Northern Line extension to Battersea proposed

[davidaiow]

It doesn't but boy it's interesting. It's great seeing that map and those images. Thanks guys!

[streetquark]

Originally Posted by Angle42

Clearly you do not understand the issues if you say "Not that Waterloo should pose any problems". The only direction that you could easily extend the W&C at Waterloo is towards Elephant and Castle which would serve little putpose.

No its not. I was right, you hadn't read it properly.

Originally Posted by Christopher125

Nothings impossible but its just not viable - extending the W&C or building an intermediate station is perhaps one of the most suggested ideas for the tube around, but im afraid that same conclusion always has and always will be reached.

Chris

Well it seems that it is not impracticable as has been well argued. So you must be suggesting it is too poor in cost-benefit terms. Could you provide a source please?

Originally Posted by Rational Plan

The waterloo and city has been around for 100 years (or there abouts) but it has never been in any extension proposals.

Wrong.

If it was easy or cheap it would have been done already.

Straw man argument.

No one's saying it would be cheap or easy. you could equally argue against any change to the system on the same grounds.

Originally Posted by cle

Upgrading it would cost the same as tunneling a new section anyway.
<snip>

and you might as well start again

Much more costly.

I think we should move on. This isn't relevant any more to the thread and the same old W&C suggestions are always made - and always refuted by people with more technical knowledge.

I'm only aware of one person on any forum with any kind of technical background and that individual actually supported the possibility. Frankly most people are like me and you, rank amateurs.

[streetquark]

Originally Posted by mackenziesoley

I don't understand the reasoning behind extending an 4 car Tube unless you plan on rebuilding it to an 8 car, in which case you might as well build all new and have no disruption to the existing well used line (in the peaks) while you do so.

Yes, 8-car is the idea, as well as greatly increased frequency and peak usefulness in BOTH directions.

Yes you could build a totally new line if you could find a way through the obstacles but why would you when the cost will be higher?

I'm getting de ja vu...

Originally Posted by mackenziesoley

Sorry but the running tunnels aren't the most important things on an Underground railway. The stations are. They are expensive to provide, look at Crossrail at Tottenham Court Road where you are building two new 12 car length platforms (as with all new Crossrail stations) and linking into the existing four platforms and it costs £1bn. Trying to add a new booking hall, some lifts and the new platform and tunnel at Bank is costing £560m. Yet Crossrail states that the combined cost of all those nice huge new tunnels is £1.5bn.

So in reflection, running tunnels cheap, stations expensive.

Again, we are not comparing whatever upgrade to stations already served by a line that will have much greater capacity but still only tube capacity to the main central Crossrail interchange station on an all-new mahoosive capacity route. That would be stupid.

Running tunnels aren't cheap, whatever they are relative to new stations no one is proposing.

But when you rebuild the only two stations on the line you've pretty much changed enough enough. Even the DLR going to Charing Cross has stated it needs to re-bore the tunnels. Your changing the nature of the line by increasing the ability of the line to take far more people than was even intended when built. I doubt you will simply be allowed to just leave it as is.

The drain is not a 17-ft diameter light rail line. What possible change of nature could apply to extending a Yerkes tube from a short shuttle?

Your clutching straws if you can think you can simple plug in a new 8 car Tube line with greater capacity any any line currently serving Waterloo. It simply won't cope with the extra loadings.

The line or the station? I'd expect a line with double the number of carriages and times the frequency to cope BETTER than at present even if there are additional passengers heading PAST Bank to wherever the line goes to.

Your viewpoint simply doesn't stack up, start a fresh and it's easier. There will still be disruption but reusing a little tunnel when your talking about massive changes else where simply isn't sensible.

No the opposite. You are advocating much greater cost additional to the costs you have suggested for W&C extension but have refused to acknowledge for an all-new line. Assuming there is enough room to weave one through the central area...

Arbitrary measure? Your talking about major changes to the line, going from four car to eight car is a doubling of capacity overnight. That's no arbitrary measure but I think anyone can agree its a massive difference. That's without the fact your then talking about massive new extensions in both directions. The single link between Waterloo and Bank then becomes pointless as you might as well build new.

Yes its a massive difference to usability, but not to the infrastructure of 2 parallel Yerkes tunnels.

Again you are contradicting yourself by dismissing things like extensions because of cost then advocating the same by suggesting a new line. Doh!

You also seem to find that doable means affordable. It doesn't. Any rebuilding of Bank is going to be very very expensive as shown by the estimated cost of the Northern Line works.

Actually much of the cost of the Bank upgrade is for the new tunnels. You know, the things you dogmatically think are not costly. If anything, the costly Bank upgrade means Bank is less likley to cost in a future W&C-extension upgrade.

[Tubeman]

Why are there so many argumentative people in the transport section?

[CharlieP]

Originally Posted by Tubeman

Why are there so many argumentative people in the transport section?

I disagree that there are argumentative people in the transport section. Where is your evidence?

[trivran]

There's no argumentative people! How dare you suggest such a thing! I shall be writing to the Daily Mail about this.

[DeepThought]

Originally Posted by Tubeman

Why are there so many argumentative people in the transport section?

Because it's a perfect storm for Internet (and real-life) debate. Everyone needs transport. Everyone tends to be very familiar with just the parts of the network they use, which gives people a sense of ownership and insight into how those sections could be improved (I am certainly guilty of this. See my posts in the London's Transport Infrastructure thread about a Muswell Hill-E&C tubeline). Couple that with almost endless possibilities for how things could be improved, vague ideas about feasibility and how much any of it would cost, and well, you get this thread.

