[Lucky Luke]

There are resources ad-nauseam on the web about these. There are about 40 closed-down stations on the network (compare to 10 in Paris, 1 in Madrid, a handful in Moscow, NYC). The names include Brompton Road, British Museum, Lord's, Down Street...
They have closed because usership was low, or the station was rebuilt close-by for a new interchange, or sections of route were taken out of service. Between you and me maybe the government has a history of being a bit stingy when it comes to funding public transport and they expect it to fund itself - off the record.

However it's time to consider if some of these stops should reopen.

1 York Road (Piccadilly Line) Ever noticed the 4 minute ride between Kings X and Cally Road? Closed because of low usage. Next to massive, huge new Kings Cross railway lands redevelopment.
The local boroughs are in favour, but TfL is not, claiming it will slow onward journey times on the line!!! What, by 30 seconds?!! (hell, why not close all the stations, just keep Cockfosters and Heathrow -then it will be so quick!) :koko:

2 City Road (Northern Line)
Slight chicken or egg situation. The area (on the long trundle between Angel and Old Street) looks depressed. It was closed way back cos of low passenger numbers. Couldn't reopening the station bring some vitality back to this inner city area? Chicken or egg? :shrug:

3 South Kentish Town (Northern Line)
Noticed how Camden Town station can't cope on weekends and you can only come out and not go back in? Well just up the road there was a station, (I think it's Cash Converters now) before Kentish Town, which would go a long way to relieve Camden Town. It closed cos of competition from trams. Well, there aren't any now. A similar problem exists at Covent Garden, which cannot cope with traffic. This is a problem of concentration of passenger traffic through a small number of stations, something London is prone to with its low station densities. :(

4 Aldwych (Piccadilly)
Closed cos it was on a dead end one stop shuttle from Holborn, which was never gonna work, be honest. Aldwych could be on a new DLR through route to Charing X one day. Why can't the Aldwych spur be extended to south London and the line reinstated, perhaps as a light rail? S London needs it. :rolleyes:

What do you think? Do you have a ghost station near you?! Want to see it reopen? Tell the Mayor! :tup:

[SrbijaCG]

A handful in Moscow? Are you sure?;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Metro_2

Apparently, its an entire Ghost System.

[Swede]

There's nly one ghost station on Stockholm's subway, but not because it closed. It never opened. Kymlinge was was planned to be a suburb but was after pressure from enviormentalists not developed. The basic structures of the subway station had already been built tho, built when the subway line was built (way simpler than building one on an existing line). So between stations Hallonbergen and Kista on the blue line you can see the Kymlinge platform at the mouth of a tunnel (half is inside, half outside).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kymlinge

[Kroy Wen]

Photos, track maps and info of 16 in NYC:
http://nycsubway.org/abandsta.html

[Lucky Luke]

There is a similar story in London of the station called Bull and Bush, north of Hampstead. The station is built at platform level, with an access stair, but no station at the top. It will probably never open, as it is located in a sleepy corner of a quiet suburb.

[nick_taylor]

There are resources ad-nauseam on the web about these. There are about 40 closed-down stations on the network (compare to 10 in Paris, 1 in Madrid, a handful in Moscow, NYC). The names include Brompton Road, British Museum, Lord's, Down Street...
They have closed because usership was low, or the station was rebuilt close-by for a new interchange, or sections of route were taken out of service. Between you and me maybe the government has a history of being a bit stingy when it comes to funding public transport and they expect it to fund itself - off the record.

However it's time to consider if some of these stops should reopen.

1 York Road (Piccadilly Line) Ever noticed the 4 minute ride between Kings X and Cally Road? Closed because of low usage. Next to massive, huge new Kings Cross railway lands redevelopment.
The local boroughs are in favour, but TfL is not, claiming it will slow onward journey times on the line!!! What, by 30 seconds?!! (hell, why not close all the stations, just keep Cockfosters and Heathrow -then it will be so quick!) :koko:

2 City Road (Northern Line)
Slight chicken or egg situation. The area (on the long trundle between Angel and Old Street) looks depressed. It was closed way back cos of low passenger numbers. Couldn't reopening the station bring some vitality back to this inner city area? Chicken or egg? :shrug:

3 South Kentish Town (Northern Line)
Noticed how Camden Town station can't cope on weekends and you can only come out and not go back in? Well just up the road there was a station, (I think it's Cash Converters now) before Kentish Town, which would go a long way to relieve Camden Town. It closed cos of competition from trams. Well, there aren't any now. A similar problem exists at Covent Garden, which cannot cope with traffic. This is a problem of concentration of passenger traffic through a small number of stations, something London is prone to with its low station densities. :(

4 Aldwych (Piccadilly)
Closed cos it was on a dead end one stop shuttle from Holborn, which was never gonna work, be honest. Aldwych could be on a new DLR through route to Charing X one day. Why can't the Aldwych spur be extended to south London and the line reinstated, perhaps as a light rail? S London needs it. :rolleyes:

What do you think? Do you have a ghost station near you?! Want to see it reopen? Tell the Mayor! :tup:While several disused stations across London will re-open (eg East London Line northern extension), not all are going to re-open because of the cost. Had these stations not closed, then the rest of the network would have been degraded further ensuring that the majority would have had to endure poorer conditions.

1) York Road
Actually the real reason is down to funding. I've heard several figures thrown around and the developers aren't keen on such a re-opening because it would be costly. The unfortunate problem here is that the station is just a bit too far south.

If you observe the following map from 1899, you'll notice that York Road is practically above King's Cross. Yet this map also highlights the interesting station of Maiden Lane (red dot) - this has been disused since before the First World War, but it is located on the North London Line (a line that will become part of the London Overground network) and is more centrally located to the redevelopment site ensuring that it doesn't compete with other stations catchment areas, but providing better public transport access.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/Maiden-lane-station.png


2) City Road
This is a deep-level station that I believe has a bigger chance of being re-opened, what with the mass of 100-140m towers proposed for the area.


3) South Kentish Town
A station that is highly unlikely to ever re-open. What Camden Town needs is for the current station to be completely redeveloped as TfL have proposed to ensure that the station is more easy to navigate. TfL have also proposed to separate the Northern Line into two separate lines. London also doesn't need more stations close to each other - this would create longer journeys with little added benefit to those riding. As the saying goes, its quicker to walk from Covent Garden to Leicester Square than it is to take the tube.


4) Aldywch
I'd personally not see the DLR extended to Charing Cross, what would be more preferable, would be for a new Crossrail line to have a station here on a new line (Aylesbury - London Marylebone - London Fenchurch Street - Southend-on-Sea) with a connection to Temple station. That way this little area would have better access to the regions.


However the biggest re-opening project at the moment has to be the East London Line Northern Extension....pictures of what was left to overgrow before contractors moved in to create the extension

http://www.loveplums.co.uk/Tube/BroadSt/6_ShoreditchPlat02.jpg

http://www.loveplums.co.uk/Tube/BroadSt/6_ShoreditchPlat03.jpg

http://www.loveplums.co.uk/Tube/BroadSt/6_ShoreditchPlat05.jpg

http://www.loveplums.co.uk/Tube/BroadSt/6_KingslandRoadBridge4.jpg

http://www.loveplums.co.uk/Tube/BroadSt/6_HoxtonTrack.jpg

http://www.loveplums.co.uk/Tube/BroadSt/6_WesternJct1982.jpg

Pictures from the following site: http://www.abandonedstations.org.uk/
Note that the list on the site is not for every single station (some open up lines that were 'lost')! 40 is a conservative estimate, there could be as many as 80 in London, and yet there are still 600 stations in London!

[Lucky Luke]

Great pics. Thanks for showing! I'm not sure that there is any principal that forbids a higher station density per se in London. It is quicker to walk from Leicester Square to Covent Garden, and from Charing X to Embankment, but all these stations have enormous usage form the public and at present Covent Garden cannot cope at all on weekends. Their existence is therefore justified. Thus, on a case by case basis, potentially closer-packed stations can be feasible and helpful if passenger demand exists. I also think it is more helpful to spread traffic across smaller stations rather than the megahubs that are emerging now.
I don't find York Road particularly close to Kings X - it's a good 10 minute walk, and standard on the Piccadilly line. I think the station closed because on one whole side of it there has never been any passenger catchment (just railway lines) and on the other a fairly quiet neighbourhood. This is of course, set to change drastically.
I have heard plans are afoot to serve the area on the NLL, but interchange with the Piccadilly at York Road will be tricky because of the distance between the lines. I therefore suspect it will not come about.
Similarly I think it will be unlikely that City Road will reopen, despite the plans afoot. The government has come out and says it prefers buses. Pity...

