Bakerloo to Lewisham via Old Kent Rd is preferred option

[swt_passenger]

A December 17th TfL board paper has stated a preference for the Old Kent Road option for extending the Bakerloo, but only as far as Lewisham initially:

Bakerloo line extension
We undertook an initial consultation in autumn 2014 on route options for a Bakerloo line extension to the south of Elephant and Castle. More than 15,000 responses were received, with 96 per cent in favour of extending the line.
Since then we have undertaken further work on a number of alternative routes proposed during the initial consultation. The results
of that work demonstrate that the preferred route option for a first phase is from Elephant and Castle to Lewisham via Old Kent Road.

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/board-20151217-pt1-item05-commissioner-report.pdf

Section 6 on page 38 to make it easier to find...

 

[CarltonA]

The 72 stock is meant to be staying for another fifteen years or so, I assume they will attempt to coincide any new extension with the new stock introduction. They will need to increase the fleet and open a new southern depot I expect.

 

[Blindtraveler]

This makes sense, certainly may take pressure off Southeasten and DLR. If a phase 2 were to happen, where would this be to?

 

[telstarbox]

Phase 2 would be the conversion of the Lewisham to Hayes branch.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Equally logical, yet more freed capacity at LBG Etc.

 

[telstarbox]

Although passengers would lose their direct trains to Cannon Street for the City.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Any idea where the two "Old Kent Road" stations might go? One at Bricklayer's Arms (to link up with buses towards Tower Bridge) and one near the east end of Commercial Way?

 

[theageofthetra]

I would have thought a DLR extension to Hayes makes far more sense. A significant part of its traffic is dropping off and picking up at Lewisham for the DLR and avoiding a z1 fare.

 

[TheNewNo2]

I would have thought a DLR extension to Hayes makes far more sense. A significant part of its traffic is dropping off and picking up at Lewisham for the DLR and avoiding a z1 fare.

The Hayes Branch from Lewisham is 9 miles long. The longest DLR route, from Bank to Woolwich, isn't 8 miles. It would be a bit of a change of scale for the DLR. On the other hand the Bakerloo currently ends in central London, and Old Kent Road is about as far as it's possible to get from a station in London (no wonder it's only £60 in Monopoly). Bakerloo to Lewisham makes sense, and once it's there it may as well take over the branch.

 

[Mikey C]

The Hayes Branch from Lewisham is 9 miles long. The longest DLR route, from Bank to Woolwich, isn't 8 miles. It would be a bit of a change of scale for the DLR. On the other hand the Bakerloo currently ends in central London, and Old Kent Road is about as far as it's possible to get from a station in London (no wonder it's only £60 in Monopoly). Bakerloo to Lewisham makes sense, and once it's there it may as well take over the branch.

To me the extension is necessary, even without the Hayes part. It would serve an area which is pretty run down and it would make Lewisham a decent hub, in the way Stratford is, north of the river.

 

[TheNewNo2]

To me the extension is necessary, even without the Hayes part. It would serve an area which is pretty run down and it would make Lewisham a decent hub, in the way Stratford is, north of the river.

Exactly. The Bakerloo extension makes sense, and Lewisham makes sense as a destination for it. The Bakerloo is the most under-utilised line there is (I've seen the calculations for how much it costs for a full line suspension, you'd barely notice). I will say that Lewisham could do with a rebuild, but perhaps that can be part of the extension.

 

[freetoview33]

Exactly. The Bakerloo extension makes sense, and Lewisham makes sense as a destination for it. The Bakerloo is the most under-utilised line there is (I've seen the calculations for how much it costs for a full line suspension, you'd barely notice). I will say that Lewisham could do with a rebuild, but perhaps that can be part of the extension.

Agreed!

 

[Tangent]

I would have thought a DLR extension to Hayes makes far more sense. A significant part of its traffic is dropping off and picking up at Lewisham for the DLR and avoiding a z1 fare.

Speaking as a Hayes Line commuter, I don't see the advantages. The direct journey time to the City would be doubled, and we would lose our direct link to the West End (although you might be able to restore the latter by an extension to Charing Cross). Gains in frequency would not be big enough to compensate for reduced capacity. The Central London traffic would always want to interchange at Lewisham, or at Heron Quays/Canary Wharf for Jubilee and Crossrail, creating unnecessary burdens there, and diminishing the benefits of extra paths for SE services. What makes it worse is that, while Lewisham certainly ought to be a natural hub, rebuilding it to make it one would be a complex and expensive undertaking, and one which shall be more difficult when current redevelopment in the area will be finished.

If it were up to me, I would build the Fleet Line Phase 2 instead, from Charing Cross, via Cannon Street and Fenchurch Street, and then send it down via the Old Kent Road to Lewisham to take over the Hayes Line, with either incorporation into the Jubilee or an extension to the north or west to follow whenever possible. The Bakerloo's best outlet to the south, I feel, would be the Streatham/Croydon corridor.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Also worth noting that the accompanying option summary report indicates an intention to work on reopening Camberwell station on the Thameslink national rail line. (The possibility of reopening Camberwell appears to be one of the reasons why TfL have chosen the Old Kent Road route, not the Peckham route, for the Bakerloo extension, since reopening the national rail station is expected to be a much cheaper way of providing rail access to that area).

we will support Southwark in developing the case for a re-opened station, assisting with the submission a full business case to Network Rail as part of their long term planning process for the Kent routes.

 

[Bald Rick]

Also worth noting that the accompanying option summary report indicates an intention to work on reopening Camberwell station on the Thameslink national rail line. (The possibility of reopening Camberwell appears to be one of the reasons why TfL have chosen the Old Kent Road route, not the Peckham route, for the Bakerloo extension, since reopening the national rail station is expected to be a much cheaper way of providing rail access to that area).

Needs a new viaduct to get a station in there.

 

[gtr driver]

Speaking as a Hayes Line commuter, I don't see the advantages. The direct journey time to the City would be doubled, and we would lose our direct link to the West End (although you might be able to restore the latter by an extension to Charing Cross). Gains in frequency would not be big enough to compensate for reduced capacity. The Central London traffic would always want to interchange at Lewisham, or at Heron Quays/Canary Wharf for Jubilee and Crossrail, creating unnecessary burdens there, and diminishing the benefits of extra paths for SE services. What makes it worse is that, while Lewisham certainly ought to be a natural hub, rebuilding it to make it one would be a complex and expensive undertaking, and one which shall be more difficult when current redevelopment in the area will be finished.

If it were up to me, I would build the Fleet Line Phase 2 instead, from Charing Cross, via Cannon Street and Fenchurch Street, and then send it down via the Old Kent Road to Lewisham to take over the Hayes Line, with either incorporation into the Jubilee or an extension to the north or west to follow whenever possible. The Bakerloo's best outlet to the south, I feel, would be the Streatham/Croydon corridor.

Hayes takeover makes sense, as capacity on the effectively self contained part of the Hayes line could support a higher frequency but there were no paths north of Ladywell to send the trains. Capacity is immediately raised by sending them on to the Bakerloo line. On the North Kent lines trains can be looped back towards town so the dead end terminal problem is less of an issue. Crossrail 2 is effectively doing the same thing for SW dead end branches by shifting their traffic on to a new line. On this basis you can see why the Hayes line has been selected for conversion out of the all the possibles - other than Bromley North which has other issues it's the only line that could really benefit from it and not force an awkward mix of main line and underground.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A Hayes line commuter to Cannon Street I'm guessing? The loss of that link is the fly in the ointment. But how would we lose a direct link to the west end? We would gain a much higher frequency into the heart of the west end and beyond, unless Charing Cross, Picadilly Circus and Oxford Circus have been moved to another district since I last went there. The frequency will easily make up for shorter trains and open up a far wider range of destinations with easy changes. In the normal course of things most passengers change at London Bridge for Charing Cross during the day anyway rather than go to Cannon Street. I used to commute from Oxford Circus to New Beckenham and would have given anything for a direct train rather than the soul destroying experience of just missing the Hayes train at Charing Cross and having a half hour wait.

Might be relevant that Tangent was replying to a post suggesting that the Hayes line becomes a DLR extension, not a Bakerloo extension

 

[gtr driver]

Might be relevant that Tangent was replying to a post suggesting that the Hayes line becomes a DLR extension, not a Bakerloo extension

Duly edited

 

[ScotGG]

Not much relief for Southeastern if it doesn't take over the Hayes line. No extra paths and I can't see too many folks getting off a train at Lewisham for the Bakerloo, when Lewisham is 8 minutes from London Bridge and all the options there with Thameslink,Northern & Jubilee or 10-15 max to the heart of the West End or the City. Or Waterloo.

Bakerloo serves far smaller centres of employment. Far more will be getting off at Lewisham for the DLR to Canary Wharf by 2030 as it continues to expand rapidly once Crossrail completes.

Not that it isn't worth doing, but if it stops only at Lewisham I can't see too many people coming on a SE train from further out changing to the Bakerloo. There's plenty of other benefits - rejuvenating the Old Kent Road and Lewisham itself but the wider SE network wont benefit much without it taking over a branch.

 

[gtr driver]

Not much relief for Southeastern if it doesn't take over the Hayes line. No extra paths and I can't see too many folks getting off a train at Lewisham for the Bakerloo, when Lewisham is 8 minutes from London Bridge and all the options there with Thameslink,Northern & Jubilee or 10-15 max to the heart of the West End or the City. Or Waterloo.

Bakerloo serves far smaller centres of employment. Far more will be getting off at Lewisham for the DLR to Canary Wharf by 2030 as it continues to expand rapidly once Crossrail completes.

Not that it isn't worth doing, but if it stops only at Lewisham I can't see too many people coming on a SE train from further out changing to the Bakerloo. There's plenty of other benefits - rejuvenating the Old Kent Road and Lewisham itself but the wider SE network wont benefit much without it taking over a branch.

Agreed, but I've seen it suggested that it's being done this way to obtain the developers money while it may be on offer to get the first tunnelled section to Lewisham done (the underground stations being the most expensive bit). I'm more concerned about the time scale involved - it seems a long time. Though who knows, we may have had 12 years of LOROL on SE Metro routes by then and will be happy with what we've got.

 

[Mikey C]

Not much relief for Southeastern if it doesn't take over the Hayes line. No extra paths and I can't see too many folks getting off a train at Lewisham for the Bakerloo, when Lewisham is 8 minutes from London Bridge and all the options there with Thameslink,Northern & Jubilee or 10-15 max to the heart of the West End or the City. Or Waterloo.

Bakerloo serves far smaller centres of employment. Far more will be getting off at Lewisham for the DLR to Canary Wharf by 2030 as it continues to expand rapidly once Crossrail completes.

Not that it isn't worth doing, but if it stops only at Lewisham I can't see too many people coming on a SE train from further out changing to the Bakerloo. There's plenty of other benefits - rejuvenating the Old Kent Road and Lewisham itself but the wider SE network wont benefit much without it taking over a branch.

But then all the people currently getting on the train at Lewisham, who take the Bakerloo instead will reduce overcrowding.

People might also decide that it's better to change at Lewisham for the tube as you stand a better chance of getting a seat, than at London Bridge, Waterloo etc

 

[LLivery]

But then all the people currently getting on the train at Lewisham, who take the Bakerloo instead will reduce overcrowding.

People might also decide that it's better to change at Lewisham for the tube as you stand a better chance of getting a seat, than at London Bridge, Waterloo etc

Broadly speaking, people won't use a slower route in chance of getting a seat. Why on earth would I take a slow and reasonably loud underground from Lewisham to Charing Cross when I could get a train non-stop to London Bridge in just 9 minutes? By the time the Bakerloo is at the southern end of the Old Kent Road, I'd be at London Bridge. Just like anyone who is going Liverpool Street from Stratford won't take the Central Line.

 

[gtr driver]

Depends on their onward journey. Changing from a main line train at a terminus to the underground can be quite lengthy - the whole train empties so you have crowds on the platform who all have to get through the barriers, then the scrum on the concourse followed by all trying to get through the tube barriers then sometimes long tunnels and escalators. That's if the tube station isn't so crowded that they close the entrance. If you're actually aiming for a destination on the tube line it might make sense to go for a longer journey to cut all of that out. If I'm going to Oxford Circus in the peak it can make more sense to change at Brixton to cut all of that out.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Depends on their onward journey. Changing from a main line train at a terminus to the underground can be quite lengthy - the whole train empties so you have crowds on the platform who all have to get through the barriers, then the scrum on the concourse followed by all trying to get through the tube barriers then sometimes long tunnels and escalators. That's if the tube station isn't so crowded that they close the entrance. If you're actually aiming for a destination on the tube line it might make sense to go for a longer journey to cut all of that out. If I'm going to Oxford Circus in the peak it can make more sense to change at Brixton to cut all of that out.

I'd agree. Also, it's worth remembering that SouthEastern tends to be quite slow between London Bridge and Charing Cross. By the time you've factored in that, plus the longish walk from SouthEastern to the Bakerloo line at either Waterloo (East) or Charing Cross, then for anyone whose final destination is along the Bakerloo line (which admittedly is probably only a smallish proportion of people on SouthEastern metro trains) it may well be just as quick to change to the Bakerloo line at Lewisham . Obviously though that will depend considerably on how the Lewisham interchange is designed.

I would though agree that the main beneficiaries are likely to be people who would currently join the trains at Lewisham.

One other minor impact is that some people heading from SouthEastern territory towards destinations on the line through New Cross Gate will be able to use the Bakerloo line to get to New Cross Gate, instead of having to go all the way into London Bridge and back out.

 

[ScotGG]

I'd agree. Also, it's worth remembering that SouthEastern tends to be quite slow between London Bridge and Charing Cross. By the time you've factored in that, plus the longish walk from SouthEastern to the Bakerloo line at either Waterloo (East) or Charing Cross, then for anyone whose final destination is along the Bakerloo line (which admittedly is probably only a smallish proportion of people on SouthEastern metro trains) it may well be just as quick to change to the Bakerloo line at Lewisham . Obviously though that will depend considerably on how the Lewisham interchange is designed.

I would though agree that the main beneficiaries are likely to be people who would currently join the trains at Lewisham.

One other minor impact is that some people heading from SouthEastern territory towards destinations on the line through New Cross Gate will be able to use the Bakerloo line to get to New Cross Gate, instead of having to go all the way into London Bridge and back out.

The speed and reliability of SE trains to Charing X from Lewisham should greatly improve though by 2030 with the work now underway for 2018 completion. Is it 3 or 4 platforms at London Bridge for CX instead of the 2 that existed before this year?

And by 2030 I'd expect a full 12-car service on every train, so changing for Bakerloo possibly not a great option.

Looking at the map the only destinations worth changing at Lewisham for are those at Oxford circus and further north, as you say, which aren't great destinations for most commuters. Paddington link will be good though and that does look like growing as an employment centre. See the 250m tower proposal this month which could spark a mini cluster of high rise and employment.

Discounting that, and even for Piccadilly Circus I'd wager many will stay on a SE train to CX and walk, rather than change onto cramped tubes at Lewisham. The interchange may not be easy too.

The main benefits would be facilitating mass housing along OKR, the Hayes line (Catford etc) and Lewisham itself. And freeing up 6 paths to London Bridge.

 

[LLivery]

The speed and reliability of SE trains to Charing X from Lewisham should greatly improve though by 2030 with the work now underway for 2018 completion. Is it 3 or 4 platforms at London Bridge for CX instead of the 2 that existed before this year?

And by 2030 I'd expect a full 12-car service on every train, so changing for Bakerloo possibly not a great option.

Looking at the map the only destinations worth changing at Lewisham for are those at Oxford circus and further north, as you say, which aren't great destinations for most commuters. Paddington link will be good though and that does look like growing as an employment centre. See the 250m tower proposal this month which could spark a mini cluster of high rise and employment.

