Yes, that would work. Over the flyover back to the up side after reversing. Bowes Park turnback siding is fairly busy with depot movements through the day. Gordon Hill has to be the favourite, at the edge of the built-up area.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
North London improvement ideas?
- Thread starter 321362
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Mikey C
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 8,262
But it definitely feels like a wasted asset. A "tube line" running through inner London, but with the frequency of an outer London branch line. How many people pile on to the the crowded Piccadilly and Victoria lines at Finsbury Park or Highbury & Islington who could use the Northern City instead, especially as it now connects to the Elizabeth Line at Moorgate?
Essex Road is creepily quiet, when it actually is very convenient for much of Islington.
At 4tph today yes it does feel like a waste but 12tph sounds perfectly reasonable and there isn’t a need to expand Moorgate to increase the frequency anything beyond that.
I think an off-peak 8tph will do the job, which will be the same as the Mildmay and Windrush upstairs and H&I.
LLivery
Established Member
Thameslink:
- Either St Albans or Gordon/Crews Hill to Orpington 2tph all day
- Send Kentish Town terminators to St Albans. End the random skip stop on the slows
- A new station 'Colindale East' at Aerodrome Road
- Im starting to think a second Thameslink Programme collating a load of projects might be worth doing...
- Lengthen NLL/WLL platforms & trains to 8 cars.
- Post HS2, get at least 2tph St Albans Abbey - Watford - Clapham (would like Croydon to remain)
- West London Orbital (with electrification)
- Make use of Queen's Park slow platforms post HS2
- Old Oak WLL platforms
- Controversially, I'd cut back the Bakerloo to Queen's Park and run 6tph, 8 car on the DC line (which I would convert to AC and integrate with WCML for diversions). Bakerloo Line then gets extended to Old Oak, with a new depot in Park Royal - I just some got new crayons
- Get Chiltern to OOC.
- Consider Neasden platforms for Chiltern if WLO is built
- Rebuild Stratford (and take the land that was earmarked for the light dome arena thing)
- After rebuild, and somehow getting freights away, divert Stansted Express & Cambridges via Stratford and speed up Stratford - Tottenham Hale
- 4 track West Anglia at least as far as Cheshunt, new station at Picketts Lock, maybe another at Turnford/Wormley
- Rebuild Barking
- Remodel Finsbury Park
- Rebuild Highbury & Islington
- XR 2 - I'd much rather they concentrate on the proposed Eastern branch than Southgate. So from Dalston I'd head to Hackney, Stratford (could be International or linking both, under Westfield), Barking, then connect on Tilbury Loop towards Grays and Barking Riverside. Extend the Barking Riverside route across the river to Thamesmead, Abbey Wood, Bexleyheath. Dare I say, I'd extend further to the land bounded by the M25, A2 and Swanley, building a new suburb there.
- Resurrect DLR Barking Riverside and Dagenham Dock
I couldn't agree more.
Moorgate is now a Crossrail station (and merged therefore with Liverpool St) - so it is extremely visible.
Old Street has a ton of employment (as well as leisure/off peak /weekend demand) - compared to 10, 20 years ago. Horrible station though.
And Highbury is much more of a hub and interchange now too...
so it's a very different route to NSE days (still love the rogue signage) with some big places on it. If we have a nice tunneled route into Central London, we should maximize its potential.
10-14tph for core service would be a good service for most tube lines (every 5-6 mins is reasonable) - and it beats some of the outer tube branches.
I think this would be a very roundabout way to the West End, and would duplicate HS1 a bit too much. Isn't this perfectly placed to point at Tottenham Hale and north - per most discussions. CR2 would comfortably take up the WAML service pattern - possibly including Chingford with the spare tph - which might render some of the Stratford works moot.
Per above... if no CR2, the western side of Stratford would be great to rebuild re more WAML platforms, or options to link Overground with Chingford or Meridian Water potentially...
LLivery
Established Member
I would keep the West Anglia branch, I'm talking about the other 'future phase' proposed branch which appears on maps but with no route shown beyond Hackney. Even if not crossing the river, the Thameside area is due for a hell of a lot of homes. Unless they still want it to go towards Epping, I can't think what else makes sense.
Where to? Ignoring Channel Tunnel services for loading gauge and the lack of passport controls anywhere else, I don't think there are a lot of places east of London you'd particularly run intercity services to from west of it, especially given that cases like Southend already have a frequent, reliable service which should probably stay that way.