[bvpcvm]

A handful in Moscow? Are you sure?;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Metro_2

Apparently, its an entire Ghost System.

Well, there's that - if it really exists, which no one seems to know for sure.

There are a few on Moscow's regular metro. The most famous one is probably Volokolamskaya, which is between Shchukinskaya and Tushinskaya on the purple line. It's under a field that was going to be redeveloped for housing, but never was. Every year or so there's a news item about its impending resurrection.

Another one, which may no longer exist, was one Tverskaya - somewhere near the statue of Yuri Dolgoruki, I think. It was being built during the war, and was used as some kind of military command center.

Vorob'yeviye Gori is now open but was closed for many years in the 1990's. I walked by it once (it was under a roadway on a bridge over the Moscow River - red line, between Sportivnaya and Universitet) and it was in bad shape. But, things came together and it was reopened a few years back, with a brand new design.

Also, there was an above-ground station on the dark blue line between Partizanskaya and Pervomaiskaya. The station was turned into a small depot and was replaced with another above-ground station. I think. That doesn't really make a lot of sense to me, but I read it somewhere on teh internets.

[one very bored guy]

I sort of agree with Lucky Luke here. I'd rather have more density stations. Yes, it will increase travel time by tube, but in many cases, that time is made up from being closer to your destination. It also has the advantage of relieving pressure on stations and this of cause also saves time.

[Swede]

I agree with that too. Tho it needs to be combined with a more long-distance system like Paris' RER, the proposed Crossrail or NYC's express subway lines.

[nick_taylor]

I completely disagree. The problem of having densely packed stations at depth is that it takes some time to get down to the actual platforms.

This would be better suited to the sub-surface lines, but deep-level lines like the Piccadilly and Northern are far harder jobs. Take the Victoria Line. You could easily double the number of stations, but the line is already the busiest per km on the network. The gain would be superficial and catastrophic for travel.

What London needs is Crossrail lines to take the pressure off the Tube in the first place, not add to it.

[Swede]

I completely disagree. The problem of having densely packed stations at depth is that it takes some time to get down to the actual platforms.

This would be better suited to the sub-surface lines, but deep-level lines like the Piccadilly and Northern are far harder jobs.
...
Good points. If anyone is gonna use it for short trips then the tunnels have to be shallow - or just not use tunnels and have trams instead, just like busses today, great for short trips but maybe not that nice for going across town...

Are we getting off-topic? kinda :) Regarding re-opening closed stations on the LU, I'd rather see trams re-appear in central London (but Crossrail 1, 2 & 3 are more important, from what I've understood).

[Lucky Luke]

I completely disagree. The problem of having densely packed stations at depth is that it takes some time to get down to the actual platforms.

This would be better suited to the sub-surface lines, but deep-level lines like the Piccadilly and Northern are far harder jobs. Take the Victoria Line. You could easily double the number of stations, but the line is already the busiest per km on the network. The gain would be superficial and catastrophic for travel.

What London needs is Crossrail lines to take the pressure off the Tube in the first place, not add to it.

Yes it is arduous to get down to some deep platforms. This prohibits the use of these lines for very short journeys, but does not impact catchment. The stations I mentioned above; Charing X, Embankment, Leics Sq, Cvt Garden all have deep level lines and operate at high capacity because the destinations they serve are in high demand. I would not particularly condone the reopening of stations like Brompton Road or St. Mary's because there is scant demand or benefit.
The point about the 4 stations I originally mention is that they are in neighbourhoods that are either being redeveloped or are overcapacity already.
Yes, Crossrail will relieve some lines, probably mostly the central line, but I disagree that we shouldn't add to the pressure on the tube, quite the opposite. The reason it exists in the first place is to take pressure off the roads, buses and railways and if capacity is short then the message is that it needs to be expanded.

