On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Adrian wrote:

At one point the Met. considered building a mainline size tube to
link their "Main Line" to Edgware Road Station.

To join up with the Circle heading west, you mean? Or as a
terminus? Neither of those sound like brilliant ideas to me, i have
to say!

To join up with the Circle line heading East, actually. The layout at
Edgware Road was rebuilt with that link in mind and is still that way
today.

Was this before the link to Baker Street, or the link from the platforms
there to the Circle, went in, or am i missing something?

tom

--
Ed editor textorum probatissimus est -- Cicero, De officiis IV.7

On Apr 11, 4:09*am, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Colin McKenzie" wrote

Hmm. From a state of ignorance:
- how hard would it be to quadruple to Neasden?
I know there's spare space between the platforms at Wembley Stadium,
and IMO the potential traffic would justify quadrupling at least to
West Ruislip, if not to High Wycombe.
- are the two extra Marylebone platforms mentioned by Paul feasible?

I suspect that the easiest way to increase capacity on the Chiltern Met Line
would be to extend platforms to allow 8 coach trains. If capacity for more
trains into Central London from the Joint Line is needed then Old Oak to
Northolt Junction should be redoubled and the linespeed brought back to
90/100 mph. There should be platform capacity at Paddington when Crossrail
opens, and there are tentative plans for additional platforms if needed.

That is true.

Marylebone of course has two extra platforms already, but I don't think
there is scope for any more.

Not without reclaiming some of the area originally planned to have
platforms but subsequently sold off for building.

It would be a very expensive excersize.

On Apr 11, 5:40*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Adrian wrote:
On Apr 10, 3:59*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, MIG wrote:
On Apr 10, 9:15*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Mr Thant wrote:
On 10 Apr, 19:25, "Paul Scott" wrote:

Were Railtrack really able to make a permanent decision back then that there
would be no further rail use?

I can't see any use for them now - you'd need more platforms at
Marylebone and a way of four tracking at least to Neasden.

Yes.

Completely random question, but where do the Chiltern and Metropolitan
alignments separate?

As far as I can see, they emerge from tunnel under Lodge Road, then
cross the canal on separate, slightly diverging bridges, and then go
either side of buildings south of the canal.

Okay. So there's a separate tunnel for the Met, next to the three-bore GC
tunnel? That's a lot of tunnels.

Indeed so, and don't forget the Bakerloo down below.

Indeed!

At one point the Met. considered building a mainline size tube to link
their "Main Line" to Edgware Road Station.

To join up with the Circle heading west, you mean? Or as a terminus?
Neither of those sound like brilliant ideas to me, i have to say!

Edwarr Road would have function much like Baker Street, but in the
opposite direction. No, it was not a brilliant idea. When LPTB took
over they extended the Bakerloo (now Jubilee) instead.

Adrian

On Apr 11, 8:08*am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
Colin McKenzie wrote:
Mr Thant wrote:
On 10 Apr, 19:25, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
Were Railtrack really able to make a permanent decision back then
that there would be no further rail use? *I guess 10 years ago
another two platforms at Marylebone weren't on the agenda either...

It would appear there are three double track tunnels:
http://prints.leics.gov.uk/low.php?xp=media&xm=670835

Hmm. From a state of ignorance:
- how hard would it be to quadruple to Neasden?
I know there's spare space between the platforms at Wembley Stadium,
and IMO the potential traffic would justify quadrupling at least to
West Ruislip, if not to High Wycombe.
- are the two extra Marylebone platforms mentioned by Paul feasible?

They are already there - what I was noting was that the decision to sell the
spare tunnel must have been taken well before the decision to provide more
capacity at Marylebone, ie the 2 recently opened. *Just wondering aloud if
the sale would still have gone ahead if the 'Evergreen 2' improvements had
been agreed...

Probably not. But, they were different times. Twice the closure of
Marylebone was discussed. Second time round the effort started to
look serious.

On Apr 11, 5:40*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Adrian wrote:
On Apr 10, 3:59*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, MIG wrote:
On Apr 10, 9:15*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Mr Thant wrote:
On 10 Apr, 19:25, "Paul Scott" wrote:

Were Railtrack really able to make a permanent decision back then that there
would be no further rail use?

I can't see any use for them now - you'd need more platforms at
Marylebone and a way of four tracking at least to Neasden.

Yes.

Completely random question, but where do the Chiltern and Metropolitan
alignments separate?

As far as I can see, they emerge from tunnel under Lodge Road, then
cross the canal on separate, slightly diverging bridges, and then go
either side of buildings south of the canal.

Okay. So there's a separate tunnel for the Met, next to the three-bore GC
tunnel? That's a lot of tunnels.

Indeed so, and don't forget the Bakerloo down below.

Indeed!

At one point the Met. considered building a mainline size tube to link
their "Main Line" to Edgware Road Station.

