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