[Lucky Luke]

Are we getting off-topic? kinda :) Regarding re-opening closed stations on the LU, I'd rather see trams re-appear in central London (but Crossrail 1, 2 & 3 are more important, from what I've understood).

Trams are good, superior to buses but not quite a match for a subway. The problem I foresee in London, particularly the proposed route from Camden down through central London to South London is that it is unlikely to cope with demand from passengers in south London, so would really warrant a tube line instead. This is somewhat the situation of the tram route in St-Denis by Paris. Tram journeys would also likely be very slow through central London due to street-running. (Incidentally there is no plan to make use of the Kingsway tram tunnel, which makes no sense to me). One of the problems with the Eccles branch of the Manchester tram is that the buses do the journey quicker!

[nick_taylor]

Good points. If anyone is gonna use it for short trips then the tunnels have to be shallow - or just not use tunnels and have trams instead, just like busses today, great for short trips but maybe not that nice for going across town...

Are we getting off-topic? kinda :) Regarding re-opening closed stations on the LU, I'd rather see trams re-appear in central London (but Crossrail 1, 2 & 3 are more important, from what I've understood).There are as I know, 4 Crossrail 'projects', but there are also several tram projects that operate via Central London:
- Cross-River Tram
- City of London Tram



Trams are good, superior to buses but not quite a match for a subway. The problem I foresee in London, particularly the proposed route from Camden down through central London to South London is that it is unlikely to cope with demand from passengers in south London, so would really warrant a tube line instead. This is somewhat the situation of the tram route in St-Denis by Paris. Tram journeys would also likely be very slow through central London due to street-running. (Incidentally there is no plan to make use of the Kingsway tram tunnel, which makes no sense to me). One of the problems with the Eccles branch of the Manchester tram is that the buses do the journey quicker!The route already follows the Northern Line. Its meant to offer a medium-capacity surface route for more direct journeys. In other words, your journey might begin or end with a tram journey with the tube being at the centre. In fact, the Cross-River Tram will practically mirror the West End branch of the Northern Line, while the City of London Tram will mirror the Square Mile branch of the Northern Line.

There is no way that the Kingsway tram tunnel can be re-used when the Aldwych link from Waterloo Bridge is in the way.




Yes it is arduous to get down to some deep platforms. This prohibits the use of these lines for very short journeys, but does not impact catchment. The stations I mentioned above; Charing X, Embankment, Leics Sq, Cvt Garden all have deep level lines and operate at high capacity because the destinations they serve are in high demand. I would not particularly condone the reopening of stations like Brompton Road or St. Mary's because there is scant demand or benefit.
The point about the 4 stations I originally mention is that they are in neighbourhoods that are either being redeveloped or are overcapacity already.
Yes, Crossrail will relieve some lines, probably mostly the central line, but I disagree that we shouldn't add to the pressure on the tube, quite the opposite. The reason it exists in the first place is to take pressure off the roads, buses and railways and if capacity is short then the message is that it needs to be expanded.But it does impede catchment. More stops requires more infrastructure, more staff to maintain and man the station, more stops mean journeys are longer and the drivers will have to be paid more = more cost that doesn't work out.

It is why York Road won't re-open, when Maiden Lane will; because it provides better value for money and better connections to the rest of London for those who use it.

The main problems at stations like Covent Garden is that the street > platform access is poor. Its nothing to do with needing more frequent stops, instead a new site is needed to build a larger ticket concourse and several banks of escalators down to the platform. TfL have plans to create a new ticket hall with escalators, but again its an expensive project.

Why on earth would you want to add more congestion to the Tube? What London needs is Crossrail lines to stop commuters having to transfer onto the Tube for the end of their journey. Take the hundreds of thousands who do this on a daily basis off the Tube, and it will operate with far less congestion. Adding Tube lines does not solve this problem, it only expands the problem.

[MolsonExport]

I find the topic of ghost stations and abandoned subway lines very fascinating.

Doesn't Cincinnati have an abandoned subway system, never used?

http://www.forgotten-ny.com/
^ a fantastic reference site for abandoned subway stations in NYC, and much more besides.

