Why are we not building new underground lines?

[Belperpete]

The entire south east of London has no tube lines, and even with Crossrail coming it doesn't benefit the actual southern portion. SE Land networks all bottleneck through/by Lewisham and Bromley and generally any plan to extend anything has resulted in a lot of apathy (the thameslink project not doing anything to untangle anything from North Kent to Hither Green Junctions, or even explaining why not)....

The South of London has very few tube lines because the ground conditions are less favourable for tunneling. However, the South of London has an extensive, electrified suburban network instead.

Once you get outside London, then you start getting into politics. The Mayor of London and Transport for London, who control the tube network, have no authority for transport outside the London area, which makes it politically difficult to extend tube lines outside the London boundary. I seem to recall that TfL wanted control over the south suburban network, so that they could improve it to "Overground" standards, and were firmly put in their place as it extends beyond the outer London boundary. People in Kent and Surrey were not happy that their trains would be controlled by a body over which they had no control.

Getting the developers to pay for a scheme in return for being allowed to develop the land is how the DLR was funded. Unfortunately, in this country, even if the cost is under-written by developers, it still counts as public spending, and hence falls foul of treasury public spending limits. Certainly the dead-hand of the treasury has been the cause for much of the lack of investment in this country, not just rail. Where other countries such as France see investment in infrastructure as good for the country's future, governments in this country have often considered ALL public spending as inherently bad, and applied often quite arbitrary limits on investment.

 

[Belperpete]

Outside of London we don't have the continuous areas of high density development which justify the expense of tunnelling. Where a metro system may happen, it's now going to be a tram scheme.

Unfortunately, in this country we still seem to regard tram schemes as "second best". You only have to go to places that have proper tram networks, such as Prague, to realise that trams are capable of carrying significant numbers of people quickly and efficiently.

 

[Bald Rick]

The South of London has very few tube lines because the ground conditions are less favourable for tunneling. However, the South of London has an extensive, electrified suburban network instead.

Once you get outside London, then you start getting into politics. The Mayor of London and Transport for London, who control the tube network, have no authority for transport outside the London area, which makes it politically difficult to extend tube lines outside the London boundary. I seem to recall that TfL wanted control over the south suburban network, so that they could improve it to "Overground" standards, and were firmly put in their place as it extends beyond the outer London boundary. People in Kent and Surrey were not happy that their trains would be controlled by a body over which they had no control.

Getting the developers to pay for a scheme in return for being allowed to develop the land is how the DLR was funded. Unfortunately, in this country, even if the cost is under-written by developers, it still counts as public spending, and hence falls foul of treasury public spending limits. Certainly the dead-hand of the treasury has been the cause for much of the lack of investment in this country, not just rail. Where other countries such as France see investment in infrastructure as good for the country's future, governments in this country have often considered ALL public spending as inherently bad, and applied often quite arbitrary limits on investment.

That misses a few points. In France, for example, many of the large cities (Paris being the best example) have local tax on salary, paid for by employers, but hypothecated specifically for local transport, known as versement transports. I think in Paris it is up to 2.6%. Were the same to happen here, public transport would be in a rather better state. A similar levy in London would raise over £3bn a year. That’s a Crossrail every 5 years.

Where funding for transport projects is underwritten, ie guaranteed to be paid for, by private developers, it is very definitely off the public balance sheet. HM Treasury can’t touch it.

‘London’ (ie the Mayor, not necessarily TfL) did indeed want control of the Southeastern metro services. And it still does, and it wants southern metro services too. But it simply can’t afford it. It was nothing to do with the representations of Kent etc, much as that is a convenient excuse.

