|
|
| Re: 93 NEW PHOTOS of the London Underground and National Rail (Was: Cockfosters) (366386) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 Tue Jan 9 06:15:46 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 13:43:55 2007. Not convinced, it would be too disruptive of established traffic flows. Imagine telling all those Brighton Line commuters that they are going to have to find a way of getting from Olympia to their work places.One thing you may not realise is just how many people walk from rail termini to where they work without taking the Underground. I've temped in a lot of places in London and its always the same, most people in the office try to find somewhere to live that takes them to a terminal within walking distance of the office. Hence, when I worked in Covent Garden, most people lived in SE London/Kent (Charing cross), when I worked at Moorgate, most people lived east (Liverpool Street, I don't think GNE was taken seriously as a commuter route). UCL people tend to live either on the Northern Line, or in Hertfordshire (Euston). People who work for TfL tend to go for S London, SE London, Surrey or Sussex (Victoria) etc. etc. So, diverting major services westwards would cause uproar. The BR tunnel solution (1) catered for existing users, (2) saved money on terminal time, and (3) created the possibility of new users. the WLL solution would have satisfied (2) and (3) but had adverse consequences on (1), not only that, but for us people from the Eastern Counties, picking up a long distance train would have been much harder, and how easy would 4-tracking the WLL be in any case? |
|
|
|