Camden Town and Northern line separation

[Nym]

The middle car of the TRV is a 73 stock, which has similar length cars to 96 stock. I seem to remember 83 stock visited the Bakerloo at some point test purposes.

Clearly some level of work would be required.

Yes, but the 73TS trailer in the centre has been subject to VERY heavy conversion work, including around the bogies, completely different couplers and is subject to a different maintenance regime on it's secondaries compared with the main 73TS fleet.
It is for all purposes a 73TS trailer in name only.

Twin Pipe Braked with Manual (Pneumatic) Parking Brake
Buckeye Couplers
ETS Supplied

The mid of them ones significantly changes the characteristics of the vehicle on curves. And indeed the Central Line is more onerous than most of the Bakerloo Line and it's very much a main stay on that line.

One should also look carefully at the carriage end and parts of the sole bar some time...

 

[Backroom_boy]

Going for full seperation; what should the two halves be renamed?

 

[urbophile]

Going for full seperation; what should the two halves be renamed?

It's always been a nonsense that the 'Northern' line was the only one to go so far south. Why not rename the Morden- Bank section the Southern Line? (Similar nonsense here in Merseyside where the Northern Line runs well south of the city centre).

 

[swt_passenger]

Regarding the service to Morden, doesn't the overall plan aim for 30+ tph through Bank, and the layout at Kennington means it is these trains that have to run through to Morden, and that is why the Charing Cross branch trains can’t run to Morden as well?

But also, if the lines are split and overall frequencies increased on both northern branches, isn’t there a problem with having dedicated depot capacity?

 

[bramling]

It'll be interesting to see in the event of a split how engineering works are dealt with. E.g. if the Bank branch is shut today, both Edgware and High Barnet remain served (at half frequency). Would in future this mean no service at all on one northern branch?

There would likely need to be a bit of attention given to the reversing points (especially as places like Archway and Kennington can only be used to reverse trains in one direction at the moment), however what would happen would be no different to any other line - the concept of “branches” would likely disappear.

There would be quite a hit to reliability though. Currently the Northern is one of the best lines when handling disruption - one under at Angel, no problem, just divert everything via CX and all that has to be worried about are the trains immediately trapped, which might only be a handful.

 

[Domh245]

But also, if the lines are split and overall frequencies increased on both northern branches, isn’t there a problem with having dedicated depot capacity?

I would think that any depot related issues will be solved by doing something a bit like the S7s across the District, Circle ands H&C lines with a handful of early morning/late evening cross-through services to get trains back to depots as necessary.

 

[StewLane]

It's always been a nonsense that the 'Northern' line was the only one to go so far south. Why not rename the Morden- Bank section the Southern Line? (Similar nonsense here in Merseyside where the Northern Line runs well south of the city centre).

How about calling the Morden branch the Nelson line as he had a house there?

 

[bramling]

I would think that any depot related issues will be solved by doing something a bit like the S7s across the District, Circle ands H&C lines with a handful of early morning/late evening cross-through services to get trains back to depots as necessary.

There would certainly need to be works. Highgate would almost certainly be completely rebuilt, and would almost certainly be able to accommodate quite a few more (shovels were actually being got ready to do that when extra trains were being considered a few years ago). Edgware also has a number of roads not currently used so some work there could likely provide space for around 5-10 trains. High Barnet also has some spare roads so could take about 3 more.

Golders Green and Morden are pretty full now, though there’s three sidings at Golders Green station which currently aren’t used.

Include Battersea platforms and that probably gives something in the region of 25-30 stabling berths fairly readily.

Beyond that you’re looking at places like Finchley Central station car park, if Sadiq Khan hasn’t covered it in 500,000 flats in the meantime!

