London Underground and TfL Fast Trains

[andy33gmail]

As far as I know, the concept of fast / semi-fast trains doesn't apply to the London Underground (and possibly TFL overall). I understand why; the routes are mostly double track rather than four; people like the simplicity of every train going to every station*. Please do let me know if there are interesting examples.

In terms of cross-rail / Elizabeth Line, I'm curious as to how much harder it would have been to go for 4 tracks. A lot of the engineering overall feels fast and future-proofed/over-engineered. Lots of space, lots of capacity. But still only two lines. Presumably there's a use-case for picking some popular pairs of stations - for example National Rail terminii. And whilst it's twice as many ... track and tunnels ... presumably it wouldn't be twice as many escalators, planning forms, land aquisitions, health and safety forms, escalators etc. I'd also imagine that the platforms & trains could probably be shorter with this format, whilst carrying the same capacity.

And of course, whether this would actually be much use. I'm aware some of the lines take forever to traverse end-end so might benefit from skipping stations, but perhaps this is less relevant for a straighter/faster/newer/better/purplier line?

The idea can't be completely nuts - for example New York do it.

*Hence why the Circle, Metropolitan and Hammersmith aren't known for being reliable

Edited to fix typo

 

[MCR247]

I assume you’re referring to Crossrail, which wasn’t a brand new route built from scratch. It was the linking of two previously existing suburban lines out of London with the construction of a new core section (as well as a new third shorter branch). So you could’ve built the new sections four track relatively easily, but it wouldn’t have been much use as the core section is where trains need to stop at every station. On the pre-existing Shenfield and Reading lines, where do you put these extra tracks and platforms? You already have Fast lines and slow/relief lines on both, with the fast lines being used by GWR or GA. So you’d be adding another two lines alongside these busy railways where there simply isn’t the space, or building a tunnel running underneath or something

 

[NCT]

London Underground is anything but over-engineered.

'Fast lines' do exist on/around London Underground, albeit indirectly.

- The Metropolitan line acts as the Jubilee line's fast lines between Finchley Road and Wembley Park
- The Victoria line acts as the Piccadilly line's fast lines
- The Piccadilly line acts as the District line's fast lines between Acton Town and Hammersmith
- C2C acts as the District line's fast lines between West Ham and Upminster
- The Elizabeth line acts as the Central line's fast lines between the West End and Stratford

And of course the Metropolitan line does have its own four-tracking between Wembley Park and Moor Park.

 

[z444z]

- C2C acts as the District line's fast lines between West Ham and Upminster
- The Elizabeth line acts as the Central line's fast lines between the West End and Stratford

If these count (not saying they shouldn’t!):

Thameslink/GN acts as the Victoria and Piccadilly’s fast between King’s Cross / St Pancras and Finsbury Park

Chiltern acts as the Metropolitan’s fast between Harrow on the Hill and Amersham

The Elizabeth line also acts as the Circle/H&C/Metropolitan’s fast between Liverpool Street and Farringdon, then via a different route to Paddington. I guess you could also say it does so for the District between Paddington and Ealing Broadway but I think that’s getting away from the spirit of the thread…

 

[cle]

These ‘acts as’ examples are incidental - the only line with differing stopping patterns is the Met.

And even then, faster services have their own lines so they don’t run fast through platforms. Per a stopping pattern. No tubes have differing patterns along the same actual line and platforms - like Tokyo metro for instance. West London Lizzie has this.

I would say Turnham Green is the only other example of this. And that is semantic. Not including places like Neasden or Ravenscourt Park which are disused / not operational.

 

[PeterC]

Apart from the Met beyond Wembley Park the usual practice has been to run fast/slow services as different lines rather than have differing service patterns on the same line.

Both the Met/Jubilee(ex Bakerloo) and District/Piccadilly splits fall into this category. The District extension to Upminster took over the stoppers on the LT&S line

 

[Tester]

In the past the 'Met Main' had some interesting stopping patterns, including peak trains which did not stop at Harrow on the Hill.

In 1970-1972 I lived in a house backing on to the south side of the railway just west of Harrow on the Hill station. On weekday evenings several Amersham/Chesham trains crossed to the northbound Marylebone line east of the station and ran through platform 1 non stop. By the time they passed my house they were doing a fair lick - very impressive!

 

[NCT]

These ‘acts as’ examples are incidental - the only line with differing stopping patterns is the Met.

And even then, faster services have their own lines so they don’t run fast through platforms. Per a stopping pattern. No tubes have differing patterns along the same actual line and platforms - like Tokyo metro for instance. West London Lizzie has this.

I would say Turnham Green is the only other example of this. And that is semantic. Not including places like Neasden or Ravenscourt Park which are disused / not operational.

Most things in London are incidental. It's the end result that matters, whether it's by design or by accident. At the end of the day a passenger cares about a fast journey from Stratford to Tottenham Court Road. They don't care whether their train goes past an operational platform at St Paul's.

 

[edwin_m]

If money and space is available to build four tracks, it's probably better to build two of them on a different but similar route to provide extra capacity while also catering to other journey opportunities. This also means that the "extra tracks" can be added later without having to re-construct the original ones.

 

[35B]

The Underground has experimented with variable stopping patterns at times. Except where there have been multiple tracks, the result has been to add confusion which has more than offset the possible gains. And even then (Met, I’m looking at you), this isn’t always simple.

For those of us who know the Tube like the back of our hands, we forget how confusing it can be for irregular travellers who haven’t got the Tube map imprinted and don’t know the lines off by heart. The present system works because basically every train stops everywhere and we make up in frequency what we lose in speed.

 

[z444z]

A few more:

Thameslink for Northern line between Kentish Town and King’s Cross St Pancras

Only Charing Cross branch trains stop at Mornington Crescent on the Northern line

Jubilee line for the DLR between Stratford and Canning Town

The Elizabeth line also acts as the Circle/H&C/Metropolitan’s fast between Liverpool Street and Farringdon

I guess for the H&C this is actually between Whitechapel and Farringdon then onto Paddington…

 

[cle]

Most things in London are incidental. It's the end result that matters, whether it's by design or by accident. At the end of the day a passenger cares about a fast journey from Stratford to Tottenham Court Road. They don't care whether their train goes past an operational platform at St Paul's.

Well sure. But the question about faster stopping patterns on the tube is a simple one.

“100 years after the central line was built, they built Crossrail, there’s your fast” - isn’t really the nub of the OP’s topic interest here.

Even if that is how it is used in practice today!

Good call out re the older random Met line patterns - fast to West Harrow etc.

 

[Horizon22]

As far as I know, the concept of fast / semi-fast trains doesn't apply to the London Underground (and possibly TFL overall). I understand why; the routes are mostly double track rather than four; people like the simplicity of every train going to every station*. Please do let me know if there are interesting examples.

The Met line is known for semi-fast and fast services in the NW corner.

In terms of cross-rail / Elizabeth Line, I'm curious as to how much harder it would have been to go for 4 tracks.

You mean in the central section? Well I imagine adding a significant amount of the £18.5bn spend, mainly due to the area you are tunnelling in (Z1 London) and all the things that are simply in the way let alone the extra track and signalling. Core sections (Paddington - Whitechapel is about 17 mins) don’t need to be double tracked and extra complexity is confusing.

Then you’ve got the connections to the GEML and GWML which certainly on the Eastern side would provide a bottleneck.

A lot of the engineering overall feels fast and future-proofed/over-engineered. Lots of space, lots of capacity.

I don’t see how “future-proofing” is the same as “over-engineering”! It is there for longer trains (up to 11 car) and more frequent trains (up to theoretical max Pad-Whitechapel). To be honest already capacity in the peak is getting maxed out.

But still only two lines. Presumably there's a use-case for picking some popular pairs of stations - for example National Rail terminii. And whilst it's twice as many ... track and tunnels ... presumably it wouldn't be twice as many escalators, planning forms, land aquisitions, health and safety forms, escalators etc.

Depends what sort of extra footfall you’d be expecting with presumably more traffic through certain stations. It’s already a bit tight now (Paddington lifts, Woolwich escalators & exit etc.).