[Lucky Luke]

I find the topic of ghost stations and abandoned subway lines very fascinating.

Doesn't Cincinnati have an abandoned subway system, never used?

http://www.forgotten-ny.com/
^ a fantastic reference site for abandoned subway stations in NYC, and much more besides.

Yes it does. It has several miles of cut and cover tunnel which were abandoned before opening. Big waste of money!

[Lucky Luke]

There are as I know, 4 Crossrail 'projects', but there are also several tram projects that operate via Central London:
- Cross-River Tram
- City of London Tram
Why on earth would you want to add more congestion to the Tube? What London needs is Crossrail lines to stop commuters having to transfer onto the Tube for the end of their journey. Take the hundreds of thousands who do this on a daily basis off the Tube, and it will operate with far less congestion. Adding Tube lines does not solve this problem, it only expands the problem.

Let me put it like this. London at one stage had one line, the Metropolitan. It soon became clear it was a good idea for fast and efficient travel through the city and one line was inadequate. So someone came along and built the District line. And pretty soon, the Central, and the Piccadilly etc. etc. etc.
They didn't stop and say No More - we mustn't add congestion to the network. They built more lines and stations in accordance with the need. Even though the network still falls short of that need...

Various ideas abound, including more tube lines, trams, or Crossrail....
Yes, I believe you, Crossrail will help congestion on the tube, even though many of its users will have to finish their journeys by tube anyway. They are complimentary systems, not alternatives. But what when Crossrail is overcrowded? Won't we need tube lines to relieve it? It's a bit chicken or egg. Or like the road protestors who say don't buld more roads - it'll create more traffic. I remember the first version of Sim City - ultimately the only way to get rid of bad traffic was to demolish the road!

So no, I don't think we should give up on tube lines, Crossrail or no Crossrail. I don't believe anyone has come up with a better form of urban transport than the "subway". It relieves road and rail traffic better than anything else can and provides the fastest and most comprehensive means of travelling in a city (besides the bicycle). Its popularity is testament to its success. After all a busy underground is a healthy underground, else what we get is... ghost stations.

[Lucky Luke]

The main problems at stations like Covent Garden is that the street > platform access is poor. Its nothing to do with needing more frequent stops, instead a new site is needed to build a larger ticket concourse and several banks of escalators down to the platform. TfL have plans to create a new ticket hall with escalators, but again its an expensive project.


Yes, I am aware of this. I am not arguing for more stations in the Covent Garden area, I am merely pointing out that although the distance between it and Leicester sq is short, and the lines being deep level, both stations coexist and are amongst the busiest on the network.

[Lucky Luke]

But it does impede catchment. More stops requires more infrastructure, more staff to maintain and man the station, more stops mean journeys are longer and the drivers will have to be paid more = more cost that doesn't work out.

It is why York Road won't re-open, when Maiden Lane will; because it provides better value for money and better connections to the rest of London for those who use it.


Yes, every station on the network costs money, as does every driver, but no-one's proposing to close them all down (are they?). New stations/reopened stations bring with them benefits - passenger revenue, + then "invisible" benefits to the wider economy and community which is the main reason it all makes sense, and even an operating loss can be a wider economic success - hence subsidy.

Each route/station has a threshold at which it is economic/uneconomic to run. 2 stations close together can be economic (Leics sq/cvt gdn example again), as COULD various of the ghost stations as areas are redeveloped and catchment grows.

[Lucky Luke]

It is why York Road won't re-open, when Maiden Lane will; because it provides better value for money and better connections to the rest of London for those who use it.


Have to disagree. Maiden Lane wil fall on the London Overground, North London Line if I am correct. Not aware of many good connections on that line, at present. York Road is direct to Kings X, the West End and Heathrow. I can see a potential for both.

[nick_taylor]

Let me put it like this. London at one stage had one line, the Metropolitan. It soon became clear it was a good idea for fast and efficient travel through the city and one line was inadequate. So someone came along and built the District line. And pretty soon, the Central, and the Piccadilly etc. etc. etc.
They didn't stop and say No More - we mustn't add congestion to the network. They built more lines and stations in accordance with the need. Even though the network still falls short of that need...