 

[Busaholic]

Both routes through the centre can connect to Morden, and to the reversing siding at Kennington. It's just the reversing loop which connects to the ChX branch only. And, since the Battersea route is a turn off from the loop, Battersea can only run to and from ChX. None of the Battrsea tunneling cuts any existing connections at Kennington. So if the Battersea route doesn't have the level of patronage of the Morden branch in the rush hour and hence doesn't need a highly intensive service, it's perfectly possible for some of the Morden trains to run via ChX. In fact, I presume some ChX trains that can't fit on the Morden branch (when the latter is taking a full rush-hour load from the City), which aren't needed for Battersea, will continue to turn at Kennington [ie not all Chx route Kennington terminators might continue to Battersea when it's open]; there should be more than a train's length in the part of the loop between the two Battersea connections, and so continung to run some ChX services round the loop should be possible without them messing up the service intervals on the Battersea branch.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Oct 2020 ==



Why on earth would they cut those junctions and lose operational flexibility [they certainly won't be blocking the tunnels themselves] even if the standard service always links one route through the centre to one of the northern branches? (And since either pairing combination is possible without losing the advantage of avoiding junction delays south of Camden Town, is there any obvious reason why the normal pairing should be one way rather than the other?) Personally, even if there was a standard pattern to increase throughput of trains in the rush hour, I'd much prefer all combinations to run at other times to save the hassle of a Camden Town change; the latter might be less congested if/when they rebuild the station, but it's still unnecessary and could be avoided for much of the day.

The max tph on each section of the Northern Line (inc Battersea branch) that were projected would only be achievable if 4 tph from Morden (i.e. current service level afaik) continued via Charing Cross in each peak: Camden Town, even after the changes, couldn't take those extra 4 tph coming into the Bank platforms. Also, at present (though Covid could end this) there is a good late evening service from stations like Leicester Square direct to Morden: changing at Kennington wouldn't be ideal for so many alcholically challenged customers, or the staff having to deal with them.

 

[Mikey C]

The max tph on each section of the Northern Line (inc Battersea branch) that were projected would only be achievable if 4 tph from Morden (i.e. current service level afaik) continued via Charing Cross in each peak: Camden Town, even after the changes, couldn't take those extra 4 tph coming into the Bank platforms. Also, at present (though Covid could end this) there is a good late evening service from stations like Leicester Square direct to Morden: changing at Kennington wouldn't be ideal for so many alcholically challenged customers, or the staff having to deal with them.

Yes, there would be a massive imbalance if all CX trains went to Battersea and all Bank trains went to Morden, as the latter route is far longer and busier. Kennington is a pretty cramped station too

By contrast the 2 northern branches are more evenly loaded

 

[Deepgreen]

In a former life I was an internal LU client manager for the Camden Town project, and the issue that stymied it for so long was the availability of surrounding properties to buy up for expansion. There was much resistance (and therefore potentially enormous cost) and one of the key elements of the station is the huge numbers that visit for the market. To accommodate these the station had to be closed at intervals to prevent over-crowding, and was entry-only at set times. The sheer number of people hanging around there to meet others made the ticket hall especially difficult to manage. Then there was the requirement for additional escalators, plus step-free access (lifts) to squeeze in, making it essential to 'double-end' the station to accommodate all this infrastructure. At the time of my involvement Mornington Crescent was also closed for lift replacement and modernisation (my project too) which temporarily exacerbated the traffic management problems (but at least I got to meet the cast of 'I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue' when it re-opened, in Humphrey's time at the helm!).

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, there would be a massive imbalance if all CX trains went to Battersea and all Bank trains went to Morden, as the latter route is far longer and busier. Kennington is a pretty cramped station too

Is it not the other way round? If a proportion of Charing Cross trains came from Morden then those would be more heavily loaded than the ones coming from Battersea, taking longer at each station and leading to risk of bunching. The same would apply in the other direction but to a lesser extent, as many people would probably get the first train and change at Kennington.

In contrast, if all trains took the same route at Kennington then everyone would take the first train. If there was an imbalance in loading between the two routes north of Kennington then that could be adjusted by tweaking the trains per hour, which wouldn't affect the other route as they would be totally separate operationally. The important thing is that passengers would be evenly distributed between consecutive trains.

 

[rebmcr]

Why not rename the Morden- Bank section the Southern Line?

Confusion with Southern Railway.

 

[urbophile]

Confusion with Southern Railway.

I suppose. We have the same confusion in Merseyside with Northern Rail (or is it Northern Trains now?) and the Northern Line of Merseyrail. The Morden branch, in the spirit of recapturing nostalgic names, could become the City and South London once again.

