Idea for Watford DC Lines to NLL/ELL connection

[Ronnie268]

How about this for a cheap(-ish) upgrade:

DC lines Overground service withdrawn.
NLL re-four-tracked from Canonbury to Camden Road, including remodelling Camden Road West Junction.
ELL services extended via the DC lines to Watford Junction, with Primrose Hill (for Chalk Farm) reopened.
Bakerloo line curtailed at Queens Park.

Advantages:
- DC (ELL) and Bakerloo completely segregated.
- Ability to turn around all of a future 24tph ELL service at Watford Junction.
- Bakerloo line able to operate as an intensive, segregated, 36tph metro service from Queens Park - E & C (eventually Lewisham).
- Two approach tracks of the DC lines into Euston able to be used for WCML services.
- Avoid running tube stock along lines that can cope with much larger trains.

Obvious disadvantage of losing direct connection to Euston for the DC lines, although this was low frequency anyway, and is mitigated by interchange opportunities at Chalk Farm, Queens Park (cross-platform), and Highbury & Islington, and direct connection to the City at Shoreditch High St.

 

[DerekC]

Looks good to me, although I wonder if demand would justify 24 tph all the way to Watford. Is there an option which takes some (necessarily dual voltage) main line suburban trains out at Willesden and puts them down ELL?

 

[rebmcr]

Yeah, I could see this being done as a good idea.

 

[DarloRich]

Is it possible to cross form the DC to the other lines mentioned without impacting on existing WCML services?

 

[Ronnie268]

Looks good to me, although I wonder if demand would justify 24 tph all the way to Watford. Is there an option which takes some (necessarily dual voltage) main line suburban trains out at Willesden and puts them down ELL?

The ELL already shares tracks with other services south of the river. The advantage as I proposed originally is that it doesn't introduce any other track-sharing, so you can keep reliability and frequency high. Also, most of the mainline trains are longer than would fit down the ELL.

 

[Ronnie268]

Is it possible to cross form the DC to the other lines mentioned without impacting on existing WCML services?

If you mean at Camden Junction, yes. It's grade separated. See http://carto.metro.free.fr/cartes/metro-tram-london/

 

[DarloRich]

If you mean at Camden Junction, yes. It's grade separated. See http://carto.metro.free.fr/cartes/metro-tram-london/

of course it is! Engage the Quailenator!

 

[Muzer]

My friend's always wibbling about this idea .

It sounds good on the surface, but how practical is doubling the viaduct etc. in Camden? I would be inclined to believe "not very". Thoughts?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Terrible idea suggested mainly by crayonistas. The DC lines service into Euston loads well and is very popular. There was uproar last time this was suggested. It needs leaving as it is.

 

[Ronnie268]

Terrible idea suggested mainly by crayonistas. The DC lines service into Euston loads well and is very popular. There was uproar last time this was suggested. It needs leaving as it is.

Removing a 'well-loaded' 3tph service in favour of a much more robust, high frequency timetable isn't a 'terrible idea'. Doing anything that removes an existing service causes an uproar. It is a simple matter of weighing up the costs (which I've acknowledged) with the benefits (which you haven't).

 

[Ronnie268]

My friend's always wibbling about this idea .

It sounds good on the surface, but how practical is doubling the viaduct etc. in Camden? I would be inclined to believe "not very". Thoughts?

As you can see from Google Maps (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5421833,-0.1414701,164m/data=!3m1!1e3), there's only a tiny section that would need building afresh, to join up with the old 4 track section to the East.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Bakerloo line curtailed at Queens Park.

I thought the historic problem with this was the depot at Stonebridge Park. If Bakerloo trains have to run north west of Queens Park, they aren't segregated from the Overground service and might as well run in service. I believe the idea was mooted when the Bakerloo service to Watford Junction was first curtailed.

 

[jopsuk]

you've missed out "tunnel under Watford Station, double the Abbey Line" and "extend the Bakerloo westward into the gap between the Central Line and the GWML" for full on Crayon points

Also possibly something involving loops at Wembley Central to allow more "local" West Midlands services to call (or of course the Crossrail services that terminate at Paddington. In fact those, with Harrow & Wealdstone also sorted for this. Come on, think big!

 

[MarkyT]

I'd divert the Watford DCs via Old Oak to Crossrail, using the connection proposed previously for the Tring stoppers, and a little jiggery pokery slewing WCML fast lines over to male room between Harlesden and Wembley Central, where I'd cut the Bakerloo back to new platforms on the north side.