 

[infobleep]

Take a look at Rome, (where work stops dead every few weeks as they find some new antiquities), or the NYC 2nd Avenue Subway: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway
This was first mooted in 1919, and the first two miles complete in 2017, - they just managed it in under 100 years.
We might see the re-routing of some of the oldest tube tunnels to create gaps for new lines to pass. I imagine that there are some poor alignments that LU would like to get rid of for operating convenience, e.g. the Liverpool St to St Pauls bends on the Central, the South Kensington curves on the Piccadilly. The latter has a 5 chain radius curve traversed by every train running on the main line.

Were the bends out in at the time due to it being easier to construct?

When was the last time LU created tunnels to bypass alignments? Have they even ever done this?

 

[infobleep]

Unfortunately, in this country we still seem to regard tram schemes as "second best". You only have to go to places that have proper tram networks, such as Prague, to realise that trams are capable of carrying significant numbers of people quickly and efficiently.

We should never have got ridden of our trams and trolly buses.

 

[infobleep]

I’ve seen the passenger modelling for Clapham Junction, with various options for and different interchanges and new lines, and it really isn’t pretty. It needs a complete rethink, but that is going to be ££££

Would the expensive price put it in the too expensive, let's think about it in the future category?

 

[AM9]

Were the bends out in at the time due to it being easier to construct?

The bends between Liverpool St and Bank are because the line follows the street layout as much as possible to avoid some of the deep foundations of the larger buildings. The sharp double bend just east of South Kensington (SK) is there because the line was modified to use the alignment of the then proposed Deep Level District line which is the E-W stretch between SK and Barons Court. Thus it had to turn sharply westwards just before SK.
Much of the Northern, Piccadilly and parts of the Central lines have the tracks running as closely as possible with separate platforms for each direction. The normal way now is for a larger single island platform that allows sharing of better escalator access. Unless the roads above are quite wide (for London), that requires the line to be run deep enough to clear foundations of buildings. Some station have the two platforms one above the other to save space. All of this makes for more expensive (to provide and maintain) platform access.

When was the last time LU created tunnels to bypass alignments? Have they even ever done this?

I can't think of any major re-alignments but with so many pinch points, it may well be seen in the future as a way of threading in new lines. There have been many small re-alignments from the original buils, e.g. Tower Hill station has been moved twice and expanded. During the '60s, the line between Farringdon and Barbican (then called Aldersgate) was re-aligned to give a better run between the two stations.

 

[Railguy1]

It might be economically viable to bore plain tunnel, but on a high capacity line, station boxes can cost more than the tunnels. If the platforms are too deep, passenger access takes too long to make short journies viable. Imagine a tube stop where there were three long sets of escalators to the surface to carry 5 to 10 thousand passengers per hour.
There may be a future in very deep bypass tunnels for mainline use where the depth has no impact on passenger movements but anything approaching metro frequency of stops would be unworkable.

It’s means (take a deep breath)... that there isn’t space at a level shallow enough where sufficient vertical capacity can be provided to get people between street and platform in a short enough time that will make any such new line attractive to psssengers at a viable construction cost.

It is easy and relatively cheap to dig deep tunnels - there’s plenty in London Well below any railway with cables and pipes in them. What isn’t easy is building the passages that connesct thme with the surface. The average Crossrail style station, at about 20-30m deep, costs more than £1bn pounds, whilst the cost for a stations length of running tunnel is about 5% of that. For a deeper station you can easily double the station cost.

Edit: it appears there are two of us from St Albans up at the same time posting the same answers. I’m not copying you AM9!

I see, thanks.

 

[Jurg]

The West Midlands Rail 30 year investment strategy (consultation draft) includes a long-term aim for something called "Birmingham Underground" ...
http://www.westmidlandsrail.com/media/10731/west-midlands-rail-report_final_11082018.pdf

 

[LLivery]

Isn't the difference that, for whatever historical reasons, south London ended up with a much more dense suburban network, north London got tubes, and both have experienced advantages and disadvantages as a result ? If tube lines are to be extended south of the river, it would seem sensible to use them not primarily to.replace existing heavy rail lines, but to cut across different corridors and increase overall connectivity

There was a proposal a couple of years ago linking Barking - Abbey Wood - Bexleyheath - Norwood Jun, onwards. I can't remember what the proposal was called, but I wasn't convinced it would be ever considered value for money.

