What if the Jubilee line extension was built as originally planned?

[Leight]

More specifically the version that stretched into the docklands: I am aware there was an alternative option that took over the East London Line (ELL) south of Surrey Docks.

Let's say the government found some extra money down the back of the sofa and gave the Jubilee Line Extension (JLE) the go-ahead in the late 1970s, by which time there was parliamentary approval for a Charing Cross - Fenchurch Street - Woolwich Arsenal route.

Would the DLR still be built in some form?

This *JLE would only provide an east-west route, with no obvious ways for an extension to Lewisham or Stratford.

Would the North London Line have still run to North Woolwich?

Would Canary Wharf exist or would the corresponding development centre around Millwall tube station (which I believe to be slightly to the south)?

Would Thamesmead get the tube eventually?

What other knock-on effects would this have?

 

[brad465]

If any form of JLE was approved in the 1970s, I'm willing to bet it would not have had step-free access at all stations and platform-edge doors.

 

[Helvellyn]

If any form of JLE was approved in the 1970s, I'm willing to bet it would not have had step-free access at all stations and platform-edge doors.

Well no, the stations would probably have looked similar to Bond Street, Green Park and Charing Cross as built.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jul 2025 ==

If the JLE had been built as originally planned you might also have seen more '83 stock built, which would have been refurbished concurrent with the D stock, and today we would be speculating if a follow on order of '25 stock would be for the Bakerloo or Jubilee Lines.

Talking of the Bakerloo I wonder if that might have had an Eastward extension towards London Bridge, Canary Wharf and Stratford...

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Well no, the stations would probably have looked similar to Bond Street, Green Park and Charing Cross as built.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jul 2025 ==

If the JLE had been built as originally planned you might also have seen more '83 stock built, which would have been refurbished concurrent with the D stock, and today we would be speculating if a follow on order of '25 stock would be for the Bakerloo or Jubilee Lines.

Talking of the Bakerloo I wonder if that might have had an Eastward extension towards London Bridge, Canary Wharf and Stratford...

Had there been a full tranche of 83 stock built for a longer Jubilee/Fleet Line I suspect that the single leaf doors would still have led to them being replaced early...

Though some of the better condition vehicles might well have found their way to the Isle of Wight by the mid to late 2000s. So we could have had a rather different Class 484 to the ones we got!

 

[Magdalia]

If we assume that financial deregulation still happens, then the docklands development still happens too.

A consequence of this is big flows of commuters needing to get to/from Docklands instead of the City.

That means there is still a requirement for a line Waterloo-London Bridge-Docklands-West Ham-Stratford.

Probably a Bakerloo Line Extension?

The places that would lose out, compared with what actually happened, are Westminster, which would never have got the Jubilee Line, and Elephant and Castle, which might have lost the Bakerloo Line like Charing Cross lost the Jubilee Line.

 

[MCR247]

If we assume that financial deregulation still happens, then the docklands development still happens too.

A consequence of this is big flows of commuters needing to get to/from Docklands instead of the City.

That means there is still a requirement for a line Waterloo-London Bridge-Docklands-West Ham-Stratford.

Probably a Bakerloo Line Extension?

The places that would lose out, compared with what actually happened, are Westminster, which would never have got the Jubilee Line, and Elephant and Castle, which might have lost the Bakerloo Line like Charing Cross lost the Jubilee Line.

Orrrr how about a Waterloo & City Line extension?

 

[Magdalia]

Orrrr how about a Waterloo & City Line extension?

That would not include London Bridge.

 

[Class15]

That would not include London Bridge.

Waterloo-Bank-Canary Wharf-West Ham-Stratford in some form would likely have been a decent line. Possibly even connecting to Fenchurch St, at last!

 

[Leight]

I was crayoning in something like E&C - Old Kent Rd - New Cross - Deptford - Millwall - Poplar - Bow - Stratford for a Bakerloo Line extension, though a London Bridge extension probably makes more sense.

Another interesting point is the Cannon Street interchange: I seem to remember it being mentioned that provisions were made for a interchange with the Bank Northern line platforms. Would this make the Circle/District's Cannon St redundant? And how useful would the Aldwych interchange really be?

 

[MCR247]

That would not include London Bridge.

I don’t see why not - a particularly thin crayon could always be used if needed

 

[LLivery]

London Bridge Northern Line would be horrendous. Stratford wouldn't have been as successful; the Olympics by public transport would've been hairy, unless something else took it's place.