Various ideas abound, including more tube lines, trams, or Crossrail....
Yes, I believe you, Crossrail will help congestion on the tube, even though many of its users will have to finish their journeys by tube anyway. They are complimentary systems, not alternatives. But what when Crossrail is overcrowded? Won't we need tube lines to relieve it? It's a bit chicken or egg. Or like the road protestors who say don't buld more roads - it'll create more traffic. I remember the first version of Sim City - ultimately the only way to get rid of bad traffic was to demolish the road!

So no, I don't think we should give up on tube lines, Crossrail or no Crossrail. I don't believe anyone has come up with a better form of urban transport than the "subway". It relieves road and rail traffic better than anything else can and provides the fastest and most comprehensive means of travelling in a city (besides the bicycle). Its popularity is testament to its success. After all a busy underground is a healthy underground, else what we get is... ghost stations.You fail to see the bigger problems of why the London Underground is congested. It is nothing to do with there not being enough lines (technically it probably has the most if you counted each branch as separate), or enough stations. It is to do with people funnelling into London from the metro into the 13 termini and then transferring onto the London Underground to get to their final destination. It is this congestion that the Crossrail lines would relieve, and hence make the London Underground a more 'fluid' network.

Crossrail will have far higher capacities than any sub-surface or deep-level tube line. I've read that the first Crossrail line would have the same infrastructure to handle passenger numbers of the RER A in Paris which handles at least 1mn people each weekday. The entire London Underground now handles around 3-4mn now.

The only tube expansion I see is the Bakerloo extension to Watford, the Metropolitan extension to Watford, Piccadilly Line extension to Heathrow T5 (u/c) and those of London Overground.


Yes, every station on the network costs money, as does every driver, but no-one's proposing to close them all down (are they?). New stations/reopened stations bring with them benefits - passenger revenue, + then "invisible" benefits to the wider economy and community which is the main reason it all makes sense, and even an operating loss can be a wider economic success - hence subsidy.

Each route/station has a threshold at which it is economic/uneconomic to run. 2 stations close together can be economic (Leics sq/cvt gdn example again), as COULD various of the ghost stations as areas are redeveloped and catchment grows.But, you can't just open them if it means that the service as a whole is going to harm the rest of the line. TfL takes these things into consideration, but if there is no foreseeable gain then they won't go ahead. This is no different to any other city on the planet.


Have to disagree. Maiden Lane wil fall on the London Overground, North London Line if I am correct. Not aware of many good connections on that line, at present. York Road is direct to Kings X, the West End and Heathrow. I can see a potential for both.The North London Line is going to become a highly important section of an orbital rail service around Central London. Factor in the East London Line Extension, and this will become one of the most integrated rail lines in London, linking up to all areas of London, including the key regeneration zone of Stratford City. The great thing with London Overground is that the stations will be adapted to allow for easier transfers (eg Hackney Central & Hackney Downs)

The Piccadilly Line does not add anything to regenerating London and is already congested. York Road is far too close to King's Cross and won't be as integrated as Maiden Lane will to the King's Cross redevelopment site. If people need to get further connections, they can walk down to King's Cross St Pancras which will offer far more value for money and a far larger array of connections.

Hence, while you might see potential, I see a waste of money that could go on actually improving services in other areas of London instead of actually making them worse off.

Current North London Line
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/59/North-london-line-diagram.svg/320px-North-london-line-diagram.svg.png

[Lucky Luke]

The Piccadilly Line does not add anything to regenerating London and is already congested. York Road is far too close to King's Cross and won't be as integrated as Maiden Lane will to the King's Cross redevelopment site. If people need to get further connections, they can walk down to King's Cross St Pancras which will offer far more value for money and a far larger array of connections.

Hence, while you might see potential, I see a waste of money that could go on actually improving services in other areas of London instead of actually making them worse off.


Well Nick, why the hell rebuild Maiden Lane station? Isn't that far too close to Kings x? Isn't that going to "harm" services on the NLL? Why isn't that a big waste of money? Won't we all be worse off on our journeys from Richmond to Stratford?

The Piccadilly line sure isn't going to help regenerate the York Road area if it doesn't have a station. That's pretty obvious...

