On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, MIG wrote:

New stations and better interchanges on existing lines could provide a
lot of new person-routes, both north and south of the Thames, at much
less cost than new lines.

I think the original suggestion was about capacity, not routes. Building
more stations on existing lines can't increase capacity.

There are probably cheaper options than extending the Bakerloo, though.

tom

--
Taking care of business

On 20 Jan, 20:12, Mr Thant
wrote:
Pure rumour says the plan involves the Hayes branch.

It's more than a rumour, as confirmed by Bakerloo line GM Kevin Bootle
to Modern Railways in November 2007 (p87). He said that "extending
the line to Hayes remains a live proposition for the longer term".

THC

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, THC wrote:

On 20 Jan, 20:12, Mr Thant
wrote:

Pure rumour says the plan involves the Hayes branch.

It's more than a rumour, as confirmed by Bakerloo line GM Kevin Bootle
to Modern Railways in November 2007 (p87). He said that "extending the
line to Hayes remains a live proposition for the longer term".

Which is completely meaningless, since 'live proposition' means everything
from 'we're oiling the TBMs now' to 'a work experience student once had a
look at a map and thought it might be doable'. The only way it could stop
being a live proposition would be if a rift valley opened up in Peckham.

tom

--
History is about battles, great men, gory executions and wigs. That is
all. -- The Richelieu Association

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, THC wrote:

On 20 Jan, 20:12, Mr Thant
wrote:

Pure rumour says the plan involves the Hayes branch.

It's more than a rumour, as confirmed by Bakerloo line GM Kevin
Bootle to Modern Railways in November 2007 (p87). He said that
"extending the line to Hayes remains a live proposition for the
longer term".

Which is completely meaningless, since 'live proposition' means
everything from 'we're oiling the TBMs now' to 'a work experience
student once had a look at a map and thought it might be doable'. The
only way it could stop being a live proposition would be if a rift
valley opened up in Peckham.

That could make a cut and cover extension more straightforward? :-)

Paul

I was looking at the South London options for developing the network
the other day, and it seems to me that the Hayes branch is pretty much
the only option for the DLR, so it should probably go to that, with
the Bakerloo going elsewhere, though going through Lewisham is
probably still a good idea. It'd be a bit unbalanced though, so
extending the Stratford branch up the Lee valley or taking over some
of the metro services of the GEML might prove beneficial....and if it
all gets too busy for a DLR-style service...it can always be upgraded;
after all, the hard work comes from securing the basic alignments.

On Jan 21, 5:08*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, MIG wrote:
New stations and better interchanges on existing lines could provide a
lot of new person-routes, both north and south of the Thames, at much
less cost than new lines.

I think the original suggestion was about capacity, not routes. Building
more stations on existing lines can't increase capacity.

There are probably cheaper options than extending the Bakerloo, though.

I can't work out a formula, but it seems to me that if people could
travel more directly to where they wanted to go, spending less time on
the transport networks and travelling a shorter distance, it actually
would increase capacity. Interchanges could make that possible.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Jamie Thompson wrote:

I was looking at the South London options for developing the network
the other day, and it seems to me that the Hayes branch is pretty much
the only option for the DLR, so it should probably go to that, with
the Bakerloo going elsewhere,

A better option for the DLR is not to go any further at all. The DLR is an
excellent short-distance transport system, but it's too slow and
low-capacity to be a sensible thing to send great distances. It's a bus on
steroids (or a tram on a pie and mash diet), not a substitute for a real
railway.

though going through Lewisham is probably still a good idea. It'd be a
bit unbalanced though, so extending the Stratford branch up the Lee
valley or taking over some of the metro services of the GEML might prove
beneficial....and if it all gets too busy for a DLR-style service...it
can always be upgraded; after all, the hard work comes from securing the
basic alignments.

The beauty of the DLR is that you can build it on alignments that wouldn't
take a heavy rail route; that means it's not necessarily a useful
pathfinder for subsequent upgrading. Of course, if you take alignments and
build bridges and tunnels with this in mind, you can do it, but it means
throwing away much of the cost advantage of the DLR.

