Mizter T wrote:

There is a fundamental issue with this though that many people simply
fail to comprehend. IIRC this stretch of the NLL is currently three
tracks, but it will become four tracks. The ELLX trains will run on
the southern pair of tracks at this point, with the NLL passenger
trains and freight on the northern pair. The Canonbury Curve tunnel is
to the north of the NLL alignment - if ELLX trains were to run up to
Canonbury they'd have to cross the NLL passenger and freight tracks on
the level, i.e. a massively conflicting movement.

The only way to deal with it would be some sort of grade separated
junction to take the ELLX trains over the NLL tracks to the Canonbury
curve. That's *far* easier said than done - the NLL alignment here is
in a cutting surrounded by housing on both sides, and there's a bridge
carrying Highbury Grove to contend with as well. I suppose a grade
separated junction might have been possible in the stretch between
Wallace Road and Highbury Grove where the cutting is a bit wider (this
is where Canonbury station is sited). Nonetheless it'd be far from an
easy task.

Anyway, you speak about it being "utterly absurd this wasn't forced
through" - well the fact the whole ELLX project has actually happened
is amazing enough. Trying to add a very expensive extra such as a
grade separated junction here was likely seen as being beyond the
realms of the possible.

I would have liked like the NLL (passenger and freight) to have been
diverted between Canonbury and Gospel Oak to run via Finsbury Park, Parkland
Walk, Crouch Hill and Upper Holloway. Let the ELL completely take over
Canonbury - Camden Road - Gospel Oak. The NLL would be much more useful at
Finsbury Park than the ELL, since it would allow eastward and westward
connections from the Cambridge trains and Piccadilly Line. But maybe this
would put too many trains through Crouch Hill.

On 2 Apr, 10:42, Jamie Thompson wrote:
...firstly, yes, which is why demolition was required.

Not cutting exactly. The northernmost pair are in actual tunnel (or
"covered way" at least) west of Brick Lane.

...secondly, yes, but for a few hundred metres or so they are both
heading north until the eastern line turn east, easily enough for the
throat required for the new platforms.

Only if you demolish an enormous swathe of Shoreditch. And if you're
planning to 8 track the line west of Bethnal Green junction (which you
probably need to do to have enough trains to need more platforms),
there's an enormous amount of digging to do as well.

Hence my suggestion of re-using the Bishopsgate Goods Yard viaduct
route, which starts at roughly Bethnal Green, and would require far
less demolition. You could even have used the original GE19 bridge,
and maybe the Braithwaite viaduct, and Broad Street station itself.

U

On 2 Apr, 13:04, Mr Thant
wrote:
Only if you demolish an enormous swathe of Shoreditch. And if you're
planning to 8 track the line west of Bethnal Green junction (which you
probably need to do to have enough trains to need more platforms),
there's an enormous amount of digging to do as well.

Here's a quick dump of what I mean:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?ie=...16ea694c6d0ce2

....I'm not clear how that entails demolishing a great chunk of
Shoreditch? A couple of buildings on the high street, yes, but new
shops could be constructed afterwards to replace them on the top of
the tunnel. Bear in mind I'm not advocating this now....the point I
was making that had this been built in the basement of those
skyscrapers when they were being built on Broad Street's still-warm
corpse, we could have had both a station and the buildings.

Dispose of the GE13 bridge and ramp and you're clear for more tracks
to Tapp Street, only a (literal!) stone's throw from Bethnal Green
Junction.

Hence my suggestion of re-using the Bishopsgate Goods Yard viaduct
route, which starts at roughly Bethnal Green, and would require far
less demolition. You could even have used the original GE19 bridge,
and maybe the Braithwaite viaduct, and Broad Street station itself.

An equally valid suggestion that I concluded as well myself at first
when I first saw the aerial imagery. Downsides to it are that you
would have less additional room for more tracks into as you'd
essentially have a big division between the stations and their
throats, and and you'd also gain some width from not having the
Bishopsgate structure there at all (clearances, etc). You'd also have
a two-level station, which would be less convenient than having
everything on the level...and finally, you'd not have the massive cash
injection BR got from selling the site. My idea may have provided less
than what they actually got, but it would still be more than
preserving Broad Street.

In article
,
(MIG) wrote:

My 1975 London's Railways map shows services from Broad Street to
Finsbury Park via Dalston Junction.

