# Surely topography was crucial. North London is hilly. Not enough to hinder urban development, but enough to hinder the kind of dense surface-rail network needed to serve it.
# The surface rail network was possibly more extensive than you may think, as many of the tube extensions to North London were, with a few exceptions, over the existing lines of the railway companies-LNER, LMS and GWR.
# It is a pity that the Alexandra Palace branch was not completed as that would likely have covered some of the area where TfL want Crossrail 2. I could have walked there, but had to get a bus to either Highgate or Bounds Green in order to catch a tube. I did sometimes walk to New Southgate & Friern Barnet station (now just New Southgate) for the main line, which is the intended terminus of Crossrail 2.
# The Piccadilly line extension to Cockfosters, as an exception, was a new route mostly on the surface but had to bore under Old Southgate before re-emerging on the surface, so that bit of topography was not ideal for a surface line.
# South London has lots of railways but they are an absolute mess to navigate (because of the history of inter-railway competition); the infrastructure is all there but it could really do with service simplification to get that tube-like ease of use.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Unburden yourself here: