Metropolitan Line extension as replacement of Circle Line idea

[stuu]

Nothing is stopping you from four-tracking by putting the other lines below the existing lines to provide enough space for four-tracking. That is the point for the stations on the Metropolitan Line extension to only be interchange ones with non-SSR lines. At Edgware Road, you would be able to unify the Bakerloo and SSR stations. I regularly walk around the streets of central London.

You want to tunnel directly under 160 year old tunnels in narrow streets lined with 4+ storey buildings? Good luck getting a contractor to sign up for that

 

[Mgameing123]

The reason for not calling at Barbican is to enable a better alignment from Farringdon to Moorgate as well as the Metropolitan Line deep sections would only call at the interchange stations, with an increased service on the Hammersmith & City Line and Circle Lines to make up for the lose of the Metropolitan line calling all stations between Baker street and Aldgate.

You will have crossovers to allow access from Upminster to Wimbledon, however the main idea of grade separation is that you improvement reliability by removing conflicting moves between Ealing Broadway/Richmond services to Upminster and Wimbledon to Edgware Road services, I know there would still be conflict because of Wimbledon to Upminster services however this would be a lot less than now. The perfect time would be now, as there are no buildings on the tunnel at the moment.

Nothing is stopping you from four-tracking by putting the other lines below the existing lines to provide enough space for four-tracking. That is the point for the stations on the Metropolitan Line extension to only be interchange ones with non-SSR lines. At Edgware Road, you would be able to unify the Bakerloo and SSR stations. I regularly walk around the streets of central London.


That is why I want to remove Kensington (Olympia) Branch once Lilley Bridge depot closes and is replaced by the Sidings on the Thameslink line at Moorgate and at Turnham Green. I feel a Replacement bus service could be more attractive than the every 20 minutes shuttle, as the bus could run every 5-10 minutes as it wouldn't be limited by the single line. The former Kensington (Oylmpia) Branch could be used to increase capacity on West London Line to make up for the lose of the shuttle.

I understand but what the point in building an expensive tunnel between Farringdon and Moorgate when you can use the abandoned sections of the Widened Line.

 

[35B]

Would there be any scope/usefulness in moving the Met terminus from Aldgate to Tower Hill (apart from the need to build a bay platform)? Closer to Fenchurch Street than Aldgate, walking connection to DLR, same station interchange to the District Line.

My observation of Met line trains is that they decant most of their passengers before Aldgate. And as the distances we're talking about are very short*, the costs seem out of all proportion to any benefits.

* - when in the office, travelling into King's Cross, the walk from Barbican to south of St Paul's is far quicker than staying on the Circle to Mansion House, and far easier than going across to get a Thameslink service to City or Blackfriars.

 

[BerkshireRails]

I understand but what the point in building an expensive tunnel between Farringdon and Moorgate when you can use the abandoned sections of the Widened Line.

The widened Line tunnels are being converted into Sidings so they won't be available for this project, plus you're not saving any money as you need the same number, if not more, tunnel boring machines by doing this. Also, coming closer to the ground will cost more, as you have more things to watch out for. The deeper underground, the more space you have to avoid things and get a better alignment for higher speeds.

You want to tunnel directly under 160 year old tunnels in narrow streets lined with 4+ storey buildings? Good luck getting a contractor to sign up for that

The Elizabeth Line did that, so it shouldn't be an issue.

Would there be any scope/usefulness in moving the Met terminus from Aldgate to Tower Hill (apart from the need to build a bay platform)? Closer to Fenchurch Street than Aldgate, walking connection to DLR, same station interchange to the District Line.

Doing that would reduce capacity as you now have Metropolitan line services interacting with the District line services. As you would have 36tph across those flat junctions, between Tower Hill and Aldgate/Adlgate East. You have 12tph Metropolitan, 18tph District and 6tph Circle Line.

 

[YorksLad12]

My observation of Met line trains is that they decant most of their passengers before Aldgate. And as the distances we're talking about are very short*, the costs seem out of all proportion to any benefits.

* - when in the office, travelling into King's Cross, the walk from Barbican to south of St Paul's is far quicker than staying on the Circle to Mansion House, and far easier than going across to get a Thameslink service to City or Blackfriars.

Doing that would reduce capacity as you now have Metropolitan line services interacting with the District line services. As you would have 36tph across those flat junctions, between Tower Hill and Aldgate/Adlgate East. You have 12tph Metropolitan, 18tph District and 6tph Circle Line.

Fair enough!

 

[stuu]

The Elizabeth Line did that, so it shouldn't be an issue.

20m underneath... you aren't going to get down to that sort of depth between the Circle Line platforms and Praed St junction unless you turn it into a rollercoaster

 

[Mgameing123]

The widened Line tunnels are being converted into Sidings so they won't be available for this project, plus you're not saving any money as you need the same number, if not more, tunnel boring machines by doing this. Also, coming closer to the ground will cost more, as you have more things to watch out for. The deeper underground, the more space you have to avoid things and get a better alignment for higher speeds.

The Elizabeth Line did that, so it shouldn't be an issue.

Doing that would reduce capacity as you now have Metropolitan line services interacting with the District line services. As you would have 36tph across those flat junctions, between Tower Hill and Aldgate/Adlgate East. You have 12tph Metropolitan, 18tph District and 6tph Circle Line.

Lets say it's only the Uxbridge trains that do this.

Also speed won't matter too much plus converting sidings back to railway is easy.

 

[steeevooo]

converting sidings back to railway is easy.

Where do you propose stabling the trains that are going to be using the sidings once you've converted it back to railway?!

 

[BerkshireRails]

Lets say it's only the Uxbridge trains that do this.

Also speed won't matter too much plus converting sidings back to railway is easy.

Uxbridge is still 8 trains per hour.

The idea is that they run faster, and as it is an express service, speed is essential. There is no point in having an express service trundle around at 10mph when the Stopper does 30mph. You need your express to do the same, if not at a higher speed. Great Portland Street and Barbican still have a decent train service every 5 minutes with this idea. If you need extra capacity, you can run a Hammersmith to Aldgate peak time shuttle to provide more capacity; however, I don't think this will be necessary, as the Metropolitan line will run with its full 24tph through the centre of London, therefore providing a greater capacity increase.

 

[Mgameing123]

Where do you propose stabling the trains that are going to be using the sidings once you've converted it back to railway?!

Anywhere else?

 

[mhwfc]

I’m

 

[JonathanH]

The reason for not calling at Barbican is to enable a better alignment from Farringdon to Moorgate as well as the Metropolitan Line deep sections would only call at the interchange stations, with an increased service on the Hammersmith & City Line and Circle Lines to make up for the lose of the Metropolitan line calling all stations between Baker street and Aldgate.

The alignment between Farringdon and Moorgate was realigned as part of the Barbican development in the 1960s, but the benefit they had back then was that the area had been bomb damaged and there weren't buildings in the way.

London - Barbican redevelopment showing realignment of the Metropolitan, H&C and Circle lines of London Underground, 1965

A fine view showing the construction of the Barbican in London's historic heart and the consequential diversion of the London Underground's Metropolitan, H&C, Circle and 'Met Widened lines tracks that occurred as part of the 1960s redevelopment of the area. The new cut and cover boxes that would...

www.flickr.com

 

[Wolfie]

One problem with the OP's suggestion is that the Met Line trains are S8 (i.e. 8 cars); only the (current) Met Line platforms are set up for these (and, in the tunnel sections, long enough). The Circle east side stations (from Paddington to High Street Ken) have I think some of shortest platforms on the sub-surface lines - pre S stock they were strictly 6 cars max; and S7 trains can only work with a lot of SDO.

But that having been said, I do think that when the sub-surface lines were reorganised when the S stock came in, to withdraw the round and round circle, and increase the number of trains to Hammersmith, some tricks were missed: I would have looked at whether S8s could work east to Upminster (I think most of the platforms should be just about long enough), and what other options there might be in connecting up the various sides of the Circle, and all the branches off it (e.g. Hammersmith-Aldgate-Wimbledon?), being prepared to cast aside all the traditional line assignments/pairings - going back to how the LPTB to have all the sub-surface lines (both Met and District - the Circle, H&C and East London weren't distinguished back then) as one group, in green on the Tube map.

So in other words when it comes to organisational structures and the tube map do the exact opposite of what was done on the Overground to assist passenger clarity? All smacks of reversion for historical nostalgia reasons and nothing else, throwing away nearly 100 years of development for the sake of it and going against recent trends. That's a hard "Nope!" from me.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Aug 2025 ==

The Hammersmith & City and Circle should realistically be considered one line anyway, just for historical reasons of the 'Circle' line it uses the split branding. It's effectively Hammersmith-Liverpool Street, with trains then either continuing to Edgware Road via Aldgate or Barking via Aldgate East.

Certainly since the Circle became the lasso in reality you are correct. When that line was actually operated as two contra-rotating services l would perhaps have been more sceptical.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Aug 2025 ==

The circle has always been an abomination best avoided throughout my 50+ years of using it (and I do my very best to avoid it.) With a blank cheque book and fresh chubby crayons:

- Met Line gets grade separated from Aldgate to terminate at in new platforms at Tower Hill.
- Wimbledon to Edgware Road or Hammersmith branch gets grade separated into new tunnels before Praed Street to terminate in new platforms at Baker Street or Kings Cross
- Gloucester Road to High Street is closed because the other two sides become metro frequency

Sadly it’s all a dream and, as the Kings Cross labyrinth and the Elizabeth line show us, new interchanges in central London only turn nice rapid journies into really long subterranean walks.

The good folk of Kensington would love your ideas - NOT!

 

[steeevooo]

Anywhere else?

Care to identify these locations? Or are we now going to spend even more millions in building new stabling locations to accommodate?

 

[Mgameing123]

Care to identify these locations? Or are we now going to spend even more millions in building new stabling locations to accommodate?

Yes because that’s much cheaper than building unnecessary tunnels.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Yes because that’s much cheaper than building unnecessary tunnels.

The tunnels aren't unnecessary. In the best case scenario it might be just about possible to reuse 0.25 mile of the Widened Line tunnels. It would also cost more money than just allowing the Tunnel Boring Machines to keep a lower depth.