Reviving the ideas of four-tracking the Chiltern Main Line to at least West Ruislip and having a single station for Jubilee, Overground, Thameslink (Metropolitan, Chiltern, EMR) services at West Hampstead is something I'd like to see, but would be unfeasibly expensive.
Keep the West Anglia branch and have another branch from Hackney to Chingford replacing the current Overground service. A new station underground could replace the existing Clapton station and the 4 paths currently used by Chingford services from Liverpool Street to Copermill Junction could be replaced by another 4 trains for the West Anglia mainline.
Two developments have hit the Finsbury Park-Moorgate line, the post Covid drop in commuting and the introduction of Thameslink. It won't get back to pre covid service any time soon.
Not any more. Since the New Towns Taskforce report the obvious place on the Hertford Loop for a proper reversing facility will be Crews Hill.
And the trains will need to go into the Thameslink core, not Moorgate.
Yes. I have noticed (albeit with no scientific sampling whatsoever) that the Moorgates now 'lose' quite a lot of people to Thameslink at Finsbury Park (morning peak southbound) whereas pre 2018 if was mainly hordes from King's Cross terminators trying to pile on.
I've had this idea too!
Some time ago I had a severe attack of Crayonic Extendenitis, for which there is no cure, and proposed a similar scheme but with fun add-ons.
Cut back the Bakerloo to Queens Park and re-extend through to to Old Oak as above, but extend beyond, demolishing the west shed--
1: To North Acton and rise up just east of Hanger Lane and take over the Central Line to West Ruislip with a shared depot therein. (Yes, I know about the conductor rails)
2: Io Ealing Broadway, taking over the Central Line with a steep rise to join the original just to the north of West Acton.
3: To Uxbridge along an entirely new route with stops at places like Pitshanger Lane, Castle Bar Park, Hayes End, Brunel University and Uxbridge itself.
1 and 2 are pretty rubbish, actually; but 3 has legs. There would need to be some depot at the outer end but there would be knock-on effects.
> Piccadilly Line service withdrawn beyond Rayners Lane with affected passenger levels
> Passenger levels affected on the Central Line
> Passenger levels affected on the Elizabeth Line, probably a slight cut but that possibly may not be a bad thing.
> No tube stock beyond Queens Park so the platform height issue disappears as well as the interworking issues. A positive!
But more seriously, the Watford DC line may become under-trafficked due to the de facto cut in service, so there has to be compensation. An increased service this would almost certainly create problems in Euston with congestion and conflicting moves.
So, do this >>>
> Turn the reversing siding at Harrow over to the Overground.
> Reinstate Primrose Hill station (Complete rebuild) with some contrived passage or access way to Chalk Farm Station on the Northern Line. (I'm aware there maybe stuff in the way)
> Install some train reversing facility to the east: crossover, pocket track or similar. Or not, if extending the line to Camden Road. You choose.
> Rename the station "Chalk Farm"
> And/or upgrade the junction at Camden Road (requires land acquisition, bridge repairs, rehabilitation of erstwhile platforms 3 and 4 etc., etc., etc.) if continuing beyond Chalk Farm
> Run services Harrow/Willesden Junc to Chalk Farm/Camden Road between the normal Euston to Watford, thus controlling passenger numbers passing through Euston and also not over-trafficking Harrow - Watford.
My pencil case has just exploded.
It’s such a good interchange. I wonder if those routes really feel like they basically live on the Victoria line!
The issue is that Finsbury Park and Kings Cross offer the same links, so people will do a bit of both, plus of course Thameslink now too.
Dave W
Member
Crews Hill - Enfield are of course delighted but I can only see years of legal wrangling ahead - there's a huge groundswell of opposition here (in the face of council support). The various garden centres do a roaring trade and are probably bring in some decent revenue considering all the things they'll need licensing etc for.
I would think the station would need a serious upgrade but not sure where a turnback platform would go in the local topography - and there is of course one (previously two) at GH. I suppose you'd say if you're digging out entire areas for housing then an embankment to put a new line on isn't much additional effort.
Absolutely - and that had the additional of reducing quite significantly the numbers getting on the Vic at H&I. Fascinating how passenger flows change when you disrupt them so significantly - I suspect stations felt a similar impact when the Lizzie started.
Grateful I'm not the only crayonista here (I guess it's allowed!) - since we're here any chance of a station at Bury St Junction south of the split to Enfield and Cheshunt? Just so I'd have an excuse to go to the adjacent boozer on the way home...
