|
|
| Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) (365875) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 13:43:55 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 12:20:40 2007. 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.Oh yes. And it misses major traffic generators like Mayday Hospital. 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. And then is there any sensible way of serving the St Helier estate? 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. I'm surprised they went for that over quadrupling the West London Line. Shepherd's Bush would be as good a "West End" station as Euston or Victoria. |
|
|
|