Moorgate question

[c52]

There must be a very simple reason why the line to Moorgate was not extended to London Bridge and beyond instead of building Thameslink. Or instead of building the new line from St Pancras towards Finsbury Park. I can't find anything with 10 minutes of Google, so I've not really tried hard.

I can only guess that Moorgate isn't deep enough to get under the Thames from, or that the ground in that part of London prohibits building tunnels even in the 21st century. Or maybe there's nowhere south of London Bridge that tunnels could come to the surface.

Anyone know the answers? - Thanks.

 

[yorkie]

As it sounds like you are asking for historical reasons, so I'll put it in History & Nostalgia for now.

(Of course it was a London Underground line back when you are wondering if it could have been extended, so it could belong in that section; on the other hand if you are speculating on whether it could be possible then Speculative Ideas might be the best place)

There are many threads that explain why the line cannot be extended now; and many of these have been the case for some time.

But what is less easy to establish is why the line was only built to Moorgate in the first place.

 

[c52]

history is fine. I'm not speculating as it would be daft to want two lines from London Bridge to Finsbury Park. This isn't some foreign city where they do that sort of thing.

 

[PeterC]

I think the basic reason must be that Thameslink utilised existing disused infrastructure. There are a host of issues at Bank as well as the whole area probably has more underground structures than clay remaining to tunnel through.

 

[James H]

There was an official study a few years ago (National Infrastructure Commission I think) that looked at extending the Moorgate line to Waterloo

 

[edwin_m]

I'd say it was basically because the purpose of the line when built was to connect the Great Northern suburban services to the City so commuters could get to their jobs (the companies concerned quickly fell out so that didn't happen until the 1970s, but that's another story). Kings Cross is not very well sited for this area and commuters might have deserted the GN for other companies such as the GE or the North London who had City termini. Having got to a station in that part of London there was no real reason to continue tunnelling in the most expensive land in the country, as there were few jobs further south and other companies already carried inward commuters from that direction. Having said that a short extension to Lothbury was planned and work actually started - not sure why it was stopped but it would have been a huge cost for a slightly shorter walk.

 

[30907]

If the question is about the Northern City line (I assumed it was about the Widened Lines) then there's also the issue of train length.

 

[edwin_m]

If you're referring to the Widened Lines I believe the reasoning isn't much different from that I set out in #6 for the Northern City. The objective was to reach the City of London and Moorgate was close enough. The cost of extending it further in the City would have been even greater for a sub-surface route than for a bored tunnel - land values were the reason the eastern end of the Circle Line was the last bit to be finished.

Thameslink made use of a disused connection from Farringdon to Blackfriars, the Snow Hill Tunnel, so there was no need to build a new tunnel when it re-opened in the 1980s. With the various rebuildings since then, very little of the original tunnel still exists.

 

[c52]

Thank you.

I hadn't thought of the length of trains, or possible underground congestion around Bank. I hadn't heard of the suggestion of joining Moorgate and Waterloo.

It's long been my view that Thameslink was conceived as an answer to the question 'what can we do with these tunnels in central London' rather than 'how can we improve public transport'.

 

[Taunton]

It's long been my view that Thameslink was conceived as an answer to the question 'what can we do with these tunnels in central London' rather than 'how can we improve public transport'.

I agree, although the initial 1980s Thameslink just joined Farringdon and Blackfriars, a very short distance (and all 750v third rail on an existing alignment, with no new platforms even, so it cost pennies, unlike the later revisions), much of which was not in tunnel anyway, apart from a few hundred yards where Smithfield market had (subsequent to the railway construction) been built over it.

I've never found a use for Thameslink apart from the original routes, going south from Blackfriars or north from St Pancras. But then I hardly use the Victoria Line nowadays either, because my daily journeys are mainly at right-angles to it!

 

[randyrippley]

There must be a very simple reason why the line to Moorgate was not extended to London Bridge and beyond instead of building Thameslink. Or instead of building the new line from St Pancras towards Finsbury Park. I can't find anything with 10 minutes of Google, so I've not really tried hard.