Discounting that, and even for Piccadilly Circus I'd wager many will stay on a SE train to CX and walk, rather than change onto cramped tubes at Lewisham. The interchange may not be easy too.

The main benefits would be facilitating mass housing along OKR, the Hayes line (Catford etc) and Lewisham itself. And freeing up 6 paths to London Bridge.

Exactly. To the vast number of people who walk to London Bridge or Cannon Street from the city offices or change at Lewisham for the DLR to Canary Wharf, the Bakerloo Line will make no difference. I'd also rather walk from Charing Cross to Piccadilly - probably be cheaper too.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The growth in LB Lewisham and Southwark means that transport needs to be improved. The Bakerloo Line is a great way to do that until Lewisham itself. However, I am really struggling to believe this idea that masses people will leave Southeastern from say Bexleyheath for it. They're trying to push the same idea for Crossrail 2 at Totting Broadway/Balham - if anything I think it will make the Northern Line worse.

 

[MikeWh]

Is it 3 or 4 platforms at London Bridge for CX instead of the 2 that existed before this year?

It will be 4, properly separated allowing 2 each way without fouling the opposite direction. It was 4 tracks, but there was no platform on the extra up track meaning that if they wanted to platform 2 up trains the down line would be blocked when the train in platform 5 moved off. Also, the two down platforms were on different islands which caused chaos when late platform changes were announced. The new setup sees one island for up and one for down.

 

[gtr driver]

Exactly. To the vast number of people who walk to London Bridge or Cannon Street from the city offices or change at Lewisham for the DLR to Canary Wharf, the Bakerloo Line will make no difference. I'd also rather walk from Charing Cross to Piccadilly - probably be cheaper too.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The growth in LB Lewisham and Southwark means that transport needs to be improved. The Bakerloo Line is a great way to do that until Lewisham itself. However, I am really struggling to believe this idea that masses people will leave Southeastern from say Bexleyheath for it. They're trying to push the same idea for Crossrail 2 at Totting Broadway/Balham - if anything I think it will make the Northern Line worse.

But loads of people get off at Brixton to get on the Victoria Line even though that train is one stop from Victoria anyway. It's possibly a less stressful interchange then Victoria. Or they may be going to Waterloo. It might be easier for someone coming off a Cannon Street train at Lewisham to use the Bakerloo line to get to Waterloo. It's also extra capacity from the west end to New Cross and Lewisham area, a densely populated area, which might well be preferable if you are coming from the middle of town or beyond and don't want to walk to Charing Cross. I commuted for years to different jobs via Blackfriars, Charing Cross and Victoria, and the only time I worked in walking distance of one of them was when I was employed at one of the driver's depots! Plenty of people have onward journeys that a tube extension into South London would make better.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The speed and reliability of SE trains to Charing X from Lewisham should greatly improve though by 2030 with the work now underway for 2018 completion. Is it 3 or 4 platforms at London Bridge for CX instead of the 2 that existed before this year?

I suspect this is bordering on arguing about almost-nothing, since I think we both agree that the numbers changing to the Bakerloo line at Lewisham is not going to be huge, but just to be pendantic: I was referring to the slow line speed between London Bridge and Charing Cross, NOT to the delays approaching London Bridge. As far as I can tell, the slowness between LBG and CHX appears to be mainly caused by slow maximum line speeds, pathing conflicts at the junction east of Waterloo where the 2 CHX lines turn into 4, and (for trains to London) waiting for a platform at CHX. I don't think any of that will change as a result of the LBG works, although obviously approaching LBG itself will become quicker and more reliable.

 

[tranzitjim]

Would it be possible for Bakerloo trains to share with the existing services along the 'Lewisham to Hayes branch' ?

The 72 stock for another 15 years did someone say?

Arnt the new Deep tube trains due for by 2020?

 

[Nym]

Would it be possible for Bakerloo trains to share with the existing services along the 'Lewisham to Hayes branch' ?

The 72 stock for another 15 years did someone say?

Arnt the new Deep tube trains due for by 2020?

Even if they where ordered today, there's no chance of that happening...