Northern Line Extension

Here here. It's madness not to make a connection now if it's at all feasible. If there's a rash of building in that area in response to the new stations "derelict" land will be snapped up like no-body's business and the possibility of making that connection in, say, 10 years will be absolutely zero. At the very least they should buy up a land bank along that corridor.

If the new branch DOES go ahead, then the Northern Line will have two branches to the north, two routes through the centre and two branches to the south. In that case, does it make sense to split it into two separate lines?

Please bear in mind that I don't often use the Northern Line so have no detailed knowledge of the working of the line, whether it would be feasible to work the two lines separately (with interchanges at Kennington and Canning Town?) and whether the simplicity of having two frequent but separate lines is outweighed by the inconvenience of asking some passengers to change.

What about Earl's Court, Tower Hill and Baker Street (both sub-surface and Bakerloo/Jubilee)?

Chelsea bid for Battersea Power Station to move there for an expanded ground. They were outbid however by a Malaysian consortium planning to continue the previous developers plans including having partial funding for the extension.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18352786

But surely most timetablers say that the simplest kind of line to operate is one where there are no branches and it is simply end to end. And I remember all the arguments about splitting inconveniencing loads of people being aired when the Bakerloo ceased to split at Baker Street. Now, a whole generation has grown up knowing no different. And, although the present arrangements at Camden Town are very un-user friendly for the split, they're no great shakes at the moment anyway. When you arrive at Camden Town from the north and try to work out which platform the next - say - Charing Cross train leaves from, you might end up hoofing up the stairs, across the concourse and down the other side anyway. I know the Northern isn't quite like the former Bakerloo, because there are two ways in and two ways out, but my guess is that if the lines were split, not everybody would need to go to Camden Town and change there: another combination of lines and changing points may end up being more convenient. But Julia is absolutely right: some action needs to be taken at Camden Town because of overcrowding and while they're doing that, it might make more sense to improve interchange and split the lines. They seem to have found the money to do Bank station and that involves a new running tunnel and platform. At least at Camden Town, the four platforms are there. They just need a better way of interchanging between the pairs.

As a Barnettian (Barnetarian?) I am biassed, and freely admit as much.
However, I think the case for splitting depends largely on the agreeing that the "no junctions" railway is the best for reliability.

I think the problem there depends on what "reliability" is. For example, if the city branch is down, I can still get a train to central London and/or (should I ever wish to) Kennington and probably Morden. If the line was split, that ability to run *some* service is lost.

I would certainly agree that Camden would have real difficulty coping with the transfer of people, anyone who has been there on the occaisions when rush-hour transfer has been required will know just how busy it is.

To re-build it will be a massive undertaking - the fact that money can be found to do Bank doesn't mean that money can be found for Camden - Bank is probably the busiest station on the network.