm going to assume that extensive tunneling is out of the question
here for reasons of expense but could the Bakerloo be linked up
'easily' to any of the NR lines around there? The tube is fairly deep
at E&C so it would be quite a lot of work to raise the line up to
viaduct level but could it join the line to Peckam via Denmark hill
and then maybe on to Hays via Lewisham freeing up terminal space in
London and utilising the Bakerloo infrastructure more efficently?

Any thoughts?

Some such scheme has been on the cards before now, but there's no plans
to proceed with anything at the moment.

http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/104

--
Mark Etherington

On 17 Mar 2005, Jim Brown wrote:

I'm going to assume that extensive tunneling is out of the question here
for reasons of expense but could the Bakerloo be linked up 'easily' to
any of the NR lines around there? The tube is fairly deep at E&C so it
would be quite a lot of work to raise the line up to viaduct level but
could it join the line to Peckam via Denmark hill and then maybe on to
Hays via Lewisham freeing up terminal space in London and utilising the
Bakerloo infrastructure more efficently?

While depriving people on the Hayes line of a single-seat ride to London
Bridge and Cannon Street.

I also feel the need for a longer Bakerloo, but i really can't see how it
could be done cheaply. I don't think there are any lines lying around in
that part of south London that could be taken over completely without
disrupting a lot of the network, and inter-running with NR trains is a
recipe for disaster. The best fit, as you say and as has been suggested
before, is Hayes, since that branch is isolated past Lewisham, but even
that would take a five-mile tunnel from Elephant to Lewisham (or is there
space for another pair of tracks in any surface corridors?). At the 300
million per mile that the Jubilee cost (and that's only three-quarters in
tunnel), that's 1.5 billion (in 1990s pounds) for starters.

Now, that's about the same as one of these new aircraft carriers the navy
is set on buying; discuss ...

tom

--
I know you wanna try and get away, but it's the hardest thing you'll ever know

Tom Anderson wrote:
On 17 Mar 2005, Jim Brown wrote:


I'm going to assume that extensive tunneling is out of the question here
for reasons of expense but could the Bakerloo be linked up 'easily' to
any of the NR lines around there? The tube is fairly deep at E&C so it
would be quite a lot of work to raise the line up to viaduct level but
could it join the line to Peckam via Denmark hill and then maybe on to
Hays via Lewisham freeing up terminal space in London and utilising the
Bakerloo infrastructure more efficently?


While depriving people on the Hayes line of a single-seat ride to London
Bridge and Cannon Street.

But giving them a more frequent service into the West End and beyond.
Swings and roundabouts.

I also feel the need for a longer Bakerloo, but i really can't see how it
could be done cheaply. I don't think there are any lines lying around in
that part of south London that could be taken over completely without
disrupting a lot of the network, and inter-running with NR trains is a
recipe for disaster. The best fit, as you say and as has been suggested
before, is Hayes, since that branch is isolated past Lewisham, but even
that would take a five-mile tunnel from Elephant to Lewisham (or is there
space for another pair of tracks in any surface corridors?). At the 300
million per mile that the Jubilee cost (and that's only three-quarters in
tunnel), that's 1.5 billion (in 1990s pounds) for starters.

AFAIR one idea was for an underground station at Camberwell and then to
surface by Peckham Rye and run over the existing lines to Lewisham.

One problem is that the existing line is heavily used by freight, which
would have to be given a different route across London.

Another link:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...#BakerLewisham

--
Mark Etherington

Tom Anderson wrote in message ...
On 17 Mar 2005, Jim Brown wrote:

While depriving people on the Hayes line of a single-seat ride to London
Bridge and Cannon Street.

Er...

I also feel the need for a longer Bakerloo, but i really can't see how it
could be done cheaply. I don't think there are any lines lying around in
that part of south London that could be taken over completely without
disrupting a lot of the network, and inter-running with NR trains is a
recipe for disaster.