They went when the Northern City was connected to the GN, allowing the
services to Moorgate that FCC still run instead of the Broad St services.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Apr 2, 6:52*pm, wrote:
In article
,

(MIG) wrote:
My 1975 London's Railways map shows services from Broad Street to
Finsbury Park via Dalston Junction.

They went when the Northern City was connected to the GN, allowing the
services to Moorgate that FCC still run instead of the Broad St services.

Indeed, but the tracks were not ripped up as far as I know.

In article
,
(MIG) wrote:

On Apr 2, 6:52*pm, wrote:
In article
,

(MIG) wrote:
My 1975 London's Railways map shows services from Broad Street to
Finsbury Park via Dalston Junction.

They went when the Northern City was connected to the GN, allowing the
services to Moorgate that FCC still run instead of the Broad St
services.

Indeed, but the tracks were not ripped up as far as I know.

Of course not but the need for the Broad St (or the replacement Liverpool
St) services was much reduced.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Apr 2, 11:37*pm, wrote:
In article
,

(MIG) wrote:
On Apr 2, 6:52*pm, wrote:
In article
,

(MIG) wrote:
My 1975 London's Railways map shows services from Broad Street to
Finsbury Park via Dalston Junction.

They went when the Northern City was connected to the GN, allowing the
services to Moorgate that FCC still run instead of the Broad St
services.

Indeed, but the tracks were not ripped up as far as I know.

Of course not but the need for the Broad St (or the replacement Liverpool
St) services was much reduced.

I have no opinion on that; just confirming that the physical
possibility is neither brand new nor ancient, which seemed to be the
question at this point.

In article
,
(MIG) wrote:

On Apr 2, 11:37*pm, wrote:
In article
,

(MIG) wrote:
On Apr 2, 6:52*pm, wrote:
In article
,

(MIG) wrote:
My 1975 London's Railways map shows services from Broad Street
to Finsbury Park via Dalston Junction.

They went when the Northern City was connected to the GN, allowing
the services to Moorgate that FCC still run instead of the Broad
St services.

Indeed, but the tracks were not ripped up as far as I know.

Of course not but the need for the Broad St (or the replacement
Liverpool St) services was much reduced.

I have no opinion on that; just confirming that the physical
possibility is neither brand new nor ancient, which seemed to be the
question at this point.

I think the concern was that modern traffic levels, especially services
that didn't exist at the time of the GN electrification, meant that the
link no longer has enough capacity.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Mizter T" wrote...
There is a fundamental issue with this though that many people
simply fail to comprehend. IIRC this stretch of the NLL is
currently three tracks, but it will become four tracks. The
ELLX trains will run on the southern pair of tracks at this point,
with the NLL passenger trains and freight on the northern pair.
The Canonbury Curve tunnel is to the north of the NLL
alignment - if ELLX trains were to run up to Canonbury they'd
have to cross the NLL passenger and freight tracks on the
level, i.e. a massively conflicting movement. The only way to
deal with it would be some sort of grade separated junction to
take the ELLX trains over the NLL tracks to the Canonbury
curve. That's *far* easier said than done - the NLL alignment
here is in a cutting surrounded by housing on both sides, and
there's a bridge carrying Highbury Grove to contend with as
well. I suppose a grade separated junction might have been
possible in the stretch between Wallace Road and Highbury
Grove where the cutting is a bit wider (this is where Canonbury
station is sited). Nonetheless it'd be far from an easy task.

An alternative plan that was floated but never researched in detail (AFAIK)
was to extend the DLR to Finsbury Park, using the Canonbury Curve - grade
separation for that would have been much cheaper. Such a scheme would be
impossible now, as the 'overground' will need all the capacity it can get
around there, leaving no room for a DLR track in the area.


--

Andrew

"She plays the tuba.
It is the only instrument capable
of imitating a distress call."

An alternative plan that was floated but never researched in detail (AFAIK)
was to extend the DLR to Finsbury Park, using the Canonbury Curve - grade
separation for that would have been much cheaper. Such a scheme would be
impossible now, as the 'overground' will need all the capacity it can get
around there, leaving no room for a DLR track in the area.

Presumably, that would have extended along the NLL from Stratford?

Was there ever any consideration (whether seriously considered or not)
to carrying the Jubilee Line along the NLL route when it was being
planned?