On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Mizter T wrote:

On 17 Apr, 16:38, John B wrote:
On 17 Apr, 16:09, Mizter T wrote:

On the gripping hand, who goes to Homebase without a car, anyway?

I do! By bike, on foot and by public transport. I genuinely know some
people who made multiple trips by tube to Finchley Road to get to
Homebase whilst they were doing up their new place.

A car is pretty useful though!

I've been from Finchley Road Homebase to Finsbury Park by tube laden
with DIY products several times [because I used to work on Finchley
Road rather than out of /sheer/ insanity], and even once from there to
Whitechapel [on way back from visiting friends in Kilburn].

Indeed, it's hardly an uncommon occurrence, and not everything from
Homebase weighs a ton or is awkwardly bulky. Even for larger items, if
one travels off-peak and is perhaps assisted by a companion then it
can be conveyed on public transport.

I'm quite sure that if one was to watch the comings and goings at
Finchley Road Homebase then a significant minority of punters would be
seen leaving the car park on foot, and Homebase bags aren't going to
be rare sightings at Finchley Rd or West Hampstead stations either.

Fair enough.

I once brought six chairs from Habitat home on the tube.

Not all at once, though.

tom

--
mimeotraditionalists

On 17 Apr, 16:48, Sophie wrote:
I thought the Swiss Cottage Met station was separate from the Jubilee
Line station? They were close (I think the Met station was where the A-
Z says the Jubilee Line station is)

Yes. The subway going west from the ticket hall is also a footbridge
over the Met, and has an emergency exit. I've no idea how connected
they were when they were open, but a reopened combined station would
be a reasonable interchange, if you could work out where to put the
ticket barriers.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On 17 Apr, 16:38, John B wrote:
I've been from Finchley Road Homebase to Finsbury Park by tube laden
with DIY products several times [because I used to work on Finchley
Road rather than out of /sheer/ insanity]

And what's wrong with the one in Harringay?

(or hadn't it been built yet?)

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On 17 Apr, 18:25, "Peter Masson" wrote:
IIRC South Hampstead has the remains of long disused platforms on the WCML
Slow Lines, as well as the extant platforms on the DC Lines. Is the medium
term plan still to extend the ELLX to Queens Park via Primrose Hill, so that
they would serve south Hampstead, extend the Bakerloo Line to Watford
Junction, and to withdraw the DC service out of Euston?

Hard to say. Nothing has been heard from TfL about it recently. I'd
say possibility rather than plan.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On 17 Apr, 18:37, "Clive D. W. Feather" cl...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:
Hornsey is definitely on the ECML, even if it only has platforms on two
of the tracks. Nothing (except fiscal sanity) stops an Open Access
operator running a Hornsey to Morpeth service, for example.

So is West Hampstead on the Midland Main Line?

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:48:36 -0700 (PDT), Sophie
wrote:


Maybe the point is that you could transfer the Met from Finchley Road to
West Hampstead, and also reopen the Met platforms at Swiss Cottage, and
that would keep everyone happy.


I thought the Swiss Cottage Met station was separate from the Jubilee
Line station?

You're possibly thinking of St. Johns Wood/Marlborough Road. The Met
platforms at Swiss Cottage are behind the double green doors in the
southern passageway out of the station.

They were close (I think the Met station was where the A-
Z says the Jubilee Line station is) but there was no physical
connection and the Met station closed about a year after the Jubilee
Line (or Bakerloo as it probably was then) station opened. So I'm
going way off topic here but wouldn't you need to build connecting
passages, maybe a new entrance as well? The West Hampstead rebuilding
looks a big enough job already without bringing Swiss Cottage into
it.

Besides West Hampstead to Finchley Road is only a short distance -
about 5 mins walk? Would replacing the Finchley Road platforms with
West Hampstead platforms really make that much difference to people's
journeys?

South Hampstead-Swiss Cottage would be a good idea but they work quite
well as an interchange already. When I go to Finchley Road or further
north I go Euston to South Hampstead and then walk to Swiss Cottage.
Much smoother journey than via Baker Street and the journey seems
faster even if it isn't.

"Sophie" wrote

I thought the Swiss Cottage Met station was separate from the Jubilee
Line station? They were close (I think the Met station was where the A-
Z says the Jubilee Line station is) but there was no physical
connection and the Met station closed about a year after the Jubilee
Line (or Bakerloo as it probably was then) station opened. So I'm
going way off topic here but wouldn't you need to build connecting
passages, maybe a new entrance as well?

AIUI the Met platforms at Swiss Cottage, and the Met stations at Lords and
Marlborough Road closed at the same time (20 November 1939) as the Bakerloo
opened between Baker Street and Finchley Road, and took over the stopping
services from there to Stanmore. At Swiss Cottage supplementary entrances
were provided, but it was essentially a case of replacing the Met platforms
with the tube ones.

Peter

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Peter Masson wrote:

Is the medium term plan still to extend the ELLX to Queens Park via
Primrose Hill, so that they would serve south Hampstead, extend the
Bakerloo Line to Watford Junction, and to withdraw the DC service out of
Euston?

The medium-term plan is still, i believe, to extirpate the Euston service,
run the Bakerloo all the way to Watford Junction, and then run the *NLL*
to Queen's Park.

Running the ELLX (XELL?) to Queen's Park is rather harder. If you consult
this highly technical track diagram:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/twic/2115244713/

You'll see that between Dalston and Highbury & Islington, the NLL-ELLX
route is four track, but paired by destination, with the ELL tracks to the
south of the NLL. Tracks continue to the west of H&I only from the NLL.
That means that, even with crossovers in the right places, trains could
only run from the ELL to the west by making a conflicting movement over
the eastbound NLL track, which, given the frequencies involved, is
basically a no-no. And i'm not even sure there are crossovers in the right
place.

The upshot of this is that the ELL will run only to H&I, which will leave
the ELL and NLL as completely segregated services, maximising their
reliability and potential frequency. Short of throwing in a flyover at
Dalston, there's not really any way to deliver a practical railway other
than this.

tom

--
mimeotraditionalists

On 17 Apr, 23:52, Tom Anderson wrote:
The medium-term plan is still, i believe, to extirpate the Euston service,
run the Bakerloo all the way to Watford Junction, and then run the *NLL*
to Queen's Park.

Network Rail don't think reversing anything at Queen's Park is a good
idea due to the Bakerloo Line portal being in the way. They suggest
Willesden Junction instead.

Running the ELLX (XELL?) to Queen's Park is rather harder. If you consult
this highly technical track diagram:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/twic/2115244713/

There's an official version of that now:
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...appendix12.pdf

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

In article
, Mr
Thant writes
Hornsey is definitely on the ECML, even if it only has platforms on two
of the tracks. Nothing (except fiscal sanity) stops an Open Access
operator running a Hornsey to Morpeth service, for example.
So is West Hampstead on the Midland Main Line?

Of course. Same logic.

--
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: