Camden Progress

[mrjrt]

For your reading pleasure:
londonconnections.blogspot.com/2007/10/camden-town-redevelopment-plan-approved.html

So I guess the "Northern Line" as we know it takes another step towards the chopping block.

[Deleted]

Is that really a bad thing?

[Deleted]

Could this be related to the rumours about splitting the branches, thus using Camden Town as a interchange?

[Deleted]

I love that the planning "brief" is 124 pages long. Presumably this is Camden Council's idea of brevity.

The plans seem to relate to the rebuilding of the surface buildings, rather than any changes at deep level.

Before the Northern could be split into two services, there would need to be several million spent to improve deep-level interchange at Camden Town. That's a lot of money to spend to provide a poorer service.

[johnb]

sydneynick said:

Before the Northern could be split into two services, there would need to be several million spent to improve deep-level interchange at Camden Town. That's a lot of money to spend to provide a poorer service.

s/"poorer"/"more frequent and reliable".

[Deleted]

lol

vi districtdaveforum
1,$s/johnb/geek/g

[Deleted]

The camden town situation got a little confused, this is the timeline as i understood it:

1. Refreshment of camden town station was on hold awaiting a decision on weather the station was to be re-developed or not
2. planning permission for camden town re-development was denied partly because of the take-over suggestion for the HSBC on the corner.
3. refreshment now underway following the planning permission denied

So are they now going to roll the refreshment and the re-development together or will we just get a refreshed station for a few years then they'll start the re-build?
If they do start the re-build will the station be totally refreshed or will it be left stripped bare?

[Deleted]

johnb said:

sydneynick said:

Before the Northern could be split into two services, there would need to be several million spent to improve deep-level interchange at Camden Town. That's a lot of money to spend to provide a poorer service.

s/"poorer"/"more frequent and reliable".

poorer = forcing passengers to change where it's not now necessary.

Which obviously means increased journey times for people who want to get to the West End from stations south from Oval or north from Tufnel Park; or to the City from stations north of Chalk Farm; and vice versa.

That's a fairly substantial number of passengers who would be significantly inconvenienced, and who would raise merry hell if splitting the Northern were to be raised publicly as a serious proposal.

[Deleted]

if they re-opend primrose hill BR station that would take some strain away from camden

[Deleted]

sydneynick said:

johnb said:

s/"poorer"/"more frequent and reliable".

poorer = forcing passengers to change where it's not now necessary.

Which obviously means increased journey times for people who want to get to the West End from stations south from Oval or north from Tufnel Park; or to the City from stations north of Chalk Farm; and vice versa.

That's a fairly substantial number of passengers who would be significantly inconvenienced, and who would raise merry hell if splitting the Northern were to be raised publicly as a serious proposal.

It doesn't obviously mean increased journey times if it frequencies on each branch go up to 30 tph and the waiting time goes down. It also means less delays, more trains, more seats and a much more predictable service. As long as it's an easy interchange I don't think it's a problem.

Think of it this way: thousands of people change from the Piccadilly to the Victoria and the other way around daily at Finsbury Park. Do you think anyone is ever going to propose to run reduced services from both the Picc.'s and the Vic.'s central services to Cockfosters and Walthamstow, creating a similar situation as the Northern Line has today?

An easy interchange isn't a bad thing. Each Northern Line will still provide very good interchanges with all the other central London tubes, so most places will still only be one interchange away.

I'm also quite sure this is a serious proposal, considering how many documents I've seen this proposal in by now. I think it's much more likely to happen than those getting rid of the Circle Line proposals.

[metman]

Primrose Hill will and should reopen in a few years.

[Deleted]

I totally agree with sweek here. The improved frequency and reliability of running the split Northern Line would be far more beneficial to the Northern Line passengers than the present service. It is well known that the more simplified metro lines are, the more reliable they are - just look at Paris and Moscow, you don't see any crazy line layouts there!

As far as reopening Primrose Hill is concerned, will it actually take passengers off the Northern Line? The areas served by London Overground are quite different to those served by the Northern Line, so I think it will only make a very minor impact.

[edwin]

Does this new plan require the bulldozing of any buildings?

I don't see why they don't do what they did in the 60s and 30s, rip up the road and create a larger sub-surface ticket hall..

