|
|
| Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) (365843) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 Max Roberts on Mon Jan 8 12:20:40 2007, in response to 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. Baker Street is quite a busy part of London, with lots of offices and people working there (my father for instance) and certainly the station barriers are kept busy. Also, West London destinations are served better from Baker Street than would be possible from the proposed Northern Line.My figures put the amount of traffic going into the Northern Line from Golders Green/Archway to Camden Town inclusive at roughly the same quantity as Leytonstone to Bethnal Green inclusive on the Central Line. The Central Line also has the problem with having to cope with Liverpool Street commuters trying to squeeze on. Euston does not present the same problem so, yes, in theory it can cope. Don't forget that my fantasy map also includes the Kingsway Line, which could interchange directly at Camden Town. The current Northern Line solution is OK, although Camden Town is an awful interchange, and a loop is not necessarily the best method of turning trains. Note that they are not risking turning all trains this during the rush hour yet. Serving both Crystal Palace and Norbury branches would be possible, but with the risk of an imbalance in loading. The Crystal Palace route is far less built up. If both branches were served, then a cross platform interchange at North Croydon, and West and East Croydon as termini would be a useful addition. In fact, why not extend to Coulsdon North/Sutton. Even so, take a look at a map when you get a chance, and note how the railways generally avoid the population centres, which instead seem to be along the two bus routes. Depends on what you mean exactly. We only need one out-of-control 30 billion railway scheme, but could a case be made for two or three rather more sensible 10 billion schemes? Harold Hill and Collier Row are two large isolated housing areas, miles away from rail facilities, which between them would provide many passengers. I have a fascinating BR publication from the early 1980s in which they made a financial case for building a cross-London tunnel from Euston to Victoria, and suggested that this could PAY FOR ITSELF in terms of increased revenue and savings. How on earth could they do this? By providing no intermediate stations. They rightly surmised that in general tunnelling is cheap, and building stations is expensive, but that they could build Underground stations relatively cheaply under their own termini. from an operators point of view, the advantage of a crossrail is saving terminal time, and this (along with extra fares from long distance passengers who were previously discouraged by the cross London tube journey) would pay for a basic tunnel. Its a shame that this proposal came at a time of government rail phobia. |
|
|
|