Good point; I was thinking that some interunning might be the only way
the Bakerloo would ever get extended but if this is ruled out then it
will probabaly stay where it is

The best fit, as you say and as has been suggested
before, is Hayes, since that branch is isolated past Lewisham, but even
that would take a five-mile tunnel from Elephant to Lewisham (or is there
space for another pair of tracks in any surface corridors?). At the 300
million per mile that the Jubilee cost (and that's only three-quarters in
tunnel), that's 1.5 billion (in 1990s pounds) for starters.

Of course this is the other option of squeezing in some tracks in
overland somewhere which might just be doable. Which reminds me how
about extending in the other direction; if Crossrail ever happens
there's been talk of extending/diverting the Bakerloo to Ealing
Broadway. Now howabout they do a bit of civils through the station and
squeeze in a couple more line for 300m or so and then take over the
branch too Greenford? That would cut down the number of services
needing to run into Paddington.


Now, that's about the same as one of these new aircraft carriers the navy
is set on buying; discuss ...

And they are probably what scuppered the Gosport/Portsmouth LRT tunnel
as there draught would mean the harbour would have to be dregged
deeper...

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Mark Etherington wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On 17 Mar 2005, Jim Brown wrote:

I'm going to assume that extensive tunneling is out of the question
here for reasons of expense but could the Bakerloo be linked up
'easily' to any of the NR lines around there? The tube is fairly deep
at E&C so it would be quite a lot of work to raise the line up to
viaduct level but could it join the line to Peckam via Denmark hill
and then maybe on to Hays via Lewisham freeing up terminal space in
London and utilising the Bakerloo infrastructure more efficently?

While depriving people on the Hayes line of a single-seat ride to London
Bridge and Cannon Street.

But giving them a more frequent service into the West End and beyond.
Swings and roundabouts.

In the West End? Where?

Point taken, though. It's just that there's an old tradition of raising
this objection to almost any suggestion .

I also feel the need for a longer Bakerloo,

Just want to add that, John Rowland's sig notwithstanding, this is not a
euphemism.

but i really can't see how it could be done cheaply. I don't think
there are any lines lying around in that part of south London that
could be taken over completely without disrupting a lot of the
network, and inter-running with NR trains is a recipe for disaster.
The best fit, as you say and as has been suggested before, is Hayes,
since that branch is isolated past Lewisham, but even that would take
a five-mile tunnel from Elephant to Lewisham (or is there space for
another pair of tracks in any surface corridors?). At the 300 million
per mile that the Jubilee cost (and that's only three-quarters in
tunnel), that's 1.5 billion (in 1990s pounds) for starters.

AFAIR one idea was for an underground station at Camberwell and then to
surface by Peckham Rye and run over the existing lines to Lewisham.

One problem is that the existing line is heavily used by freight, which
would have to be given a different route across London.

I am increasingly of the opinion that the single most important project
for improving passenger rail services in London is the 'freight-focused
route' to get freight trains out of the way - putting it in place would
relieve the North London line, the West London, the Hounslow loop, this
route (is that the South London line?) and a variety of junctions around
the place.

tom

--
Also, a 'dark future where there is only war!' ... have you seen the news lately? -- applez

On 18 Mar 2005, Jim Brown wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote in message ...

On 17 Mar 2005, Jim Brown wrote:

While depriving people on the Hayes line of a single-seat ride to London
Bridge and Cannon Street.

Er...

I also feel the need for a longer Bakerloo, but i really can't see how it
could be done cheaply. I don't think there are any lines lying around in
that part of south London that could be taken over completely without
disrupting a lot of the network, and inter-running with NR trains is a
recipe for disaster.

Good point; I was thinking that some interunning might be the only way
the Bakerloo would ever get extended but if this is ruled out then it
will probabaly stay where it is

It's not ruled out - 'recipe for disaster' is probably a bit strong; i'm
not inspired by the frequencies managed at the northern end of the
Bakerloo, or around Richmond, but it would be possible, and better than
nothing, i suppose.