I can only guess that Moorgate isn't deep enough to get under the Thames from, or that the ground in that part of London prohibits building tunnels even in the 21st century. Or maybe there's nowhere south of London Bridge that tunnels could come to the surface.

Anyone know the answers? - Thanks.

This page may give you some ideas or answers, its a brief history of the station
https://www.subbrit.org.uk/sites/moorgate-station/

 

[DerekC]

Thank you.
It's long been my view that Thameslink was conceived as an answer to the question 'what can we do with these tunnels in central London' rather than 'how can we improve public transport'.

I think that rather misses the point - urban railways feeding into big cities work best when they don't have terminals in the middle - terminating, emptying and reversing trains loses time and takes up lots of expensive space. So even though there may not be much demand for through journeys it is still the most efficient configuration to turn back in the suburbs and run through the centre. Whether the Thameslink operational concept makes sense, with lots of relatively long routes passing through the middle, is a different question.

 

[c52]

I absolutely understand the issues with a terminus. The problem for me with TL is that it takes 15 minutes from LBG to STP partly because of tight curves. There are three stops.

In Frankfurt if you go the long way round from the main station (Frankfurt Hbf (tief)) to the south station (Frankfurt(Main)Süd) it takes 10 minutes with six stops, still with plenty of tightish curves. Both distances are about three route miles as measured by me on Google Earth (3.0 miles for London, 2.95 miles for Frankfurt.)

 

[Taunton]

I think that rather misses the point - urban railways feeding into big cities work best when they don't have terminals in the middle - terminating, emptying and reversing trains loses time and takes up lots of expensive space. So even though there may not be much demand for through journeys it is still the most efficient configuration to turn back in the suburbs and run through the centre. Whether the Thameslink operational concept makes sense, with lots of relatively long routes passing through the middle, is a different question.

There are issues both ways. Linked services across urban areas may well not have the same demand on both ends, giving some schedule inefficiency. The section linking two previously separate terminals may be extremely expensive to construct. The through service (eg Cambridge to Brighton) may not now lend itself to efficient multiple out-and-back use of crews within their shift, requiring mid-journey crew changes which were not previously required, which introduces a real likelihood of disruption, particularly on days when one end or the other of the service has been disrupted.

 

[Bald Rick]

Assuming you mean the Northern City Line, the main reason is that there is no space beyond Moorgate to build it.

An extension a few hundred yards to Lothbury was proposed by the original company that built it, however they ran out of money and barely started. Now, the Crossrail tunnels are in the way, and that’s before you get to various underground obstructions around Bank / Cannon St / London Bridge etc.

 

[30907]

I absolutely understand the issues with a terminus. The problem for me with TL is that it takes 15 minutes from LBG to STP partly because of tight curves. There are three stops.

In Frankfurt if you go the long way round from the main station (Frankfurt Hbf (tief)) to the south station (Frankfurt(Main)Süd) it takes 10 minutes with six stops, still with plenty of tightish curves. Both distances are about three route miles as measured by me on Google Earth (3.0 miles for London, 2.95 miles for Frankfurt.)

True, but the S-bahn was purpose-built, and uses tube-style trains with lots of doors, high acceleration rates and lower top speed.

 

[c52]

They are full-sized trains with overhead, and were no more purpose-built than the class 700s. Less, really, as they exist in other cities.

In Munich the S-Bahn has platforms either side of the train at the busiest stations so you can get in at the same time as others are getting out. Must save 10-15 seconds at each stop.

 

[30907]

They are full-sized trains with overhead, and were no more purpose-built than the class 700s. Less, really, as they exist in other cities.

In Munich the S-Bahn has platforms either side of the train at the busiest stations so you can get in at the same time as others are getting out. Must save 10-15 seconds at each stop.

Sorry, I meant the S-Bahn (tunnel) was purpose-built (not adapted like the Widened Lines). And AFAIK all true German S-bahn stock has the same rapid-transit characteristics (should have said that instead of tube-style), not least because it often had to share tracks with longer-distsnce passenger trains and needed to keep out of the way!

Interesting that Frankfurt didnt replicate the Munich double platforms BTW.