Boris and the Bakerloo Line

[Mikey C]

Surely the Millwall FC site would be perfect to build a depot on

 

[Busaholic]

Surely the Millwall FC site would be perfect to build a depot on

That would be a Cold Blow.

 

[tranzitjim]

Would the timing of this project have anything to do with a possible order of brand new deep-tube trains?

Could the Camberwell section be a combined Bakerloo and Northern type of a service?

If so, one would link locals to one side of the CDB, while the other route would service the other side of the CDB?

Would the time of this extension project also correspond with the possible extension in the Northern direction, get both done at the same time?

I am surprised that the Morden end stops so short of an interchange with another railway, especially given how the line continues as a depot to within meters of a National Rail track.

 

[LLivery]

What about the land between Catford & Catford Bridge stations? Google Maps shows it to be wasteland. There don't seem to be too many houses overlooking the site.

Any other site would seem to require either on playing fields, parks or demolishing houses.

Mr Toad

I was waiting for someone to say that! Its marked for development of flats due to start next year. If I remember correctly its a Berkley development. As for the playing fields I doubt St Dunstans School would be willing to give it up (even though they stuffed local kids by buying it in the first place).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I don't know if anyone read the Evening Standard yesterday but the idea of it taking the Hayes line isn't working as good as Boris hoped. People want fast ''proper sized trains'' - a Crossrail 3. TfL can't just buy support with high frequencies.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would the timing of this project have anything to do with a possible order of brand new deep-tube trains?

Could the Camberwell section be a combined Bakerloo and Northern type of a service?

If so, one would link locals to one side of the CDB, while the other route would service the other side of the CDB?

Would the time of this extension project also correspond with the possible extension in the Northern direction, get both done at the same time?

I am surprised that the Morden end stops so short of an interchange with another railway, especially given how the line continues as a depot to within meters of a National Rail track.

Probably not they don't expect to build it until 2030 way after the new trains are ordered. As for the Morden question I believe SR had something to do with that.

 

[Nym]

In the consultation, I've also suggested that the service could be run as Harrow on the Hill - Beckenham, and Willesden Junction - Hayes. The thing is, that would require a third platform at Willesden Junction, LONG ENOUGH to take seven car trains. So, the bay platform would have to be extended somehow.

Harrow on the Hill? You mean Harrow and Weldstone?

What about the land between Catford & Catford Bridge stations? Google Maps shows it to be wasteland. There don't seem to be too many houses overlooking the site.

Any other site would seem to require either on playing fields, parks or demolishing houses.

Mr Toad

The NTfL would need it's own new depot anyway, they could adapt Stonebridge Park for purpose.

But if they're serious about making significant changes to the Bakerloo Line it would be worth extending it in the other direction up to Watford Junction as well, maintaining signalling compatibility with the met of course, one could also have a depot up at Watford on Croxley Rail Link (also allowing a nice route in to the core for access to Neasden (big depot), Ruislip for Central Line NTfL and Northfeilds for the Piccadilly.

So I can see depots at each end of a very extended bakerloo line, ending up being similar to the Central Line with a similar set of service patterns with a core service between say, Lewisham and Queens Park, and extentions at 6tph Harrow & Wealdstone, 6tph Watford Junction, 6tph Hayes and 6tph Beckenham Jcn.

(As an example...)

 

[Chris125]

Just look how empty Bakerloo Line trains are north of Queens Park outside the peaks and that is 6tph! The Hayes Line is unique and important but 16tph is just ridiculous. Only Catford Bridge could reasonably warrant that.

Bakerloo trains will be little more than half as long as 10-car 376s, with many more doors and longitudinal seating too - the increase in frequency helps compensate for the reduced capacity and seats per-train.

If your saying that all that money on re-signalling, track heights and additional trains could be justified for just 4-6 train paths through Lewisham junction then I struggle to comprehend that idea. Please correct me if I misunderstood

Extending beyond Lewisham frees up 6 peak paths through London Bridge for other services without major new infrastructure being required; track and signalling get renewed anyway after all.

The expensive infrastructure required to tunnel the Bakerloo to Lewisham also gets used to it's full potential, which should help the business case for that as well.

Chris

 

[edwin_m]

In the consultation, I've also suggested that the service could be run as Harrow on the Hill - Beckenham, and Willesden Junction - Hayes. The thing is, that would require a third platform at Willesden Junction, LONG ENOUGH to take seven car trains. So, the bay platform would have to be extended somehow.

