The future of the Ladywell Bypass

[frankmoh]

Hayes Line. Bakerloo. Whatever.

It's got me thinking about what will happen to the bit of track after Ladywell that bypasses Lewisham station. I know the Tube trains will be underground at Lewisham so it will just sit there collecting dust.

I feel like Southeastern could probably run a few early/late services over the bypass like how GWR does for the Elizabeth Line sections.

Something more relevant today, tt would also be handy if SE would use it to come down to the Hayes Line when strikes are on and operate a special service. No clue how it would all work given the differences between 3rd and 4th rail but it's fun to speculate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Sep 2025 ==

Would it be cheaper to leave the track in place or to rip it up?

 

[BerkshireRails]

If Southeastern were to continue to run to Hayes, they would need to maintain route knowledge of the Hayes Line. I can see a couple of services using it as a diversionary route per day between Beckenham Junction and Lewisham, like how South Western Railway operates on the District Line between Wimbledon and East Putney. It would require the return rail in the fourth rail system to be bonded to the running rails to allow both third and fourth-rail rolling stock to operate. This system is found on the District Line Richmond and Wimbledon branches as well as the Bakerloo Line between Kilburn High Road and Harrow & Wealdstone. Kilburn High Road to Queens Park (London) is just for reversal moves.

 

[Class15]

I’d imagine it’s probably easier to leave the track there.

Plus NR might want to keep the option of diverting services via the New Beckenham - Beckenham Jct curve?

 

[Dr Hoo]

I’d imagine it’s probably easier to leave the track there.

Plus NR might want to keep the option of diverting services via the New Beckenham - Beckenham Jct curve?

Like Wimbledon to East Putney, I presume?

 

[Class15]

Like Wimbledon to East Putney, I presume?

Exactly, I actually hadn’t thought of that but that’s a very good example.

 

[Mattplans]

I imagine the route knowledge would be lost due to the lack of regular services? Also why would Southeastern do that anyway, even on a normal day their service is pretty much the bare minimum. I've seen elsewhere that due to platform height changes it wouldn't really be feasible to create another situation that happens on the Lioness Line. I don't think the Elizabeth Line is equatable to the GWR services as they're both heavy rail. The only place where something like this happens is on the DC lines which has a lot of its' own safety concerns that make it impractical like the platform heights.
I don't know for sure - but had always imagined the Hayes line would be transferred to London Underground, which I think would result in the link being severed? Not totally sure on this though. I imagine if they do want to keep the diversion open that they would keep it Network Rail

 

[yorksrob]

That stretch certainly seems to dodge the weedkiller train.

 

[cle]

I would think sever it (it won't be used, there is no freight either and unlike Putney, it's a dead-end line with no depot/stock purpose) - so probably try to build housing / expansion of the existing developments, much like elsewhere in Lewisham.

There will of course be a depot between Lewisham and Ladywell, but for the Bakerloo by where the tunnel portal would be.

 

[swt_passenger]

If Southeastern were to continue to run to Hayes, they would need to maintain route knowledge of the Hayes Line. I can see a couple of services using it as a diversionary route per day between Beckenham Junction and Lewisham, like how South Western Railway operates on the District Line between Wimbledon and East Putney. It would require the return rail in the fourth rail system to be bonded to the running rails to allow both third and fourth-rail rolling stock to operate. This system is found on the District Line Richmond and Wimbledon branches as well as the Bakerloo Line between Kilburn High Road and Harrow & Wealdstone. Kilburn High Road to Queens Park (London) is just for reversal moves.

Or put another way, shared use by 3rd and 4th rail trains is normal business in the London area and would be the least of their problems. I think for what would be considered a new tube line the platform height might be the more important question, AIUI having a ‘compromise height’ for tube size and full size is no longer considered safe…

 

[BerkshireRails]

Or put another way, shared use by 3rd and 4th rail trains is normal business in the London area and would be the least of their problems. I think for what would be considered a new tube line the platform height might be the more important question, AIUI having a ‘compromise height’ for tube size and full size is no longer considered safe…

Yeah, I agree about 3rd and 4th rail trains being normal business in London.

Here are the two main options for interlining the Bakerloo Line and Southeastern for the Hayes Branch/Mid Kent Line.
1) Run Southeastern fast through the tube stations like how South Western Railway runs fast on the District Line.
2) Have dedicated platforms for Bakerloo & Southeastern, with level boarding similar to Rotherham Central, with Northern and Sheffield Supertram services.

Credit = Rotherham Central Station by Adrian Taylor, This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

 

[frankmoh]

Or put another way, shared use by 3rd and 4th rail trains is normal business in the London area and would be the least of their problems. I think for what would be considered a new tube line the platform height might be the more important question, AIUI having a ‘compromise height’ for tube size and full size is no longer considered safe…

I will say that on the Hayes Line, most of the stations have quite a large step up from the platform to the train.

I have no clue what the difference in height between the door footplates of a 465 and a 1972 Stock are, but I feel like they wouldn't have to change much for platform heights I could be massively underestimating the difference though.


Also, the use of the Beckenham Junction curve isn't as much of an issue, since the rare trains that use it don't stop at any Hayes Line stations.

 

[brad465]

If Southeastern were to stop using the Hayes line they would love to plain line that section: earlier this year the jct at the Parks Bridge end broke and needed a bespoke design, and they had to plain line part of it while waiting for the full fix, leading to some services going through Lewisham (without stopping). Removing that junciton, and probably also the one onto the Hayes line from Lewisham station, would remove bespoke part needs and reduce maintenance costs of the area as a whole.

 

[30907]

If Southeastern were to stop using the Hayes line they would love to plain line that section: earlier this year the jct at the Parks Bridge end broke and needed a bespoke design, and they had to plain line part of it while waiting for the full fix, leading to some services going through Lewisham (without stopping). Removing that junciton, and probably also the one onto the Hayes line from Lewisham station, would remove bespoke part needs and reduce maintenance costs of the area as a whole.

Removing the Ladywell Loop (especially the down one) would make the civils' life much easier as the geometry is awful (to the naked eye) and it's 20mph. Removing the junction with the Courthill Loop would bring much less advantage.

 

[zwk500]

Yeah, I agree about 3rd and 4th rail trains being normal business in London.

Here are the two main options for interlining the Bakerloo Line and Southeastern for the Hayes Branch/Mid Kent Line.

Surely the whole point of turning the Hayes Line over to the Bakerloo is for it to no longer served by SE.

If Southeastern were to stop using the Hayes line they would love to plain line that section

This, 100%. A major benefit of turning the Hayes line over to TfL will be that it allows the elimination of Courthill Loop North Jn, Ladywell Jn, and the branch connections on to the fasts at Parks Bridge Jn. That's a lot of potential points of failure removed. There's a decent chance the track itself stays there (or is converted to sidings for LU), but retaining it even as a transfer connection is extremely unlikely, IMO.

It's possible that the Bakerloo would require that the tunnels go under the Ravensbourne (the existing line goes over it) and therefore the line needs to be reconstructed to a slightly lower level, in which case the connection will almost certainly not be

 

[Class15]

unlike Putney, it's a dead-end line with no depot/stock purpose

It’s not, there’s the curve at Beckenham.

The New Beckenham to Hayes part is dead-end, yes. I definitely would not retain any network rail access on this section.

 

[zwk500]

It’s not, there’s the curve at Beckenham.

The New Beckenham to Hayes part is dead-end, yes. I definitely would not retain any network rail access on this section.

If the line is turned over to LU, SE almost certainly won't be running diversions via Ladywell. The mainline is 4-tracked, and from Victoria you've got the Catford Loop or Hither Green routes.

I'd be astonished if any connections were retained at the Lewisham end. The opportunity to simplify the junctions will be too good to pass up. It'd be fairly unlikely that any physical connection was retained at Beckenham Junction, as the possible use for such a connection would be minimal.

 

[cle]

It’s not, there’s the curve at Beckenham.

The New Beckenham to Hayes part is dead-end, yes. I definitely would not retain any network rail access on this section.

Sorry, yes I was referring to this in a context of the Bakerloo future, vs today - and I would anticipate a severing of the NR connection. Thinking as opposed to the Putney / Wimbledon situation.

Exactly as @zwk500 has laid out, i think it's highly unlikely. And again, there is no freight (or principal NR depot to access at, eg. Beckenham, vs the Wimbledon one)

 

[35B]

I will say that on the Hayes Line, most of the stations have quite a large step up from the platform to the train.

I have no clue what the difference in height between the door footplates of a 465 and a 1972 Stock are, but I feel like they wouldn't have to change much for platform heights I could be massively underestimating the difference though.


Also, the use of the Beckenham Junction curve isn't as much of an issue, since the rare trains that use it don't stop at any Hayes Line stations.

If this extension happens, then as a new Tube service, I don't see the regulators tolerating the sort of step we see for mixed working north of Queens Park - they would (rightly) insist that if the line is being converted for Bakerloo use, it has level boarding. Nor do I see London Underground wanting to maintain the track for mainline use, or any particular reason for South Eastern and/or Network Rail to need access to it.

 

[cle]

I do recall seeing figures mentioned for the tube conversion of the line south of Lewisham - so yes presumably it would include some platform height work.

Platforms could actually be shortened. Bakerloo is 113m, whereas 10-12 car stock used on the Hayes line (various types) can comfortably be double this. As such, CCTV, signals etc would be shifted. But maybe the land could be used for other things, like access, cycle ways. You'd have to look at each station to see what made sense but hopefully some good things could come from it.

Of course, Beckenham Junction is shared with the main down platform, so that will probably remain as is, with a step up. Or it is contoured down / reworked.

 

[HSTEd]

Of course, Beckenham Junction is shared with the main down platform, so that will probably remain as is, with a step up. Or it is contoured down / reworked.

Probably the easiest thing would be to utilise concrete or ballast to lift the railhead level. It's not as if the train will hit anything above the platform, being a tube train

 

[35B]

I do recall seeing figures mentioned for the tube conversion of the line south of Lewisham - so yes presumably it would include some platform height work.

Platforms could actually be shortened. Bakerloo is 113m, whereas 10-12 car stock used on the Hayes line (various types) can comfortably be double this. As such, CCTV, signals etc would be shifted. But maybe the land could be used for other things, like access, cycle ways. You'd have to look at each station to see what made sense but hopefully some good things could come from it.

Of course, Beckenham Junction is shared with the main down platform, so that will probably remain as is, with a step up. Or it is contoured down / reworked.

Would this even be necessary - will the Bakerloo be serving Junction at all?

 

[brad465]

I do recall seeing figures mentioned for the tube conversion of the line south of Lewisham - so yes presumably it would include some platform height work.

Platforms could actually be shortened. Bakerloo is 113m, whereas 10-12 car stock used on the Hayes line (various types) can comfortably be double this. As such, CCTV, signals etc would be shifted. But maybe the land could be used for other things, like access, cycle ways. You'd have to look at each station to see what made sense but hopefully some good things could come from it.

Of course, Beckenham Junction is shared with the main down platform, so that will probably remain as is, with a step up. Or it is contoured down / reworked.

There is a siding parallel to the spur between the two Beckenham stations that could easily become a/the platform line if needed. This would allow the existing bay platform 4 to remain a mainline platform, which is key if Beckenham Jct-Blackfriars' services remain long term.

 

[BerkshireRails]

I have no clue what the difference in height between the door footplates of a 465 and a 1972 Stock are, but I feel like they wouldn't have to change much for platform heights I could be massively underestimating the difference though.

Both the 72 stock and class 465s will be withdrawn by then. The 2024 stock entrance height is around 700mm, and the Southeastern Metro fleet will have level boarding, putting the floor height around 960mm, around 260mm higher than tube stock.

The 960mm is the floor height for the Stadler level boarding units at 915mm, such as the class 777s with Merseyrail.

Floor Height = 960mm

If Southeastern were to stop using the Hayes line they would love to plain line that section: earlier this year the jct at the Parks Bridge end broke and needed a bespoke design, and they had to plain line part of it while waiting for the full fix, leading to some services going through Lewisham (without stopping). Removing that junciton, and probably also the one onto the Hayes line from Lewisham station, would remove bespoke part needs and reduce maintenance costs of the area as a whole.

The maintenance depot will be on the site of the Wearside Council depot, which sits right next to the junction between the Ladywell Loop (Lewisham Avoiders) and Mid Kent Line (via Lewisham Lines).

Our former plans for a shaft at the Wearside Road Council depot site have developed into new proposals for train stabling and a shaft is no longer required.

Diagrams of the Lewisham to Ladywell area from Network Rail Sectional Appendix.

Surely the whole point of turning the Hayes Line over to the Bakerloo is for it to no longer served by SE.

That is TfL's preferred option for the Hayes Line.

We have carried out an assessment of options for extending the route beyond Lewisham. The option with the most benefits would be a conversion of the National Rail line via Catford to Hayes to an Underground operation.

Probably the easiest thing would be to utilise concrete or ballast to lift the railhead level. It's not as if the train will hit anything above the platform, being a tube train

The deep-level 2024 stock tube train looks to be around a metre shorter than the class 777 mainline train.

Class 777 vehicle height = 3,828 mm, 2024 stock vehicle height 2,844 mm

 

[35B]

There is a siding parallel to the spur between the two Beckenham stations that could easily become a/the platform line if needed. This would allow the existing bay platform 4 to remain a mainline platform, which is key if Beckenham Jct-Blackfriars' services remain long term.

Quite a big "if", I would have thought - and not exactly the most critical part of the timetable at Beckenham

 

[43066]

Hayes Line. Bakerloo. Whatever.

It's got me thinking about what will happen to the bit of track after Ladywell that bypasses Lewisham station. I know the Tube trains will be underground at Lewisham so it will just sit there collecting dust.

I feel like Southeastern could probably run a few early/late services over the bypass like how GWR does for the Elizabeth Line sections.

Something more relevant today, tt would also be handy if SE would use it to come down to the Hayes Line when strikes are on and operate a special service. No clue how it would all work given the differences between 3rd and 4th rail but it's fun to speculate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Sep 2025 ==

Would it be cheaper to leave the track in place or to rip it up?

The piece of track in question is officially known as the Ladywell Loop.

 

[cle]

There is a siding parallel to the spur between the two Beckenham stations that could easily become a/the platform line if needed. This would allow the existing bay platform 4 to remain a mainline platform, which is key if Beckenham Jct-Blackfriars' services remain long term.

Hopefully those peak services can be extended to Orpington or so. Or cut back to Kent House, or reallocated. I don't think 'BJ' termination is a huge part. And there are 2-3 a day each way, correct? And some ECS/counter-runs which could potentially be better used (also those ECS paths on the Hayes line today)

Also it would take a big chunk of the Waitrose car park and make the walk to the tube very long. Whereas P4 right now is perfect for the Bakerloo access (and a quick change off of it, for Bromley South!) - if anything that siding is reconnected to become the approach / hold (as it will be a single platform operation) and the current line becomes the 'up Bakerloo'.

 

[frankmoh]

I do recall seeing figures mentioned for the tube conversion of the line south of Lewisham - so yes presumably it would include some platform height work.

Platforms could actually be shortened. Bakerloo is 113m, whereas 10-12 car stock used on the Hayes line (various types) can comfortably be double this. As such, CCTV, signals etc would be shifted. But maybe the land could be used for other things, like access, cycle ways. You'd have to look at each station to see what made sense but hopefully some good things could come from it.

I feel like shortening the platforms and moving signals would be quite the faff for some stations on the line. New Beckenham springs to mind as the current train stopping position for up trains is bizarrely far away from the platform entrance/tunnel. I think on a 10 car train only the rear 3 carriages are by the station building.

Putting in that 113m length, if Bakerloo line trains stopped at the current 10/12 car stop board, absolutely none of that train would be next to the station building!

...

On a different note, how long would the conversion from SE to Tube really take? The only recent example I can think of a line changing its trains and power system completely would be the East London Line, with a 3 year gap between service.

 

[zwk500]

I feel like shortening the platforms and moving signals would be quite the faff for some stations on the line. New Beckenham springs to mind as the current train stopping position for up trains is bizarrely far away from the platform entrance/tunnel. I think on a 10 car train only the rear 3 carriages are by the station building.

Shortening the platform would only mean putting a fence up at the limit of the new operational length, hardly a faff. It might look a bit odd with half the length rebuilt lower and then a fenced off higher bit alongside.#
By the time the branch is converted, I would expect the Bakerloo to have transitioned to whichever CBTC/TBTC mode it's going to use with new stock, and so the line will be resignalled completely anyway and legacy NR signalling almost certainly removed, with legacy LU signalling never installed. (Another reason SE won't continue to use the line)

On a different note, how long would the conversion from SE to Tube really take? The only recent example I can think of a line changing its trains and power system completely would be the East London Line, with a 3 year gap between service.

Depends on how much resource can be thrown at the line at once. And what needs to be done - ELL was not really a conversion but a wholesale reconstruction. In comparison converting the Bury line to Metrolink took less than a year.

I'd guess probably 2 years minimum, but maybe they decide to do it in 2 stages and open it progressively from north to south.

 

[stuu]

On a different note, how long would the conversion from SE to Tube really take? The only recent example I can think of a line changing its trains and power system completely would be the East London Line, with a 3 year gap between service.

The feasibility report a few years ago suggested TfL would want to completely rebuild the tracks and do other work like fixing embankments etc. It would be completely resignalled and platforms lowered too, so stopping points would move. I would assume the out of use bits of platform would be fenced off rather than removed, like on the Watford DC line.

So probably at least 2 years closed

 

[frankmoh]

I'd guess probably 2 years minimum, but maybe they decide to do it in 2 stages and open it progressively from north to south.

I wonder where they would terminate trains in that incomplete stage (if they run trains during it)? Odds are it would be either Beckenham Junction or Elmers End, as that station has a set of points past the platforms to change between the down and up lines.