Metropolitan Line extension as replacement of Circle Line idea

[35B]

Same here! I first started using the Circle in 1978, most often between Paddington and Liverpool Street, and the service then was so poor that I sometimes used the Central Line at Lancaster Gate instead. The Elizabeth Line came a bit too late for me....

The most annoying thing nowadays is, if changing westbound at Edgware Road, there is no indication which train will depart first towards Paddington Praed Street. More than once I have been sat on a train, only for another to arrive afterwards but depart first. Not a difficult issue for TfL to solve, surely.

The issue is also that the change to the Circle broke a useful cross-platform connection on to the Edgware Road - Wimbledon service. My experience of the replacement is arriving at Edgware Road, seeing a Wimbledon train on the other side, and it then leaving before there's any chance to make a connection.

 

[Jimini]

The issue is also that the change to the Circle broke a useful cross-platform connection on to the Edgware Road - Wimbledon service. My experience of the replacement is arriving at Edgware Road, seeing a Wimbledon train on the other side, and it then leaving before there's any chance to make a connection.

I remember the uproar from the Mail / Standard / Independent journos when they lost their direct services from Kings X / St Pancras to the office in High Street Ken!

 

[Mgameing123]

IMHO every suggestion put forward here is in cloud cuckoo fantasy land.

Innovative creative ideas I am all for - but they have to have some reality base.

The surface lines lines services and timetables are what they are because they are maximised for throughput that the infrastructure can handle. Move something, you create a new problem, usually a bigger one, at the same location, or somewhere else.

It works as it is because it has to and does.

To do different needs massive infrastructure civil engineering works, grade seperation, and a lot of platform extension works. If the 4LM project had the money, I'd be pretty sure S7s would not be and we'd have all S8 - but look at the massive work that would have involved, even with selective door operation. Or S9 on the Met and S8 elsewhere.

We can't get the Picc. resignalled yet, we can't get either new trains or new signalling for the Bakerloo, Central stock really needs outright stock replacement not retractioning ~40 yr old kit, 95TS and 96TS are approaching 40 yr age with nothing on the horizon, Crossrail 2 is not even started, Farringdon City sdgs is on hold at least to 2030-2035 - - - - so where on earth does anybody think funding is going to come from for grade seperation at Aldgate or Baker/Praed or EarlsCourt, or more platforms at Baker or EdgwareRd, or different / more surface stock, et al - that you need to implement these fantasies, etc.

If there was that amount of money around, funding wholly new lines would be far more cost effective than twiddling what is there.

As has been said already, put the crayons away on this one.

To be honest though Grade separation of the subsurface lines will have to happen at some point in the future as demand is only going to increase.

 

[zwk500]

To be honest though Grade separation of the subsurface lines will have to happen at some point in the future as demand is only going to increase.

Is this possible without causing structural collapse?

 

[stuu]

To be honest though Grade separation of the subsurface lines will have to happen at some point in the future as demand is only going to increase.

At any of the locations it would be so expensive as to not be worthwhile, so much demolition would be needed that the business case would never stack up

 

[D7666]

At any of the locations it would be so expensive as to not be worthwhile, so much demolition would be needed that the business case would never stack up

Absolutely right.

_

To be honest though Grade separation of the subsurface lines will have to happen at some point in the future as demand is only going to increase.

I'll throw that back at you.

Where and how precisely are you going to grade seperate the Aldgate triangle between all or any of Aldgate East, Tower Hill and Liverpool Street stations and allow for Aldgate station itself.

And then, when you have done that, by spending several billion ££££, work out how many EXTRA TPH you can run on the District, Circle and H&C lines.

The 4LM CBTC full ATO timetable uplift plan as made public for 32 TPH on each of the three non junction sections around Aldgate i.e. THROUGH Liverpool Street (all the way to/from Baker Street), Tower Hill (all the way to/from Gloucester Road), and Aldgate East (all the way to/from Barking).

32 TPH - think about it - that is a headway of less than 2 minutes.

How many more TPH above 32, or to put it another way, how much lower headway than 112 seconds, do you think you will get over those sections after your grade seperation ?

I have seen figures of 40 TPH (= 90 second headway) stated as a generic maximum for Seltrac S40 for "heavy metro" but that relies on absolutely equal station spacing and dwell time, and almost certainly never achievable on a brown field resignal of irregular station spacing and unequal dwell times. 4LM anywhere is nothing like as regular.

Now repeat this exercise for Baker/Praed area and Earls Court area.

You may well eliminate some flat crossing conflicts but for what capacity demand increase? You may well increase perfomance reliabiity - but that is a different subject - and doubt that has any sort of robust business case.
.

Ideas on a postcard please to E20 1JN.

As I said, these things have to be practical.

 

[MarkyT]

The only change that might make some sense would be swapping the eastern termini of the H&C and Met, as mentioned up-thread, assuming the platforms to Barking support 8-car, or could be made to affordably. It would need more 8-car sets clearly, and could remove the H&C from the map entirely with the Aldgate terminators becoming Circle line short workings.

I can't see much if any benefit though, and it would be certain to slow down and irritate established riders between East London and Paddington, Shepherd's Bush, Hammersmith etc, who'd lose their direct trains, though some may have already switched to EL for part or all of their trips.

How many current or future Met riders want to go further east is questionable. Enough to justify any major work or disturbing other well-established movement patterns? The Met already provides service to Liverpool St with its mainline and EL connections, so there's no need to go to Whitechapel for EL. A short walk east (~300m) provides District connections at Aldgate East and a little further south (~400m) reaches Fenchurch St. for LT&S and Tower Gateway for DLR.

 

[A S Leib]

A short walk east (~300m) provides District connections at Aldgate East and a little further south (~400m) reaches Fenchurch St. for LT&S and Tower Gateway for DLR.

And for West Ham there's a cross-platform change to the Jubilee at Finchley Road.

That seems like a way of providing a budget Marylebone to Fenchurch Street link, which I think itself is recommended more for those two* termini not currently having mainline cross-London tunnels than for particular demand between Ruislip or Harrow and Barking.

*With King's Cross, Moorgate, Victoria, Charing Cross and Cannon Street sharing lots of their suburban stations with Thameslink, and Waterloo (and the West Anglia Main Line) having Crossrail 2 proposed.

 

[Silent]

I think there is also a mental aspect to commuting and which trains you use. For me it's not just logical, also about how I would feel. I think Met Line terminating at Baker Street might lead to more demand on Chiltern services because of this but I don't really know. Part of the Met Line may as well just be a Chiltern service probably then.

The only change that might make some sense would be swapping the eastern termini of the H&C and Met, as mentioned up-thread, assuming the platforms to Barking support 8-car, or could be made to affordably. It would need more 8-car sets clearly, and could remove the H&C from the map entirely with the Aldgate terminators becoming Circle line short workings.

I can't see much if any benefit though, and it would be certain to slow down and irritate established riders between East London and Paddington, Shepherd's Bush, Hammersmith etc, who'd lose their direct trains, though some may have already switched to EL for part or all of their trips.

How many current or future Met riders want to go further east is questionable. Enough to justify any major work or disturbing other well-established movement patterns? The Met already provides service to Liverpool St with its mainline and EL connections, so there's no need to go to Whitechapel for EL. A short walk east (~300m) provides District connections at Aldgate East and a little further south (~400m) reaches Fenchurch St. for LT&S and Tower Gateway for DLR.

I would assume a lot of Met riders come from leafy suburbs so lots are probably middle class and using it to commute to work or central London, not to east London.

 

[A S Leib]

not to east London

I'd say Canary Wharf is in east London, but that's a moot point when there's changing at Finchley Road for the Jubilee or (currently, generally) at Liverpool Street for Crossrail as options.

 

[Silent]

I'd say Canary Wharf is in east London, but that's a moot point when there's changing at Finchley Road for the Jubilee or (currently, generally) at Liverpool Street for Crossrail as options.

Yeah, I kind of meant the areas the District Line travels through. I assume maybe passengers from Wembley and Harrow would like to.

 

[Mgameing123]

The only change that might make some sense would be swapping the eastern termini of the H&C and Met, as mentioned up-thread, assuming the platforms to Barking support 8-car, or could be made to affordably. It would need more 8-car sets clearly, and could remove the H&C from the map entirely with the Aldgate terminators becoming Circle line short workings.

I can't see much if any benefit though, and it would be certain to slow down and irritate established riders between East London and Paddington, Shepherd's Bush, Hammersmith etc, who'd lose their direct trains, though some may have already switched to EL for part or all of their trips.

How many current or future Met riders want to go further east is questionable. Enough to justify any major work or disturbing other well-established movement patterns? The Met already provides service to Liverpool St with its mainline and EL connections, so there's no need to go to Whitechapel for EL. A short walk east (~300m) provides District connections at Aldgate East and a little further south (~400m) reaches Fenchurch St. for LT&S and Tower Gateway for DLR.

Well people heading to events at Wembley Stadium could use the Met to East London. Also I don’t think it’s actually possible to remove Aldgate from the map of Metropolitan Line services. There will still be Aldgate terminators as the H&C only runs 6 tph off peak vs the Met which runs 12 trains per hour off peak to Aldgate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jul 2025 ==

The only change that might make some sense would be swapping the eastern termini of the H&C and Met, as mentioned up-thread, assuming the platforms to Barking support 8-car, or could be made to affordably. It would need more 8-car sets clearly, and could remove the H&C from the map entirely with the Aldgate terminators becoming Circle line short workings.

I can't see much if any benefit though, and it would be certain to slow down and irritate established riders between East London and Paddington, Shepherd's Bush, Hammersmith etc, who'd lose their direct trains, though some may have already switched to EL for part or all of their trips.

How many current or future Met riders want to go further east is questionable. Enough to justify any major work or disturbing other well-established movement patterns? The Met already provides service to Liverpool St with its mainline and EL connections, so there's no need to go to Whitechapel for EL. A short walk east (~300m) provides District connections at Aldgate East and a little further south (~400m) reaches Fenchurch St. for LT&S and Tower Gateway for DLR.

Well people heading to events at Wembley Stadium could use the Met to East London. Also I don’t think it’s actually possible to remove Aldgate from the map of Metropolitan Line services. There will still be Aldgate terminators as the H&C only runs 6 tph off peak vs the Met which runs 12 trains per hour off peak to Aldgate.

 

[MarkyT]

Well people heading to events at Wembley Stadium could use the Met to East London. Also I don’t think it’s actually possible to remove Aldgate from the map of Metropolitan Line services. There will still be Aldgate terminators as the H&C only runs 6 tph off peak vs the Met which runs 12 trains per hour off peak to Aldgate.

So there'd be a mix of short Circles and some Mets terminating at Aldgate. I thought maybe for best intra-London benefit, the Uxbridge trains might best be sent to Barking, though that would be 8 tph off peak, leaving just the 4 tph Amersham/Chesham services to terminate at Aldgate. I doubt the Barking section could accommodate the extra 2tph regularly spaced though, as the various patterns on the eastern District all seem to repeat on a 6 tph basis. It has been stated that the Uxbridge branch is the busiest part of the Met, so a reduction from 8 to 6 tph to fit would likely not be possible.

 

[D7666]

So you see, reading the whole thread, each idea of change creates another problem, often bigger, at the same location, or another location(s).

Which is why "do not fix what ain't broke" applies.

 

[Mgameing123]

So you see, reading the whole thread, each idea of change creates another problem, often bigger, at the same location, or another location(s).

Which is why "do not fix what ain't broke" applies.

But it is still important to review how you can improve services. Like I’m saying Metropolitan Line to Edgware Road so we can reduce the amount of lines and help simplify the network.

 

[D7666]

But it is still important to review how you can improve services. Like I’m saying Metropolitan Line to Edgware Road so we can reduce the amount of lines and help simplify the network.

Your suggestion does not simplify anything. It does the opposite.

You may not be aware but certain contributors plural to this thread are directly involved with operating LU surface lines.

I'll not say any more than that.

 

[Silent]

But it is still important to review how you can improve services. Like I’m saying Metropolitan Line to Edgware Road so we can reduce the amount of lines and help simplify the network.

I don’t think it’s simplified for the passengers though.

 

[Russel]

I'm not really sure what problems any of the suggestions in this thread are trying to solve...

Regarding the Circle Line, which part is busier, the northern part or southern?

 

[MarkyT]

If you wanted to remove a named line on the north part of the circle without changing any service patterns, an option might be to abolish the H&C designation and show the section to Barking on the map as a Circle line branch, which it is operationally.

I think showing these trains as a separate line name and colour is useful routing information for passengers however, so I don't support the end of the H&C identity.

The line name is a bit odd now since the circle was extended, with both lines linking Hammersmith to the City. In fact the Circle has more stations in the square mile so for any random destination there, selecting a Circle train would likely get you closer. Perhaps the H&C needs renaming the H&B (Barking), or an entirely new name might be devised.

 

[D7666]

Perhaps the H&C needs renaming the H&B (Barking), or an entirely new name might be devised.

Not that agree with renaming it (and certainly not Teacup) but :

Helix line.

Pronounced as it is acronym heliks.

H-ammersmith, E-uston, LI-verpoolStreet & K-ensington-S-outh line.

Yes I know it is not a mathematically a helix, there is no need for anyone to explain that, but no different to not being a circle.



I've not gven up my day job yet.

Anyway, I'd not rename anything, Helix is for amusement; otherwise any such crayoning only satisfies trainspotter OCD needs, it achieves nothing useful, or even tangible, for travellers using it all. I have no idea why anybody wants to remove Circle line and/or yellow from the map.

 

[Mr. SW]

I had a go years ago with some crayons and basically found the sub-surface lines were unfixable. Splitting the Circle is about as good as it's ever going to get, unless you dig the whole lot up again - and that's not going to happen.

If you were going to change the names of the sub-surface lines then I would suggest the following, which is just a bit of fun.

> Hammersmith and City Line - retain - It does what it says on the tin. Just because it goes to Barking then so what? The Central Line ends up in rural Essex.
> Circle Line - change to - Metropolitan Line (Yes! Really!) as that is what it actually is, and it's historical too.
> Metropolitan Line - change to - Middlesex Line because that's basically where it is. And it's historical.
> District Line - change to - River Line. "District" is a bad name but the service crosses twice and parallels the Thames.

You don't even need to change the colours.

But, truly, leave it alone.

 

[JamesRowden]

The problem I find with the present service pattern is links in Zone 1 which only have a service every 10 minutes. The risk of a 10 minute wait, or the service being held for 10 minutes to make the trains constant frequency, makes these routes less attractive compared with using the other lines and making an extra change.

Making the Zone 1 routes all have a frequency of at least 1 train every 5 minutes would seem beneficial.



With the existing grade separated junctions at Earls Court (if the tracks from platforms 1&4 towards High Street Kensington are bidirectional or could easily be made bidirectional), perhaps there could be the following off peak service changes:

• Scrap the Circle Line
• Run the Hammersmith and City line every 5 minutes (with every other service potentially terminating in a bay platform somewhere between Aldgate East and Barking).
• Double the frequency of the Wimbledon to Tower Hill service to every 5 minutes, and extend it to terminate at Aldgate.
• Cut the Wimbledon to Edgware Road service to only run between Earls Court and Edgware Road, and double the frequency to every 5 minutes.

The obvious downside of this would be the loss of through services, leading to the potential for Earls Court and Aldgate stations to become overcrowded during the peak due to additional interchange.

 

[Harpo]

New names? Change Circle to Circus. It’s a handy hint.

 

[35B]

The problem I find with the present service pattern is links in Zone 1 which only have a service every 10 minutes. The risk of a 10 minute wait, or the service being held for 10 minutes to make the trains constant frequency, makes these routes less attractive compared with using the other lines and making an extra change.

Agreed

The obvious downside of this would be the loss of through services, leading to the potential for Earls Court and Aldgate stations to become overcrowded during the peak due to additional interchange.

Precisely. Not to mention that Aldgate is hardly a good interchange point.

 

[Helvellyn]

If it's just about simplifying line names revert the Hammersmith & City back to Metropolitan. No different to the District having Wimbledon-Edgeware Road.

While the break of the Circle at Edgware Road gets lamented I note nobody ever proposes that the Wimbledon-Edgware service get extended along the Northern part of the route. Circle as Hammersmith-Edgware via Tower Hill and a 'new' Wimbledon-Barking via Edgware would have given some interesting through journeys at the expense of the doubled capacity Hammersmith-Edgware that the Circle reorganisation brought.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Aug 2025 ==

If we're talking pure speculation it's a shame that given some of the common interests between the Met and Great Central that when Marylebone was built they didn't shift the Baker Street link over there so that terminating services would use one station and the link to the "Circle" would have been adjacent to a new station on Edgeware Road (Great Central Met?).

Could have led to a different look for the Jubilee as well if the switch of Stanmore branch Met services to the Bakerloo in the 1930s was slightly further West at Marylebone, then when the Jubilee was built it would have gone Marylebone - Bond Street quite direct (it doesn't take the most direct route to Baker Street when looked at geographically!).

You'd have had Marylebone then with great tube access and some terminating Met servives alongside Chiltern. Maybe even a willingness to terminate Amersham/Chesham trains alongside the Watfords so only Uxbridges ran through to Aldgate (and suddenly room for Wimbledon-Edgware services to becomes Wimbledon-Edgware-Aldgate).

 

[Mgameing123]

I had a go years ago with some crayons and basically found the sub-surface lines were unfixable. Splitting the Circle is about as good as it's ever going to get, unless you dig the whole lot up again - and that's not going to happen.

If you were going to change the names of the sub-surface lines then I would suggest the following, which is just a bit of fun.

> Hammersmith and City Line - retain - It does what it says on the tin. Just because it goes to Barking then so what? The Central Line ends up in rural Essex.
> Circle Line - change to - Metropolitan Line (Yes! Really!) as that is what it actually is, and it's historical too.
> Metropolitan Line - change to - Middlesex Line because that's basically where it is. And it's historical.
> District Line - change to - River Line. "District" is a bad name but the service crosses twice and parallels the Thames.

You don't even need to change the colours.

But, truly, leave it alone.

Metropolitan Line and District Libe should keep their names to honour their history.

 

[Class15]

Agree that the H&C should probably just become part of the Metropolitan line. As @Helvellyn says, the District has Edgware Road to Wimbledon which is very similar.

 

[MarkyT]

If it's just about simplifying line names revert the Hammersmith & City back to Metropolitan. No different to the District having Wimbledon-Edgeware Road.

There's a case for also identifying that as a separate line, perhaps with a lighter green on the map. I'll leave others to suggest a name.

 

[D7666]

• Scrap the Circle Line
• Run the Hammersmith and City line every 5 minutes (with every other service potentially terminating in a bay platform somewhere between Aldgate East and Barking).
• Double the frequency of the Wimbledon to Tower Hill service to every 5 minutes, and extend it to terminate at Aldgate.
• Cut the Wimbledon to Edgware Road service to only run between Earls Court and Edgware Road, and double the frequency to every 5 minutes.

The obvious downside of this would be the loss of through services, leading to the potential for Earls Court and Aldgate stations to become overcrowded during the peak due to additional interchange.

As I have said before and say again, all this sort of crayoning does is create difficulties elsewhere.

How much real thought did you give to this ?

Congratulations - you've now introduced :

• NO service between High Street Ken and Gloucester Road (because you scrapped Circle)

• every 5 min reversing District west to east at Aldgate, wasting through platforms cutting overall throughput, anyway is impossible on the current track layout, and even if you could, improbable timetable on using two platforms for these 12 TPH alternating reversals with any kind of robustness

• every 5 min reversing District Wimbledons west to east at Earls Court, again cutting overall throughput by wasting through platforms, again impossible on the current track layout (indeed see your own diagram), again needs 2 platforms alternating for 12 TPH reversal robustness, at the very last location you want 12 stationary trains reversing per hour. You've more or less killed 1/3 total Earls Court capacity in one hit

• Additional interchanges - of which up to 50% are not cross platform in the same direction because of the terminating services alternating platforms that the layout places on oppsite islands

Lunacy.

Put the crayons away.

 

[London Trains]

Lunacy.

Put the crayons away.

Not agreeing with the OP's ideas but there is no need for these type of comments.

Nothing wrong with explaining why something wouldn't work respectfully, something an awful lot of people on this forum need to learn.

We should be encouraging enthusiasts to post, not trying to put them off - telling them to "put the crayons away" is frankly just rude in my opinion, and it is again something an awful lot of people on the forum need to learn to stop saying.