Future London Underground extensions and enhancements

[paul1609]

Cutting the GW Electrification made perfect sense from one viewpoint.

Given that Network Rail were over 500% over original budget at that point and around 4 years late and hadn't completed necessary station remodelling and resignalling schemes the real surprise in any sane world is that it was allowed to go on for as long as it was.

 

[Recessio]

Back on topic, I also forgot about the Cross-River tram earlier. Has that been officially killed off, or has it just been in a terminal hibernation for the last few years, but could theoretically be re-pursued?

(very bitter about this, would've gone from literally directly outside my house to the same street as my office!)

 

[zwk500]

Back on topic, I also forgot about the Cross-River tram earlier. Has that been officially killed off, or has it just been in a terminal hibernation for the last few years, but could theoretically be re-pursued?

(very bitter about this, would've gone from literally directly outside my house to the same street as my office!)

I think it's very firmly on the top shelf - it can't be killed off completely for one set of political reasons but it can't be started for a far bigger set.

 

[cle]

Double post

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Apr 2023 ==

Yes they are - there's a reason they're still separately branded. One goes into the traditional Termini and the other goes all the way across London to the other side.

The transport networks (but particularly the rail networks) north and south of the river are quite different beasts.

I'm not saying ignore NXG completely, just choosing the right services will need care. The Cat & Tats are the services you want to focus on NXG, maybe the Uckfields as well (but they're VERY sensitive journey times). Lewisham isn't a destination in itself - there's no need to stop Sussex trains at NXG to allow connections into Lewisham.

The City isn't everything but it's still very important - and the route to the Docklands isn't simple from NXG either. East London is growing but mainly with jobs pivoting to WFH as well, so we'll have to see how that shakes out.

I don't think the Brightons would. You want the outer London suburbans calling at NXG.

(For reference, my parents live on the BML and I have an Aunt & Uncle in Haggerston, I have changed often at NXG and Norwood Junction or West Croydon and personally stopping a Brighton Train at NXG would serve me very well, so I'm advocating against myself in my position).

I’m not saying by any means that people are coming up the BML to connect to Lewisham. The Bakerloo point was for the South Bank and West End - plus Baker St/Marylebone and Paddington. And that being quicker than a tube change at LB, or staying on a train from Lewisham to Charing Cross or Waterloo.

SN/TL - I meant paths and operationally they are the same network. Not branding. Brightons have been slowed right down. And this would replicate the network on the north side (ie Finsbury Park where they all call, West Hampstead is not 100% and maybe NXG could be more like that) - but South London needs this type of connectivity, especially with the tube, more than north so this mini hus is surely even more important to give options to previously underserved NR places.

But we can move on.

 

[Geogregor]

Is there any realistic prospect of starting Bakerloo Line Extension this decade?

I can't see it happening any time soon. TfL doesn't have cash and central government isn't, and won't be, willing to help.

Which is pity as it would improve access to badly served areas of SE London. I had a walk recently around the Old Kent Road. There are tones of wstelands ripe for redevelopment. But public transport provision is poor.

And from personal perepective (I live in Penge) I would love LU taking over teh Hayes Line. Relying on Southeastern is really frustrating...

One thing I'm curious about, I have seen some notice a while ago thet TfL agreed some small money to advance some aspects of desing. It was a year or so ago from what I remember. Anyone knows what was that about?

EDIT:

Found this recent article:

https://www.londonworld.com/news/tr...sign-work-for-bakerloo-line-extension-4077412

TfL Bakerloo line extension, Lambeth to Lewisham: Part of tunnel design work restarted​

TfL says it is “restarting a limited piece of work to confirm elements of tunnel design”.

EDIT2:

Actually here is more:

Dr. Sauer & Partners to work on Bakerloo Line Extension Feasibility Study | Dr. Sauer & Partners

www.dr-sauer.com

We are happy to share that Dr. Sauer & Partners has been selected by Transport for London (TfL) with support from Arup to undertake a Bakerloo Line Extension feasibility study. TfL is procuring design services and construction knowledge to undertake feasibility studies for five packages of tunnelling works on the proposed Bakerloo Line Extension at four specific locations on the extension: Lambeth North, Elephant & Castle, Lewisham station and Lewisham Way shaft, and for one further package looking at the route-wide construction of cross-passages between the two running tunnels.

I wonder how advanced the design really is...

 

[zwk500]

Is there any realistic prospect of starting Bakerloo Line Extension this decade?

If by that you mean before 2030, yes. Housing development and growing economic activity in London will keep the project alive, although it will move slowly.

One thing I'm curious about, I have seen some notice a while ago thet TfL agreed some small money to advance some aspects of desing. It was a year or so ago from what I remember. Anyone knows what was that about?

The constrained nature of the sites means that there are many pieces of the puzzle that must be proven viable before big works can take place. I was involved in some very high-level talks about the feasibility of the spoil removal plans at one point. If the spoil couldn't be removed, then construction couldn't go ahead and if you couldn't build the line then there was no point looking at how to operate it.
Massive projects like this are a bit of an iterative process because you have to check you can operate the line before it's worth asking people how to build it, but then you have to check it's feasible to build the line before you start having serious discussions about how to operate it, and then once you've got detail on operational bones you can move forward to detailed scheme design, which informs the detailed construction plan, etc.

 

[Geogregor]

The constrained nature of the sites means that there are many pieces of the puzzle that must be proven viable before big works can take place. I was involved in some very high-level talks about the feasibility of the spoil removal plans at one point. If the spoil couldn't be removed, then construction couldn't go ahead and if you couldn't build the line then there was no point looking at how to operate it.
Massive projects like this are a bit of an iterative process because you have to check you can operate the line before it's worth asking people how to build it, but then you have to check it's feasible to build the line before you start having serious discussions about how to operate it, and then once you've got detail on operational bones you can move forward to detailed scheme design, which informs the detailed construction plan, etc.

Yes, I'm aware of all of that.

I'm just curious at what design stage are we. There aren't much in public domain as far as I know.

 

[Bald Rick]

There is also Crossrail 3/Thameslink 2 (XR3/TL2) that I've heard about - new 2-tunnel NR route linking Croydon, Lewisham, Canary Wharf and Stratford. No idea how developed any plans are, or if planning has even started. Regardless, sounds like a good idea on the surface.

There has never been an industry plan for this, and no work has ever been done.

The proposed CR2 infrastructure ends just south of Wimbledon station. It is true that they had an idea where to send the trains in the consultation. However, there is no real infrastructure proposed to be built as part of the safeguarded programme that forces it to be actually operated like that.

Actually, there is. There is also a very significant reason that if CR2 ever happens, it will be going to Chessington.

 

[zwk500]

There is also Crossrail 3/Thameslink 2 (XR3/TL2) that I've heard about - new 2-tunnel NR route linking Croydon, Lewisham, Canary Wharf and Stratford. No idea how developed any plans are, or if planning has even started. Regardless, sounds like a good idea on the surface.

This was a crayoning exercise by the Lewes-Uckfield pub quiz team Reinstatement campaign, Who have largely tried to rebrand their campaign from Wealden line to 'Brighton Main Line 2' in the hope their local reopening can be swept up in some great national-level project.

They have some fancy pictures draw with MSWord and a Google earth screenshot as well as some photoshops of a GTR train at Isfield station, which is about the sum total of how developed the plans are. Given their proposal includes elevating the Croydon tramlink on a concrete viaduct to allow reinstatement of the railway beneath it, have a guess how much time they get with the treasury.

 

[SussexSeagull]

Crossrail was originally envisaged probably 50-60 years ago and started getting serious maybe 25-30 years ago for context, so this is nothing new!

Most, if not all, major transport projects in London are argued about for decades before happening in some form. As you say the idea of a tunnels between Liverpool Street and Paddington was first mentioned in 1941 but otherwise:

Thameslink - Bit different because the Snow Hill Tunnel was in place already but the North-South tunnel in the County of London plan in 1943 was a more subterranean version of what eventually happened.

Bakerloo Extension - Has been considered for over 100 years.

Jubilee Line Extension - Variation on the Fleet Line. First mentioned in the 60s and didn't open until 1999.

Crossrail 2 - Chelsea - Hackney line was first discussed in the 70s, although it has changed from underground to mainline services.

Oddly I think a lot of projects extending out of London will need further devolution. At the moment the Home Counties have transport policy decided at Westminster and don't have a TFL to drive it forward.

 

[JohnElliott]

My fear with the Bakerloo extension is that it’ll continue being the can that will be kicked down the road for another few decades before anything is done about it.

Jago Hazzard did a very good video recently regarding the various Bakerloo extension proposals over the years, beginning of course with the proposed Camberwell extension in the 1940s, who knows where that would have ended up eventually.

Then he refers to a planned extension which would have diverted away from E&C after Waterloo to take the exact same route as the Jubilee line extension does now, only instead of ending up in Stratford it would have continued after North Greenwich toward Beckton along the same alignment the DLR Beckton branch does now.

Another option that I once read years ago was an extension over the Greenwich line as far as Charlton and second branch via the Bexleyheath line to Barnhurst.

And now we’re at the point of the line being possibly extended to Lewisham via OKR and New X Gate, again it’s in limbo, hope to see it actually open in my lifetime

I recall reading that at one time the crayon project of choice was having it take over the branch to Crystal Palace High Level.

 

[30907]

Hayes route would definitely benefit from tube frequencies. Beckenham junction would make sense although I could see it being a later enhancement due to budget problems.

It wouldn't cost that much - altering track on platform 4 to suit tube heights, and resignalling to LU standards. You'd have to remove the junction anyway.

Conversion of the Hayes Line also allows NR to massively remodel the whole Parks Bridge/Courthill Loop area, smoothing out the gradient and massively simplifying the pointwork at the junctions to produce a serious maintenance saving..

Quite.

 

[zwk500]

It wouldn't cost that much - altering track on platform 4 to suit tube heights, and resignalling to LU standards. You'd have to remove the junction anyway.

It would still cost something though - so I could see it being spread out, even if it's part of the overall same project rather than a separate phase. I wouldn't be surprised if some form of rail connection is maintained for emergency transfer access.

 

[cle]

It would still cost something though - so I could see it being spread out, even if it's part of the overall same project rather than a separate phase. I wouldn't be surprised if some form of rail connection is maintained for emergency transfer access.

It would still have that at Queens Park. Most tube lines aren't as connected to NR, so that would be enough.

Beckenham Junction seems essential to me. For frequency, but also its own demand as a big suburban centre - and also an interchange with NR and the Tramlink. Both Croydon and Bromley would feed in.

Hayes can't justify (also stock not needed) 30tph+, which is what this new Bakerloo would need. As it will be packed.

I would assume something like:
Lewisham 12tph turn
Beckenham 6tph turn
Hayes 12tph turn

I know Catford (Bridge) was mentioned too as a turning point also.

 

[zwk500]

It would still have that at Queens Park. Most tube lines aren't as connected to NR, so that would be enough.

It's quite possible. It just seems a sensible facility to maintain.

Beckenham Junction seems essential to me. For frequency, but also its own demand as a big suburban centre - and also an interchange with NR and the Tramlink. Both Croydon and Bromley would feed in.

Eventually yes, but you could easily do it in stages. Mind you you could also do it the other way round - convert only the northern half at first and run Lewisham-Beckenham Jn only while you convert the southern end of the hayes branch. I've only had very brief involvement with the project so there are lots of possible/potential options.

Hayes can't justify (also stock not needed) 30tph+, which is what this new Bakerloo would need. As it will be packed.

I would assume something like:
Lewisham 12tph turn
Beckenham 6tph turn
Hayes 12tph turn

I know Catford (Bridge) was mentioned too as a turning point also.

Hayes at 12tph is pretty generous. I wouldn't be surprised if E&C is maintained as a turnround point as well, to guarantee capacity from Thameslink into central London.

 

[Basil Jet]

Hayes can't justify (also stock not needed) 30tph+, which is what this new Bakerloo would need. As it will be packed.

I would assume something like:
Lewisham 12tph turn
Beckenham 6tph turn
Hayes 12tph turn

I know Catford (Bridge) was mentioned too as a turning point also.

How about a third turning at Beckenham Junction, a third turning at Arena (taking over the Tramlink branch completely) and a third running to Hayes?

 

[zwk500]

How about a third turning at Beckenham Junction, a third turning at Arena (taking over the Tramlink branch completely) and a third running to Hayes?

I suspect the tramlink branch is needed to give capacity to terminate it's own services, as the Beckenham Junction branch can't be doubled.

However installing a turnback of some kind at Elmers End isn't impossible. It depends how busy they expect the Hayes branch to get before it gets to Lewisham and E&C, because you will need space on the trains to pick up people before crossing the river.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I recall reading that at one time the crayon project of choice was having it take over the branch to Crystal Palace High Level.

Wasn’t that an actual proposal in the 1950s?

 

[Peregrine 4903]

I think the first two were meant for Crystal Palace. The core has capacity for 24tph, currently 16. I would see a bay at NXG being equally useful to the one at New Cross - especially if Thameslink users were joining. Arguably with the Bakerloo at Lewisham, New Cross could be revised to NXG.

Extending journey times wouldn’t be that bad. It’s worth it for connectivity and tube/LB relief. It’s already happened on the BML (everything calls Burgess Hill etc) - our future is frequent and more semi fast. Direct comparison to NXG (in a post-BLE capacity) is Finsbury Park, where all TL trains rightly call.

