Splitting the Northern line

[AlbertBeale]

21 minutes each way makes up to 42 minutes running time, plus a couple of minutes to turn round at Morden. With a train every 12 minutes this is too tight for three trains, even allowing for the fact that the current service has a small stand in the loop plus running time round there.

Thanks again.

 

[CarrotPie]

That’s four extra trains. In theory that could be provided from the four trains which stable in Highgate between the peaks, but in practice this is going to represent quite a performance risk.

However I think even this change would require two extra trains in service. It was this saving of two trains that allows Battersea to be covered.

There are insufficient trains to do anything more without compromising maintenance time between the peaks.

What's the chance of the Northern line getting more trains before the 95TS needs replacing?

 

[Sad Sprinter]

It isn’t the case that all off-peak trains go to Battersea. Only half the service does - those from Edgware still reverse via the loop, and I don’t think there are any immediate plans for this to change.

It isn’t the case that the Bank trains take up all paths to Morden, as every 3 minutes is only 20tph. In theory I’m sure it would be possible to fit in an extra 5tph to/from Morden, which would be half the loop trains. However with running time of 21 minutes to Morden you are talking about a minimum of 45 minutes extra time. That’s four extra trains. In theory that could be provided from the four trains which stable in Highgate between the peaks, but in practice this is going to represent quite a performance risk. It’s also likely this would require stepping back at Morden right through the day.

I guess a compromise might be to provide a CX service on Saturdays. However would that many people bother to wait potentially 12 minutes for a CX train, when there are excellent cross-platform interchanges available towards the west end at both Stockwell and Kennington? Is it worth making the Bank service less even?

Worth also mentioning that the current crewing situation, since Covid, is such that delivering the current service is essentially impossible on a daily basis without multiple cancellations, and has been so for some time. So no realistic prospect of any extra mileage on that score in the shorter term.

If I was going to make a change to the Northern Line it would be to go back to having Mill Hill East served by a shuttle train. The random 6-minute gaps to High Barnet are a pain (it actually represents a 12-minute gap to/from Barnet south of Camden Town), and Mill Hill also suffers in the form of getting an erratic service during disruption. However I think even this change would require two extra trains in service. It was this saving of two trains that allows Battersea to be covered.

Thanks, so it seems like more trains are (partly) the answer. What if CX trains turned around at Tooting Broadway instead?

 

[bramling]

What's the chance of the Northern line getting more trains before the 95TS needs replacing?

Pretty much zero. Plans can change of course, but with the 95 stock now being past half life (assuming 40 years) it just wouldn’t be worthwhile buying either extra trains to form a mixed fleet, or 95 stock clones. The latter probably wouldn’t be a viable option anyway.

The only remote possibility is if the Jubilee fleet were to be replaced, it might be relatively easy to convert some of those to run on the Northern. However there is enough difficulty replacing the 50-year-old Bakerloo trains, as well as the ongoing debacle with the 92 stock, so the prospect of anything happening on the Jubilee is as remote as ever. Extra trains for the Northern would also require extra stabling space, though there is a bit of spare land at both Highgate and Edgware, and potentially subject to some minor work three trains could be stabled at Golders Green in the sidings south of the station, and there are three siding unused roads at High Barnet. Space for 10-12 trains should be fairly easy to provide. Beyond that will require more significant work - and it won’t have helped that Khan is busy trying to use car parks for housing schemes, as that’s more space gone!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jan 2024 ==

Thanks, so it seems like more trains are (partly) the answer. What if CX trains turned around at Tooting Broadway instead?

Not ideal. As in addition to going from 20tph to 25tph, you’d be introducing the problem of trains having to detrain at Tooting Broadway, and the siding berth there is so tight that the entry is very slow. Even if it were theoretically possible to timetable this, it would be introducing a significant performance bottleneck, which might well ultimately pull down the entire line. Also worth adding that by not reaching Morden, the extra trains would be of direct benefit to fewer people, which further reduces any case for them.

Another problem with making regular use of Tooting Broadway is that there are no facilities for drivers there. This isn’t ideal in itself, and would likely attract some resistance from the unions - and probably reasonably so.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Pretty much zero. Plans can change of course, but with the 95 stock now being past half life (assuming 40 years) it just wouldn’t be worthwhile buying either extra trains to form a mixed fleet, or 95 stock clones. The latter probably wouldn’t be a viable option anyway.

The only remote possibility is if the Jubilee fleet were to be replaced, it might be relatively easy to convert some of those to run on the Northern. However there is enough difficulty replacing the 50-year-old Bakerloo trains, as well as the ongoing debacle with the 92 stock, so the prospect of anything happening on the Jubilee is as remote as ever. Extra trains for the Northern would also require extra stabling space, though there is a bit of spare land at both Highgate and Edgware, and potentially subject to some minor work three trains could be stabled at Golders Green in the sidings south of the station, and there are three siding unused roads at High Barnet. Space for 10-12 trains should be fairly easy to provide. Beyond that will require more significant work - and it won’t have helped that Khan is busy trying to use car parks for housing schemes, as that’s more space gone!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jan 2024 ==



Not ideal. As in addition to going from 20tph to 25tph, you’d be introducing the problem of trains having to detrain at Tooting Broadway, and the siding berth there is so tight that the entry is very slow. Even if it were theoretically possible to timetable this, it would be introducing a significant performance bottleneck, which might well ultimately pull down the entire line. Also worth adding that by not reaching Morden, the extra trains would be of direct benefit to fewer people, which further reduces any case for them.