So there definitely would be some extra costs in fixed infrastructure at stations, such a gatelines, lifts and escalators. The latter is a big one, considering it was a key part of why Bond Street opened late.

I'd also imagine that the platforms & trains could probably be shorter with this format, whilst carrying the same capacity.

Depends what your service pattern is…

And of course, whether this would actually be much use. I'm aware some of the lines take forever to traverse end-end so might benefit from skipping stations, but perhaps this is less relevant for a straighter/faster/newer/better/purplier line?

Very few people are traversing the line end to end. The longest journeys are probably from those on direct journeys outer GEML stations to Heathrow (T5) a service which already runs semi-fast on the GWML (to the chagrin of some who live at places like Acton and Southall!)

The idea can't be completely nuts - for example New York do it.

It isn’t and on the GEML Metro (ran by GA then inherited by TFL Rail briefly) the timetable in the peak used to be all over the place with lots of semi-fast / fast running at various points. Bluntly, it didn’t work and very minor delays could spiral. Running a steady regular, all stops timetable is much more effective and allows for better recovery.

*Hence why the Circle, Metropolitan and Hammersmith aren't known for being reliable

Citation needed here on the cause and stats of any delays. I’d say the Central & Northern run worse.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Dec 2025 ==

The Elizabeth line also acts as the Circle/H&C/Metropolitan’s fast between Liverpool Street and Farringdon, then via a different route to Paddington. I guess you could also say it does so for the District between Paddington and Ealing Broadway but I think that’s getting away from the spirit of the thread…

The Elizabeth line is now the fast way to go between Abbey Wood and Farringdon rather than tootling along on a Thameslink stopper.

And to keep the analogy going…

GA acts as the Elizabeth line’s “fast” between Liverpool Street and Shenfield (occasionally Romford)

GWR acts as the Elizabeth line’s “fast” between Paddington and Slough and beyond to Reading.

And if you really want to keep going, Heathrow Express is an (expensive!) “fast” to Heathrow.

The downside being no through connection into & beyond Central London therefore is offering an interchange penalty. But the time saving is obviously considerable.

 

[z444z]

And to keep the analogy going…

GA acts as the Elizabeth line’s “fast” between Liverpool Street and Shenfield (occasionally Romford)

GWR acts as the Elizabeth line’s “fast” between Paddington and Slough and beyond to Reading.

And if you really want to keep going, Heathrow Express is an (expensive!) “fast” to Heathrow.

I was trying to stick to LU examples, now that’s out the window I’ve got tons more

 

[Horizon22]

I was trying to stick to LU examples, now that’s out the window I’ve got tons more

And well I broadened the net to “TfL” as the OP was talking about the Elizabeth line!

 

[z444z]

I was trying to stick to LU examples, now that’s out the window I’ve got tons more

Elizabeth line for DLR between Canary Wharf and Custom House / Woolwich

Greater Anglia for Weaver line between Liverpool Street and Cheshunt

Southern for Trams between Beckenham Junction and Birkbeck

Avanti and WMR for Lioness line between Euston and Watford Junction

Tons more might have been an exaggeration, that’s all I’ve got…

 

[Helvellyn]

The Jubilee North of Baker Street (built as a Bakerloo branch) was built deliberately to allow the speeding up of Metropolitan Line services.

Conversely, the Piccadilly Line heading West was built as the express reliever for the District Line.

In both cases four-tracking was done in open air sections where space allowed but the closer to the centre the use of deep tube lines saved space, although the Piccadilly did better at following the District Line route albeit underground.

I think there were plans before the Second World War for the Northern Line to get an express reliever line, with some tunnels built around stations that became bomb shelters. It would have been interesting to see how the fast/slow service would have been organised across the various branches, especially if the Norrhern Heights extensions had been built.

 

[NCT]

Well sure. But the question about faster stopping patterns on the tube is a simple one.

“100 years after the central line was built, they built Crossrail, there’s your fast” - isn’t really the nub of the OP’s topic interest here.

