Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Crossrail 2 safeguarding consultation
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by StephenBln on
-
Which nicely brings me back to my original point. Why send trains/passengers East, when you actually want to take them West. No other underground lines, as far as I'm aware, do this sort of thing. Only Ring/Circle lines should do this.
The idea of a combined Seven Sisters Station is not a new idea, first mooted, as far as I'm aware, by G.H. Lake in his book 'The Railways of Tottenham' in 1940.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Arkady on
-
@ Gordon - not specifically trains on the East Coast franchise, but all services using the ECML and its branches, including local services. In particular, the heavily overloaded Cambridge trains.
@StephenBin - Crossrail 2 is primarily a SW-NE service. The Ally Pally branch serves a very specific relief purpose, as outlined.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Gordon T on
-
Hopefully from 2018 the new Great Northern services through St Pancras to Peterborough/Cambridge will alleviate the current overloading from Kings Cross, before CR2 (possibly) gets going. In the meantime Govia are lengthening trains, etc, to provide more seats in a fortnight's time - link here.
-
-
-
@Arkady Yes, I'm well aware it's meant to be a NE > SW route and that's the reason why I don't much approve of this Ally Pally/New Southgate Branch.
The thought of having to travel 'round the houses' every day from New Southgate via Tottenham & Dalston to King's Cross isn't very appealing to me. And not to many others I suspect.
The introduction of the full Thameslink services over the Great Northern will obviate the need for this branch - I hope! It would be much more sensible to divert the resources to provide even better services along the Lea Valley lines.
-
-
-
But Thameslink won't relieve the Victoria or Piccadilly Lines as it doesn't go to the West End, so it won't serve the same purpose. Nor will its Great Northern service have the frequency of the Ally Pally Crossrail 2 branch. The division of Crossrail 2 into northern branches (as in the south or with Crossrail 1) reflects the needs of the area - the Lea Valley Lines alone don't need an additional 24tph service!
A lot of work has gone into running the numbers. Lots of tube and rail lines look a bit loopy on the map for similar reasons. Regardless of the 'detour' via Seven Sisters it will still only be seven stops direct from AP to Victoria. And lets not forget how handy the direct journey from AP and Turnpike Lane to places like Dalston and Angel will be.
-
-
-
Anyway @Joe, we don't seem to be going anyway on this 'pie in the sky' proposal. Let's come back to it once the line gets approval and is/or if ever building begins. If the proposals for Crossrail 1 are anything to go by, there will lots of slippage on the routings of the branches.
I personally doubt, that the finances for such a scheme will be available for a very long time. I also doubt very much if I will ever see it. All these schemes and proposals for new buses are all just part of the drip..drip leading up to forthcoming elections. Kind of 'Let's pretend to the voters that we are actually doing something'. Unfortunately, some seem very ready to fall for it. Pointing no fingers, of course.
it's called 'Wunschdenken' -
-
-
Quite so - and I think frequency on the Hertford Loop is due to increase too, though they may have to wait until they have more stock.
-
-
@Joe
This map illustrates my point. Dated 1995, it shows services planned for 2010! (2014: Where are they?). You'll notice it takes account of the routing of CrossRail 2 in the form of the Epping > Wimbledon line (Dalston-Chelsea CR2) - In my opinion, a much better routing than the currently proposed dog's dinner from New Southgate & Hertford East via Tottenham Hale. This line was also planned to be built to larger 'National Rail' dimensions and not the current Tube Line size.
You'll also notice how CrossRail 1 has changed from what was planned back then in 1995 and what is actually being built in 2014 (removal of the Marylebone line & combining of Liverpool Street & Moorgate stations). Also the East London Line extension south to Dulwich has been replaced by Ken Livingstone's 'London Overground' system.
I personally doubt that CR2 as currently proposed will ever come to fruition. I also doubt that Seven SIsters station will see more development, but stranger things have been known to pass. I guess the Lea Valley Line and the service from Hertford East via Tottenham Hale could be incorporated into that line. But I am really sceptical about a New Southgate (Ally Pally) branch.
'Extra Seats' and 'Shorter Travelling Times' are just promoter's & politician's spin.
-
-
To be fair to Stephen, Chelsea-Hackney was safeguarded, so had reached a similar stage to Crossrail 2 when it was put on ice due to lack of funding. That said, much more work has been done on the business case for C2, and there seems to be much more political will behind it.
-
-
The Chelsea-Hackney line was to be tube gauge, not national rail gauge, indeed it would have taken over sections of existing tube lines. As such it wouldn't have linked existing suburban rail routes either, so it would not have relieved existing termini in the same way, and would have had a fraction of the capacity.
Again, it feels a bit like you are ignoring the numbers and instead relying on what looks good on the tube map. What the good folks of LondonReconnections call a 'crayonista'. If you can actually demonstrate that they have their numbers or arguments wrong then I'd be genuinely interested.
-
-
@Arkady No, that is not correct. The original proposal for Chelsea-Hackney Line was indeed for it to run via tube tunnels to Hainault via Newbury Park - as you mentioned, that certainly would have looked better on the tube map. But the decision was made over twenty-five years ago to build the line for use by Surface Stock gauge trains.. and the proposal was then altered and the line was then switched to run to Epping over what was LNER tracks. In the South West, the line also would have run over Surface Stock tracks.
Haha No, no crayonista - but a realist. As for 'numbers', what about these? That red hole in North East London certainly needs some attention. I'm sorry, but N11 & N10 are not high on the list for transport improvements. E9, E5, E8 are much higher up on that list. I also believe that another link across the Lea is certainly necessary and this graphic clearly illustrates the lack of connection by rail from Hackney to Waltham Forest - Much more important than 'fiddling about' on the Enfield - Haringey borders.
There are graphics of second and third choices of transport - but for those you'll need 'London - The Information Capital' Cheshire/Uberti published 2014. That is, if you don't already have it. The red hole at Southwark is also covered by the Bakerloo line extension. https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bakerloo-extension/user_uploa...
-
-
Indeed, I was only referring to the safeguarded proposal - there have been many, many pipedream proposals over the years as you know.
That's a beautiful map, which I've not seen in that iteration - I think a version of it accompanied the 2011 RUS. Crossrail 2 DOES address that red gap though, doesn't it - by ploughing up the Lea valley via Hackney.
And in addition it addresses core overcrowding, and unless you do that there is no point adding additional suburban capacity.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