Another problem with making regular use of Tooting Broadway is that there are no facilities for drivers there. This isn’t ideal in itself, and would likely attract some resistance from the unions - and probably reasonably so.

Ironically it was the partial reasoning for the Bushey Heath extension to provide more stabling capacity

 

[NSE]

Whilst there will be demand to run trains from Morden via Charing Cross, in my experience, the vast majority clear out at Stockwell for the Victoria Line. If I board at Balham/Clapham and I’m heading north, 100% guaranteed to get a seat after Stockwell. With that and the cross platform at Kennington, yes, Morden trains would be nice direct via CHX all day, but it’s really not a show stopper.

Worth noting this is London. There will always be demand from somewhere to someplace, but that doesn’t mean it deserves a direct service all day.

 

[Mikey C]

Pointless splitting the lines until you have extra trains available to run an increased frequency on each branch, which is the main driver for this.

Otherwise you end up with the farcical situation many Southeastern passengers have where to increase capacity the "untangling" of the lines into London Bridge meant that many lost the choice of Cannon Street or Charing Cross as a final destination, except that they never actually gained the benefit of more frequent trains. Indeed many now have lower frequencies than before.

 

[Irascible]

Frankly, I doubt people choose homes and job based on not having to change tube lines

I've certainly picked somewhere to live in London that offered an uncomplicated journey to work as one of it's primary features ( especially after having the nightmare of three changes to just get to work for a while ), but I was always renting there. Changing multiple times can add a surprising amount to a commute - it's not enough to really care about if you're going somewhere just to go shopping or look around, but doing it every day can wear you down a bit.

---

This plan always seemed to me to be there so Camden station could be redeveloped, rather than the other way round.

 

[bramling]

I've certainly picked somewhere to live in London that offered an uncomplicated journey to work as one of it's primary features ( especially after having the nightmare of three changes to just get to work for a while ), but I was always renting there. Changing multiple times can add a surprising amount to a commute - it's not enough to really care about if you're going somewhere just to go shopping or look around, but doing it every day can wear you down a bit.

---

This plan always seemed to me to be there so Camden station could be redeveloped, rather than the other way round.

There are two separate issues in respect of Camden, both essentially unrelated.

Firstly, were the line to be split then there would need to be additional provision for interchange at Camden Town, like was done at Kennington in preparation for Battersea opening. Camden is a more difficult prospect in this respect as the platforms are further apart, and there’s some additional complications such as the former lift shafts, and the deep shelter. So not a straightforward piece of work.

Then you have the completely separate issue that the station struggles to cope with crowds at certain times, especially weekends. Why on earth hoards of people want to visit Camden Town is a mystery to me, as the place is a total and utter dump, but there we go. Indeed the immediate vicinity of the station looks increasingly hurrendous at the best of times, with copious quantities of rubbish, broken glass, needles, rough sleepers, aggressive beggars and blatant wronguns hanging around. It’s the sort of the place where if I had guests from abroad I’d be ashamed to take them. To be honest, if there’s a finite amount of money to spend on improving a station, I’d suggest there’s other places where the money would be far better spent, not least Holborn.

 

[CarrotPie]

Then you have the completely separate issue that the station struggles to cope with crowds at certain times, especially weekends. Why on earth hoards of people want to visit Camden Town is a mystery to me, as the place is a total and utter dump, but there we go.

The market, maybe?

 

[William3000]

I’ve always felt the Northern Line is an anomaly with two branches through London’s central core. Would there be any merit in splitting them into two separate lines?

One could run from High Barnet/Mill Hill East to Battersea Power Station, and the other could run from Edgware to Morden. Apart from Camden Town, which would be on both lines with them sharing the same platforms, both lines would be completely separate.

 

[bramling]

I’ve always felt the Northern Line is an anomaly with two branches through London’s central core. Would there be any merit in splitting them into two separate lines?

One could run from High Barnet/Mill Hill East to Battersea Power Station, and the other could run from Edgware to Morden. Apart from Camden Town, which would be on both lines with them sharing the same platforms, both lines would be completely separate.

Firstly, doing it that way wouldn’t work without building a new depot. Any split would have to be Edgware to Battersea.

But if you’re properly going to split it in two, be prepared for a lot more disruption, and longer lasting when it does. The current setup is very good at recovering from problems due to the ability for trains to be kept moving by being diverted away from problems.

 

[William3000]

It’s always struck me as odd that the Northern Line has two completely different routes running through central London. What would the pros and cons of making it displayed as two separate lines perhaps Battersea Power Station to Edgware via Charing Cross, and Morden to High Barnet/Mill East via Bank.

