In article 5, Tristán
White writes
Having an underground station nearby means that it's easy to get in and
out without having to make your way through backstreets to the new
alternative station on Shoreditch High Street. Which is not ready yet as
an alternative (if it goes to schedule, we're looking at June 2010 -
four years to go!)

It's not practical to build the connection to the new route and keep the
old one open.

Do we really want to lose even more history?

Do we want "history" to block all progress? You have to compromise.

Could they not have gone up
to Hoxton from the current station?

No. Where are you going to put the incline to get over the GER main line
(which, remember, is only 50m or so beyond Shoreditch station).

I remember seeing PDFs and consultations and stuff on UTL when they were
discussing the exact route north of Whitechapel, but I can't remember
reading a completely convincing argument why they couldn't use the
existing route that used to go to Liverpool Street pre-war (and which
was a goods-only service until the 60s).

Because it goes to Liverpool Street.

But the basic issue isn't the route in plan, it's the elevations. You
need to get *up* from below street level at Whitechapel to well above it
at Hoxton. The only practical place for such an incline (look at a map)
is east of Shoreditch and on to the old Bishopsgate viaduct.

If they could have provided an interchange from the ELL-Extension at
Bishopsgate/SHS to the Central Line, I would agree that there is sense
in moving the station to Bishopsgate. But since there's not (another
missed opportunity),

I doubt the amount of interchange traffic (on to an already crowded
Central Line, remember) would justify it.

But no. So was it really necessary to get rid of another piece of
functional history?

Yes.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: