Idea to optimise the WCML (ignoring HS2)

[Brubulus]

I've often thought that a push to isolate the DC tracks more at and around the Euston approaches might enable a 5-6 tph service, which in turn might allow the Bakerloo to end at Stonebridge Park (Wembley Central would really be ideal, ironically - as the last busy station). Would be far more efficient.

Thinking more about the WCML, I do think that the DC lines should just become part of the Bakerloo line once the new trains come into service. There's limited point in the Lioness service to Euston. A secondary objective should be the reinstatement of the mainline platforms at Wilesden Junction, to create something of a Finsbury Park for the WCML.

The WLL should have 8tph, sadly 6 is the absolute maximum but 2 should run on to the WCML, preferably semi-fast on both ends as a MKC-Gatwick service, even though it's a pathing nightmare. It's not like I'm demanding Birmingham-Brighton and Manchester-Southampton via Kensington Olympia every hour.

Secondly, MKC should probably build another bay platform, so it can cope with London services and the final EWR service specification.

 

[465fan]

Thinking more about the WCML, I do think that the DC lines should just become part of the Bakerloo line once the new trains come into service. There's limited point in the Lioness service to Euston. A secondary objective should be the reinstatement of the mainline platforms at Wilesden Junction, to create something of a Finsbury Park for the WCML.

The WLL should have 8tph, sadly 6 is the absolute maximum but 2 should run on to the WCML, preferably semi-fast on both ends as a MKC-Gatwick service, even though it's a pathing nightmare. It's not like I'm demanding Birmingham-Brighton and Manchester-Southampton via Kensington Olympia every hour.

Secondly, MKC should probably build another bay platform, so it can cope with London services and the final EWR service specification.

Absolutely agree. Bakerloo line only north of Queens Park, and a major interchange at Willesden Junction specifically designed (at least for 'stopping' trains that run on the slows) to then provide an out-of-London interchange for Old Oak Common and such.

 

[A S Leib]

Thinking more about the WCML, I do think that the DC lines should just become part of the Bakerloo line once the new trains come into service. There's limited point in the Lioness service to Euston. A secondary objective should be the reinstatement of the mainline platforms at Wilesden Junction, to create something of a Finsbury Park for the WCML.

Absolutely agree. Bakerloo line only north of Queens Park, and a major interchange at Willesden Junction specifically designed (at least for 'stopping' trains that run on the slows) to then provide an out-of-London interchange for Old Oak Common and such.

I disagree. Looking at e.g. Kenton, National Rail entries / exits aren't massively far off tube ones (1.52 mn vs 1.16 mn)*, and 4tph to a part of London not served by the Bakerloo line whilst (generally) only using one platform at Euston is good enough that I don't think it merits changing.

*Although I'm not entirely sure how that's counted.

 

[465fan]

I disagree. Looking at e.g. Kenton, National Rail entries / exits aren't massively far off tube ones (1.52 mn vs 1.16 mn)*, and 4tph to a part of London not served by the Bakerloo line whilst (generally) only using one platform at Euston is good enough that I don't think it merits changing.

*Although I'm not entirely sure how that's counted.

If the Bakerloo line is massively upgraded with new trains, and those services run more often, people will just change their habits. Much the same as I'm sure a few people jump on the first train they see which is a 378 / 710 at somewhere like Harlesden, knowing they'll change at Queens Park to try and save a few minutes, rather than wait 7 minutes for the next Bakerloo.

As far as I'm concerned, shunting people onto a homogenous Bakerloo Line from Watford to Queens Park is both reasonable and sensible.

 

[cle]

So a Euston - Queens Park (or Willesden Junction shuttle) ?

Or a branch of the Bakerloo from Euston which combines at QP? <-- I don't see the huge point here, re signalling, stock etc.

I'd sooner see a ELL/NLL via Primrose Hill to Willesden revisited, Euston-South Hampstead truncated - and those Euston platforms and paths potentially pass to WCML Slows - if useable out towards Watford - maybe it's not doable.

If we think about a Hayes Bakerloo future - TPH at Queens Park at least will increase as the southern section will absolutely need it. So where do those trains go?

They can't all turn at QP as it blocks the platform, so that is more north of there - and less use for the DC. Unless a stopping pattern was changed - e.g. Euston / QP / WJ / WC / Harrow and all stations...? Feasible though?

 

[Class15]

So a Euston - Queens Park (or Willesden Junction shuttle) ?

Or a branch of the Bakerloo from Euston which combines at QP? <-- I don't see the huge point here, re signalling, stock etc.

I'd sooner see a ELL/NLL via Primrose Hill to Willesden revisited, Euston-South Hampstead truncated - and those Euston platforms and paths potentially pass to WCML Slows - if useable out towards Watford - maybe it's not doable.

If we think about a Hayes Bakerloo future - TPH at Queens Park at least will increase as the southern section will absolutely need it. So where do those trains go?

They can't all turn at QP as it blocks the platform, so that is more north of there - and less use for the DC. Unless a stopping pattern was changed - e.g. Euston / QP / WJ / WC / Harrow and all stations...? Feasible though?

I agree largely with this. I agree that Primrose Hill should be reopened in some form; is there space to have three tracks between Camden Road Jn and Camden Road? I know 4 is impossible but maybe 3 with one bay for Primrose Hill services?

 

[465fan]

So a Euston - Queens Park (or Willesden Junction shuttle) ?

Or a branch of the Bakerloo from Euston which combines at QP? <-- I don't see the huge point here, re signalling, stock etc.

I'd sooner see a ELL/NLL via Primrose Hill to Willesden revisited, Euston-South Hampstead truncated - and those Euston platforms and paths potentially pass to WCML Slows - if useable out towards Watford - maybe it's not doable.

If we think about a Hayes Bakerloo future - TPH at Queens Park at least will increase as the southern section will absolutely need it. So where do those trains go?

They can't all turn at QP as it blocks the platform, so that is more north of there - and less use for the DC. Unless a stopping pattern was changed - e.g. Euston / QP / WJ / WC / Harrow and all stations...? Feasible though?

Euston to Queens Park shuttle on 710s, allowing more to be released for other improvements elsewhere (e.g. Chingford, Enfield). That makes sense - it would result in a segregation (bar moving units during mornings and evenings to and from the depot at Willesden).

In the event that you are running a shuttle, you could change the track layout to make it more dynamic at Queens Park. Trains from Euston or Camden Road come into Platform 4, then go back. Knock down the shed at the London end with the two roads, and use the existing up DC platform as the up line from Watford and such, before going into the tunnel. Now you've created a middle platform, probably capable of turning at least 6, maybe 8 of the Bakerloo paths per hour.

Further up, Willesden Junction. Lots of reasons to run as many trains as possible up there, especially as it will be an even more important interchange in future.

Then there's Stonebridge and Harrow, both places where you could take trains out of service and recirculate them.

Even at 32tph coming out of the Bakerloo tunnels from Hayes / Beckenham / Lewisham, you'd have scope for 4tph Queens Park, 8tph Willesden, 4tph Stonebridge, 8tph Harrow and 8tph Watford.

As for the DC lines. I remain somewhat confident that one of the best ideas, especially as they're talking about works at St Pancras to increase throughput, is to slew Platform 5's line closer to 6's on the way towards York Way, and modify the East Mids side a touch, and then you would have created some space for a new domestic platform.

Send the Queens Park DC services from South Hampstead, over to Primrose Hill (reopen it and call it Chalk Farm), into Camden Road (third platform reinstated and area remodelled), and down the connection off the North London into St Pancras. And now you've opened up Euston and got rid of the Orange Peril.

