rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286 
|
Post by rincew1nd on Oct 5, 2014 19:18:05 GMT
Just signed it. I think it is a good idea. I'm sure your computer screen is glad of the attention, whatever you do; don't reach for the Snopake. |
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on Oct 6, 2014 12:35:28 GMT
Modern Railways October edition seem to suggest that the Bromley town centre extension will also take over the Bromley North line, terminating at Grove Park.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Oct 6, 2014 19:27:14 GMT
Theres a council depot just south of Lewisham adjacent to the line. I should have thought that might be comandeered for a depot site. Aside from that, hows Croxley Depot looking these days?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 10:45:32 GMT
There has been debate on how the Bakerloo should go to Bromley. I think it should go in a tunnel after Beck Junc and stop at Shortlands, Brom South, a new station on Bromley High Street, Bromley North, comes out of the tunnel and goes to Grove Park. There's also a fan-made map suggesting that there could be a branch to Bickley. Maybe take that further to Orpington and, if possible, Sevenoaks. I have also seen ideas of the Camberwell option going to Lewisham and the Old Kent Road option heading to Charlton, Greenwich and Dartford. OKR option one can be called Bricklayers Arms and station two can be Old Kent Road. From there, it can stop at South Bermondsey, Evelyn Street, Cutty Sark, Maze Hill and then to Dartford. It would come out of the tunnel after Westcombe Park.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 7, 2014 12:54:57 GMT
after Beck Junc and stop at Shortlands, Brom South, a new station on Bromley High Street, Bromley North, comes out of the tunnel and goes to Grove Park. . Looking at a map of Bromley, I don't see how that could be acheived without either a spiral or reversal at Bromley South. |
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 7, 2014 13:40:12 GMT
There has been debate on how the Bakerloo should go to Bromley. I think it should go in a tunnel after Beck Junc and stop at Shortlands, Brom South, a new station on Bromley High Street, Bromley North, comes out of the tunnel and goes to Grove Park. There's also a fan-made map suggesting that there could be a branch to Bickley. Maybe take that further to Orpington and, if possible, Sevenoaks. I have also seen ideas of the Camberwell option going to Lewisham and the Old Kent Road option heading to Charlton, Greenwich and Dartford. OKR option one can be called Bricklayers Arms and station two can be Old Kent Road. From there, it can stop at South Bermondsey, Evelyn Street, Cutty Sark, Maze Hill and then to Dartford. It would come out of the tunnel after Westcombe Park. Don't see why they can't go via Bromley North to Bromley South & then on to Hayes. BN & Hayes Branch can feed into the Tube rather than be taken over. Bromley South is well-served by buses, too & is only just off the High Street. I reckon they could also run feeder park n ride buses from the intermediate stations on both those branches to reach the Tube stations-more room than at the respective termini. I agree the extension plans you mention-doubt they will, though. Remembering who it was that skewered Ken Livingstone's Fares Fair via the High Court, anything that disturbs Bromley's leafy lanes too much could be similarly sunk. Even such visionaries as you and I would need to sell it to them very carefully indeed! As to using both OKR & Camberwell, the sensible thing would be to serve both on one line, and then extend from OKR towards New Cross Gate if the area does indeed expand as predicted. You can, after all, purchase and earmark station sites well in advance. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 13:44:57 GMT
after Beck Junc and stop at Shortlands, Brom South, a new station on Bromley High Street, Bromley North, comes out of the tunnel and goes to Grove Park. . Looking at a map of Bromley, I don't see how that could be acheived without either a spiral or reversal at Bromley South. I said that a new tunnel section would be built after Beck Junc. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 14:28:39 GMT
Apart from the route to Lewisham I doubt if there would be an economic case for more tunnel sections which is why everything past there is on existing lines. LB of Lewisham commissioned their own report on possible Bakerloo Line extensions in 2010, they estimated the cost of tunnelling to be £200m per mile with an additional £50m for a subsurface interchange with an existing station and £100m for any new subsurface stations. Theres a council depot just south of Lewisham adjacent to the line. I should have thought that might be comandeered for a depot site. Aside from that, hows Croxley Depot looking these days? Have you got a map reference or whatever for that, I can't see anything big enough on Google Earth to sit half a dozen trains overnight between Lewisham and Ladywell. Croxley depot isn't going to be much use for stabling first and last trains out of Hayes or Beckenham Junction |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 7, 2014 15:09:02 GMT
Looking at a map of Bromley, I don't see how that could be acheived without either a spiral or reversal at Bromley South. I said that a new tunnel section would be built after Beck Junc. Whether it's in tunnel, following the main line, or on a viaduct, a line approaching Bromley South from the Shortlands direction will be pointing south of east. A line leaving Bromley South for Bromley North would be pointing a little west of north (especially if you want an intermediate statoin on the High Street). How large a loop, or tight a radius, do you envisage to join those stretches together? (Shortlands, BN and BS are more or less at the corners of an equilateral triangle, you can't serve all three without some very sharp bends - and adding the top of the High Street, which is more or less at the centre of said triangle, makes it even harder. Don't see why they can't go via Bromley North to Bromley South & then on to Hayes. BN & Hayes Branch can feed into the Tube rather than be taken over. I can't see much point in extending the bakerloo from Hayes to Bromley North to take over the branch, if that is what I understand this suggestion to be. Who would want to travel from Sundridge Park (let alone Grove Park or Bromley) to central London by the resulting circuitous route via Elmers End? And there is really nothing much en route to attract enough traffic to justify it. |
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 7, 2014 15:19:07 GMT
No, I was suggesting they go via Beckenham Junction to Bromley North, then link up to Bromley South & continue to Hayes, rather than take over either branch & all that will involve.
Bromley South sees 6 million a year useage, Hayes 1.15 million, Bromley North 0.64 million. There are certainly few other heavy traffic areas around those parts unless one goes further, which they clearly will not consider at present.
So it may be Bromley South is the key Bromley station to link to a Tube?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 15:19:32 GMT
I said that a new tunnel section would be built after Beck Junc. Whether it's in tunnel, following the main line, or on a viaduct, a line approaching Bromley South from the Shortlands direction will be pointing south of east. A line leaving Bromley South for Bromley North would be pointing a little west of north (especially if you want an intermediate statoin on the High Street). How large a loop, or tight a radius, do you envisage to join those stretches together? (Shortlands, BN and BS are more or less at the corners of an equilateral triangle, you can't serve all three without some very sharp bends - and adding the top of the High Street, which is more or less at the centre of said triangle, makes it even harder. Then the line can go straight from Shortlands to BHS (Not the department store!). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 15:35:26 GMT
There has been debate on how the Bakerloo should go to Bromley. I think it should go in a tunnel after Beck Junc and stop at Shortlands, Brom South, a new station on Bromley High Street, Bromley North, comes out of the tunnel and goes to Grove Park. There's also a fan-made map suggesting that there could be a branch to Bickley. Maybe take that further to Orpington and, if possible, Sevenoaks. I have also seen ideas of the Camberwell option going to Lewisham and the Old Kent Road option heading to Charlton, Greenwich and Dartford. OKR option one can be called Bricklayers Arms and station two can be Old Kent Road. From there, it can stop at South Bermondsey, Evelyn Street, Cutty Sark, Maze Hill and then to Dartford. It would come out of the tunnel after Westcombe Park. I think that Lewisham underground station should be built with safeguarding for possible XR3 platforms which would be much better then sending the Bakerloo to all these places. Hayes and Bromley is pushing it. Even if the Bakerloo tunnels were rebored to have S stock like trains. Places like Dartford and Sevenoaks is just too far giving the amount of stops. |
|
|
|
Post by will on Oct 7, 2014 16:55:54 GMT
Surely that would be the best option to build full size tunnels for the extension and re-bore the existing Bakerloo line between Elephant and Queens Park ish and run full size trains through. Better than waiting for another 30 years for Crossrail 2. it would solve so many problems such as:
lack of capacity
heat in tunnels
the extremely curved nature of the current tunnels
and you could have 10 or 12 car trains
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,783
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 7, 2014 17:52:17 GMT
You would however need to deal with thousands of displaced commuters while you were doing the work. Look how long boring the tunnels for CR1 is taking, it wont be much quicker. Indeed is the space to do this where the line runs in proximity to various features (other lines, stations, sewers, the bed of the River Thames, etc)?
|
|
|
|
Post by will on Oct 7, 2014 18:20:01 GMT
I see your point but surely its better to do it now than to have a multi billion pound extension consisting of tiny tube tunnels. Although thousands would be displaced by a line closure by 2030 or in the future if they ever needed to close the line for upgrade works there would be even more displaced by the work and the Bakerloo between Harrow and Queens has the Overground and in central London (inside the circle line) there are alternative lines as all stations apart from Regents park and Lambeth North are served by other lines.
Also with better tunnelling technologies the new tunnels could weave in and out of existing structures with greater accuracy avoiding many structures and although some major station work and other work ie sewers would b needed surely its better in the long run for the future of the tube
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 18:59:06 GMT
Thank you for giving me a good laugh. Re-bore the Bakerloo between Queens Park and Elephant. Straight out of Crayola.....
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 7, 2014 19:02:40 GMT
Look how long boring the tunnels for CR1 is taking, it wont be much quicker. Much slower - a TBM can't chew through tunnel linings as easily as virgin clay. As has been pointed out many times on the W&C board, it would be quicker and cheaper just to build a new tunnel - which has the additional bonuses that you don't have to close the original line while you do it, and you end up with two lines instead of one! No amount of weaving about will solve the problem if the gap between existing services is not big enough - not to mention the effect on services of the resulting roller coaster! |
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 7, 2014 19:14:27 GMT
Look how long boring the tunnels for CR1 is taking, it wont be much quicker. Much slower - a TBM can't chew through tunnel linings as easily as virgin clay. As has been pointed out many times on the W&C board, it would be quicker and cheaper just to build a new tunnel - which has the additional bonuses that you don't have to close the original line while you do it, and you end up with two lines instead of one! No amount of weaving about will solve the problem if the gap between existing services is not big enough - not to mention the effect on services of the resulting roller coaster! Yes, and this also allows a fast/semi-fast service along that line with two tunnels and a back-up for emergencies and delays. Unfortunately, whilst cheaper may still be an option, cheap is not. TBM's cost a fortune to build and run, compared to the original Tube tunnels, with labour-intensive pick & shovels behind the Greathead shields, but still cheap labour nonetheless. That cost factor is the crux, and one reason why this consultation, like everything else, will um and arr along, whatever any or all of us believe should be the case. Modern life is complicated, I suppose! |
|
|
|
Post by sawb on Oct 7, 2014 20:47:58 GMT
I think I recall reading somewhere (think it was in Mike Horne's excellent The Bakerloo line: an illustrated history) I may be wrong, but if memory serves me correctly, this scheme has been proposed (in various forms) since the end of World War II, maybe even before, and two reasons for not proceeding:
1) The tightness of the curves required beyond Elephant & Castle would prohibit any form of reliable service.
2) The ground south of Elephant & Castle is/was too tough for a modern tunnel boring machine.
If what I'm saying is right, what has changed since to make TfL think this is now a viable scheme, or is this just Boris beginning early electioneering for 2016?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 20:53:35 GMT
If what I'm saying is right, what has changed since to make TfL think this is now a viable scheme, or is this just Boris beginning early electioneering for 2016? Highly unlikely, Boris is bored with City Hall and is aiming for No. 10 but he's desperate to leave a "legacy" comparable to Ken's London Overground. |
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Oct 7, 2014 21:02:14 GMT
I think I recall reading somewhere (think it was in Mike Horne's excellent The Bakerloo line: an illustrated history) I may be wrong, but if memory serves me correctly, this scheme has been proposed (in various forms) since the end of World War II, maybe even before, and two reasons for not proceeding: 1) The tightness of the curves required beyond Elephant & Castle would prohibit any form of reliable service. 2) The ground south of Elephant & Castle is/was too tough for a modern tunnel boring machine.