Following main roads, connecting different railway lines would be great. There are several main roads clogged in South London which ridiculously high pollution that could do with new lines under them. The A2 Old Kent Road is already planned.

Once you get outside London, then you start getting into politics. The Mayor of London and Transport for London, who control the tube network, have no authority for transport outside the London area, which makes it politically difficult to extend tube lines outside the London boundary. I seem to recall that TfL wanted control over the south suburban network, so that they could improve it to "Overground" standards, and were firmly put in their place as it extends beyond the outer London boundary. People in Kent and Surrey were not happy that their trains would be controlled by a body over which they had no control.

...Where other countries such as France see investment in infrastructure as good for the country's future, governments in this country have often considered ALL public spending as inherently bad, and applied often quite arbitrary limits on investment.

Even inside London, you're getting into politics. I was never convinced by LO taking over the whole S London network, some of what they were proposing was unachievable without spending lots monies they just don't have. If TfL and the Counties got together like in the West Midlands, this political issue would've never have been an excuse.

Oh, and we can't follow sensible things that they do on the Continent, they're European - our neverending flawed ways are always best!

That misses a few points. In France, for example, many of the large cities (Paris being the best example) have local tax on salary, paid for by employers, but hypothecated specifically for local transport, known as versement transports. I think in Paris it is up to 2.6%. Were the same to happen here, public transport would be in a rather better state. A similar levy in London would raise over £3bn a year. That’s a Crossrail every 5 years.

Where funding for transport projects is underwritten, ie guaranteed to be paid for, by private developers, it is very definitely off the public balance sheet. HM Treasury can’t touch it.

‘London’ (ie the Mayor, not necessarily TfL) did indeed want control of the Southeastern metro services. And it still does, and it wants southern metro services too. But it simply can’t afford it. It was nothing to do with the representations of Kent etc, much as that is a convenient excuse.

Interesting about Paris, I always wondered how they can afford big projects frequently. In this case 8 new lines/extensions at once.

The Kent representation argument was convenient...for Grayling. Kent and Surrey said they were happy for it to go ahead but "clutches of Labour" and all. He could've at least made SWR, GTR and the future SE franchise have a clear suburban identity, integrated with, but separate from the TfL network.

 

[Bald Rick]

Were the bends out in at the time due to it being easier to construct?

When was the last time LU created tunnels to bypass alignments? Have they even ever done this?

Plenty of examples where LU and its predecessors have realigned tunnels. Normally as part of station rebuilds rather than to iron out curves though. There’s one being built right now at Bank.

The issue with straightening curves is that it saves minimal time, doesn’t increase capacity, costs a lot of money, and in many cases I expect there are now deep foundations / basements in the way of the straightened alignement. Not. Slot going for it really.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Why do we build cross rail like routes instead of more tube line ?. Because Cross rail is better.

The Crossrail method diverts existing suburban/outer suburban routes into routes across London thus avoiding the need for passengers to interchange onto tube lines. This is especially true to the South of the Thames where there are few services that extend into the heart of London. Ironicaly the furthest South a tube line gets in London is the - Northern line !.

I remember wondering when London would achieve the same as the RER in Paris and that was before 1986 - over thirty years ago.

The problem with London is it is so big so it needs lines that spend longer distances avoiding the clutter on the surface. Like most capital cities it grows faster than cities around it because its size acts as a magnet for investment (so jobs), talent and house-builders. If I could earn 2/3rds of what I earn now but in, say, Manchester I could buy a house in/around Manchester. My commute would be measured in miles instead of time. To get across London by car can take 2 or 3 hours. The only way that will change is if some major disaster befalls London. Sea levels rising won't hurt the Likes of Birmingham and Leeds as much as London. I wonder if Manchester is much higher above sea level than Liverpool though.

