Northern Line Extension Consultation

[Deerfold]

(cannot believe I thought Mauve is like a creamy brown )

Whoops! I actually meant to say Peach or Beige. Or something equally difficult to see on white

The Invisible line!

 

[Class172]

The Invisible line!

Not invisible if you quote it!

Attatched is a map I have found on the internet that shows a segregated northern line (albeit without the Battersea Extension), with the mid-green colour on it.

 

[D365]

Think I've seen that before, or a similar map - without the Battersea extension. The tube map extract on Wikipedia shows the via Charing Cross line, Battersea included, as golden-brown.

 

[moley242]

Perhaps TFL could do like T&W Metro does and have Black Destinations with the Respective colour as the Background Colour-obviously on the original Northern line you would need to have White on a Black Background.

Out of interest when did the Metropolitan Line to Barking get renamed the H&C line ??

 

[Eagle]

Out of interest when did the Metropolitan Line to Barking get renamed the H&C line ??

Hammersmith to Barking officially became a separate line in 1988, although it had operated as a separate service to the rest of the Metropolitan for many years beforehand (using C stock instead of A stock). Compare the Wimbledon to Edgware Road service of the District.

It was also the same time that the East London line, formerly coloured as a magenta side branch to the Met, became orange.

 

[Dstock7080]

Perhaps TFL could do like T&W Metro does and have Black Destinations with the Respective colour as the Background Colour-obviously on the original Northern line you would need to have White on a Black Background.

Out of interest when did the Metropolitan Line to Barking get renamed the H&C line ??

Unfortunately refurbished Metrocars have lost this useful feature.

April 1990, when the East London went orange and July 1990, when the H&C was recoloured.

 

[Eagle]

Think I've seen that before, or a similar map - without the Battersea extension. The tube map extract on Wikipedia shows the via Charing Cross line, Battersea included, as golden-brown.

The one used on TfL's publicity, here, still shows both lines as black, although not connecting. I also notice that Battersea is shown as an interchange, but not mentioned what with (one or other of Battersea Park and Queenstown Road, both within walking distance?). Also neither is shown as having step-free access even though it's almost certain that both will :P

 

[D365]

The one used on TfL's publicity, here, still shows both lines as black, although not connecting. I also notice that Battersea is shown as an interchange, but not mentioned what with (one or other of Battersea Park and Queenstown Road, both within walking distance?). Also neither is shown as having step-free access even though it's almost certain that both will :P

Really gets your curiosity going, doesn't it I don't suppose they'd reuse orange from ELL as that is the 'London Overground Colour'. Although they could? I like the gold-brown the best

 

[Ivo]

Two questions, if I may.

One, why was the Nine Elms option chosen ahead of an interchange with the Victoria line at Vauxhall?

Two, was it pure coincidence that both the East London Line and Silverlink were coloured orange before LOROL existed?

 

[OxtedL]

Two, was it pure coincidence that both the East London Line and Silverlink were coloured orange before LOROL existed?

"Silverlink" was marked as National Rail and outline black right up until the Overground was invented, was it not?

http://www.projectmapping.co.uk/Reviews/Resources/London_underground_map 2004.jpg

 

[Eagle]

One, why was the Nine Elms option chosen ahead of an interchange with the Victoria line at Vauxhall?

Couple of factors I guess. One is the decision between serving a new area and linking to an already-served area. In this case I guess that serving a new area won out (Nine Elms's main draw is New Covent Garden, which will be very popular).

The second, and more obvious, is that it's far quicker and cheaper to build a new station from scratch than add an interchange to an existing one, being as you don't have to modify, rebuild or disrupt anything.

"Silverlink" was marked as National Rail and outline black right up until the Overground was invented, was it not?

But it was always orange on the ATOC London Connections and London and the South East maps. (Odd considering what colour their livery was.)

 

[ert47]

[But it was always orange on the ATOC London Connections and London and the South East maps. (Odd considering what colour their livery was.)

I think Green and Dark Blue were already taken. Not sure who by though, but off the top of my head, probably Thameslink, the services out of Paddington or SouthCentral.

 

[Eagle]

I think Green and Dark Blue were already taken. Not sure who by though, but off the top of my head, probably Thameslink, the services out of Paddington or SouthCentral.