 

[D7666]

If any form of JLE was approved in the 1970s, I'm willing to bet it would not have had step-free access at all stations and platform-edge doors.

Probably right.

The orginal requirement for PEDs had zero to do with concerns about customer track incidents- even though this is often touted and used as the reason - and is a (IMHO dubious) function.

PEDs came into being when tunnel ventilation systems were mandated for all new tunnel construction, which, possibly, someone may need to check, came after the Kings Cross fire, if not actually a result of it.

For a tunnel ventilation system to work efficiently, a consistent tunnel diameter is needed. Trying to push air though a tube running tunnel, then open out to a much wider platform tunnel, then back to a tube tunnel, etc, is ineffective. Platform edge doors and screen, even though they are not full height, when closed, greatly assist a correct throughput of ventilating air flow distrurbed less in platforms area.

So agreed - 1970s plans Fleet/JLE would almost certainly not have had PEDs - but any plan devised after the new tunnel ventilation mandate would have.

_


IMHO *THE* big mistake with JLE is not where it goes (or does not go) but that it is a built to small deep tube dimensions.

It should have been built to surface line load gauge - to which Stanmore etc was built as. Yes this needs opening out the ex Bakerloo tunnels north of Baker Street, but the rest ought to have been new bored larger load gauge but as deep tube. Doing all that would have offered not only bigger higher capacity trains - much needed today - on the Extension, but potential other service patterns.

The same applies to Heathrow Airport; that too should have been surface lines gauge by extending the District, not tube gauge Piccaddilly.

Costs a lot less getting it right in the first place with proper investment in new construction than twiddling with it all later.

This suggestion is NOT one meaning now, crayoning in rebuilding the present day Jubillee as surface gauge line - it is all about how IMHO the thing should have been constructed in the first place.

Cue bombardment of naysayers.

 

[PTR 444]

Probably right.

The orginal requirement for PEDs had zero to do with concerns about customer track incidents- even though this is often touted and used as the reason - and is a (IMHO dubious) function.

PEDs came into being when tunnel ventilation systems were mandated for all new tunnel construction, which, possibly, someone may need to check, came after the Kings Cross fire, if not actually a result of it.

For a tunnel ventilation system to work efficiently, a consistent tunnel diameter is needed. Trying to push air though a tube running tunnel, then open out to a much wider platform tunnel, then back to a tube tunnel, etc, is ineffective. Platform edge doors and screen, even though they are not full height, when closed, greatly assist a correct throughput of ventilating air flow distrurbed less in platforms area.

So agreed - 1970s plans Fleet/JLE would almost certainly not have had PEDs - but any plan devised after the new tunnel ventilation mandate would have.

_


IMHO *THE* big mistake with JLE is not where it went (or did not go) but that it is a built to small deep tube dimensions.

It should have been built to surface line load gauge - to which Stanmore etc was built as. Yes this needs opening out the ex Bakerloo tunnels north of Baker Street, but the rest ought to have been new bored larger load gauge but as deep tube. Doing all that would have offered not only bigger higher capacity trains - much needed today - on the Extension, but potential other service patterns.

The same applies to Heathrow Airport; that too should have been surface lines gauge by extending the District, not tube gauge Piccaddilly.

Costs a lot less getting it right in the first place with proper investment in new construction than twiddling with it all later.

This suggestion is NOT one meaning now, crayoning in rebuilind the present day Jubilleeas surface gauge line - it is all about how IMHO the thing should have been constructed in the first place.

Cue bombardment of naysayers.

Personally if I had the hindsight to go back to the 1970s, I would have done the following:

1. Build the original Fleet Line as planned to Charing Cross.

2. At a later date, extend the Fleet Line to Tower Hill as proposed, then extend to Stratford and Shenfield (taking over GEML metro services).

3. Incorporate the Waterloo - Canary Wharf tube proposal into Crossrail, providing mainline sized trains for this corridor.

4. Build Crossrail from Heathrow to Abbey Wood via Waterloo, with core section stations at Paddington, Bond Street, Waterloo, London Bridge, Canada Water, Canary Wharf, North Greenwich, Custom House and Woolwich.