Other examples of a Crossrail type solution would be linking lines North and South of Manchester thus avoiding Victoria and Piccadilly. Adding platforms on the side of Piccadilly is a bit like Thameslink pre "2000" - tinkering. But it is a start and at least links East-West.

Birmingham largely got away with the terminus problem as Snow Hill and New Street are through stations. OK Moor Street still exists and Curzon Street got replaced by New Street (in Victorian times). We are replicating that problem by making the premier services from London (Euston) terminate in Birmingham instead of going through (ironically at exactly the same terminus location and name - Curzon Street !). Instead we should be linking Northern(-ish) cities with services that happen to have come through from London. Bit off topic but it indicates how hard it still seems to be to plan/think in terms of *THROUGH* services.

 

[Jonny]

Also, TfL seem to use Crossrail as an excuse to soak up national funding. Let TfL pay for any future lines!

 

[Esker-pades]

Also, TfL seem to use Crossrail as an excuse to soak up national funding. Let TfL pay for any future lines!

Yes. Because no other area of the UK gets any form of rail funding.

 

[The Ham]

Also, TfL seem to use Crossrail as an excuse to soak up national funding. Let TfL pay for any future lines!

Crossrail benefits locations beyond London, not least people going to/from Heathrow.

Crossrail 2 could lead to benefits across quitea large area outside of London. Possibly as far away as Exeter. As well as on my local line where 5 consecutive stations on the line (with a total of over 12 million passengers) would likely see an improvement in services.

As such it is fairly reasonable for their to be national funding going into such schemes. I don't (and never have) live(d) or work in London (evening if you count within the M25 as London) but would likely benefit from Crossrail 2 when it's built.

 

[AM9]

Also, TfL seem to use Crossrail as an excuse to soak up national funding. Let TfL pay for any future lines!

Also, post #72 is just another excuse to make an irrelevant comment ignoring that funding going where traffic needs are. This a thread about 'underground' lines not being/no being built in London, not another provincial anti-London ranting session.

 

[swt_passenger]

There was a proposal a couple of years ago linking Barking - Abbey Wood - Bexleyheath - Norwood Jun, onwards. I can't remember what the proposal was called, but I wasn't convinced it would be ever considered value for money.

That sounds a bit like one of the straws clutched at by the BML2 proponents when it was explained there was nowhere for all their proposed extra trains to terminate in the London area...

 

[hwl]

Also, TfL seem to use Crossrail as an excuse to soak up national funding. Let TfL pay for any future lines!

You do realise half the cost of Crossrail is locally funded (ditto for CR2) - what other parts of the country raise half the funds for their rail projects locally?

 

[Pigeon]

Curzon Street got replaced by New Street (in Victorian times). We are replicating that problem by making the premier services from London (Euston) terminate in Birmingham instead of going through (ironically at exactly the same terminus location and name - Curzon Street !). Instead we should be linking Northern(-ish) cities with services that happen to have come through from London. Bit off topic but it indicates how hard it still seems to be to plan/think in terms of *THROUGH* services.

Standard practice, though, innit.

Do something half-arsed because it's easier on the assumption that it won't matter. Painfully discover that actually it does matter, and painfully fix it. Wait >= 100 years. Disregard the previous experience and do exactly the same half-arsed thing all over again.

(And in this particular instance, add insult to injury by making the half-arsedly-sited station look like a giant blob of spit.)

 

[PR1Berske]

Yes. Because no other area of the UK gets any form of rail funding.

As a northerner, I can confidently state that we get so little compared to London/TfL that the original statement you're responding to is pretty near-as-damnit accurate. TfL get what TfL ask for. The same is not true for those of us up here.

 

[Esker-pades]

As a northerner, I can confidently state that we get so little compared to London/TfL that the original statement you're responding to is pretty near-as-damnit accurate. TfL get what TfL ask for. The same is not true for those of us up here.