Another advantage of doing this is it does away with trains terminating at Queens park.

If no trains terminated at Queens Park then the capacity on the entire Bakerloo including the central section would be reduced by having to leave gaps for London Overground to fit in.

How does the passenger demand taper off at this end of the route - are the trains that go beyond Queens Park noticeably fuller on this section?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Would the timing of this project have anything to do with a possible order of brand new deep-tube trains?

Could the Camberwell section be a combined Bakerloo and Northern type of a service?

I doubt that would work. If the Northern and Bakerloo lines shared that track, you'd need to build some underground junctions between them, which I imagine would be complicated and add a lot to the expense. I suspect it would also bring in operational complexities and potentially make both lines less reliable. But more seriously - where would the Northern line trains come from? The only way to send Northern line trains to Camberwell would be to remove those trains from either the Morden or the new Battersea route - not a good idea when the Morden route trains are already often packed out even before Kennington.

I am surprised that the Morden end stops so short of an interchange with another railway, especially given how the line continues as a depot to within meters of a National Rail track.

I agree. Extending the line from Morden - even if it only went a mile or so to St Helier - would presumably be a relatively cheap way of adding a lot of additional connectivity. I'm surprised TfL haven't - so far as I can tell - looked into doing that.

 

[edwin_m]

I doubt that would work. If the Northern and Bakerloo lines shared that track, you'd need to build some underground junctions between them, which I imagine would be complicated and add a lot to the expense. I suspect it would also bring in operational complexities and potentially make both lines less reliable. But more seriously - where would the Northern line trains come from? The only way to send Northern line trains to Camberwell would be to remove those trains from either the Morden or the new Battersea route - not a good idea when the Morden route trains are already often packed out even before Kennington.

Some Northern trains are still supposed to be turning on the loop at Kennington even after the Battersea extension opens.

However I do agree this would be expensive to build and complicated to operate, with the extra complication that Bakerloo and Northern trains would need to be technically compatible with each other.

 

[theageofthetra]

Some of the land between Catford & Catford Bridge station is the former Catford dog track. That, after being derelict for years is now well advanced for new housing.

 

[robertclark125]

On the topic of the Bakerloo line, is there any reason why the Watford Junction to London Euston DC service cannot become part of the Bakerloo line? My thinking is, if it were to become part of the Bakerloo, then rather than having two types of train, only one type of stock would be required. Obviously, this is based on when new stock is ordered for the Bakerloo, as both replacement for the 1972 stock AND future extensions.

 

[edwin_m]

On the topic of the Bakerloo line, is there any reason why the Watford Junction to London Euston DC service cannot become part of the Bakerloo line? My thinking is, if it were to become part of the Bakerloo, then rather than having two types of train, only one type of stock would be required. Obviously, this is based on when new stock is ordered for the Bakerloo, as both replacement for the 1972 stock AND future extensions.

May be an issue with platform height at Euston, where the DC trains share the middle platforms with other London Midland services. They would have to be lowered to the same height as other DC lines stations where I believe there is a step down into the Tube stock, so there would be more of a step up into main line stock. Not very good for accessibility and having more steps down or bigger steps up into trains is arguably making the network less safe.

The other reason is probably crashworthiness. The Tube trains are lower than main line stock and would be severely damaged in a collision. On the DCC lines proper any main line stock that operates has to be fitted with trainstops wwhich make collisions much less likely. This isn't true on the approaches to Euston where all types of stock can use the DC-electrified tracks (which are also AC electrified here). This problem would disappear as and when ERTMS is fitted here, as this would provide protection at least as good as the train stops. But then the Tube stock would need ERTMS too, or the shared tracks would have to overlay two signalling systems.

The only stations between Queens Park and Euston are Kilburn High Road and South Hampstead, and I can't see scarce capacity into Euston during and after HS2 opening being used to provide short trains only to serve these two stations especially as both are near Tube stations with much better links into central London.

I suggest it's much more likely that the DC lines services will go somewhere on the North London instead of into Euston. This service might even terminate at Queens Park with the Bakerloo taking over the entire service from there to Watford, which would allow platforms to be adjusted for level boarding everywhere except Watford High Street.

