What changes would you make for the tube

[317653]

that could do with a speed increase maybe 50mph.

 

[Galvanize]

A more sensible idea:
Extend two of the four hourly Olympia shuttles to somewhere like Mansion House or Tower Hill, giving easier access from the centre of London to Olympia, especially when there is an event on at the exhibition centre. It avoids the need for people to change at Earls Court, which can make the platforms rather busy as passengers scramble from one train to the other!

 

[LE Greys]

Quadruple the Circle Line. It must be the busiest double-track railway in the world. If the New York Subway can do it, then we ought to as well. Start with Gloucester Road-Tower Hill, then Liverpool Street-Baker Street, finally Edgware Road- High Street Kensington.

 

[Dstock7080]

A more sensible idea:
Extend two of the four hourly Olympia shuttles to somewhere like Mansion House or Tower Hill, giving easier access from the centre of London to Olympia, especially when there is an event on at the exhibition centre. It avoids the need for people to change at Earls Court, which can make the platforms rather busy as passengers scramble from one train to the other!

Unfortunately, the Olympia's are 3 per hour !

 

[Galvanize]

Unfortunately, the Olympia's are 3 per hour !

Oh ok fair enough. I'm sure a couple of years ago it used to be 4 per hour!

LE Grays: There is still space for quadrouple track between Gloucester Road and just east of South Kensington. That way, with a reorganisation of the track with two extra tracks added at South Kensington, the District and Circle lines could have their own pair of tracks. So for example at South Kensington, what was the eastbound District/Circle line platform would now be the "outer circle" and the former Westbound District/Circle line platform would now be the eastbound District line platform. Westbound District line and "Inner Circle" would now have Platforms on the newly laid lines.

Only drawback with this idea, is that in the eastbound direction, it can be more confusing for passengers trying to reach a station that can be reached by both lines. Now means they wouldn't be too sure which platform to go for.

It does however mean that there will be no more holdups for District Line trains at Cromwell Curve east junction, as they wait for Circle line trains to cross infront of them.

 

[Deerfold]

Quadruple the Circle Line. It must be the busiest double-track railway in the world. If the New York Subway can do it, then we ought to as well. Start with Gloucester Road-Tower Hill, then Liverpool Street-Baker Street, finally Edgware Road- High Street Kensington.

What about the bit to Hammersmith?

 

[LE Greys]

What about the bit to Hammersmith?

Apart from the fact that I don't count that as the Circle Line, it only really needs double track. The idea is that you would quadruple all the bits that the Circle shares with other lines, probably resulting in some convoluted junctions at various places. There would be several double-track sections, Edgware Road-Baker Street, Tower Hill Nth Jcn-Tower Hill Sth Jcn (excluding the stub to Aldgate) and Gloucester Road East Curve. At all of the junctions, something would have to dive under something, otherwise the benefits would be negated.

Pity it's not possible to reconnect the spur to the main line platforms at Liverpool Street, or the crossovers at Barking. Edgware Road-Southend service anyone?

 

[W-on-Sea]

Quadruple the Circle Line. It must be the busiest double-track railway in the world. If the New York Subway can do it, then we ought to as well. Start with Gloucester Road-Tower Hill, then Liverpool Street-Baker Street, finally Edgware Road- High Street Kensington.

Well, New York could do it in the 19th century, before even the most high-density bits of Manhattan were, generally, not quite as built up as they are now. And arguably the grid pattern of streets there makes this sort of thing a little easier, too.

The disruption caused by cut-and-cover construction (which, again, was feasible in 1860s London and shortly thereafter) pretty much rules this out, I think.

Which is not to say that I'd disagree that certain parts of the inner circle (although I think mostly on the northern half of the loop) could certainly do with some relief. Flying junction at Baker Street, anyone? And as for Edgware Road and the junction west thereof. Hmm. Hmm. Hmm..

Not sure there'd be immense demand for a Southend-Edgware Road service tbh. Nor the capacity on several stretches of vital track both in LU and NR ownership. Although I suppose Crossrail will take those from Shenfield and beyond on to Paddington and beyond...

One thing I think that really needs to be done - but which there are no plans to do anything substantive about - is relieving the peak-hour congestion on the city branch of the Northern line (particularly between Bank and Kings X); it's horrendously overcrowded; and forecasts for future decades show that it is expected to remain that way. Not sure I even have any incredibly bright ideas about how that might best be done, either. But it does seem like an obvious "pinch point" that even future plans (Crossrail) or proposals (Chelney) might not have much impact upon.

