Post by chrisvandenkieboom on Dec 2, 2011 13:00:31 GMT
It will, but only if it's connected up properly - to CLJ. But if they are so cheap to not also have CLJ; then screw them. CLJ will also be important if Chelney happens (via CLJ). It's only 1.6 miles and shouldn't be as expensive as the JLE if they don't waste most of their budget on architecture.
Please notify me if I sound really stupid in a post/part of a post. (I am not that good at that)
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.
Yep safeguard to CJ and near Vauxhall is all that's needed.
There are other developments/developers along the route in Battersea/Nine Elms/Vauxhall but the cynic in me says the government knew this company were going to call in the administrators so they can turn around and say they'll have to abandon the funding for the extension - after looking like they were going to spend public money on it.
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.
I think it is fair to say that opinion is very divided on that point. As a firm non-splitter, I make the following points 1) the not having to change is the reason why the northern line is so handy. A very large portion of London is available without changing. 2) It gives a degree of recovery space for the rest of the line if either of the central bits fail for any reason 3) having been through Camden town in the rush-hour when trains are not going both ways is a nightmare, as approx 50% of each train needs to squeeze onto the other train. Proponents of splitting say this will be improved as there will be more trains, but I think the sheer weight of numbers getting on and off trains will keep dwell times high enough to prevent there being anything like as many extra trains as the system might otherwsie permit. Also, more trains will (over time) fill up, so you'll be in the position of even more people trying to squeeze on and off fully loaded trains.
I don't think there is any other junction on the network where there is such an equal number of people getting on and off.
If anything, the additional branch should make splitting less necessary, as there will be more places to put trains on the southern end, which (AIUI) is one of the problems with the 2-2-1 arrangement of the line
Hmmm, interesting. I don't know about the exact flows, but I've been through Baker Street and Earl's Court and I've never seen the same level of direct swap-over even in peak hours. Earl's Court I would presume that the bottom side of the circle is busier and thus in general more people will be staying on direct trains there, or trying to get on those trains from Edgware Road trains.
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.
I seem to remember past splitting proposals falling apart because of the numbers changing at Camden Town being too great for the narrow passageways linking the respective platforms (obviously not a problem at places like Earls Court) - and the lack of a proposed connection to CJ being because the volume of commuters would overwhelm the southern end of the line in the morning peaks?
The two are probably linked - give Camden Town a proper rebuild to cope with passenger volumes, split the lines, that allows more trains per hour on each branch, then extension to Clapham Junction might cope. But it's all more money... lots more money...
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.
If the Northern Line was split Edgware-Kennington via Charing Cross and High Barnet-Morden via Bank the Charing X branch would have depots at Edgware and Golders, you’d need sidings on the Battersea-Nine Elms extension otherwise you’re waiting for trains to make the half hour journey from Golders to Kennignton before the NB service started up in the morning. The last SB train would also have to return NB and stable at Golders by 01:30 in order to fit in traffic hours.
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.