Can be informative and fun for a little bit! The diagrams of Waterloo station above are great, although they do reinforce my belief that whoever designed the layout requiring that blasted travelator link really needed to have his head examined

[london lad]

Local NIMBY’s not happy in Vauxhall ( then again when are they ever happy as they seem to oppose absolutely everything in the Vauxhall area).

http://www.vauxhallcivicsociety.org....fl-waste-time/

[kerouac1848]

Their alternative transport plans are extremely vague.

DATA has discussed with TfL alternative transport options that have not been considered at all, or only in a cursory way, including a mixed transport, staged approach that would develop aheadof the building development curve, and be flexible enough to cope with changes over time.

What does that mean? It may be mentioned elsewhere, but there is no specific example of an alternative transport mode. Flagging up CR2 is all well and good, but it's 20 years away.

[LDN_EUROPE]

http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/info/20...1/brightside/3

About the Northern Line Extension

Earlier this month the Government agreed a loan of up to £1bn that will allow London Underground to fund an extension of the Northern Line to Nine Elms on the South Bank.
The announcement, which came in the Chancellor's 2012 Autumn Statement, follows months of negotiations between Wandsworth Council, the Greater London Authority and HM Treasury over the financing package for the new Tube link.

The loan will be repaid through a tariff on private development projects within this 450 acre regeneration area (including the power station), and through future growth in business rates revenue within a new Nine Elms Enterprise Zone.

The proposal would create two new Tube stops - one on Wandsworth Road, the other at Battersea Power Station.

TfL is currently holding its third and final public consultation on the scheme before the application for a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) is finalised in spring 2013. The TWAO is needed before construction of this large piece of infrastructure can begin.
If planning approval is obtained then construction of the Northern line extension could begin in 2015. Trains could start running in 2020.
About Nine Elms on the South Bank

For more information visit http://www.nineelmslondon.com
ENDS

[sotonsi]

Just seen London Today discuss how Kennington Park is (literally) going to be shafted by construction of the extension.

Looks like a bee farm(?) possibly could bring some small changes to ventilation/temporary access shafts, more likely to change the design is dog walkers in the park.

[Dale's London]

The Northern Line Extension would be much better if instead of splitting at Kennington it should split at Oval, thus saving Kennington Park from those ventilation shafts and better interchange with the cricket ground and connections with the local bus services from Camberwell, Peckham, New Cross and Lewisham.

If the Northern line was extended further to Clapham Junction Station (one of Britain's busiest railway station in terms of railway traffic) it would relieve the overcrowding on peak time services into Waterloo and the station desperately needs a major redevelopment.

[mackenziesoley]

Originally Posted by Dale's London

The Northern Line Extension would be much better if instead of splitting at Kennington it should split at Oval, thus saving Kennington Park from those ventilation shafts and better interchange with the cricket ground and connections with the local bus services from Camberwell, Peckham, New Cross and Lewisham.

If the Northern line was extended further to Clapham Junction Station (one of Britain's busiest railway station in terms of railway traffic) it would relieve the overcrowding on peak time services into Waterloo and the station desperately needs a major redevelopment.

Simple problem, serve Clapham Junction and there's no point building platforms on any new bit as it will be too over crowded.

Oval is well enough served now. Kensington is the logical point as that's where they can easily build an extension from without affect the Morden branch.

[tg1980]

Originally Posted by mackenziesoley

Simple problem, serve Clapham Junction and there's no point building platforms on any new bit as it will be too over crowded.

Oval is well enough served now. Kensington is the logical point as that's where they can easily build an extension from without affect the Morden branch.

Would the extension involve much work to improve Kennington station itself. Its a very restrained site IIRC but I wonder if it would be possible to enlarge the ticket hall area and install escalators?

[mackenziesoley]

Originally Posted by tg1980

Would the extension involve much work to improve Kennington station itself. Its a very restrained site IIRC but I wonder if it would be possible to enlarge the ticket hall area and install escalators?

No work to Kennington as far as I'm aware as it starts on the reversal loop for Charing Cross not the station.

Kennington is a tiny station above ground but not sure if its got to be preserved as its the original first Tube station in the world.

[tg1980]

Originally Posted by mackenziesoley

Kennington is a tiny station above ground but not sure if its got to be preserved as its the original first Tube station in the world.

Interesting point, thanks. I guess on reflection there's not a great deal of development sites in the vicinity to increase passenger numbers at the station substantially, so maybe it wouldn't be worth a rebuild.

[mackenziesoley]

Originally Posted by tg1980

Interesting point, thanks. I guess on reflection there's not a great deal of development sites in the vicinity to increase passenger numbers at the station substantially, so maybe it wouldn't be worth a rebuild.

Camden Town, whose's numbers do justify a rebuild is still struggling to get approved.

[sotonsi]

Originally Posted by mackenziesoley

Kennington is a tiny station above ground but not sure if its got to be preserved as its the original first Tube station in the world.

Not quite (Tower Subway), and there are other City & South London stations that could be preserved.

[mackenziesoley]

Originally Posted by sotonsi

Not quite (Tower Subway), and there are other City & South London stations that could be preserved.

Tube station, Tower Subway is a walkway, it doesn't have stations but entrances.

[sotonsi]

Originally Posted by mackenziesoley

Tube station, Tower Subway is a walkway, it doesn't have stations but entrances.

It was a railway for the first few months - before it was (it isn't now) a walkway. 2'6 gauge track, cable-hauled cars (with a steam engine at each end pulling the cable around) that seated 12.

You could call it a tramway, rather than a railway, and thus 'stops', not 'stations', at either end. But it clearly was very much the prototype to the C&SLR (which was to be cable-hauled until the cable company went bust and they tried those crazy new electric-power trains instead and the rest is history!).