On my 2003 map, the colours are like this:
c2c: magenta
FGE: light blue
Anglia: grey
WAGN: brown
Thameslink: navy blue
Silverlink: orange
Chiltern: lavender
Thames: dark green
Heathrow Express: cyan
SWT: red
South Central: light green
Gatwick Express: black
Connex SE: yellow

FGW, Virgin, MM and GNER aren't shown.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I have found the missing colours. (That map's got to be from 2004, as it's after One started operating but before Thames stopped running north of Banbury.)

 

[Class377/5]

Isn't the plan to gradually segregate the two branches of the Northern Line by the end of the decade? Might we see a new underground line (name)?

I know but then we wouldn't have the issues with the depots and also in the Camden Town redevelopment isn't remodelling the junction included?

Plan is to separate the two halfs to enable more trains as part of the Northern Line upgrade part 2. Currently dependant on wholesale rebuilt of Camden Town. Although Northern Libe fleet was ordered with this in mind, additional trains are now being sought in connection to NLE and extra trains for the Jubilee Line to allow for 32tph. As they are similar units with different traction, order is expected to be placed for both as it saves money on the three projects involved.

It won't be that way round; that would involve everything crossing tracks at Camden Town junction.

The tube map is deceptive; the City branch actually crosses under the ChX branch at right angles at Euston, passes to the west of Mornington Crescent, and then swings round to approach the ChX branch from the west at Camden Town.

Not true. See diagram on this page.

http://www.districtdavesforum.co.uk/index.cgi?board=northern&action=display&thread=6095

And as someone living on the Northern Line current 75% of the peak High Barnet trains are from the Bank branch.

 

[Eagle]

Not true. See diagram on this page.

http://www.districtdavesforum.co.uk/index.cgi?board=northern&action=display&thread=6095

That diagram is exactly what I described (notwithstanding the incorrect labels, as pointed out in the thread).

For an easier to understand picturelook at the Euston to Camden area on this map.

 

[D365]

Plan is to separate the two halfs to enable more trains as part of the Northern Line upgrade part 2. Currently dependant on wholesale rebuilt of Camden Town. Although Northern Line fleet was ordered with this in mind, additional trains are now being sought in connection to NLE and extra trains for the Jubilee Line to allow for 32tph. As they are similar units with different traction, order is expected to be placed for both as it saves money on the three projects involved.

By NLE you mean Battersea? Good thinking with running the orders together

 

[Manchester77]

But the 1995 stock and 1996 stock have different traction systems. Dispite the names the 1995 stock has a more modern traction equipment.
The 1995 stock uses alstom's three phase IGBT oinx
The 1996 stock uses traction equipment derived from the 465 networkers
If the Jubilee Line was to get 1995 stock then there would most probably be different maintinence schemes for the different equipment

 

[Class377/5]

That diagram is exactly what I described (notwithstanding the incorrect labels, as pointed out in the thread).

For an easier to understand picturelook at the Euston to Camden area on this map.

No you stated everything would have to cross track. No it doesn't. It's a fully grade separated junction. Quite often my ex Barnet train south runs next to a ex Edgeware train. There is no need o cross. It's Barnet - Bank not the way you stated.

 

[Mojo]

That diagram is exactly what I described (notwithstanding the incorrect labels, as pointed out in the thread).

For an easier to understand picturelook at the Euston to Camden area on this map.

I get the feeling he was more referring to your comment about ''that would involve everything crossing tracks at Camden Town junction.'' Moves at Camden Town are effectively conflict free due to the 'flying junctions,' so this would not be a problem.

 

[Class377/5]

By NLE you mean Battersea? Good thinking with running the orders together

NLE is official tittle for it.

But the 1995 stock and 1996 stock have different traction systems. Dispite the names the 1995 stock has a more modern traction equipment.
The 1995 stock uses alstom's three phase IGBT oinx
The 1996 stock uses traction equipment derived from the 465 networkers
If the Jubilee Line was to get 1995 stock then there would most probably be different maintinence schemes for the different equipment

But 75% of trains are the same. You don't have to order everything the same. You order the bulk as the same bits with different traction as needed. But by doing one big order for the three projects you save costs.

 

[Manchester77]

To be honest the only real similarities between 1995 stock and 1996 stock is the body shell. The driving cabs aren't the same (1996 stock has a bigger cab).
I'm not saying they couldn't run together it'd just require a few different techniques....

 

[yorkie]

...that would involve everything crossing tracks at Camden Town junction....

Perhaps some clarification is needed as to what you meant by that, as this seems to be the cause of some confusion

 

[hluraven]

Two questions, if I may.