Consider how many people FP keeps from the tube change at King's Cross - both NXG and Lewisham will do the same for LB, Waterloo and Charing Cross.

Core doesn't have capacity for 24tph. The headways in the core are 3 minutes. You can look at the Timetable Planning Rules and check for yourself.

 

[zwk500]

Core doesn't have capacity for 24tph. The headways in the core are 3 minutes. You can look at the Timetable Planning Rules and check for yourself.

They've changed them in the last year then, because the core certainly used to be a Published value of 2.5'

 

[cle]

E&C is likely to be rebuilt / diverted and become a normal through station.

Maybe the old platforms could be used for turnbacks - but would likely be closed for passengers and such terminate at Lambeth North, in practice.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

They've changed them in the last year then, because the core certainly used to be a Published value of 2.5'

Yeah it got changed recently, can't remember exactly when.

 

[cle]

That would surely be revisited if a BLE was done, and with new stock? It definitely used to have much better headways - and I would think 20tph would not be enough for the SE end.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

That would surely be revisited if a BLE was done, and with new stock? It definitely used to have much better headways - and I would think 20tph would not be enough for the SE end.

It would require the line to be completely resignalled for it to up to 2 and half minute headways that it used to have which were insuffucient.

More than 20tph won't happen either. NR wouldn't allow it as it would cause a too detrimental effect on performance and capacity on the Sussex route. There certainly won't be any additional trains to Clapham Junction via Denmark Hill, that I can guarantee.

 

[BrianW]

It would require the line to be completely resignalled for it to up to 2 and half minute headways that it used to have which were insuffucient.

More than 20tph won't happen either. NR wouldn't allow it as it would cause a too detrimental effect on performance and capacity on the Sussex route. There certainly won't be any additional trains to Clapham Junction via Denmark Hill, that I can guarantee.

I note the current Bakerloo timetable has 22 trains southbound between Queens Park and Oxford Circus between 08.02 and 08.59.

 

[zwk500]

That would surely be revisited if a BLE was done, and with new stock? It definitely used to have much better headways - and I would think 20tph would not be enough for the SE end.

It was never better than 2.5' headways, which was theoretically enough for 24tph but that would be 100% planning capacity and so wouldn't have been accepted by NR. 20tph was always the operational limit. The redesignation of the hedaways to 3' will have been driven by data to justify the Network Change, and having worked with one of LO's people you can be rest assured they had a very solid case.

If 20x 5-Car /hr in each direction is insufficient, I'm not sure if 6-car operation might be viable.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Apr 2023 ==

I note the current Bakerloo timetable has 22 trains southbound between Queens Park and Oxford Circus between 08.02 and 08.59.

We're at crossed purposes - the East London Line is the line with a 20tph max limit.

 

[cle]

Yep I just realized that.

I’ve been talking about the current and future Bakerloo line frequency.

 

[London Trains]

If the Northern Line is split (post Camden Town rebuild) it would also potentially provide additional capacity to extend the Morden branch.

I have crayoned various options, none absolutely stand out though. Could try to reach the Chessington Branch and use the theme park as a reverse-direction load generator.

The best extension to the Northern Line beyond Morden would be to North Cheam, with stops at Morden South, Stonecot Hill, St Anthony's Hospital and North Cheam.

North Cheam is one of the few areas in Greater London without any tube or rail lines, and demand for the tube is already there, with tonnes of buses that are overcrowded at peak times between North Cheam and Morden that all empty out onto the tube.

 

[BrianW]

Presumably TfL has tons of data about 'feeders' to current tube and/or Overground lines to suggest possibly appropriate routes for extensions, such as eg Bus 93 which links North Cheam with Morden, Wimbledon, Putney and Putney Bridge stations.

The best extension to the Northern Line beyond Morden would be to North Cheam, with stops at Morden South, Stonecot Hill, St Anthony's Hospital and North Cheam.

North Cheam is one of the few areas in Greater London without any tube or rail lines, and demand for the tube is already there, with tonnes of buses that are overcrowded at peak times between North Cheam and Morden that all empty out onto the tube.

 

[Basil Jet]

The best extension to the Northern Line beyond Morden would be to North Cheam, with stops at Morden South, Stonecot Hill, St Anthony's Hospital and North Cheam.

North Cheam is one of the few areas in Greater London without any tube or rail lines, and demand for the tube is already there, with tonnes of buses that are overcrowded at peak times between North Cheam and Morden that all empty out onto the tube.

I don't know how you can single out North Cheam in that way. Robin Hood Gate is twice as far from a station, and a point halfway between Sutton Common and Mitcham Junction is as far.