Northern Line to Watford Junction

[Basil Jet]

In the long run, the compromise height platforms shared by tube-gauge and mainline-gauge trains need to be resolved one way or t'other.

What to do about Kensal Green to Harrow and Wealdstone?
Terminate the Bakerloo at Queens Park? Not ideal.
Terminate the DC service at Queens Park and extend the Bakerloo to Watford Junction? Not ideal.
Shut the DC line from Euston to Queens Park and extend the Bakerloo to Watford Junction? Not ideal.
Rebore the Bakerloo to mainline gauge? No.
Run tube gauge trains on the DC line? Hmmm. Apparently a Bakerloo train only holds about half as many people as an Overground train, so an increase in frequency would probably be needed, but if it were to be run by LU and subject to LU reliability metrics, you probably wouldn't need any more platforms at Euston.

How about, after the Northern Line has been split in two, giving one of the resulting lines a (tube gauge) branch to Watford Junction? The cheapest option would probably be to dig a pair of slopes under the HS2 station to connect from the City branch to the DC line. Interchanges would be better if the connection was north of Camden Town, but connecting to the Edgware / Charing Cross line would give northwest London two routes to the West End and none to the City, so you would probably want to cross that line to connect to the Barnet / Bank line instead, and I'm not convinced the extra expenditure to serve Camden would be worth it. But the connection under the HS2 station seems pretty cheap, specially since the area has been demolished and the HS2 station is currently on pause.

For completeness I mention that the Croxley Link being mainline gauge would raise compromise height issues unless the stopping service from Wembley Park to Croxley and Watford Junction were made part of the Jubilee Line...

 

[adamedwards]

The snag here is you are adding complexity back into the Northern Line and diverting half the Northern Line trains to Watford creates capacity issues on the Edgware line which would be very unpopular.

A simpler answer would be to extend the platforms at each station. Each platform has a low section and a high section, as is done for the tram trains at Rotherham Central. It won't be easy, but far cheaper than a new tunnel.

 

[stuu]

I think this might beat Aberystwyth to Carmarthen for craziness.

If mixed height platforms are an issue, then Bakerloo to Watford, with a Euston-Queens Park shuttle using one platform to reverse. Job done

 

[D365]

If mixed height platforms are an issue, then Bakerloo to Watford, with a Euston-Queens Park shuttle using one platform to reverse. Job done

Or terminate the Bakerloo at Queens Park?

 

[bramling]

I think this might beat Aberystwyth to Carmarthen for craziness.

If mixed height platforms are an issue, then Bakerloo to Watford, with a Euston-Queens Park shuttle using one platform to reverse. Job done

I’d probably go with the latter. Bakerloo back to Watford, enhanced frequency compared to today north of Queen’s Park, and if necessary run a shuttle from Euston to Queen’s Park.

 

[Nottingham59]

If mixed height platforms are an issue, then Bakerloo to Watford, with a Euston-Queens Park shuttle using one platform to reverse. Job done

Bakerloo to Watford, running 30tph from the West End to beyond Queens Park.
Dig a tunnel from Queens Park to Old Oak Common, to a two platform surface station at Old Oak. Run a 24tph shuttle OOC-QPk-Euston.
Terminate HS2 at Old Oak Common, giving passengers a choice of 24tph on the EL or 24tph to Euston.
Saves over £5bn building HS2 Euston. What not to like?

 

[edwin_m]

I thought this was going to be reviving the Edgware to Watford proposal in its entirety, part of which was started as an extension from Edgware to Bushey Heath before WW2 but abandoned due to Green Belt preventing any housing development.

 

[Bald Rick]

OOC-QPk-Euston.
Terminate HS2 at Old Oak Common, giving passengers a choice of 24tph on the EL or 24tph to Euston.
Saves over £5bn building HS2 Euston. What not to like?

1) the cost of building it
2) the extra time all the passenegrs to/from Euston would face
3) a lot of the £5bn for Euston is already committed
4) you’d need to rebuild Euston and all the approaches to get 24tph in

 

[stuu]

Or terminate the Bakerloo at Queens Park?

You would need a new depot. Although whether such mundane considerations should be mentioned on a thread like this is a matter of opinion

 

[SynthD]

Terminate the Bakerloo at Queens Park and accept the dead running. Does this prevent the platforms changing to the Overground height, without a gap to the train?

 

[LLivery]

Bakerloo to Watford, running 30tph from the West End to beyond Queens Park.
Dig a tunnel from Queens Park to Old Oak Common, to a two platform surface station at Old Oak. Run a 24tph shuttle OOC-QPk-Euston.
Terminate HS2 at Old Oak Common, giving passengers a choice of 24tph on the EL or 24tph to Euston.
Saves over £5bn building HS2 Euston. What not to like?

I would do something similar-ish:
- Extend the Bakerloo from Queen's Park to OOC. Build an underground walkway from OOC to North Acton and build a new depot at Park Royal, replacing Stonebridge Park depot, the Queen's Park shed as well as having extra fleet space for the Lewisham extension. The Queens Park shed would be the portal to OOC, allowing LU and LO to keep the cross-platform interchange.

- Shenfield Metroise the Watford DC Line - axe the Bakerloo; upgrade it as a high frequency suburban rail service, with 8 car trains - 6tph, make it 8-12tph if needed. If it makes financial sense, dump third rail for OHLE and make it the 5 & 6 tracks of the WCML - good for diverts.

