This has probably been discussed extensively elsewhere, but I can't find the info, so I'll ask here:
Why doesn't the Elizabeth Line have a station at Holborn, despite passing (as far as I can tell) directly underneath the existing Holborn stations for the Central and Piccadilly Lines?
I'm sure there must be a very good reason, as the route and the stops were bandied about for decades. But what is that reason?
Simply a desire to have fewer stops to make the cross-London passage quicker?
Some technical roadblock which prevents connecting the Crossrail tunnel with the tube tunnels here?
Some political or bureaucratic reason?
Some archaeological/historical/security reason?
I ask, because I've always wished that there was going to be a direct interchange between the Elizabeth Line and the Piccadilly Line, and Holborn would have been the perfect logical place to do it.
Why doesn't the Elizabeth Line have a station at Holborn, despite passing (as far as I can tell) directly underneath the existing Holborn stations for the Central and Piccadilly Lines?
I'm sure there must be a very good reason, as the route and the stops were bandied about for decades. But what is that reason?
Simply a desire to have fewer stops to make the cross-London passage quicker?
Some technical roadblock which prevents connecting the Crossrail tunnel with the tube tunnels here?
Some political or bureaucratic reason?
Some archaeological/historical/security reason?
I ask, because I've always wished that there was going to be a direct interchange between the Elizabeth Line and the Piccadilly Line, and Holborn would have been the perfect logical place to do it.