The best fit, as you say and as has been suggested before, is Hayes,
since that branch is isolated past Lewisham, but even that would take
a five-mile tunnel from Elephant to Lewisham (or is there space for
another pair of tracks in any surface corridors?). At the 300 million
per mile that the Jubilee cost (and that's only three-quarters in
tunnel), that's 1.5 billion (in 1990s pounds) for starters.

Of course this is the other option of squeezing in some tracks in
overland somewhere which might just be doable.

If it is, ideal; is it? John Rowland's notes mention "Bricklayer's Arms
and over the disused trackbed to Lewisham"; i have no idea if that's still
there.

Which reminds me how about extending in the other direction; if
Crossrail ever happens there's been talk of extending/diverting the
Bakerloo to Ealing Broadway. Now howabout they do a bit of civils
through the station and squeeze in a couple more line for 300m or so and
then take over the branch too Greenford? That would cut down the number
of services needing to run into Paddington.

If this newsgroup got its way, bleeding Greenford would be the transport
hub of the universe!

tom

--
Also, a 'dark future where there is only war!' ... have you seen the news lately? -- applez

AFAIR one idea was for an underground station at Camberwell and
then to
surface by Peckham Rye and run over the existing lines to Lewisham.

Actually, the Bakerloo like was dug (and as far as I know still
there) to right under Camberwell Bus Garage, apparently you can get
to the tunnel from the bus garage. Other than the associated
problem of the fact that there's a bus garage right on top this
would be a relatively cheap way of extending it to Camberwell.

----------------------------------------------
Posted with NewsLeecher v2.1 Beta 1
* Binary Usenet Leeching Made Easy
* http://www.newsleecher.com/?usenet
----------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson wrote:
On 17 Mar 2005, Jim Brown wrote:

I'm going to assume that extensive tunneling is out of the question
here
for reasons of expense but could the Bakerloo be linked up 'easily'
to
any of the NR lines around there? The tube is fairly deep at E&C so
it
would be quite a lot of work to raise the line up to viaduct level
but
could it join the line to Peckam via Denmark hill and then maybe on
to
Hays via Lewisham freeing up terminal space in London and utilising
the
Bakerloo infrastructure more efficently?

While depriving people on the Hayes line of a single-seat ride to
London
Bridge and Cannon Street.

I also feel the need for a longer Bakerloo, but i really can't see
how it
could be done cheaply. I don't think there are any lines lying around
in
that part of south London that could be taken over completely without
disrupting a lot of the network, and inter-running with NR trains is
a
recipe for disaster. The best fit, as you say and as has been
suggested
before, is Hayes, since that branch is isolated past Lewisham, but
even
that would take a five-mile tunnel from Elephant to Lewisham (or is
there
space for another pair of tracks in any surface corridors?). At the
300
million per mile that the Jubilee cost (and that's only
three-quarters in
tunnel), that's 1.5 billion (in 1990s pounds) for starters.

Now, that's about the same as one of these new aircraft carriers the
navy
is set on buying; discuss ...

There is not much point having a navy at all if it doesn't have
aircraft carriers. The existing ones are now getting old - and they
always were a bit too small.

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
...
On 18 Mar 2005, Jim Brown wrote:


Of course this is the other option of squeezing in some tracks in
overland somewhere which might just be doable.

If it is, ideal; is it? John Rowland's notes mention "Bricklayer's Arms
and over the disused trackbed to Lewisham"; i have no idea if that's still
there.


They're not, and parts of them have been built over, though I'm not sure how
much. This is a great personal tragedy to me as I live off the Bricklayers'
Arms end of the Old Kent Road in a place that's incredibly central (I walk
to work every day) but just far enough from the tube that everyone thinks
you live on Mars. On the upside, it's bloody cheap.

But a new extension to Bricklayers' Arms (on Mandela Way perhaps), Canal
Bridge (by Rotherhithe New Road), Surrey Canal Road (interchange with the
ELLX), New Cross, St John's, Lewisham would be a pretty handy improvement of
one of inner London's biggest rail blackspots.

Jonn