Post by Basil JetPost by Roland PerryPost by b***@nowhere.co.ukHow long before TfL is renamed to Network Southeast?
https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/minister-backs-tfl-inner-subur
ban-take over-plan
If they can do better job than GTR, it would be OK. But one of GTR's
problems is that as probably the busiest classic franchise, they have
bitten off more than they can chew.
I think RAIL's info seems a bit out of date... I don't think any inner
suburbans go past Stevenage any more.
https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2020/06/23/tfl-step-closer-to-takeover-of-great-northern-line-into-moorgate/
... has a little more info.
How should it be branded. Some people will suggest it should be part of
the Overground, but I think it's more logical to make it part of the
Underground, as the line south of Drayton Park used to be. Stations like
Drayton Park and Essex Road would get more use if they were branded as
U-D, even without any change to frequency, because the U-D has a better
reputation than the O-D. Also Highbury & Islington already has O-D
platforms, and the corridor signage would be impenetrable if it had two
more.
The only potential downside is that the less than stellar service at
stations like Bayford would tarnish the U-D brand, but like Chesham it's
a station that's only used by locals and so won't damage the U-D brand
in the way a bad service at Old Street would. I suspect enthusiasts will
say a train with pantographs should not be part of the U-D, but I don't
think that is a valid basis for quite an important business decision.
I'd call it the Finsbury Line, because it serves Finsbury Park as well
as Finsbury Square / Circus. Or maybe the Alexandra Line - anything but
the Northern City Line, a name that has to be burned at the stake for
wilfully spreading confusion.
While the Underground has apart from the interlude from the late 70’s to
the 90’s when it had an off period enjoyed a reasonably good reputation
since the LPTB built on the foundations of quality laid by the Combine
there has alway been the odd corner that didn’t reach it.
The Northern City line was one of them, a half finished scheme that was an
oddment that came into Metropolitan Railways ownership but even they
couldn’t do much with it and its ambience when transferred to the Northern
line did not improve.
The transfer to British Rail enabling it to perform its original brief
actually improved it though it has fot pretty rough around the edges again
in the past couple of decades. It would be ironical it it returned to the
successor of the LPTB to improve it now.
As for electrification it once had its own version of fourth rail with both
current rails on the outside up till 1939 when tube stock replaced the
original stock.
LPTB was running 3 variety’s of live rail installations up till then,
the 4 th rail system as is still used,
the 4th rail system of the GN&C and the central 3rd of the Central line
which was also replaced around then.
If the Met had adopted the proposed 3 phase system we would have had
pantographs galore.
I always wondered how they would have squeezed the overhead into the
tunnels but recently
came across a source which I must find again which suggested it was going
to be quite a complicated system with the wires set to one side at cant
rail level with a twin pick up on the side , not dissimilar in a way to the
old Glasgow Subway which obtained lighting power from small live rails on
the subway wall. Easy to do on the subway with no junctions, gawd knows
how the Met would have coped with those with different sets of pick ups
being retracted and extended.
Pantagraphs on the side do exist overseas on some freight locos where the
catenary is switched to one side to enable top loading of bulk wagons .
If the Met had chosen the Ganz system the top of Sarah Siddons might
resemble this.
Loading Image...
GH
#/media/File:Fotothek_df_n-11_0000945.jpg)