I would think the station would need a serious upgrade but not sure where a turnback platform would go in the local topography - and there is of course one (previously two) at GH. I suppose you'd say if you're digging out entire areas for housing then an embankment to put a new line on isn't much additional effort.
Absolutely - and that had the additional of reducing quite significantly the numbers getting on the Vic at H&I. Fascinating how passenger flows change when you disrupt them so significantly - I suspect stations felt a similar impact when the Lizzie started.
Grateful I'm not the only crayonista here (I guess it's allowed!) - since we're here any chance of a station at Bury St Junction south of the split to Enfield and Cheshunt? Just so I'd have an excuse to go to the adjacent boozer on the way home...
I wonder how many people are now changing twice instead of once. I can see that GN - TL - EL to Bond street is an attractive alterative to GN - Vic at H&I for Oxford Circus. While it is one extra change, you are now on less cramped air conditioned 'big trains' for your entire journey.
Do you need it? Send the WAML services all via Stratford - may be slightly slower, but significantly better for connectivity. Then XR2 can be the only operator through Clapton, replacing the Overground line. Possibility to also double Stonebridge Curve and send some peak time GA services via Markfield Curve and South Tottenham.
I don't think there is the capacity through Stratford due to the depot at Temple Mills and all the movements to and from. I assume a station at Hackney on CR2 would be underground, the line could then split with one line surfacing just south of Tottenham Hale then heading north towards Broxbourne and the other line could serve the underground station at Clapton and then surface somewhere west of St James Street and taking the line out to Chingford. The existing tracks could remain in place as a diversionary route.
You're probably right about Stratford, especially if there are more HS1 operators coming to Temple Mills.
Why would the Broxbourne line not call at Clapton? It would go right past/under it.
Surfacing west of SJS would be tough as the line is elevated and there's a nature reserve in the way.
Class15
Established Member
Surely the simple solution is to run services from the Hertford Loop to Moorgate, and services from the MML, which have no alternative, into the Thameslink core.
I seriously doubt they are going to do a full-blown ‘MML vs Hertford Loop’ capacity analysis to be honest. Any additional services from the Loop will run to Moorgate if there is no additional capacity in the core (which, if there is, should be run as something like Crews Hill - Caterham).
Sevenoaks to Welwyn (all stations except Harringay and Hornsey) should become an all-day service, agreed, and Luton to Orpington (all stations except Cricklewood and Hendon, there’s no reason to keep skipping Kentish Town) as well.
waverley47
Member
- Joined
- 17 Apr 2015
- Messages
- 844
As a real life update to this threat, which may indeed warrant a new threat entirely, I can confirm that the business case to transfer operation of the Northern City Line (including ownership of the tunnel section south from Drayton Park) into TfL was submitted at the end of September this year.
The first reading of the proposal was yesterday, and the DfT have offered words of support. However, no decision will be made until after the decision on the Crews Hill New Town, expected in January next year.
It is expected that if it goes ahead, this proposal will be formally accepted before the end of 2026, with TfL running the Northern City Line from the December 2027 timetable change. Conveniently, this would be the last timetable change before the next London Assembly elections in May 2028, and although you may shout politics, I couldn't possibly comment...
The first reading of the proposal was yesterday, and the DfT have offered words of support. However, no decision will be made until after the decision on the Crews Hill New Town, expected in January next year.
It is expected that if it goes ahead, this proposal will be formally accepted before the end of 2026, with TfL running the Northern City Line from the December 2027 timetable change. Conveniently, this would be the last timetable change before the next London Assembly elections in May 2028, and although you may shout politics, I couldn't possibly comment...
Farigiraf
Member
Overgroundisation would kill off prospects of running Thameslink on the Hertford Loop, but the improved frequency that it would give on the line would partially negate that. Finsbury Park has 4tph into the core, plus there's the easy change to the Victoria at H&I, so we'll likely see mostly the same transfer patterns and passenger flows post-TfL takover except with higher numbers due to improved frequency. May not be the worst thing as the 12-car 700s usually have plenty of capacity, though this may change after Stevenage commuters move from LNER to TL.
The Welwyn route is another case - the quieter stops (Brookmans Park, Welham Green, Hadley Wood) are probably fine with 2tph (4tph wouldn't necessarily be bad either just may carry fresh air) while the TL to Sevenoaks could continue alongside the Overground skipping the quieter stops. There might be a case for dropping New Barnet, Ally Pally, Potters Bar and Hatfield from the Letchworth/Cambridge semifast services if this is achieved.
