Tom Anderson wrote:

Anyway, the upshot of all that is that, with the possible exception of
the far eastern end of the core tunnel, there isn't a geological
constraint on depth. It's clearly possible to tunnel through the Lambeth
Group

First read through this, I misread a "g" as a "th" and was put in mind
of a bunch of bishops argueing over whether women and gay people are
allowed to be bishops.

Robin

Jamie Thompson wrote:

On
a vaguely related note, when the Northern line gets upgraded they're
going to find themselves back in the 1930s again...namely they'll need
room for a lot more trains with no obvious contenders for stabling on
their existing route. They may well come to regret selling of the
Aldenham Bus facility (redeveloped from the Bomber Factory, itself
developed from the unused, abet completed, Bushey Heath Depot) in the
1990s yet. They may have to revert to the unfavoured alternatives such
as Mill Hill (aka. Copthall Sports Grounds) or Edgwarebury Park (aka.
Brockley Hill Station's site), so they'd both be quite good green
spaces fights), or expanding Highgate Depot by cutting down lots of
the trees in Highgate Wood (again, that'll be a nice political bit of
environmental fighting).

The alignment from Edgware to Edgwarebury Park has been built upon.

There seems to be room for enlargement just south of Edgware.

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

Anyway, the upshot of all that is that, with the possible exception
of the far eastern end of the core tunnel, there isn't a geological
constraint on depth. It's clearly possible to tunnel through the
Lambeth Group, as that happens in the east, so i see no reason why
that wouldn't be possible in the west. I assume the real constraint
is therefore the presence of specific awkward things underground,
which are not shown on those maps.

I guess the costs of tunnelling in clay and Lambeth Group could be rather
different. Wouldn't you need compressed air and/or chemical consolidation
in the latter case?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article
,
() wrote:

On Jul 24, 1:21 pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:
connection no less. The main utility of the extension would not be
through commuting, but local domestic journeys (e.g. I have family

Maybe in 1940 , not now. It would be prime commuter belt country. Or
not-so-much country rather. As soon as the piccadilly line was
extended to Cockfosters in the 30s the houses followed it. I can't
see any reason why Bushey would have been different.

I can - planning law.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 24 Jul, 18:04, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article
,

() wrote:
On Jul 24, 1:21 pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:
connection no less. The main utility of the extension would not be
through commuting, but local domestic journeys (e.g. I have family

Maybe in 1940 , not now. It would be prime commuter belt country. Or
not-so-much country rather. As soon as the piccadilly line was
extended to Cockfosters in the 30s the houses followed it. I can't
see any reason why Bushey would have been different.

I can - planning law.

Was there any then? I though green belt was a 50s thing.

B2003

In article
,
() wrote:

On 24 Jul, 18:04, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article
,

() wrote:
On Jul 24, 1:21 pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:
connection no less. The main utility of the extension would not
be
through commuting, but local domestic journeys (e.g. I have
family

Maybe in 1940 , not now. It would be prime commuter belt country.
Or
not-so-much country rather. As soon as the piccadilly line was
extended to Cockfosters in the 30s the houses followed it. I can't
see any reason why Bushey would have been different.

I can - planning law.

Was there any then? I though green belt was a 50s thing.

My point exactly. Planning law was very limited pre-war (though some did
exist) and is now comprehensive.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 24 Jul, 20:44, wrote:
Maybe in 1940 , not now. It would be prime commuter belt country. Or
not-so-much country rather. As soon as the piccadilly line was
extended to Cockfosters in the 30s the houses followed it. I can't
see any reason why Bushey would have been different.

I can - planning law.

Was there any then? I though green belt was a 50s thing.

No, the Greater London Plan of 1944.

http://www.20thcenturylondon.org.uk/...tionRecord.286

That's precisely what sank the New Works Plan - as soon as it became
clear that LRT couldn't repeat the Metropolitan Railway trick of
developing suburbs as you built railways, there was no point in
building anything that hadn't been done before the war (Central Line
extensions) or as a wartime effort (Mill Hill barracks branch).

It's the only reason the Central Line ever went as far as Ongar - the
original plan was to develop that part of Essex as commuterville,
rather than remote rural nowhere.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Jul 25, 12:24 am, John B wrote:
That's precisely what sank the New Works Plan - as soon as it became
clear that LRT couldn't repeat the Metropolitan Railway trick of

I suppose ironically today , even if the suburbs couldn't have been
extended , a station at bushey heath would be a superb park and ride
location for commuters driving down the M1/A41. There would have been
plenty of room for a huge carpark. Parl & ride does seem to be
something the tube lacks - the terminus stations have carparks but
they're mostly way too small to be of any use other than to locals.

B2003

On Jul 23, 11:45*am, "tim....." wrote:
"Mr Thant" wrote in message

...

An hour or two ago the Crossrail Bill became the Crossrail Act, which
means as soon as the funding agreement is signed (due in September)
the thing might actually see the light of day.

Hm,

On this basis we would have had a Channel tunnel built by 1978 [1]

It means nothing.

tim

[1], OK I guessed I can't remember the actual date

Funding and construction cannot proceed with this Act.

On Jul 23, 1:28*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On 23 Jul, 17:19, 1506 wrote:





On Jul 23, 5:02*am, Jamie *Thompson wrote:

On 23 Jul, 12:28, wrote:

On Jul 22, 8:23 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

An hour or two ago the Crossrail Bill became the Crossrail Act, which
means as soon as the funding agreement is signed (due in September)

Given the governments record level of borrowing and deficit its
building I wouldn't get too excited just yet. Just because its
approved doesn't mean it'll happen.

B2003

Quite. The history of the railways (and indeed, London Transport
itself) is littered with Acts that never got built. *Sigh* The Watford
& Edgware is my personal poster child for that scenario.

This is not the same thing. *The Watford and Edgware debacle is a
result of WWII followed by the implementation of London's greenbelt.

The W&ER was authorised in 1903. WW2 started, as I'm sure you are
aware, in 1939, with the green belt following around 1946-1950. 36
years of procrastination and insufficient attempts to raise funding
puts even Crossrail to shame, WW2 only halted the first stage to
Bushey Heath that London Transport was interested in building. They
had a notion of later going on to Bushey village if funding came about
after the war (see the redesign of Bushey Heath Station in 1943-44),
but AFAIK they never had the will (or means) to go as far as the full
route to Watford.

Crossrail is needed and it was needed yesterday.

I'd wager yesterday would be to late, TBH.

A closer parallel might be Chelsey to Hackney, now there IS a tale of
procrastination!

You may have me there. I believe that the various proto-plans for the
Chelsea-Hackney line were proposed as sibling schemes of those that
became the Victoria and Jubilee Lines, which would put it somewhere
around the 1930s, I think. What will they come up with once they've
sorted that out?

IMHO Chelsea-Hackney may have been a better line for construction
following the Victoria than the Jubilee. This is not to say that the
Jubilee is not a very useful route. But, as originally constructed,
it lacked that strategic 'vision' of the Vic. By that I mean the Vic.
knitted together the existing network, simplifying journeys, adding
opportunities.

Chelsea-Hackney, if built correctly has the potential to have a
similar impact. I am not optimistic enought to extect to live to see
this route.