With this, it could then make sense for the WCML slows to call at Queen's Park, allowing an interchange to OOC for Great Western, Heathrow, HS2, Central Line and, wishful thinking, Chiltern.

 

[Basil Jet]

The snag here is you are adding complexity back into the Northern Line and diverting half the Northern Line trains to Watford creates capacity issues on the Edgware line which would be very unpopular.

The rumoured split will send the City Branch to Barnet, not Edgware.

 

[2192]

Why not fit self adjusting ramps to the train doors of those that are higher than the platforms? Don't the new trains on the Liverpool metro have these?

 

[Bald Rick]

Shenfield Metroise the Watford DC Line - axe the Bakerloo; upgrade it as a high frequency suburban rail service, with 8 car trains - 6tph, make it 8-12tph if needed.

Where are all these trains going south of Camden? Because it won’t be Euston…

 

[LLivery]

Where are all these trains going south of Camden? Because it won’t be Euston…

No space even after HS2 opens? If that's the case and Camden Road is also a no go, turn some around at Queen's Park - pax could use the Bakerloo/WCML slow for onwards.

 

[D365]

No space even after HS2 opens? If that's the case and Camden Road is also a no go, turn some around at Queen's Park - pax could use the Bakerloo/WCML slow for onwards.

What problem does this fix?

 

[The Planner]

No space even after HS2 opens? If that's the case and Camden Road is also a no go, turn some around at Queen's Park - pax could use the Bakerloo/WCML slow for onwards.

You could get it up to 6tph using P9 and 10, have to be careful with conflicts in the throat though. You turn back at Kilburn High Road, not Queens Park, and that gets more difficult if your frequency has increased.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Why not fit self adjusting ramps to the train doors of those that are higher than the platforms? Don't the new trains on the Liverpool metro have these?

Assumimg you're suggesting this in order to allow both LO and LU stock to continue to share platforms, the difference in height is probably too great for ramps to work- at present it's a small step-up to Overground trains and a large step-down for Bakerloo Line trains. If you create level boarding for either type (by raising or lowering platforms) then your ramp for the other type would have to be enormous.

 

[cle]

It also depends on if the Bakerloo is extended - and in which case, the max 22-24tph will not be enough for New Cross Gate and Lewisham, especially if it goes on to Catford and Hayes. So we might need to see more towards 28-32tph one day, in the peaks. I'm sure NXG and Lewisham will be nice three platform turning situations like North Greenwich - for inner turns - but Queens Park is not so efficient on the northside. And I don't see a OOC or Ealing Broadway tunnelled anything, ever happening.

If more has to go to Willesden Junction (should be two islands), Stonebridge, Harrow... then why not 4tph to Watford Junction? Kilburn High Road and South Hampstead - not sure. Maybe 2tph to Stratford?

And yes, Queens Park calls on the slowest WCML services, if possible - but the platforms are a little ropey and 8 car.

 

[LLivery]

What problem does this fix?

As OP said, it's the difference in floor height. I'd be surprised if the step down to Bakerloo line trains will be deemed acceptable in future. Even by the time the new fleet is introduced.

You could get it up to 6tph using P9 and 10, have to be careful with conflicts in the throat though. You turn back at Kilburn High Road, not Queens Park, and that gets more difficult if your frequency has increased.

I know Euston the least out of all the London termini - I honestly thought it was basically segregated into Euston, but looking at the Carto Map, I realise it's not. But say the Bakerloo did get extended to OOC, LO at 6tph & 8 car, into Euston would be fine off peak. If we needed more and Kilburn High Rd is too difficult for turn backs, you could demolish the South Shed at Queen's Park, move the northbound DC line over to alongside the southbound DC and build a single track siding where the south shed currently is. The Bakerloo tracks would then sit between the DC and WCML. Queen's Park would need rebuilding, but the only real negative would be losing the cross platform interchange.

It also depends on if the Bakerloo is extended - and in which case, the max 22-24tph will not be enough for New Cross Gate and Lewisham, especially if it goes on to Catford and Hayes. So we might need to see more towards 28-32tph one day, in the peaks. I'm sure NXG and Lewisham will be nice three platform turning situations like North Greenwich - for inner turns - but Queens Park is not so efficient on the northside. And I don't see a OOC or Ealing Broadway tunnelled anything, ever happening.

If more has to go to Willesden Junction (should be two islands), Stonebridge, Harrow... then why not 4tph to Watford Junction? Kilburn High Road and South Hampstead - not sure. Maybe 2tph to Stratford?

And yes, Queens Park calls on the slowest WCML services, if possible - but the platforms are a little ropey and 8 car.

I highly doubt the Bakerloo would get to OOC, but what do we do about platform heights if it remains shared with LO? I can't see it being allowed forever.

 

[LUYMun]

Or terminate the Bakerloo at Queens Park?

I always believed that as long as the Bakerloo line remains a tube-diametred line, it should have to terminate at Queen's Park. The facility to build ramps between the Bakerloo and Overground is entirely possible. The southern extension to Hayes and Beckenham Junction is easier since the stretch of line beyond Lewisham can be grade-seperated to retain LU-size vehicles.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Apr 2023 ==

You would need a new depot. Although whether such mundane considerations should be mentioned on a thread like this is a matter of opinion

It's been proposed as part of the Bakerloo extension that a new depot would be built at Wearside Road, on the site of council offices, but I'm unsure if this would be sufficient to accommodate extra trains away from Stonebridge Park. Needless to say, Stonebridge Park can still retain access to the LU network for ECS movements.