 

[PeterC]

This would require a second bridge across Kentish Town Road with demolition of a dental surgery and flats.

 

[Bald Rick]

1) I'd question the need for a 24h service up the DCs to Watford. For one thing there would need to be a significant power upgrade, and lots of addtional clever kit to stop the DC return currents trying to get to the AC.

2) 4 tracking through Camden has been looked at at least twice in my time in the railway, and it is anything but cheap (or easy).

3) the 'DC' lines from Camden to Euston are already used by WCML services. They are the slow lines! It would in theory release 3 paths from Camden into Euston, but whether they can be made use of is unlikely, as freight off the NLL makes use of some of the 'holes' in the Slow line timetable created by the DCs diving off.

3a) there would need to be grade separation at Camden West to get freight off the NLL on to the Primrose Hill route without conflicting with high frequency DC/ELL services coming the other way.

4) a 36tph service on the Bakerloo to Queens Park could be provided regardless of whether a small proportion of services carry on or not. Arguably it would actually be easier to have some go beyond Queens Park, as the layout there is not conducive to trains terminating every 100 seconds, and it is not easy to rebuild.

5) 1972 stock has roughly the same capacity as a 5 car class 378 in both seats and total capacity. It's reasonable to assume that a NTFL (which would be required for 36tph) will have a higher capacity than a 5 car 378.

 

[The Planner]

Looking at 4tph into Euston soon and any chance of getting to Old Oak is dead if Chiltern go there, its one or the other.

 

[swt_passenger]

How original. This comes up about once a year.

 

[MarkyT]

Looking at 4tph into Euston soon and any chance of getting to Old Oak is dead if Chiltern go there, its one or the other.

Is this due to the likely difficulty fitting alignments into the space available that could connect to both routes? I'm assuming Chiltern would have their own platform(s) at OOC.

 

[The Planner]

Chiltern's platforms would be where the link to the WCML would have to be.

 

[swt_passenger]

Has there ever been any suggestion of running the DC lines to Old Oak? All I’ve ever seen published are ideas about connecting the WCML slows, mostly using the existing route used by SN through services.

 

[mr_jrt]

I've been advocating this for years...earliest mention Google gives me is 2013.

My proposal at its fullest extent is:

• Widen the viaduct west of Camden Road station to four tracks.
• Reinstate the bridges east of Camden Road.
• Reinstate four tracks between Camden Road and Dalston, the northern pair being AC, the southern DC.
• Reinstate platforms as appropriate (I'm not sure both services need to serve all stations, for example, and having the NLL skip some stations may make it easier to path residual freight, if required)
• Rebuild Primrose Hill as the LO platforms of Chalk Farm station.
  
• Rebuild Willesden Junction LO as two island platforms.
• Build a chord from the GEML up to the Goblin so pretty much all freight can go that way and not over the NLL.
• Bore a new tunnel from east of Gospel Oak to West Hampstead (with a underground LO stations at Gospel Oak & Belsize Park), to remove the need for Goblin freight to use the MML slow lines at all unless heading north from Hendon.
  
• Extend the Bakerloo from Queens Park to OOC in tunnel, (perhaps thence onwards to take over the Central's Ealing Broadway branch?)
• Operate ELL services between the four northern termini - Dalston Junction, Willesden Junction, Harrow & Wealdstone, and Watford Junction, and the four southern termini (New Cross, Clapham Junction, Crystal Palace, and West Croydon), as appropriate.

Obviously there are several nice-to-haves in there you could cut. The fundamental part though is dealing with the freight. Unless you do that, you can't have the ELL and NLL running all the way to Camden Road, and if you can't do that, it's pointless widening the viaduct. The freight has only three solutions - routing everything via the Goblin (requiring the GEML chord and the Gospel Oak tunnel), a new cross-London freight tunnel from Ripple Lane (and or the GEML) to Wembley Yard (and/or Acton Yard), or a new outer London orbital railway of some sort, and those are in increasing levels of estimated expense. Personally, I'd go with the Goblin option as a first step, and when traffic levels on the Goblin demand more passenger services than can be handled, go with the cross-London freight tunnel option to relieve the Goblin - the initial Gospel Oak tunnel will still be worth it for the passenger services (Richmond-Dudding Hill-West Hampstead-Gospel Oak-Barking).

 

[jopsuk]

• Extend the Bakerloo from Queens Park to OOC in tunnel, (perhaps thence onwards to take over the Central's Ealing Broadway branch?

