|
|
| Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) (365810) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Jan 8 11:35:46 2007, in response to Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters), posted by Max Roberts on Mon Jan 8 11:00:16 2007. Remaining Met services:I would keep a service running into Baker Street and terminating in order to cater for well-established (and heavy) traffic flows, for example a viaable combination might be (1) Uxbridge-Baker Street (2) Watford-Harrow & Wealdstone-Preston Road-Morden (3) Watford-Harrow-on-the-Hill-Preston Road-Morden But is the traffic flow to Baker St itself? I suspect largely not. Most of the passengers would be better served by that neat cross-platform interchange at Euston. Busy Northern Line in North London: Its not impossibly busy, but capacity would also be provided by Moorgate-Finsbury Park-Highgate-Alexandar Palace/Edgware services. By getting rid of Bank services, it should be possible to run the branches more reliably, which in itself adds capacity. I'm really not convinced by those arguments. The Northern Line is IME a lot better now the silly junction at Kennington has been all but eliminated (effectively Camden Town can be made better advantage of). And the Finsbury branch comes in too far north for the really busy sections. And in the south: Its the only realistic route BUT its still not a very good one, and would probably attract less traffic than the Croydon branch, with all the problems for reliability that this results in. Problem is that even with a blank cheque it is hard to identify a useful route south of Streatham. Agreed. Its interesting to speculate on whether the railway lines took the best routes in terms of eventual housing density and traffic potential. If I was starting railways in this area from scratch, I would have one follow the 159 route to Thornton Heath and then on to Croydon, and the other follow the 68 route through Upper Norwood. So maybe having the fork at Streatham Hill and sending alternate trains via Crystal Palace and via Norbury would be a better idea. Forget about Chelney, its only slightly less stupid than Crossrail. In my fantasy, it runs from Morden South to Fulham Broadway, and in the North East to Hainault and Collier Row-Harold Hill (or should that be the other way round). Well, we only really need one of Chelney and Crossrail. And the tube gauge alignment of Chelney to the South West is just about right, whilst Shenfield is far more important than tinkering with the low-ridership outer reaches of the Central Line. I'm still thinking Shenfield and Grays to Epsom/Dorking and Sutton (with the occasional Chessington to avoid dealing with that imperfection). You are right about South of Croydon, plenty of dense housing. I think that you could justify a tube service to Purley, and yes, with turning facilities at Coulsdon North if necessary. :-) Next rebuild Clapham Junction so we can have WCML trains to Brighton back! |
|
|
|