 

[Busaholic]

Is it not the other way round? If a proportion of Charing Cross trains came from Morden then those would be more heavily loaded than the ones coming from Battersea, taking longer at each station and leading to risk of bunching. The same would apply in the other direction but to a lesser extent, as many people would probably get the first train and change at Kennington.

In contrast, if all trains took the same route at Kennington then everyone would take the first train. If there was an imbalance in loading between the two routes north of Kennington then that could be adjusted by tweaking the trains per hour, which wouldn't affect the other route as they would be totally separate operationally. The important thing is that passengers would be evenly distributed between consecutive trains.

There is slack on the Charing Cross routeing, though, which'll still be there after the extension of the Kennington turners to Battersea. Personally, without a interchange at Vauxhall for strategic reasons, I only foresee near empty trains from Battersea up the Charing Cross branch: other perhaps than in a short period of the am peak, passengers coming from Morden direction will still find near empty trains to change onto at Kennington for Charing Cross.

 

[bassmike]

One thing I cannot understand is the completely crazy idea of building the Battersea ext: at all . Surely the N L is crowded enough already without bringing more crowding. To my mind the Batt; extn: is not a logical route anyway as it is not an obvious route to get from Batt: to central london. Maybe I'm wrong??

 

[Busaholic]

One thing I cannot understand is the completely crazy idea of building the Battersea ext: at all . Surely the N L is crowded enough already without bringing more crowding. To my mind the Batt; extn: is not a logical route anyway as it is not an obvious route to get from Batt: to central london. Maybe I'm wrong??

The Mayor of London, if they are so minded, can exert great pressure on TfL to implement or bring forward new tube ideas. Both Boris Johnson's admirers and detractors might agree he was adept at coming up with ideas on these and other more fanciful schemes like the airport in the Thames Estuary, and in the case of the Battersea extension, he was lobbied by the billionaire owner of the Battersea Power Station site and, soon afterwards, persuaded the board of TfL that this extension should be put top of the 'to do' list, even though it previously wasn't in the Top 10 (the Bakerloo extension occupying top spot.) At the time, the coincidence of having both a Tory Mayor and Tory Chancellor (George Osborne) ensured the project would get funded: if any developer money/inducements were also involved I don't recollect, but in any case these things are often conveniently 'forgotten' later.I'd expect passenger numbers on the extension, outside City travel hours, to rival those on the Woodford to Hainault section of the Central Line (slight exaggeration) but DON'T expect to see any great criticism from the Evening Standard (ed. George Osborne.)

 

[Taunton]

I can see rebuilding Camden Town for passenger volumes entering there, it can be notably overcrowded 7 days a week. But an upside of the current alternating arrangement is passengers wait for their relevant train at all the stations along the line. Make large numbers interchange at Camden Town and dwell times there will increase, nixing any attempt at increasing trains per hour.

 

[AlbertBeale]

One thing I cannot understand is the completely crazy idea of building the Battersea ext: at all . Surely the N L is crowded enough already without bringing more crowding. To my mind the Batt; extn: is not a logical route anyway as it is not an obvious route to get from Batt: to central london. Maybe I'm wrong??

You're absolutely right. But, as has been pointed out on this thread more than once, money talks...

The obvious answer to using the spare capacity terminating at Kennington (since two central routes can't fit into one southern branch) was to have another route through the southern suburbs - possibly even vaguely parallel to the Morden branch but a couple of miles across from it, to the east. That would have provided serious extra capacity in south London (where the many buses often move very slowly), and helped also with the loadings on the main line suburban network. Additionally, if it served Brixton (or thereabouts), it could relieve the pressure on the Victoria Line too - maybe even enough to allow the Vic to be extended further south or south-east itself, which it couldn't cope with at present.) No doubt the precise optimum route for an extra Northern Line route in south London would have involved some argument/haggling, but almost anything would make more sense than the Battersea route.