Even if that is how it is used in practice today!

Good call out re the older random Met line patterns - fast to West Harrow etc.

I like to relate any 'topic interest' to what it means to the passenger, especially in the local context. Overly literal topic interpretations just serve to miss out practical local nuances. Transit systems all develop differently, and UK systems have tended to be more organic / chaotic than others - and it's the organic development that has shaped the network into what it is today and that's an important nuance that needs to be recognised whenever a 'vs New York' or 'vs Berlin' topic gets brought up.

 

[Mgameing123]

London Underground is anything but over-engineered.

'Fast lines' do exist on/around London Underground, albeit indirectly.

- The Metropolitan line acts as the Jubilee line's fast lines between Finchley Road and Wembley Park
- The Victoria line acts as the Piccadilly line's fast lines
- The Piccadilly line acts as the District line's fast lines between Acton Town and Hammersmith
- C2C acts as the District line's fast lines between West Ham and Upminster
- The Elizabeth line acts as the Central line's fast lines between the West End and Stratford

And of course the Metropolitan line does have its own four-tracking between Wembley Park and Moor Park.

Don’t forget to add Chiltern to the mix!

 

[z444z]

Don’t forget to add Chiltern to the mix!

Already mentioned

 

[Sad Sprinter]

The Elizabeth Line needs to be split into seperate lines to highlight the stopping patterns in West London.

I do wish the Underground had more fast lines. The Northern Line absolutely needs a fast line from Bank down to South London.

 

[Horizon22]

The Elizabeth Line needs to be split into seperate lines to highlight the stopping patterns in West London.

In what sense? Graphically?

 

[NCT]

The Elizabeth Line needs to be split into seperate lines to highlight the stopping patterns in West London.

I do wish the Underground had more fast lines. The Northern Line absolutely needs a fast line from Bank down to South London.

In my grand plan the Northern City Line gets extended to Morden as a Northern Line express!

 

[Mgameing123]

In my grand plan the Northern City Line gets extended to Morden as a Northern Line express!

I’d rather use the Northern City Line to connect with the lines out of Cannon Street to make it into a Thameslink/Crossrail service.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Dec 2025 ==

The Elizabeth Line needs to be split into seperate lines to highlight the stopping patterns in West London.

I do wish the Underground had more fast lines. The Northern Line absolutely needs a fast line from Bank down to South London.

Agreed. The stopping pattern on the Elizabeth Line is a huge mess.

 

[z444z]

Agreed. The stopping pattern on the Elizabeth Line is a huge mess.

In what way? Heathrow trains stop everywhere, Reading/Maidenhead trains skip a few stops. The PIS on the Elizabeth line is very good. I don’t think it’s that confusing.

 

[Horizon22]

In what way? Heathrow trains stop everywhere, Reading/Maidenhead trains skip a few stops. The PIS on the Elizabeth line is very good. I don’t think it’s that confusing.

Terminal 5 services do not stop everywhere, skipping Acton Main Line, Hanwell and Southall.

 

[NCT]

I’d rather use the Northern City Line to connect with the lines out of Cannon Street to make it into a Thameslink/Crossrail service.

The Northern City Line is limited to 6-car trains, whereas Cannon Street services want to be 10+. 6-car mainline sized trains are OK as a Northern Line duplicate.

 

[z444z]

Terminal 5 services do not stop everywhere, skipping Acton Main Line, Hanwell and Southall.

oops, should have checked. Still, the PIS is really clear, I don’t think it’s too bad personally.

 

[edwin_m]

I think there were plans before the Second World War for the Northern Line to get an express reliever line, with some tunnels built around stations that became bomb shelters. It would have been interesting to see how the fast/slow service would have been organised across the various branches, especially if the Norrhern Heights extensions had been built.

Yes, seven shelters were built under the Northern Line, either on the common sections or on the Charing Cross branch so I don't think there was any intention to build an express for the Bank branch. As mentioned above, the Victoria Line later relieved the Charing Cross branch among other lines. One shelter was built under the Central Line too.

 

[z444z]

These two videos on the topic might be of interest!