 

[Mojo]

One thing I think that really needs to be done - but which there are no plans to do anything substantive about - is relieving the peak-hour congestion on the city branch of the Northern line (particularly between Bank and Kings X); it's horrendously overcrowded; and forecasts for future decades show that it is expected to remain that way. Not sure I even have any incredibly bright ideas about how that might best be done, either. But it does seem like an obvious "pinch point" that even future plans (Crossrail) or proposals (Chelney) might not have much impact upon.

Well the Northern line upgrade is still going ahead with TBTC and ATO which will increase capacity a hell of a lot, and there is the station capacity programme at Bank Northern line which will involve building a new running tunnel for the Northern line and a massive new concourse and providing more platform space.

Main problem is trains on the Northern line are only 6-cars so they're already more crowded than on other Tube lines (except the W&C).

 

[jon0844]

Noo...! don't give people further back the line more room on the platform. It's already near impossible in the peak to get on at Moorgate or Old Street!!

 

[LE Greys]

One thing I think that really needs to be done - but which there are no plans to do anything substantive about - is relieving the peak-hour congestion on the city branch of the Northern line (particularly between Bank and Kings X); it's horrendously overcrowded; and forecasts for future decades show that it is expected to remain that way. Not sure I even have any incredibly bright ideas about how that might best be done, either. But it does seem like an obvious "pinch point" that even future plans (Crossrail) or proposals (Chelney) might not have much impact upon.

A new Thameslink tunnel from St Pancras to Blackfriars could take care of some of it by speeding up Thameslink, leaving sections of the old route open for use by extending Watford-Euston down to King's Cross Thameslink, Farringdon, Barbican and Moorgate. That would take care of some of the Euston/St Pancras/King's Cross passenger flow to the Moorgate area. For the rest, extend the Finsbury Park-Moorgate line through to Bank. If we haven't already diverted the DLR into the Waterloo and City, there's a possible end-on there, although that would mean Tube-size trains running to Welwyn and Hertford. Otherwise, possibly another Thames crossing to London Bridge or up the Thames to Cannon Street.

Lots of big new holes, but hopefully some benefit.

 

[Aictos]

A new Thameslink tunnel from St Pancras to Blackfriars could take care of some of it by speeding up Thameslink, leaving sections of the old route open for use by extending Watford-Euston down to King's Cross Thameslink, Farringdon, Barbican and Moorgate. That would take care of some of the Euston/St Pancras/King's Cross passenger flow to the Moorgate area. For the rest, extend the Finsbury Park-Moorgate line through to Bank. If we haven't already diverted the DLR into the Waterloo and City, there's a possible end-on there, although that would mean Tube-size trains running to Welwyn and Hertford. Otherwise, possibly another Thames crossing to London Bridge or up the Thames to Cannon Street.

Lots of big new holes, but hopefully some benefit.

Slight issue with your plans to extend Watford to Euston to Moorgate via Farringdon, the junction has long been plain lined and no longer exists as Farringdon is getting 12 car platforms as part of the Thameslink programme.

As to the Blackfriars to Kentish Town section, it's a pity it's not feasible to 4 track the core with some services not stopping in the core but being non stop.

 

[jd]

Bring back skipping stops

E.g. trains used to alternately skip Caledonian Road/Holloway Road/Gillespie Road (as t'was then known) on the Piccadilly line. Might only cut like 1 min off journey times but I reckon psychologically its a big improvement. It's such a looonnnggg drag down the northern end of the Picc.

 

[jon0844]

Given the time difference taking the Victoria Line over the Picadilly Line between King's Cross and Finsbury Park, services skipping some stops would actually make quite a big difference.

I guess it's too confusing to Joe Public on the tube - which (bar the Met Line and possibly all the confusion on the District) is treated as having one simple pattern - all stations from A to B. Yet, go on to the railway and people expect trains to skip stops.

 

[At_traction]

I guess it's too confusing to Joe Public on the tube - which (bar the Met Line and possibly all the confusion on the District) is treated as having one simple pattern - all stations from A to B. Yet, go on to the railway and people expect trains to skip stops.

Yes, but the skippings there are fixed to a certain set of stations for a particular train - alternate skipping on the more frequent tube would mean that one has to be especially alert to which station this one is going to skip. And a single sign in the front of the train would not suffice for information - at least a set of electronic boards on platforms, on all stations along the line...

 

[jon0844]

People are used to the tube working in one way, and trains in another. Even if they updated screens to give calling patterns (and that would take ages to read) it would be chaos. Plus you'd need more screens as people stand or arrive at different parts of the platform and some stations have screens that are hard to see.

In other words, this isn't something I'd suggest as a change - and if trains run close together, I guess the one skipping stations would catch up and be held anyway.

 

[LE Greys]

Slight issue with your plans to extend Watford to Euston to Moorgate via Farringdon, the junction has long been plain lined and no longer exists as Farringdon is getting 12 car platforms as part of the Thameslink programme.

As to the Blackfriars to Kentish Town section, it's a pity it's not feasible to 4 track the core with some services not stopping in the core but being non stop.

That's the point of the new Thameslink tunnel. It would start at St Pancras, dive under the existing tunnel, then run down Grays Inn Road, with one stop there and another at Chancery Lane. New stop under Blackfriars and surface south of the river, cutting out the worst of that tight curve. The whole lot would have enough clearance for overhead wires and line speed would be 60 mph. I would have done this instead of Thameslink 2000, to avoid a load of wasted expenditure.

The other new tunnel would intercept the d.c. lines in the South Hampstead Tunnels, then run roughly parallel to the Northern Line with a station at Camden Town, then under Euston, then curving down to intercept the Thameslink route near Pentonville Road, thus cutting Farringdon off from Kentish Town. Mon-Fri, most services would run to Moorgate, still into Euston over the weekend. It also makes it possible for trains from Milton Keynes to access the Snow Hill Tunnel, or potentially to access Wembley Yard from the south. Finally, a lot of Blackfriars trains would run through to City Thameslink instead.

 

[Anonywave]

I would say extend the Victoria line to East Croydon because that would give people faster journey time to get to east london and the NXEA routes much quicker than changing at victoria

But the Victoria Line doesn't go into East London nor does it have any interchange with the NXEA routes.

 

[jon0844]

Besides Seven Sisters or Tottenham Hale!

 

[Deerfold]

But the Victoria Line doesn't go into East London nor does it have any interchange with the NXEA routes.

Isn't Walthamstow E17?

 

[jon0844]

Yes. It does make a lot of that statement rather incorrect!

 

[jd]

Given the time difference taking the Victoria Line over the Picadilly Line between King's Cross and Finsbury Park, services skipping some stops would actually make quite a big difference.

Is that merely because of less stops though - I honestly don't know, but perhaps the Vic just takes a more direct route? I'd imagine this bit of the Picc was built back in the days when they still had to follow the public highways..?

...if trains run close together, I guess the one skipping stations would catch up and be held anyway.

I believe they skipped stops alternately so that didn't happen.

 

[jon0844]

I think the Piccadilly Line takes a longer route too, as it seems to take ages between stops (despite there being more, so presumably closer together). Or maybe the rolling stock goes slower?

 

[tbtc]

1. Get rid of conflicting movements which cause disruption and try to keep lines "stand alone". For example, I'd have a flyunder at Earls Court to separate a frequent Wimbledon - Edgeware Road line (with scope for extension east, but that's another story...) from the District Line (where all services run from Victoria to Hammersmith, so no junctions on that stretch). Similarly turn the Northern line into two "stand alone" lines

2. Integrate with National Rail services to free up platform space at busy termini (e.g. the DLR taking over the Hayes branch, or the ELL taking over from stopping services through Denmark Hill)

3. I agree about the Goblin comment. That could be a really useful line for "orbital" journeys if it actually stopped at each "main line" it crossed.

4. Diagonal One: Ideally I'd link the FCC services to Welwyn (etc) with SWT "inner" services - it'd replace the Waterloo & City with a new link to the "City of London" which would provide all-week through services on this stretch (providing an "Overground equivalent" between Clapham Junction and Finsbury Park)

5. Diagonal Two: Replace the Watford "stoppers" and the SET Dartford services with a beefed up Bakerloo line (freeing up platform space at Euston, Charing Cross and Canon Street)

6. Potential southern extension of the Victoria line and the Charing Cross branch of the Northern line

7. A "grade separated" junction at Baker Street would be brilliant, but completely impractical!

 

[Wolfie]

Interesting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12046397

Does the fact they are undertaking this work potentially offer broader opportunities?

 

[jopsuk]

That is interesting- ideally, it would be the start of extending platforms on the Northern Line- I'm sure if they can expand the platform space, they can lengthen as well. One of the problems with the Northern Line is the short trains

 

[Aictos]

4. Diagonal One: Ideally I'd link the FCC services to Welwyn (etc) with SWT "inner" services - it'd replace the Waterloo & City with a new link to the "City of London" which would provide all-week through services on this stretch (providing an "Overground equivalent" between Clapham Junction and Finsbury Park)

I like this idea but rather then stop at Clapham Junction why not continue onto Wimbledon?

I would also extend the LOROL services so it's possible to get a LOROL train between Crystal Palace and and Clapham Junction so in short, you could board at Clapham Junction and by using the existing LOROL routes in both Clockwise and Anti Clockwise directions would be a rail version of the M25 and it would certainly offer interchanges with the main routes out of London.

 

[Mojo]

I would also extend the LOROL services so it's possible to get a LOROL train between Crystal Palace and and Clapham Junction so in short, you could board at Clapham Junction and by using the existing LOROL routes in both Clockwise and Anti Clockwise directions would be a rail version of the M25 and it would certainly offer interchanges with the main routes out of London.

A branch is already under construction from south of Surrey Quays, linking up with already existing lines which will eventually end at Clapham Junction.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/15359.aspx

 

[tbtc]

I like this idea but rather then stop at Clapham Junction why not continue onto Wimbledon?

Sorry, I didn't explain myself perfectly. I was meaning to link services like Hertford North/ Welwyn - Finsbury Park - Moorgate - Bank - Waterloo - Vauxhall - Clapham Junction - Waterloo - Chessington South/ Hampton Court/ Shepperton

...so that you'd have a "turn up and go" frequency of every few minutes from Alexandra Palace/ Finsbury Park to Clapham Junction/ Wimbledon, with each "branch" having less-frequent services (in line with what they have now).

Direct services into "the city" from a lot of south west London, an "all week" service on the Moorgate branch, a diagonal equivalent to Thameslink/ Crossrail.

Ideally, I'd run it as a self contained service (to avoid contamination with other services) which would mean keeping it to "inner" FCC/ SWT services and not "outer" ones (e.g. no Cambridge - Portsmouth)

Plus as there's no KX - Waterloo service, this would be one way of linking the ECML stations to the Waterloo lines (albeit obviously not serving KX)

 

[Fred26]

Sorry, I didn't explain myself perfectly. I was meaning to link services like Hertford North/ Welwyn - Finsbury Park - Moorgate - Bank - Waterloo - Vauxhall - Clapham Junction - Waterloo - Chessington South/ Hampton Court/ Shepperton

...so that you'd have a "turn up and go" frequency of every few minutes from Alexandra Palace/ Finsbury Park to Clapham Junction/ Wimbledon, with each "branch" having less-frequent services (in line with what they have now).

Direct services into "the city" from a lot of south west London, an "all week" service on the Moorgate branch, a diagonal equivalent to Thameslink/ Crossrail.

Ideally, I'd run it as a self contained service (to avoid contamination with other services) which would mean keeping it to "inner" FCC/ SWT services and not "outer" ones (e.g. no Cambridge - Portsmouth)

Plus as there's no KX - Waterloo service, this would be one way of linking the ECML stations to the Waterloo lines (albeit obviously not serving KX)

I love it. I'd like to convert all London Metro services to through running, connecting with other Metro services on the other side of London. The only London commuter TOC that already has this, as far as I can see, is c2c, as the District Line/Hammersmith & City form the Metro run.
It'd cost an absolute fortune, but it would be amazing to see. It would stop a huge number of people changing at their main terminal and thus create more platform space at said termini. Brilliant.

---

I love interchanges and would love to see the GOBLIN and the other NLL completely rebuilt. For instance, do we need stations at Hackney Wick, Hackney Downs, Hackney Central and Homerton? Or, for that matter, Harringay and Harringay Green Lanes? How about Tottenham Hale, South Tottenham and Seven Sisters? This is moronic. Again, it would cost a lot of money, but I feel that if proper interchanges along these lines were built, along with (at least) eight-car platforms and complete electrification, staff at every station, open ticket offices and barriers... the lines would be very busy and would save a lot of people the hassle of travelling via central London. This is the one LT idea that I am most passionate about. I long for the day...