(Of course, to avoid lengthy closure of the whole Kennington set-up during construction, it would - like Battersea has been - have been built in a way that only allowed access to the ChX route from the new southern branch, so there would have been a nearly total split with almost all City services running to and from the Morden branch, to balance services in the centre. Which is a bit of a shame in terms of flexibility of travel patterns, and might have meant some improved interchange links at Kennington; but overall only minor downsides compared with the existing situation, and a lot of pluses. The total number of trains arriving at the top of the loop, at Camden Town, wouldn't necessarily change in such a scenario, and any service frequency constraints caused by the tunnels at Camden Town [getting back to the original topic of this thread] would remain a separate issue.)

I can see rebuilding Camden Town for passenger volumes entering there, it can be notably overcrowded 7 days a week. But an upside of the current alternating arrangement is passengers wait for their relevant train at all the stations along the line. Make large numbers interchange at Camden Town and dwell times there will increase, nixing any attempt at increasing trains per hour.

Yes, I'd hate to see a service split where you couldn't get trains to both northern branches from both central routes. Heading north from the centre, if I'm not in a sufficient hurry to want to brave the crowds at CT to try to beat waiting for the right train in the first place (fun though that can be), it's good to have the option to wait for a northbound going your way and be done with. (Not that that's an argument for failing to improve capacity at CT anyway.)

 

[rebmcr]

an upside of the current alternating arrangement

The Northern line is powered with Direct Current.

 

[bassmike]

The Mayor of London, if they are so minded, can exert great pressure on TfL to implement or bring forward new tube ideas. Both Boris Johnson's admirers and detractors might agree he was adept at coming up with ideas on these and other more fanciful schemes like the airport in the Thames Estuary, and in the case of the Battersea extension, he was lobbied by the billionaire owner of the Battersea Power Station site and, soon afterwards, persuaded the board of TfL that this extension should be put top of the 'to do' list, even though it previously wasn't in the Top 10 (the Bakerloo extension occupying top spot.) At the time, the coincidence of having both a Tory Mayor and Tory Chancellor (George Osborne) ensured the project would get funded: if any developer money/inducements were also involved I don't recollect, but in any case these things are often conveniently 'forgotten' later.I'd expect passenger numbers on the extension, outside City travel hours, to rival those on the Woodford to Hainault section of the Central Line (slight exaggeration) but DON'T expect to see any great criticism from the Evening Standard (ed. George Osborne.)

Quite agree. Bozo johnson is still spouting crazy and impracticable ideas !

 

[LU_timetabler]

I can't see why the track layout at Kennington would need to change at all, so through running would be physically possible. I doubt whether any would be timetabled, though.

Would have to be to get the rolling stock out of Morden depot.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Oct 2020 ==

Regarding the service to Morden, doesn't the overall plan aim for 30+ tph through Bank, and the layout at Kennington means it is these trains that have to run through to Morden, and that is why the Charing Cross branch trains can’t run to Morden as well?

But also, if the lines are split and overall frequencies increased on both northern branches, isn’t there a problem with having dedicated depot capacity?

There will have to be early morning late night services to/from Morden - Charing Cross branch to get trains in/out of services.

 

[jfisher21]

One thing I cannot understand is the completely crazy idea of building the Battersea ext: at all . Surely the N L is crowded enough already without bringing more crowding. To my mind the Batt; extn: is not a logical route anyway as it is not an obvious route to get from Batt: to central london. Maybe I'm wrong??

I thought the owners of the power station paid for most or all of it ?

 

[Busaholic]

I thought the owners of the power station paid for most or all of it ?

The initial(?) costings included a £200 million Section 106 contribution from that source, out of a projected total of £1 billion, though by 2013 in papers presented to Lambeth Council that cost had increased to 'almost £2 billion'. The funding has been wrapped in obfuscation for years, which probably suited then Mayor Johnson and the then owner of the Battersea site. It might take a great deal of searching on the internet to get a very full picture, or, alternatively, that might not be fruitful as it should be: I'm fairly certain that some stuff has either disappeared over the years, or been obscured in such a way that only a forensic expert might have a chance of finding it. Anyway, one thing is abundantly clear: the owners, ex-owners or future owners, whichever it is, will end up paying a tiny fraction for a project that will increase the value of property on the site exponentially. Isn't tooth and claw capitalism wonderful?