To join up with the Circle heading west, you mean? Or as a terminus?
Neither of those sound like brilliant ideas to me, i have to say!



Edgware Road would have functioned much like Baker Street, but in the
opposite direction. No, it was not a brilliant idea.

When LPTB took over it extended the Bakerloo (now Jubilee) instead.

Adrian

-

Paul Scott wrote:
They are already there - what I was noting was that the decision to sell the
spare tunnel must have been taken well before the decision to provide more
capacity at Marylebone, ie the 2 recently opened. Just wondering aloud if
the sale would still have gone ahead if the 'Evergreen 2' improvements had
been agreed...

Paul

I believe it is only part of the route which has multiple tunnels. I
would imagine they built more in the Lords area so as not to have to
disrupt Lords again. Although there are two tunnel entrances at the
Canfield Place end, the second tunnel mouth is only a mouth, I don't
think the tunnel was ever built. Certainly as the line crosses the WCML
there is no evidence of a second tunnel either side. To put track into
the extra Lords tunnels would require a very expensive additional tunnel
/ tunnels towards Finchley Road / Canfield Place. Past this area,
houses would need to be knocked down for extra track, as it is, one can
almost reach the houses if the window of the train was open!

--
Matthew P Jones
Amersham News & Views www.amersham.org.uk
Metroland www.metroland.org.uk

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Adrian wrote:

At one point the Met. considered building a mainline size tube to
link their "Main Line" to Edgware Road Station.

To join up with the Circle heading west, you mean? Or as a
terminus? Neither of those sound like brilliant ideas to me, i have
to say!

To join up with the Circle line heading East, actually. The
layout at Edgware Road was rebuilt with that link in mind and is
still that way today.

Was this before the link to Baker Street, or the link from the
platforms there to the Circle, went in, or am i missing something?

Before the Bakerloo extension to Stanmore.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article
,
(Adrian) wrote:

On Apr 11, 5:40*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Adrian wrote:
On Apr 10, 3:59*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

At one point the Met. considered building a mainline size tube to
link their "Main Line" to Edgware Road Station.

To join up with the Circle heading west, you mean? Or as a terminus?
Neither of those sound like brilliant ideas to me, i have to say!

Edgware Road would have functioned much like Baker Street, but in the
opposite direction. No, it was not a brilliant idea.

When LPTB took over it extended the Bakerloo (now Jubilee) instead.

Where does this "opposite direction" idea come from?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Apr 11, 11:59*am, Matthew Jones wrote:
Paul Scott wrote:
They are already there - what I was noting was that the decision to sell the
spare tunnel must have been taken well before the decision to provide more
capacity at Marylebone, ie the 2 recently opened. *Just wondering aloud if
the sale would still have gone ahead if the 'Evergreen 2' improvements had
been agreed...

Paul

I believe it is only part of the route which has multiple tunnels. *I
would imagine they built more in the Lords area so as not to have to
disrupt Lords again. *Although there are two tunnel entrances at the
Canfield Place end, the second tunnel mouth is only a mouth, I don't
think the tunnel was ever built. *Certainly as the line crosses the WCML
there is no evidence of a second tunnel either side. *To put track into
the extra Lords tunnels would require a very expensive additional tunnel
/ tunnels towards Finchley Road / Canfield Place. *Past this area,
houses would need to be knocked down for extra track, as it is, one can
almost reach the houses if the window of the train was open!

One has often wondered just how far those tunnels reach. I suspect
you analysis is close to the truth.

Something about the LNWR/WCML crossing gives the impression that two
tracks were intended to be added on the western side of the ones
actually build. I think it is the space between the tunnel mouths and
the bridge.

On Apr 11, 11:59*am, Matthew Jones wrote:
Paul Scott wrote:
They are already there - what I was noting was that the decision to sell the
spare tunnel must have been taken well before the decision to provide more
capacity at Marylebone, ie the 2 recently opened. *Just wondering aloud if
the sale would still have gone ahead if the 'Evergreen 2' improvements had
been agreed...

Paul

I believe it is only part of the route which has multiple tunnels. *I
would imagine they built more in the Lords area so as not to have to
disrupt Lords again. *Although there are two tunnel entrances at the
Canfield Place end, the second tunnel mouth is only a mouth, I don't
think the tunnel was ever built. *Certainly as the line crosses the WCML
there is no evidence of a second tunnel either side. *To put track into
the extra Lords tunnels would require a very expensive additional tunnel
/ tunnels towards Finchley Road / Canfield Place. *Past this area,
houses would need to be knocked down for extra track, as it is, one can
almost reach the houses if the window of the train was open!

One has often wondered just how far those tunnels reach. I suspect
your analysis is close to the truth.

Something about the LNWR/WCML crossing gives the impression that two
tracks were intended to be added on the western side of the ones
actually build. I think it is the space between the tunnel mouths
and
the bridge.