On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, brixtonite wrote:

Dave Arquati wrote:

An interesting possibility partly related to Northern line segregation
is that of an extension of the Charing Cross branch from Kennington to
the south-east, towards Camberwell - it's a very long term prospect
which sits with its alternative, a southern extension of the Bakerloo.

Extending the Bakerloo to Camberwell should be a priority - how would
the cost compare to, say, the DLR Woolwich extension? IME Elephant -
Camberwell is the most congested and slowest bus route after Oxford
Street. That's based on sitting in traffic for *hours* on the Walworth
Road, which is too narrow for bus lanes in parts - so trams wouldn't
help.

Restoring the stations on the Holborn line at Camberwell and Walworth Road
would, though:

http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/s...ad/index.shtml
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/s...ad/index.shtml

I imagine it'd be rather cheaper than new Bakerloo tunnels, too.

tom

--
:-( bad :-) bad :-| good

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 wrote:

Bob wrote:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/downloads/pdf/T2025.pdf

Comments?

The plan to divert the Chingford line via Stratford is an odd one. It
presumably is about using the platforms free up by Crossrail, and will
provide better connectivity - the only destination of significance lost
is Hackney, and that should be easily doable by either bus from
Walthamstow (or a reinstated Lea Bridge station) or Overground from
Stratford...

Presumably, there'll be a mix of both destinations. Personally, i thought
the idea of using the platforms and line to run a Stratford - Stanstead
service was better, but there you go.

...but won't it take significantly longer?

The run from Coppermills junction down to Stratford should be quite fast -
it's a straightish line on the surface, so i would imagine trains could
get up a better speed than on the twisty, partially underground route to
Hackney.

Also, what happens to Clapton?

Presumably, Tottenham Hale trains start stopping there. About time too!

tom

--
:-( bad :-) bad :-| good

Peter Smyth wrote:
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
...
In article , Dave Arquati
writes
The current service pattern fails at Camden when a train from either
southern branch destined for a particular northern branch reaches the
junction at the same time as a train from the other southern branch,
destined for the same northern branch - one of the trains must wait and
blocks trains behind it (destined for the other branch).
Not quite: I *think* that the junctions on the Charing Cross branch are
far enough south that a train can stand between the divergence and the
convergence with the Bank branch. Thus if you have one for Edgware on each
route, you let the Bank one in and hold the CX one; a following CX-Barnet
train can then run. Similarly in the southbound direction.

The signal diagrams at
http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/Ca...wn-lct5-10.gif appear to
confirm this is possible.

Ah, ok, my mistake. However, unless I've misunderstood that diagram,
whilst NB trains from CX can be held without delaying following trains,
the same is not true for NB trains from Bank.

In any case, segregating the branches would prevent such dual arrivals
happening in the first place, so as long as the trains are spaced far
enough apart to allow for the appropriate dwell time at Camden Town
platforms, there would be no need for them to stop at the junction at all.

Would ATO be sophisticated enough to adjust train speeds on the central
branches to avoid dual arrivals?

--
Dave Arquati
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London