 

[NorthKent1989]

If the JLE had been extended from Charing Cross on its planned route to Thamesmead presumably this would have taken place in the early to mid 80s given the Jubilee opened in 1979, let’s say the extension to Fenchurch Street opened in 1983, with the remaining bit to New Cross, the original North Greenwich, Woolwich Arsenal and Thamesmead opening by 1986.

The DLR would either be in a different form, ie a tram from Aldgate to Island Gardens was one suggestion, or not exist at all, the DLR was built largely because the Jubilee Line extension was cancelled by the Thatcher administration in the early 80s, but the need for a rail link to the regenerating Docklands still needed to be met so the DLR was a cheap alternative.

Holborn Viaduct, later City Thameslink, would have been a tube interchange, fun fact the huge doors that are located on the north end of the platforms were to lead to a corridor to a “future proofed” Jubilee line extension.

Fenchurch Street likewise would have been connected to the tube.

The ELL extensions to Crystal Palace and West Croydon may not have happened but an extension from Surrey Quays may have happened.

Interestingly North Greenwich is the one station that lived in both versions of the JLE but with the original plans going to Woolwich and Thamesmead, it may not have become the zenith railhead interchange it would eventually become in the 2000s, Woolwich Arsenal may have filled this role as a railhead for commuters from Plumstead, Shooters Hill & Eltham,

A station at Thamesmead would have been this for Abbey Wood, Erith and Bexleyheath

Southwark and Bermondsey wouldn’t have been part of the tube network

The proposed JLE from the 70s seemed to have benefited outer Southeast London whereas the JLE we got benefitted inner Southeast London.

The EL or Crossrail as it was then called wouldn’t have had the branch onto Abbey Wood.

On the subject of the DLR the Bank to Woolwich Arsenal service is probably the nearest we will get to riding what the “Fleet line” was supposed to have been, Tower Gateway was built not far from St. Katherine’s Dock a proposed stop on the planned JLE.

 

[TrenHotel]

British Gas (then still just about nationalised) was still very much present on the Greenwich Peninsula in 1986, and the MoD was still using the Royal Arsenal then too, so the development incentive to build a railway during the early-mid 80s wasn’t there.

Obviously all that was to change a few years later when Canary Wharf’s developers came up with a plan for their own line from Waterloo to Westcombe Park, and that (with a turn towards Stratford) is where the JLE came from, with development sites all the way.

Since then, we’ve found that nothing in London gets built to serve existing communities, no matter how poor their transport links - it’s all about building for developers.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

If the JLE had been extended from Charing Cross on its planned route to Thamesmead presumably this would have taken place in the early to mid 80s given the Jubilee opened in 1979, let’s say the extension to Fenchurch Street opened in 1983, with the remaining bit to New Cross, the original North Greenwich, Woolwich Arsenal and Thamesmead opening by 1986.

The DLR would either be in a different form, ie a tram from Aldgate to Island Gardens was one suggestion, or not exist at all, the DLR was built largely because the Jubilee Line extension was cancelled by the Thatcher administration in the early 80s, but the need for a rail link to the regenerating Docklands still needed to be met so the DLR was a cheap alternative.

Holborn Viaduct, later City Thameslink, would have been a tube interchange, fun fact the huge doors that are located on the north end of the platforms were to lead to a corridor to a “future proofed” Jubilee line extension.

Fenchurch Street likewise would have been connected to the tube.

The ELL extensions to Crystal Palace and West Croydon may not have happened but an extension from Surrey Quays may have happened.

Interestingly North Greenwich is the one station that lived in both versions of the JLE but with the original plans going to Woolwich and Thamesmead, it may not have become the zenith railhead interchange it would eventually become in the 2000s, Woolwich Arsenal may have filled this role as a railhead for commuters from Plumstead, Shooters Hill & Eltham,

A station at Thamesmead would have been this for Abbey Wood, Erith and Bexleyheath

Southwark and Bermondsey wouldn’t have been part of the tube network

The proposed JLE from the 70s seemed to have benefited outer Southeast London whereas the JLE we got benefitted inner Southeast London.

The EL or Crossrail as it was then called wouldn’t have had the branch onto Abbey Wood.

On the subject of the DLR the Bank to Woolwich Arsenal service is probably the nearest we will get to riding what the “Fleet line” was supposed to have been, Tower Gateway was built not far from St. Katherine’s Dock a proposed stop on the planned JLE.