Having seen bus routes cut/scrapped altogether, the Croxley Rail Link scrapped and various other projects put on hold because of a lack of funds, I can say that this is not true.

 

[infobleep]

As a northerner, I can confidently state that we get so little compared to London/TfL that the original statement you're responding to is pretty near-as-damnit accurate. TfL get what TfL ask for. The same is not true for those of us up here.

If TfL gets what it wants, why doesn't it have metro services to more stations? Surely it just asks and gets.

 

[The Ham]

As a northerner, I can confidently state that we get so little compared to London/TfL that the original statement you're responding to is pretty near-as-damnit accurate. TfL get what TfL ask for. The same is not true for those of us up here.

TfL have zero ongoing subsidy, whilst TPE have significant subsidy. Based on TPE's subsidises over a 20 year period the SWT area could have just over £11.5 billion spent on it and still only have the same level of total funding as if it had the same level of support as TPE.

That would be enough (with the funding that London will provides) to have built Crossrail 2.

If you did a similar exercise with Northern then you'd probably find that the level of support between that and the money spent on London probably wouldn't be that different.

 

[Clip]

Every time I come across the sort of thinking which assumes Britain comes to an end at the M25, I feel compelled to educate the person responsible. Particularly when it inevitably unleashes a flood of people telling us how much the rest of us owe London for our daily bread, conveniently forgetting that us peasants in the provinces did not ask for much of the economy outside the south-east to be dismantled, or for moat of what remained to then be transported away like the spoils of war

That chip on your shoulder doesn't do you any favours and you do not educate anyone

No one forgets anyone else but the OP specifically wanted to talk about underground lines in London and they should be able to do so without your constant whingeing about other places in the UK.

And again I will point out to you that there are many threads about other cities in the UK and their rail needs so why not join in on one of them instead of being petty every.single.time.

 

[Clip]

If TfL gets what it wants, why doesn't it have metro services to more stations? Surely it just asks and gets.

Of course it does - i mean the crossrail project was first spoke about in 1941 or something so its been a bit of a long project wouldnt you say?

 

[yorkie]

Another reminder of my post earlier; some key extracts:

...Also can we please end the ludicrous north vs south arguments...

... if you see something of concern, click the report button ...

...Please stick to the topic ...

 

[coppercapped]

That misses a few points. In France, for example, many of the large cities (Paris being the best example) have local tax on salary, paid for by employers, but hypothecated specifically for local transport, known as versement transports. I think in Paris it is up to 2.6%. Were the same to happen here, public transport would be in a rather better state. A similar levy in London would raise over £3bn a year. That’s a Crossrail every 5 years.

Where funding for transport projects is underwritten, ie guaranteed to be paid for, by private developers, it is very definitely off the public balance sheet. HM Treasury can’t touch it.

‘London’ (ie the Mayor, not necessarily TfL) did indeed want control of the Southeastern metro services. And it still does, and it wants southern metro services too. But it simply can’t afford it. It was nothing to do with the representations of Kent etc, much as that is a convenient excuse.

When I lived and worked in Paris the transport tax was /paid/ by the employer but deducted from my salary. So /I/ paid it...

 

[infobleep]

Of course it does - i mean the crossrail project was first spoke about in 1941 or something so its been a bit of a long project wouldnt you say?

But Chris Grayling said no to them having metro services. That won't change as long as there is a mayor who isn't a Conservative and Chris Grayling is Transport Secutary

 

[Bald Rick]

When I lived and worked in Paris the transport tax was /paid/ by the employer but deducted from my salary. So /I/ paid it...

Interesting. I did wonder if that happened.

 

[Clip]

But Chris Grayling said no to them having metro services. That won't change as long as there is a mayor who isn't a Conservative and Chris Grayling is Transport Secutary

That bears no relation to the post and point i was making.