[nick_taylor]

Well Nick, why the hell rebuild Maiden Lane station? Isn't that far too close to Kings x? Isn't that going to "harm" services on the NLL? Why isn't that a big waste of money? Won't we all be worse off on our journeys from Richmond to Stratford?

The Piccadilly line sure isn't going to help regenerate the York Road area if it doesn't have a station. That's pretty obvious...If you had taken notice of this map that I posted previously...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/Maiden-lane-station.png

- Maiden Lane is clearly not within the catchment of King's Cross
- Maiden lane is not competing for passengers with any near-by North London Line station, while York Road would by competing with King's Cross
- Maiden Lane would cost far less to open than York Road, simply because more of it remains intact and it is at surface level
- Disruption to re-opening Maiden Lane would be minimal, because at this point, the NLL is 4-track meaning diversions could be handled more easily. The re-opening of York Road would require the Piccadilly Line to be closed because it would be unsafe
- People from Richmond and Stratford will have access to the King's Cross Rail Lands development (and vice versa).

The simple fact is, there is no point re-opening one station, when you can re-open another which is far more beneficial to the surrounding area, the transport network, society and the economy.

Now if York Road had been originally built further north at Maiden Lane (the Piccadilly runs under the site), then the case to re-open both as a London Overground/London Underground interchange would be immensely strong. Unfortunately York Road is far too south meaning it wouldn't be viable.

[hulkrogan]

Calgary also has a small section of subway tunnel and a subway platform at city hall that were never used because they decided to go above ground. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the pictures right now.

[kenratboy]

AWESOME thread! I love this sort of stuff!

[Derek]

this is a sweet thread:)

but it needs more pictures...

[Lucky Luke]

With the planned £135m redevelopment of Camden Town station on the ropes again for conservation reasons I believe it is time TFL looked seriously at the option for reopening South Kentish Town. To the north of Camden Market area, it could absorb some of the weekend market crush that is debilitating Camden Town station at the moment.

I dare say it would costs an awful lot less than £135m, and it would increase the catchment of the Northern Line.

On the downside it would add another 30 seconds to through journeys. Could we live with that?

http://mindroutes.blogspot.com/

[lightrail]

Calgary also has a small section of subway tunnel and a subway platform at city hall that were never used because they decided to go above ground. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the pictures right now.

The tunnel was built for future underground LRT. The Calgary LRT was always planned to be at grade and then put underground later when ridership required it. It's not really abandoned.

Edmonton built a wider tunnel section under the Remand Centre. A platform was supposed to be built here so that dedicated late night trains could transport prisoners to a facility north of Edmonton. The concept was dropped, but you can see the platform space when you ride the train through the tunnel north of Churchill Station.

[one very bored guy]

Where is (was) the York Rd station in relevance to today's maps?

[nick_taylor]

Where is (was) the York Rd station in relevance to today's maps?It was at the junction of Bingfield Street and York Way (note the road changed its name from York Road to York Way). Bingfield St is now cut in half, but on York Way where there is a stub of Bingfield St, you can see the site of the old station.

It could re-open, but not before a new station at Maiden Lane as that would server a larger catchment area that has no immediate stations in the surrounding area. I would also doubt that the two could become an interchange due to the distance between both stations.

Google Map Link:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Bingfield+Street&sll=51.539209,-0.124969&sspn=0.011878,0.043302&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=51.538435,-0.11968&spn=0.005138,0.013947&z=17&iwloc=addr

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/YorkRoad1.jpg/800px-YorkRoad1.jpg


Interestingly I was creating a list of all the stations (grouped by line and with a reason) closed in London.....there are just so many - more than most cities will ever have in open networks! Haven't finished it yet though.

[one very bored guy]

Thanks Nick. Looking at the map, I do think that this station could reopen. It would serve completely a different area than Kings Cross where most people would fan south. With the new redevelopment happening behind the station there would be density and activity enough to warrent this station opening.

I do realise that this would add a slight delay to the service, but I think the benefits would be well worth it.

Then again, as I don't live in London, I may not be as up with everything to those who do ;)

By the way, when you finish your map, please leave a link to it on this thread so I see it. Sounds really interesting and I wouldn't want to miss it.