Right, if that's the idea, then the true crayon option is surely to rebuild at Ealing Broadway such that the line gets extended to West Ealing and hence onto Greenford.

(also if you're not suggesting that the lines get converted to AC down to Surrey Canal Road/New Cross Gate (and New Cross obviously) then hand in your packet of Crayola)

 

[MarkyT]

Has there ever been any suggestion of running the DC lines to Old Oak? All I’ve ever seen published are ideas about connecting the WCML slows, mostly using the existing route used by SN through services.

I think Connecting Crossrail to Watford DC locals was considered in high level studies years ago, and dismissed in favour of the Trings. Going against it are the high reconstruction costs to keep the DC line on the south side of the fasts. Trings were much easier. Fewer track changes, same traction.

 

[D365]

Has there ever been any suggestion of running the DC lines to Old Oak? All I’ve ever seen published are ideas about connecting the WCML slows, mostly using the existing route used by SN through services.

Hasn't an extended people mover-type deal been considered, to connect OOC and WIJ?

 

[swt_passenger]

I think the current TfL plan is for two new Overground stations, on the NLL & WLL near either end of the Station box. I doubt they’d have a people mover as well. But this is not really anything to do with the DC lines either...

 

[D365]

Would be far easier than diverting the DC line via Old Oak. I can't make out what the current plans are for linking the new London Overground stations with OOC, whether there's going to be a walkway or not.

 

[NSEFAN]

My friend's always wibbling about this idea .

It sounds good on the surface, but how practical is doubling the viaduct etc. in Camden? I would be inclined to believe "not very". Thoughts?

I've dug up a PDF presentation about the NLL upgrade from 2009, which shows the original plan for Camden Road. Slide 6 succinctly explains why this was dropped.

Still strikes me as an obvious connection to make, though I'm not privy to all of TfL's journey data that's extrapolated from oyster/contactless fares. Being able to see all the passenger flows would help answer both the question of Watford DC to Euston and ELL connection via Primrose Hill.

 

[Class 170101]

How about this for a cheap(-ish) upgrade:

DC lines Overground service withdrawn.
NLL re-four-tracked from Canonbury to Camden Road, including remodelling Camden Road West Junction.
ELL services extended via the DC lines to Watford Junction, with Primrose Hill (for Chalk Farm) reopened.
Bakerloo line curtailed at Queens Park.

Advantages:
- DC (ELL) and Bakerloo completely segregated.
- Ability to turn around all of a future 24tph ELL service at Watford Junction.
- Bakerloo line able to operate as an intensive, segregated, 36tph metro service from Queens Park - E & C (eventually Lewisham).
- Two approach tracks of the DC lines into Euston able to be used for WCML services.
- Avoid running tube stock along lines that can cope with much larger trains.

Obvious disadvantage of losing direct connection to Euston for the DC lines, although this was low frequency anyway, and is mitigated by interchange opportunities at Chalk Farm, Queens Park (cross-platform), and Highbury & Islington, and direct connection to the City at Shoreditch High St.

Access would still be required for Bakerloo trains to / from Stonebridge Park. Also the chances of getting extra paths between Highbury and Islington and Camden Road West Jn with so much freight wanting to use the NLL. It should be noted that the line from Canonbury to Camden Road East Jn has (relatively) recently been re-instated to four tracks. There is no room for more.

As for the freight there is a route from Stratford to South Tottenham via Lea Bridge but this route is virtually full but a chord from the GEML to the T&H as proposed is not viable - again due to lack of space.

 

[43021HST]

Interesting idea, I especially like the idea of revitalizing Primrose Hill Station, although the Euston bound passengers, may not be too happy at losing a direct connection with WCML Express services or onto the Met, Northern and Vic Lines.

you've missed out "tunnel under Watford Station, double the Abbey Line" and "extend the Bakerloo westward into the gap between the Central Line and the GWML" for full on Crayon points

Also possibly something involving loops at Wembley Central to allow more "local" West Midlands services to call (or of course the Crossrail services that terminate at Paddington. In fact those, with Harrow & Wealdstone also sorted for this. Come on, think big!

It's these kind's of comments that annoy me on threads like this. It's easier to just dismiss becuase an idea as too 'big' or 'convoluted' rather than to provide any proper constructive criticism. For a railway forum, we sure are anti-rail. I suppose many users make these kind of nonconstructive comments because they feel threatened by any proposals of change that would move their world away from the grotty railway environment of the 90s that they grew up with.