Is the city thameslink thing true? I’ve tried to research this over the years and the most concrete answer I got was that the future proofing was at Holborn Viaduct station. Plus shouldn’t the LU corridor be at the south side of the station where it runs underneath Fleet Street?

 

[Helvellyn]

Is the city thameslink thing true? I’ve tried to research this over the years and the most concrete answer I got was that the future proofing was at Holborn Viaduct station. Plus shouldn’t the LU corridor be at the south side of the station where it runs underneath Fleet Street?

Given there would have been escalators/stairs down to the tube they may have headed down towards Fleet Street.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Is the city thameslink thing true? I’ve tried to research this over the years and the most concrete answer I got was that the future proofing was at Holborn Viaduct station. Plus shouldn’t the LU corridor be at the south side of the station where it runs underneath Fleet Street?

A friend of the family who worked in the town planning department for Greenwich said this was true, when Holborn Viaduct was closed and City Thameslink was being built they future proofed the interchange

In 1990, it was still expected that the Jubilee line would take this route

 

[dastocks]

Given there would have been escalators/stairs down to the tube they may have headed down towards Fleet Street.

That's certainly what's suggested in the Wikipedia article here:

Jubilee line - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

My understanding has always been that provision was made for interchanges at Ludgate Circus when City Thameslink was built, and also at Cannon Street when the mainline station was redeveloped. It would be interesting to see any references that suggest otherwise.

I think there may also have been provision for a future interchange with St Paul's on the Central line at the Holborn Viaduct end of City Thameslink.

 

[swt_passenger]

Is the city thameslink thing true? I’ve tried to research this over the years and the most concrete answer I got was that the future proofing was at Holborn Viaduct station. Plus shouldn’t the LU corridor be at the south side of the station where it runs underneath Fleet Street?

I’d assume it had to be the south end of City Thameslink. AIUI the doors at the north end of the platforms are an escape route direct to street level. (As many people know, the City Thameslink box is not actually underground compared to the closed off lanes leading towards Farringdon St.)

 

[Helvellyn]

I think there may also have been provision for a future interchange with St Paul's on the Central line at the Holborn Viaduct end of City ThThameslink.

Never heard that one before although the original station name when it opened was St Paul's Thameslink and it was changed supposedly because of confusion with the totally separate St Paul's station on the Central Line at the Underground's request. Although the Underground having two separate Edgware Road stations doesn't seem to be an issue!

Ludgate & Holborn or Ludgate & St Paul's might have been a better station name, especially given the still expected interchange with a Ludgate Circus station on the JLE.

 

[Uncle Buck]

IMHO *THE* big mistake with JLE is not where it goes (or does not go) but that it is a built to small deep tube dimensions.

It should have been built to surface line load gauge - to which Stanmore etc was built as. Yes this needs opening out the ex Bakerloo tunnels north of Baker Street, but the rest ought to have been new bored larger load gauge but as deep tube. Doing all that would have offered not only bigger higher capacity trains - much needed today - on the Extension, but potential other service patterns.

The same applies to Heathrow Airport; that too should have been surface lines gauge by extending the District, not tube gauge Piccaddilly.

Costs a lot less getting it right in the first place with proper investment in new construction than twiddling with it all later.

This suggestion is NOT one meaning now, crayoning in rebuilding the present day Jubillee as surface gauge line - it is all about how IMHO the thing should have been constructed in the first place.

Cue bombardment of naysayers.

I agree, and there is a map kicking around online entitled “What The Tube Map Could Have Been” based on the 1946 London Plan, which proposes “crossrails” rather than tube lines, so as far back as the 1940s people were realising that the tube was not necessarily the way forward.

One issue would be the route taken. Is West End- South Bank-Canary Wharf-Stratford the best route for a crossrail, as opposed to a tube, in terms of linking main lines?

Another issue is your proposal to widen the tunnels of the former Bakerloo Line between Baker Street and Stanmore. A crossrail would presumably take a different route, so that nowadays you would still have two Bakerloo branches north of Baker Street.

4. Build Crossrail from Heathrow to Abbey Wood via Waterloo, with core section stations at Paddington, Bond Street, Waterloo, London Bridge, Canada Water, Canary Wharf, North Greenwich, Custom House and Woolwich.

IMO a slightly superior route to Crossrail as actually built; but (and I’m not sure if this is possible engineering-wise) wouldn’t an intersection with the Piccadilly and Victoria at Green Park (which the Jubilee as built has) be useful in this scenario.