If what I'm saying is right, what has changed since to make TfL think this is now a viable scheme, or is this just Boris beginning early electioneering for 2016? I was always lead to believe it was due to a high water table. But as the Victoria Line had the same problem at Vauhall, overcome by freezing the ground and lining the bores with a waterproof membrane, it shouldn't be a problem |
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 7, 2014 21:47:10 GMT
As a native-born SE5 man, I can tell you the clue to why it wasn't built is in the name. Camber- well
Yes, it was the high water-table that scotched the 1950 proposal around 1955. There had been earlier ones in 1926, 1931 and 1939, and the initial idea from the Mayor of Camberwell was in 1912. The ground isn't that hard. That old chestnut keeps turning up, but the 100 yards or so of test bore they made sometime in the 1930's from E & C found no evidence of that, but quite a bit of H 2O, part of which is due to one of London's lost rivers or a branch thereof around Camberwell-either the Neckinger or the Effra, I believe. EDIT/UPDATE Had a look at another of Mike Horne's excellent Capital transport Series on the Jubilee. The 1939 proposal was in fact 1938 & was formally cancelled simply due to lack on money in 1952, one new siding having been put in at Stanmore depot on 1.2.52, just before the formal cancellation. And, whilst we are in that book, just take a gander at this diagram of the 1938 proposal.  Now where have you & I seen this before?? Have not only left the explanatory text with the diagram, but a little of the book's text, so you can enjoy the wonderful typo-if only we could be discussing those figures, eh??  |
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Sept 13, 2018 8:58:47 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2018 11:37:11 GMT
Hopefully they will keep them for reversing / short runs!
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,783
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 13, 2018 12:04:48 GMT
Hopefully they will keep them for reversing / short runs! That will depend how they are connected into the rest of the station, especially the new Bakerloo line platforms - if it's a trek then reversing (or at least detraining) at Lambeth North is probably going to be regarded as better. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2018 12:51:29 GMT
I was thinking more about Charing Cross (Jubilee) style of solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysider on Sept 13, 2018 15:50:55 GMT
Such a pity the goods line between Bricklayers Arms and New Cross was built over. Then just a short stretch of new tunnel under New Kent Road would have been needed to connect up to the Bakerloo line
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Sept 13, 2018 16:08:47 GMT
Such a pity the goods line between Bricklayers Arms and New Cross was built over. Then just a short stretch of new tunnel under New Kent Road would have been needed to connect up to the Bakerloo line
It wouldn't have helped that much - there is no way the BR / NR tracks beyond the junctions at Bermondsey don't have the capacity (or spare land to be able to be widened) to accommodate LUL trains. Just as with Overground extensions beyond New Cross there is a tendency for folk on here to assume that there is always room for TfL services on NR tracks.
As such tunnelling would still be needed from the South Bermondsey area to Lewisham - and doing that takes you away from the A2 corridor (which is where the demand is) and makes it harder to serve north Peckham.
If anything, being at ground level (as opposed to on long viaducts like the current approaches to London Bridge) the Bricklayers arms branch would have been more useful as a jumping off point for a new Crossrail style tunnel - which could have turned north via London Bridge to give us a Thameslink not hampered by the reuse of twisty Victorian infrastructure. However at the time the branch was being sold off for low density housing / retail parks / industrial estates rail travel was seen by the Government as in 'managed decline' with no need to protect alignments for future use.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Sept 14, 2018 14:27:41 GMT
Might it be that, rather than the platforms realigned, the overrun tunnels are re-realigned back to their original direction? I have a feeling the initial proposal for this scheme simply continued from the existing overrun tunnels, which point in a different direction having been reconstructed for the past assumed direction of Camberwell. Pointing them back under the Old Kent Road would allow a large and long curve to be avoided.
EDIT: Reading on from the London Reconnections comments, this is likely not the case now.
|
|