 

[The Planner]

Euston to Queens Park shuttle on 710s, allowing more to be released for other improvements elsewhere (e.g. Chingford, Enfield). That makes sense - it would result in a segregation (bar moving units during mornings and evenings to and from the depot at Willesden).

In the event that you are running a shuttle, you could change the track layout to make it more dynamic at Queens Park. Trains from Euston or Camden Road come into Platform 4, then go back. Knock down the shed at the London end with the two roads, and use the existing up DC platform as the up line from Watford and such, before going into the tunnel. Now you've created a middle platform, probably capable of turning at least 6, maybe 8 of the Bakerloo paths per hour.

Further up, Willesden Junction. Lots of reasons to run as many trains as possible up there, especially as it will be an even more important interchange in future.

Then there's Stonebridge and Harrow, both places where you could take trains out of service and recirculate them.

Even at 32tph coming out of the Bakerloo tunnels from Hayes / Beckenham / Lewisham, you'd have scope for 4tph Queens Park, 8tph Willesden, 4tph Stonebridge, 8tph Harrow and 8tph Watford.

As for the DC lines. I remain somewhat confident that one of the best ideas, especially as they're talking about works at St Pancras to increase throughput, is to slew Platform 5's line closer to 6's on the way towards York Way, and modify the East Mids side a touch, and then you would have created some space for a new domestic platform.

Send the Queens Park DC services from South Hampstead, over to Primrose Hill (reopen it and call it Chalk Farm), into Camden Road (third platform reinstated and area remodelled), and down the connection off the North London into St Pancras. And now you've opened up Euston and got rid of the Orange Peril.

You need to re-signal it all first, so as normal its not "just" swapping ARL for Bakerloo. You will also need a shed load more platforms at Watford too.

 

[Class15]

You need to re-signal it all first, so as normal its not "just" swapping ARL for Bakerloo. You will also need a shed load more platforms at Watford too.

Really? Watford has 4 DC line platforms. 8tph terminating would be 2tph in each platform, which is surely achievable with Underground trains?

 

[Silent]

I was extremely bored on a long journey up to Glasgow recently and decided it would be fun to try to "fix" the WCML (even if it doesn't need fixing).

This mostly covers the southern section, as imo TPE et al are doing fine-ish with their services (whenever it's not a 397 it seems to be fine).

I'm sure there are many issues with this, so that's why I'm putting it up here! Please point out all the problems and things that don't work. However, don't just say "it doesn't work because it would never work", actually explain and offer solutions.

Thanks.

Fasts

2tph Euston, MKC, Stoke, Macclesfield, Stockport, Mcr Picc
1tph Euston, Watford, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport, Mcr Picc
1tph Euston, Rugby, Lichfield TV, Crewe, Runcorn, Liv Lime St
1tph Euston, Nuneaton, Crewe, Runcorn, Liv Lime St
1tph Euston, Stafford, Crewe, Chester, Flint, Prestatyn, Rhyl, Colwyn Bay, Llandudno Jcn, Bangor, Holyhead
1tph Euston, Lichfield TV, Warrington BQ, Wigan NW, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme LD, Penrith NL, Carlisle, Motherwell, Glasgow C
1tph Euston, Warrington BQ, Wigan NW, Preston, Lancaster, Carlisle, Glasgow C
1tph Euston, Watford, MKC, Coventry, Birmingham Intl, Birmingham NS, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Crewe, Warrington BQ, Wigan NW, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme LD, Penrith NL, Carlisle, Lockerbie (?), Haymarket, Edinburgh Waverley
1tph Euston, Coventry, Bham Intl, Bham NS, Wolverhampton (?), could continue to Shrewsbury but undecided yet.
1tph Euston, MKC, Rugby, Coventry, Bham Intl, Bham NS

Slows

1tph Watford, Harrow, Wembley, Shepherds Bush and all stations to East Croydon
4tph Watford DC all stations
Existing Bakerloo Line frequency as far as Harrow
2tph Euston, Harrow, Bushey, Watford, Kings Langley, Apsley, Hemel Hempstead, Berkhamsted, Tring
1tph Euston, Watford, Hemel Hempstead, Leighton Buzzard, Bletchley, MKC, Wolverton, Northampton
1tph Euston, Watford, Bletchley, MKC, Northampton, Long Buckby, Rugby, Coventry, Hampton in Arden, Birmingham Intl, Birmingham NS
2tph Euston, Watford, Cheddington, Leighton Buzzard, Bletchley, MKC, Rugby, Coventry, Canley, Tile Hill, Berkswell, Hampton-in-Arden, Birmingham Intl, Marston Green, Birmingham NS
1tph Euston, Harrow, Watford, Hemel Hempstead, Berkhamsted, Tring, Leighton Buzzard, Bletchley, MKC
1tph Euston, Watford, MKC, Rugby, Nuneaton, Atherstone, Tamworth, Lichfield TV, Rugeley TV, Stafford, Crewe
1tpd Euston, Polesworth, Tamworth, Lichfield TV, Stafford, Crewe

3tph for Euston to Harrow wouldn’t work during rush hour, especially when an occasional train is 4 cars instead of 8.

 

[MatthewE707]

3tph for Euston to Harrow wouldn’t work during rush hour, especially when an occasional train is 4 cars instead of 8.

I'm not saying it is enough, but there were only 3 trains from Euston to Harrow between 1700-1759 in the December 2019 timetable (plus Overground DC services)

 

[Nottingham59]

There'd have to be a rule to say that anything that hasn't got a certain hp or TE/kg ratio sits in a loop until a suitably slow path over the hills is available, most likely over night.

There is a rule. The mechanism has been there since privatisation. All they have to do is declare the WCML "Congested Infrastructure" and impose supplementary track access charges at busy times of day until demand adjusts to meet supply.

The failure of Network Rail and ORR to pull the levers already available to them is an economic waste and a scandal of the scale of HS2 cost overruns.

 

[465fan]

You need to re-signal it all first, so as normal its not "just" swapping ARL for Bakerloo. You will also need a shed load more platforms at Watford too.

8tph to Watford Junction, and four platforms isn't enough? If that was the exclusive provider of the service?

Pulleth thy other one...

 

[Brubulus]

8tph to Watford Junction, and four platforms isn't enough? If that was the exclusive provider of the service?

Pulleth thy other one...

Not to mention that there's space for a fifth if the Croxley rail link was ever done.

 

[465fan]

Not to mention that there's space for a fifth if the Croxley rail link was ever done.

And if you have to somehow bring Met Line trains (eventually) into Watford Junction, you'll need a system to allow that CityFlo (or whatever their signalling system is called) to operate in Watford Junction. And with that, you would assume Bakerloo Line new trains will be at least pre-fitted with it, meaning an eventual resignalling of the Bakerloo is coming anyway. And with that, resignalling Queens Park to Watford to make it just Bakerloo Line becomes even less daft.

 

[cle]

I had thought that with some works (and at v slow speed) - you might get up Bakerloo services at QP into platform 4. And thus keep the London end sheds (much needed)

But yes it needs a plan for the BLE frequency.

Willesden Junction likely needs a full two island solution (be it four platforms or White City style) and turning more Bakerloo’s there. Yes a signal has to go. And LO use it occasionally - more cause to have 4 roads maybe.

Is there a way one could access Stonebridge Park depot form the north? If so you could have Wembley Central as the outer point, with DC taking over north of there.

Or all Bakerloo to Watford.

 

[Class15]

8tph to Watford Junction, and four platforms isn't enough? If that was the exclusive provider of the service?

Pulleth thy other one...

Yes, as I said above your post, that comes up as 2tph per platform. No chance that isn’t enough on the tube.

 

[London Trains]

Yes, as I said above your post, that comes up as 2tph per platform. No chance that isn’t enough on the tube.

Indeed, frankly that level of platform utilisation should be more than enough for any train service to run other than long-distance "intercity" services.

 

[The Planner]

8tph to Watford Junction, and four platforms isn't enough? If that was the exclusive provider of the service?

Pulleth thy other one...

Fair enough, I thought it was only the three. However if you are proposing 8 Willesden, 4 Stonebridge, 8 Harrow, I don't see how you are keeping it all clock face with the shunts at Stonebridge and Harrow, unless you are also suggesting that you put a Willesden-esque layout in.

 

[465fan]

Fair enough, I thought it was only the three. However if you are proposing 8 Willesden, 4 Stonebridge, 8 Harrow, I don't see how you are keeping it all clock face with the shunts at Stonebridge and Harrow, unless you are also suggesting that you put a Willesden-esque layout in.

If you are running 32tph.

8tph (one every 7.5 minutes) goes to Watford.
Flight 4tph Stonebridge, and 4tph Queens Park, in behind.
Flight 8tph Willesden in behind that.
Then 8tph Harrow behind that.

You will have created, in that sense, the necessary time gap of 3.5 minutes to run a unit ECS onto Stonebridge. If that doesn't work, you'd just have to terminate 8tph at Queens Park instead, and circulate the units via the shed, a-la Northfields.

 

[Zomboid]

On the Hayes thread the suggestion seems to be that 24tph will be sufficient for the Bakerloo, so a bit more headroom to run 8tph Queens Park to Lewisham, 8 tph Stonebridge to Beckenham Jn and 8 tph Harrow to Hayes. Or some variation on that.

But sadly there doesn't look to be any obvious solution other then knocking it all down and starting again to get the Southern WLL trains onto the DC lines, so they're stuck on the slows, and won't be able to get up to any useful frequency themselves.

Maybe if Willesden Junction gets a hefty makeover with platforms on the slow lines, making it a potentially very useful interchange, the Southern service could run into the high level platforms & reversing siding instead, and which might allow an increase in frequency.

 

[cle]

I think 24tph might end up not being enough for NXG/Lewisham in time, but would be good to get back to there. Equally, I doubt 32tph would be doable with the complexities we have (terminating stations, depots, NR interactions) - vs something nice and self-contained like the Victoria line. It might be 26-28 in peaks which is perfectly respectable for a tube line.

But the feed at NXG and Lewisham will be significant I think.

 

[Silent]

I'm not saying it is enough, but there were only 3 trains from Euston to Harrow between 1700-1759 in the December 2019 timetable (plus Overground DC services)

But I think lots of people actually prefer the lnwr for comfort as lots of people get off at Harrow. The overground is already quite well used at Euston. Now I think there was a cancelled train and the class 730/1( the 3 car unit version) in a six car formation was over crowded, at maximum capacity.

 

[465fan]

But I think lots of people actually prefer the lnwr for comfort as lots of people get off at Harrow. The overground is already quite well used at Euston. Now I think there was a cancelled train and the class 730/1( the 3 car unit version) in a six car formation was over crowded, at maximum capacity.

Comfort and speed. Harrow & Wealdstone to Baker Street (using that as a comparable 'North side of Zone 1 interchange') is 34 minutes. Harrow to Euston is only 12 minutes when the path is 'clean'.

In my much younger years I used to go from South East London to Harrow to have a look at the freight (it was better then!), and I would get to Charing Cross, go to Euston, and then go to Harrow. I could literally go from Charing Cross to Harrow on the Bakerloo - no thanks.

 

[A S Leib]

At least off-peak, nobody doing Euston to Wealdstone by Overground rather than LNR would be doing it for speed, given that both are evenly spread 4tph and eleven minutes vs thirty.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2025 ==

I could literally go from Charing Cross to Harrow on the Bakerloo - no thanks.

The main reason I'd like to see LNR services returning to Wembley Central or Willesden Junction or an in-station interchange between Euston and Euston Square (or both) is because of how unpleasant going from Hemel Hempstead to Paddington can be at times, even with the extra option of going via Tottenham Court Road.

 

[465fan]

At least off-peak, nobody doing Euston to Wealdstone by Overground rather than LNR would be doing it for speed, given that both are evenly spread 4tph and eleven minutes vs thirty.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2025 ==


The main reason I'd like to see LNR services returning to Wembley Central or Willesden Junction or an in-station interchange between Euston and Euston Square (or both) is because of how unpleasant going from Hemel Hempstead to Paddington can be at times, even with the extra option of going via Tottenham Court Road.

I mean, at least in future, you assume trains would have air-con so it would actually be quite nice to jump on the Bakerloo.

But definitely, of all the places to get a station on the WCML south of Harrow, it would have to be Willesden Junction. That absolute web of connectivity there, as well as Old Oak coming, it's obvious.

 

[cle]

But definitely, of all the places to get a station on the WCML south of Harrow, it would have to be Willesden Junction. That absolute web of connectivity there, as well as Old Oak coming, it's obvious.

Agree... but if it doesn't happen re a big build, I think Queens Park could also be a good one for that railhead. More tube trains, closer to London. Reasonably popular destination / usage too for demand for faster service. But platforms are 8 car only, so would need extensions.

 

[DarloRich]

ALL trains to stop at MKC. Cut stops at places like Nuneaton, Lichfield and Watford etc to accommodate.
How do we fit freight in?
Bletchley connections north and south to actually work with the MV trains

1tpd Euston, Polesworth, Tamworth, Lichfield TV, Stafford, Crewe

eh?

2tph Euston, Watford, Cheddington, Leighton Buzzard, Bletchley, MKC, Rugby, Coventry, Canley, Tile Hill, Berkswell, Hampton-in-Arden, Birmingham

Cheddington? Why? Just run non stop to the Buzzard

1tph Watford, Harrow, Wembley, Shepherds Bush and all stations to East Croydon

The southern service from MKC was very useful - can we have it back?

Side note: I've scrapped all the Tamworth stops on Avanti. Just don't need it when you've got Nuneaton and Lichfield.

I would keep Tamworth out of those three as it offers a connection into the wider XC network. I know XC goes to Nuneaton but not trains that run anywhere useful!

There is some serious MKC erasure there.

some outrageous erasure - MK is a much more successful and important city than any of the others noted.

 

[465fan]

Agree... but if it doesn't happen re a big build, I think Queens Park could also be a good one for that railhead. More tube trains, closer to London. Reasonably popular destination / usage too for demand for faster service. But platforms are 8 car only, so would need extensions.

Queens Park benefits include the being closer to London, and having existing platforms (except I assume they'd have to be rebuilt to conform to current standards), but on the whole, I can't see much against Willesden Junction. It's got Old Oak, North London, West London, and whatever else. It's also going to be in a significant development / regeneration area.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2025 ==

ALL trains to stop at MKC. Cut stops at places like Nuneaton, Lichfield and Watford etc to accommodate.
How do we fit freight in?
Bletchley connections north and south to actually work with the MV trains


eh?

Cheddington? Why? Just run non stop to the Buzzard


The southern service from MKC was very useful - can we have it back?



I would keep Tamworth out of those three as it offers a connection into the wider XC network. I know XC goes to Nuneaton but not trains that run anywhere useful!


some outrageous erasure - MK is a much more successful and important city than any of the others noted.

More interesting question, in the future, could you ever see a situation where a half-hourly Southern service from MK to somewhere a bit better than Croydon (not Gatwick, perhaps, but maybe something like Reigate) could be supported?

 

[DarloRich]

More interesting question, in the future, could you ever see a situation where a half-hourly Southern service from MK to somewhere a bit better than Croydon (not Gatwick, perhaps, but maybe something like Reigate) could be supported?

Open minded about that. The mkc to Watford/Clapham section was a useful local stopper service