My current favourite implausible scheme involves somehow (magic?) putting
tunnels in in the City that let Metropolitan (and District?) trains which
currently terminate at Aldgate (or Tower Hill) carry on to the east,
perhaps Canary Wharf, Lewisham and points south.

tom

--
It is a laborious madness, and an impoverishing one, the madness of
composing vast books. -- Jorge Luis Borges

On 22 Jan, 00:37, Tom Anderson wrote:

My current favourite implausible scheme involves somehow (magic?) putting
tunnels in in the City that let Metropolitan (and District?) trains which
currently terminate at Aldgate (or Tower Hill) carry on to the east,
perhaps Canary Wharf, Lewisham and points south.


One that comes up about every 18 months in these parts is sending the
Metropolitan line from Liverpool Street, through Aldgate East and
Shadwell to New Cross and beyond.

Then someone always pops up and points that two trains can't pass on
that curve without doing severe damage to each other's paintwork, and
the whole thing gets forgotten.

Jonn

On 20 Jan, 20:12, Mr Thant
wrote:
Mwmbwls wrote:
The 1974 London Rail Study
believed the cost benefit case to be weak and so Camberwell like
sleeping beauty nodded off until most recently in 2006

Tim O'Toole mentioned it in a Time Out interview last year:
http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...line-extenstio...

Pure rumour says the plan involves the Hayes branch.

U



I'm not so sure that the travellers on the Hayes branch would really
want it - they already have a 4tph service, two of those being fast
from Ladywell to London Bridge (which is an advantage for those who
wish to get into town quicker, though a disadvantage for those who
want Lewisham either in its own right or for connections including the
DLR to the Docklands).

Would the Bakerloo service intermingle with other services? The
Bakerloo would presumably have to intermingle with freight trains on
the line from Peckham Rye to Lewisham, which could present safety and
reliability issues (though many of the freights do run late or at
night). Even if there was a new separated route constructed through
Lewisham for the Bakerloo to reach the Hayes branch, it would still
have to share tracks with other services from Peckham Rye (if that is
indeed where it surfaced) to the junction just past Nunhead.

I'm just not quire sure how it would all work in practice - and it
certainly seems like there'd be many potential pitfalls in taking the
Bakerloo all the way put to Hayes.

Don't get me wrong - I'm very much in favour of extending the
Bakerloo, I just wonder if this Hayes talk is merely people grasping
for a wider plan which would justify its extension. I think it'd be a
great success even if it was just extended to Camberwell, with an
intermediate station on the Walworth Road - and could even go further
south to East Dulwich (not just the station but into the heart of the
neighbourhood), or east to Peckham. The line's central/southern
section has the spare capacity, and has the unfulfilled potential.

On Jan 21, 9:14*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:
I was looking at the South London options for developing the network
the other day, and it seems to me that the Hayes branch is pretty much
the only option for the DLR, so it should probably go to that, with
the Bakerloo going elsewhere, though going through Lewisham is
probably still a good idea.

I am not sure that the DLR would offer sufficient capacity down the
Hayes corridor - the South of London RUS is now proposing 6 twelve car
trains per hour in the peak. Plans for the original Fleet line to link
Lewisham with Fenchurch Street were abandoned in 1977 and at that time
an extension of the East London Line from New Cross to Lewisham and
from Shoreditch to Liverpool Street were proposed instead. Thereafter
long grass grew and memories faded. Under the current proposals, I
have always felt that New Cross, like Elephant and Castle, is too
close to the City to be a viable terminus and that an ELL phase 3
extension to relieve Lewisham, possibly going on to Hayes would be a
good idea. It would at some point be necessary to tackle the four
coach constraint limit on the Canada Water - Whitechapel section of
the ELL but I believe that is going to be inevitable anyway sooner or
later. The London Overground proposal already contains links to the
"Not quite Outer Circle" core route from the east from Barking,and the
north from Watford and suggestions were made for a western extension
from Wimbledon to Clapham Junction. Linking the south east quadrant in
a similar manner could be worth considering.

Mwmbwls - "Renowned Builders of Castles in the Air to the Gentry" -
our motto - "Everything will be fine until you try to move in."