It's not been approved yet but I don't see why it shouldn't be, so thoughts on what the line name for the Overground Moorgate routes could be? Perhaps just 'Northern City Line'?
"Northern City Line" seems a little mundane to me. I'm hoping for "Park and Palace Line" but something cringingly embarrassing or inappropriate will almost certainly be chosen by someone under the age of thirty looking up buzzwords and hip, trendy things on the internet that they will have little knowledge of.
Like a sycophantic Royal name would be, by over 60s who don't use PT? Or pay for it.
I think Northern City is a bit mundane too, and of course overlaps with Northern line (by design) and Waterloo & City line too.
If it was to get a Tube like singular name, I might suggest the Islington Line, given that it runs through a majority amount of the borough, and of course stops at H&I - and services Arsenal, Essex Road, Upper Street and Finsbury Park itself. Plus parts of Old St and Moorgate areas are in the LB as well.
Good. We don't need everywhere-to-everywhere railways, we need things to be as close to self contained metros as possible (accepting these mainline operations will never be true metros, but I'll happily take quasi metros).
There's a reason nobody proposes running the Victoria line at Finsbury Park to Cockfosters as a semi-fast.
I don't see this happening, nothing will beat a cross-platform to a Victoria line, and its frequency - it's a rocket. Farringdon change and a 4 min wait for EL undoes that. I see it more like, if this goes metro - market Crews Hill and Potters Bar as "you basically live on the Victoria line"
They also have EL access at Moorgate (better for heading east, I suppose)
1000% - where we can, these should be metros. NCL should be either 12tph to Gordon Hill and done - or 6tph to each side, with 4tph Hertford and 2tph Stevenage... with 6tph to WGC. Nothing GN/TL calls between Finsbury Park and Hatfield - Potters Bar goes metro only and we only have to hope that the frequency uplift is enough. Maybe some peak calls. But get rid of outer calls at New Barnet, Ally Pally etc in entirety.
I agree generally, but the missing link on the north side of Thameslink is the Hertford Loop, and Crews Hill New Town is going to need Thameslink more than the Northern City Line. A Thameslink Welwyn/Crews Hill-Sevenoaks/Orpington wouldn't be everywhere to everywhere, it is a 4tph Metro Alexandra Palace-Bickley, and similar to the St Albans-Sutton loop trains.
The everywhere to everywhere problems for Thameslink are elsewhere, mainly Horsham-Peterborough and Luton-Rainham.
This can't be done because there are no paths on the fast lines for the Kings Cross-Letchworth/Cambridge trains. They still have to run on the slow lines, and, the more intermediate calls they have, the less different they are from the all stations service.
Hertford Loop has a nicely homogeneous operation, why break it? It's like saying Wood Green doesn't need more Holborn, it needs Oxford Circus. There's a cross-platform.
For Crews Hill New Town to have maximum chance of success, it needs trains to the Thameslink core. And the stations between Bowes Park and Gordon Hill will benefit from Thameslink too. The Hertford loop already shares with Thameslink between Finsbury Park and Alexandra Palace so it isn't a homogeneous operation now.
The Northern City Line service means that the Hertford loop would not be completely reliant on Thameslink, like Hitchin-Peterborough. Adding 2tph Thameslink trains isn't going to break it.
Farigiraf
Member
What's the least-bad compromise? Having the Letchworth/Cambridge crawl behind all-stops services on the slow lines (meaning Foxton/Shepreth/Meldreth passengers should change at Stevenage, and Knebworth/Welwyn North get a really slow service unless they double-back at Stevenage - due to no fast line calls at all from WGC), or a less frequent Welwyn 'metro' (i.e. just 2tph GN and 2tph Thameslink) giving more capacity to route a semifast service through?
Even with 4tph to Welwyn, would you be able to increase the speed of the Letchworth/Cambridge enough by removing some calls, or is it a service eternally destined to be slow due to the Digswell bottleneck and fast line capacity constraints?
Either way, there will be losers - lower frequency to suburban ECML stations, or slower services for Knebworth, Welwyn North etc.
The tremendous cost of quad-tracking through Welwyn North and over Digswell Viaduct, after which you'd probably still have the fast lines at capacity, shows the need for things like the HS2 eastern branch or a new-build high-speed line paralleling the ECML in sections.
- Status