 

[Via Bank]

I'd assume a more pressing concern would be that running the Bakerloo line from Queen's Park into Euston would preclude ATO, which would be self defeating given that it seems LU's long term intention is to move to DLR-style "train captain" operation on the deep tube lines. Unless ERTMS will allow for inter-working between driverless and manually-driven trains I struggle to see how this could work.

(Unless Network Rail think they could make the whole WCML 140mph UTO for just under £2m… )

 

[robertclark125]

Firstly, I did mean Harrow and Wealdstone in an earlier post.

Thanks for giving thoughts to my question on why the DC lines into Euston couldn't become part of the Bakerloo line. Not knowing the area well, except for seeing some bits on Drivers Eye View DVDs, it's good to get an understanding from others on the situation.

One other thing, is there still a connection on the DC lines somewhere to the old Primrose Hill station, or is this another line?

 

[Nym]

Yes, the DCs connect into the Primrose Hill Line, but HS2 is going to use this route beyond Primrose Hill Jcn and freight is a higher priority on this route.

IMO, if one wants to retain service to the intermediate stations between Euston and Queens Park, it would be best to either:

Accept that LOROL is here to stay on this route, or some kind of service on the DC lines between Euston and Watford Junction, it happens on routes into every other mainline station with a commuter route that hasn't been LULed.
London Midland could take the service back from LOROL or have LOROL buy more appropriate 6x20m units to run the service, and run this at 6tph from Euston to Watford Junction.
With crossrail taking the services from the slows and HS2 from the fasts, there should be a reasonable amount of space for these services in terms of pathing into Euston, especially if one re-models to retain a six track approach into Euston NR with the extra 2 track approach for HS2, or tesalate the DC and slow services to form 12tph on what is now the B and C Lines.

Or;
Extend the Northern Line via Queens Park to Willesden Junction and/or Old Oak Common with 12tph on the Northern Line and 12tph Bakerloo Line between Queens Park and Old Oak. This would be from a junction between Camden Town (or at Camden Town, being integrated into the station changes required for the splitting of the Northern Line) and Chalk Farm, joining onto the DC lines AFTER Primrose Hill Junction so they can remain segrigated and independant of Network Rail running.
I would then pass operational control of the line on this section from Network Rail to London Underground BCV Nominee Ltd, while maintaining Network Rail compatible signalling throughout the route. (Similar to the Wimbledon Branch of the District Line)
Queens Park would be re-modeled to remove terminating trains blocking back the Bakerloo Line and potentially add an additional platform.
As a future asperation and as part of the Old Oak Common super interchange works, I would branch the Northern Line off the DC lines around Willesden TMD and send these (after calling with platforms near Willesden Jcn High Level or Low Level) on to Old Oak Common, to provide a frequent link between the stations.
Note: The Bakerloo north of Queen's Park would be 6tph to Harrow and Weldstone and 6tph to Watford Junction, tied in with the 6tph on the Met line via Croxley.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, the DCs connect into the Primrose Hill Line, but HS2 is going to use this route beyond Primrose Hill Jcn and freight is a higher priority on this route.

Isn't that the HS2-HS1 link, now deleted from the HS2 Bill?

 

[Nym]

Might be, I gave up keeping track of it.

 

[LLivery]

Like I said before the DC line should be upgraded 60-70mph, and to AC and integrated with the WCML with 7-8 car LOs running 6tph (12 at peaks) just like the Shenfield Metro service. The Bakerloo should from Queen's Park be diverted to Old Oak Common then run alongside the Central Line to Ealing Broadway (there is enough space for two extra tracks). I don't really see the need for direct Stratford to Watford DC services. Capcity on the NLL is slim and there is an easy interchange at Willesden Junction anyway.

 

[robertclark125]

This is just fantasy right now, but how close are the Bakerloo tunnels at Waterloo to the Waterloo and City depot at Waterloo? Could a link up be possible if the distance and depths are close?

 

[jopsuk]

This is just fantasy right now, but how close are the Bakerloo tunnels at Waterloo to the Waterloo and City depot at Waterloo? Could a link up be possible if the distance and depths are close?

looking at this, not very close

Anyway, short platforms would be a problem!

 

[Chris125]

TfL have released the findings of the consultation, apparently one of their most popular with 15,000 responses - a route via Camberwell is popular, with strong support for the line continuing through to Beckenham Junction and Hayes.

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tu...-line-extension-consultation-report-final.pdf