The downsides would I assume be people travelling from the Morden and High Barnet/Mill Hill East branch having to change to get to the West End and those from the Edgware branch reaching the City, but in practice many will have changed at Camden Town and Kennington anyway if they needed to change.

 

[Belperpete]

It’s always struck me as odd that the Northern Line has two completely different routes running through central London. What would the pros and cons of making it displayed as two separate lines perhaps Battersea Power Station to Edgware via Charing Cross, and Morden to High Barnet/Mill East via Bank.

The downsides would I assume be people travelling from the Morden and High Barnet/Mill Hill East branch having to change to get to the West End and those from the Edgware branch reaching the City, but in practice many will have changed at Camden Town and Kennington anyway if they needed to change.

I agree that the current setup can be confusing. You turn up at somewhere like Euston and get directions to something called the Bank branch and Charing Cross Branch, neither of these branch names appear on the tube map. "What's this Bank branch?" Only by a detailed study of the map to find those particular stations buried in the mish-mash of Central London does it start to make any sense. As someone who used to live in London, even I find it less than obvious. To tourists and others unfamiliar with the tube, even if they have studied the tube map before making their journey, it must be really confusing.

The Edgeware and Barnet lines are branches, but calling the Bank and CX lines "branches" isn't really correct, is it? These two alternative routes really need to be shown as separate lines, with different names and colours. The real branches to Edgeware and Barnet would then be shown as served by both these lines (in a similar manner to how the Hammersmith branch is shown as served by both Circle and H&C lines).

I would not rationalise the services so that each branch were only served by one of the central-London lines, as this would likely upset a lot of people who are used to catching a through train. The flying junctions at Camden have mitigated the problems with conflicting services, which is the most common problem with branches on high-frequency metro lines.

 

[birchesgreen]

Regarding colours and keeping it solid for LU, at present we have three shades of blue, three of "red", two of "black", two of "yellow", but only one of green. So surely a light green is the way to go.

As for names, they should be concise. "City" and "Northern" might do except that the word "City" is already used in two other lines. Perhaps "Southern" and "Northern" : at last curing the anomaly that the present Northern Line goes furthest south, and does not go furthest north . For heaven's sake don't make it woke or political.

Maybe use the Chelsea-Hackney colour as thats going to be XR2 now.

 

[SynthD]

I would not rationalise the services so that each branch were only served by one of the central-London lines, as this would likely upset a lot of people who are used to catching a through train. The flying junctions at Camden have mitigated the problems with conflicting services, which is the most common problem with branches on high-frequency metro lines.

They intend to rationalise the services because the flying junctions will not reliably work at the higher rates of trains they can achieve on the rest of the two lines.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

something called the Bank branch and Charing Cross Branch, neither of these branch names appear on the tube map

And, of course, just to add to the fun these are sometimes known as (and I think there is some signage which shows them as) the City and West End branches respectively.

While it would be a loss of heritage, a bit of consistency would probably give some small gains in understanding. So City or Bank, and Charing Cross or West End - I'm not particular. But not both.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Pointless splitting the lines until you have extra trains available to run an increased frequency on each branch, which is the main driver for this.

Otherwise you end up with the farcical situation many Southeastern passengers have where to increase capacity the "untangling" of the lines into London Bridge meant that many lost the choice of Cannon Street or Charing Cross as a final destination, except that they never actually gained the benefit of more frequent trains. Indeed many now have lower frequencies than before.

And all this because of Lewisham Junction which failed it because of the trains running over the junction but because for many years the junction resembled something out of Kew Gardens.

In the grand scheme of things Lewisham junction is hardly Camden Town Junction, and the frequencies are still low.

 

[brad465]

Isn't there a running joke that the split lines would be the Charles and Diana lines?

I think extending the Bakerloo line to Hayes should be a bigger priority, this would enhance the transport potential for many areas not well served (like Old Kent Road), while improving transport links for the Hayes' line catchment area, plus improving Southeastern capacity into London Bridge and Charing X. There is much more to gain from this than from enhancing frequency further on an already high-frequency line.

 

[cle]

Isn't there a running joke that the split lines would be the Charles and Diana lines?

I think extending the Bakerloo line to Hayes should be a bigger priority, this would enhance the transport potential for many areas not well served (like Old Kent Road), while improving transport links for the Hayes' line catchment area, plus improving Southeastern capacity into London Bridge and Charing X. There is much more to gain from this than from enhancing frequency further on an already high-frequency line.

I think both things are true. As I think we'll see with the Piccadilly, increased frequency (and some capacity and speed!) will see a spike in usage. I remember this with the Jubilee, the lenghtening etc - beyond the extension.

And the Northern line is hugely important, especially south of the river. Anything to increase service there is in service of the broader equity themes of the BLE. It also tees up much more development potential (and appeal) for the Battersea branch, both at the places it runs to now, and any future discussion of extension, to eg.. Clapham Junction (itself ripe for a MASSIVE project if anyone is brave enough) - and maybe beyond.

Bakerloo is critical too. But I feel more funding could be found from other sources, public and private - whereas the Northern is firmly in-line among the 'organic growth' investments of TfL, and that prioritization. So I don't think we have to pit them against one another, as such.