 

[LUYMun]

Why not rename the Morden- Bank section the Southern Line?

I prefer it to be called the South London & City line, both to pay homage to the C&SLR, and to have the same ring with the Hammersmith & City and the Waterloo & City lines. The Charing X route could still be called the Northern line, or better yet the Hampstead line!

What colour would the Northern line 2 appear in if completed? I suspect in an orange reused from the former East London line.

 

[edwin_m]

I prefer it to be called the South London & City line, both to pay homage to the C&SLR, and to have the same ring with the Hammersmith & City and the Waterloo & City lines. The Charing X route could still be called the Northern line, or better yet the Hampstead line!

What colour would the Northern line 2 appear in if completed? I suspect in an orange reused from the former East London line.

Hasn't orange been pretty much taken up by the Overground? The only unused colour that's easily distinguishable from the others is probably some sort of light green.

 

[Domh245]

Hasn't orange been pretty much taken up by the Overground? The only unused colour that's easily distinguishable from the others is probably some sort of light green.

The East London Line orange was a much lighter shade of orange, they're distinguishable as you can see from this map (compare the notice boxes for Watford Junction & the ELL conversion respectively), and with the use of a solid line for NL2 and the hollow line for the Overground they'll still be distinguishable, just perhaps not distinguishable enough. A light green colour would clash with the trams I think, although this is also caveated by use of hollow lines

 

[AlbertBeale]

I prefer it to be called the South London & City line, both to pay homage to the C&SLR, and to have the same ring with the Hammersmith & City and the Waterloo & City lines. The Charing X route could still be called the Northern line, or better yet the Hampstead line!

What colour would the Northern line 2 appear in if completed? I suspect in an orange reused from the former East London line.

Surely, even if the day came when most trains for much of the time were split with one central loop tied to one northern branch [and if so, why one combination rather than the other?], there would still be some use of the alternative Camden Town connections at times - certainly during service disruption or engineering closures - and at least some Morden services would go both ways through the centre. So it makes sense to me to keep the Northern Line name for the whole package; maps could, as they do now in other contexts, show infrequently-used connections with "on and off" line colour, so making it clear where you're likely not to find through trains. I'd find this less confusing than there being a total separation on the maps, and then finding that some services made connections that weren't shown at all.

 

[Domh245]

Surely, even if the day came when most trains for much of the time were split with one central loop tied to one northern branch [and if so, why one combination rather than the other?], there would still be some use of the alternative Camden Town connections at times - certainly during service disruption or engineering closures - and at least some Morden services would go both ways through the centre. So it makes sense to me to keep the Northern Line name for the whole package; maps could, as now, show the infrequently-used connections with "on and off" line colour, so making it clear where you're likely not to find through trains. I'd find this less confusing than there being a total separation on the maps, and then finding that some services made connections that weren't shown at all.

If there was any split, the logical one would be Charing X branch with the Edgware Branch and Bank with the High Barnet & Morden branches purely so that each 'line' has a major depot in the form of Golders Green and Morden Respectively. With regards to the through running, I don't think that if they did separate it, they would start running through for disruption - better to have one line working 100% and the other barely than import delay from one to the other. With that caveat I don't think it would be that different to the current situation with Circle/H&C line trains operating the occasional through service onto the District line at either end of service, potentially a little confusing for the people onboard, listening to announcements about what line they're on and twigging that it doesn't sound like the normal one. If you really wanted to cover all the bases, you just put daggers on the map at Kennington & Camden Town explaining that at certain times some trains may change lines and that people should listen for announcements. But it is all hypothetical and a long way off - TfL have got a long time to (fail to) come up with a solution

 

[Recessio]

Going for full seperation; what should the two halves be renamed?

Using the penchant for Royal themed lines that TfL/DaFT have, and assuming Her Majesty won't be around forever (and we'll have the coronation of King Charles III within a few years of the Northern split), I'd say to keep the High Barnet branch called the Northern line (Mill Hill East was the Northern Heights plan, after all), and have the CHX branch as the "Coronation line", with gold line colouring.