[railtechnician]

edwin said:

Does this new plan require the bulldozing of any buildings?

I don't see why they don't do what they did in the 60s and 30s, rip up the road and create a larger sub-surface ticket hall..

Can you imagine the area around Camden Town being disrupted in this way? You'd probably have to close the main route from Mornington Crescent to Camden Lock & Kentish Town and the one way route from Gt Portland Street/London Zoo to Camden Road NR station too. Just imagine all the utilities through that 5 way junction. I recall the upheaval when Cable Camden as it was then were laying cable TV ducts through there and that was far less disruptive than building a new underground ticket hall would be. Perhaps a better idea would be to relocate the station or stations if the line is to be split!

[Deleted]

edwin said:

Does this new plan require the bulldozing of any buildings?

I don't see why they don't do what they did in the 60s and 30s, rip up the road and create a larger sub-surface ticket hall..

But half of the issue (particularly concerning splitting the line) is platform level congestion, thus rebuilding the ticket hall wouldn't solve the whole problem.

[Chris M]

It sounds like the entire station could do with being rebuilt from scratch - although this is probably infeasibly expensive and disruptive.

[edwin]

railtechnician said:

edwin said:

Does this new plan require the bulldozing of any buildings?

I don't see why they don't do what they did in the 60s and 30s, rip up the road and create a larger sub-surface ticket hall..

Can you imagine the area around Camden Town being disrupted in this way? You'd probably have to close the main route from Mornington Crescent to Camden Lock & Kentish Town and the one way route from Gt Portland Street/London Zoo to Camden Road NR station too. Just imagine all the utilities through that 5 way junction. I recall the upheaval when Cable Camden as it was then were laying cable TV ducts through there and that was far less disruptive than building a new underground ticket hall would be. Perhaps a better idea would be to relocate the station or stations if the line is to be split!

Yes I can imagine, they've done it in the past at the much more congested Oxford Circus by building a temporary steel "umbrella" for cars to pass over it, and that was in the sixties!

And I know about that Stephenk, but all the proposals so far have been about rebuilding the surface building, I was offering an alternative, not giving my view on whether I thought it was a good idea or not!

[railtechnician]

edwin said:

Yes I can imagine, they've done it in the past at the much more congested Oxford Circus by building a temporary steel "umbrella" for cars to pass over it, and that was in the sixties!

And I know about that Stephenk, but all the proposals so far have been about rebuilding the surface building, I was offering an alternative, not giving my view on whether I thought it was a good idea or not!

I remember the umbrella at Oxford Circus more than 40 years ago but it was exactly that, 40 years ago and Camden is a different kettle of fish altogether. When the roads are uncluttered by road works and parked cars the congestion is extensive in the rush hours these days with the much higher levels of traffic. There are routes to avoid Camden Town of course but there would be chaos with the current traffic levels.

Now there is a solution using lateral thinking! Similar to what occurs on market days, I offer a healthy option! Close two of Camden Town's platforms completely such that Mornington Crescent is on one line and Camden Town is on the other! The punter's then have a choice to change trains at Euston where there is plenty of room and a nice healthy walk or to take to the street to change between Mornington crescent and Camden Town, a second healthy option.

Of course a better way could be to build two new additional platforms at Mornington Crescent where I suspect there would be less interruption all around!

[Deleted]

railtechnician said:

Of course a better way could be to build two new additional platforms at Mornington Crescent where I suspect there would be less interruption all around!

Alas, not really possible as the City line passes some distance to the west of Mornington Crescent.

At Euston, the "northbound" City line is actually facing roughly south-west, along the line of Euston Road. When it was extended to Camden Town, it had to go in a big loop to the west and then head north-east to join the West End line.

At the point where the City line is level with Mornington Crescent station, it would be just west of the main lines out of Euston.

[abe]

I think that a sub-surface ticket hall was considered a few years ago after one of the plans had been thrown out. However, it wasn't seen as being as user-friendly or accessible as having it at street level.

[edwin]

abe said:

I think that a sub-surface ticket hall was considered a few years ago after one of the plans had been thrown out. However, it wasn't seen as being as user-friendly or accessible as having it at street level.

Why?