One, why was the Nine Elms option chosen ahead of an interchange with the Victoria line at Vauxhall?

As well as the answers already given, the main one was (as with Clapham Junction) the additional passenger demand would have made Vauxhall station, and the Victoria Line between Vauxhall and Green Park, dangerously over capacity and was therefore not considered acceptable by TfL.

 

[mr_jrt]

As well as the answers already given, the main one was (as with Clapham Junction) the additional passenger demand would have made Vauxhall station, and the Victoria Line between Vauxhall and Green Park, dangerously over capacity and was therefore not considered acceptable by TfL.

...and I still maintain that that's not a good enough reason. They should have routed via Vauxhall, built the platform tunnels during construction, and then they would have passive provision ready for when Crossrail 2 opens. Deliberately avoiding making interchanges is verging on the ridiculous.

 

[D365]

That's not the only reason... I'm not familiar with the locality but Nine Elms is supposed to serve New Covent Garden Market and the proposed new Embassy of the United States, as well as residential developments. Crossrail 2 doesn't propose a Vauxhall station?

 

[Deerfold]

...and I still maintain that that's not a good enough reason. They should have routed via Vauxhall, built the platform tunnels during construction, and then they would have passive provision ready for when Crossrail 2 opens. Deliberately avoiding making interchanges is verging on the ridiculous.

And spending money on a station to connect with another line that has not yet got funding *instead of a station elsewhere that people will use* seems rather odd, too.

 

[mr_jrt]

Crossrail 2 doesn't propose a Vauxhall station?

No it doesn't, but it will relieve the Victoria Line dramatically, that being the other reason given for no interchange (the assumption being that everyone from Clapham Junction, Battersea and Nine Elms would just pile onto the Victoria Line at Vauxhall).

And spending money on a station to connect with another line that has not yet got funding *instead of a station elsewhere that people will use* seems rather odd, too.

Huh? The Victoria Line has been funded for ~50 years now ...the cost of passive-provision platform tunnels in the context of the overall budget are minuscule, ...and I'm not saying to not build a station at Nine Elms, just to build the running tunnels aligned towards Vauxhall.

...I suspect they clearly wanted to build option 2 all along, so made the other two worse than they needed to be, (i.e. no intermediate station or stations closer together than they needed to be). I've quickly modified a comparison I found to show how easy it is to produce a more-optimal "route 4" (purple), but this just keeps Battersea station the same. If you were prepared to alter that slightly you could keep the Nine Elms station on Wandsworth Road at the proposed location quite easily ("route 5" - green).

 

[Class377/5]

...and I still maintain that that's not a good enough reason. They should have routed via Vauxhall, built the platform tunnels during construction, and then they would have passive provision ready for when Crossrail 2 opens. Deliberately avoiding making interchanges is verging on the ridiculous.

What's the point in routing it via Vauxhall when you'd have to shut the interchange in leak due to overcrowding? Same reason why Crossrail doesn't link to Oxford Circus is simple fact that the cheap Victoria Line platforms are too small to handle the traffic. Additional interchange will increase this beyond today's levels to make it unsafe.

What you maintain is fine but officials have the figures that means they don't believe it's a good idea to have it. Unless you want to rebuild the whole station, something there is unlikely to be the money for.

 

[mr_jrt]

What's the point in routing it via Vauxhall when you'd have to shut the interchange in leak due to overcrowding? Same reason why Crossrail doesn't link to Oxford Circus is simple fact that the cheap Victoria Line platforms are too small to handle the traffic. Additional interchange will increase this beyond today's levels to make it unsafe.

What you maintain is fine but officials have the figures that means they don't believe it's a good idea to have it. Unless you want to rebuild the whole station, something there is unlikely to be the money for.

If that's where the demand is, then the work needs to be done, ultimately. That's why I'm just arguing for passive provision not full-blown completion straight away. It might be down the list, but it should be on there. Telling passengers to get a bus from Nine Elms station to Vauxhall to interchange is truly pathetic, I'm sorry, that's not how you build a transport network. It'd be like the DLR not having a station at Stratford and just telling everyone to walk or get a bus to Pudding Mill Lane if they really wanted to use it. :roll:

 

[Class172]

I do agree that whilst there shouldn't necessarily be an interchange at Vauxhall upon open opening, the line should be routed as such that at a later date, platforms can be built at the station to allow the interchange to take place if required.