What next for the NLL after 5 car operation?

[mrmartin]

Just looking at some of the stations I use quite regularly on the North London Line and the growth is absolutely crazy.

From pre-LOROL in 2008 operation to 2013, there are some massive gains.

H&I has went from ~4million passengers a year to over 16million, making the growth something similar to the same of the entirety of Liverpool Lime Street - in just 5 years.

Dalston Kingsland has seen growth from 2.5m to 5m - despite Dalston Junction being added to share the load. Hackney central & Homerton have also seen 200% growth.

This is really obvious when you look at the loadings. I was on the train today at 3pm on a Thursday - perhaps worse because the schools were on strike, though there weren't many kids and parents that I could see - but the train was absolutely packed. It usually stays that way until past 8pm.

If this growth continues at any sort of the same pace then the 25% capacity increase that 5 car operation will bring is not even going to touch the sides - that's less than annual % growth of pax at many of the stations, and won't be ready until 2015 at the earliest.

Does TfL have any further plans to increase capacity? Diverting freight via GOBLIN when it is electrified seems plausible - would that free up a significant amount of paths to get it to say, 10tph operation? Would it be horrendously expensive to extend it to 6, 7 or even 8 car operation?

I think something is going to be have to be done. The platforms at H&I are starting to become dangerously overcrowded in the evening peak and the dwell times are becoming unsustainable, meaning it falls behind schedule and extra padding would have to be put in - further reducing capacity.

 

[Class377/5]

According to Roger Ford, the next step after extending all 57x 378 to five car is to buy 8x for GOBLIN and an additional 6x units for NLL, all four car.

 

[mrmartin]

According to Roger Ford, the next step after extending all 57x 378 to five car is to buy 8x for GOBLIN and an additional 6x units for NLL, all four car.

And increase frequencies?

 

[transmanche]

Just looking at some of the stations I use quite regularly on the North London Line and the growth is absolutely crazy.

The NLL is a real success story - and that success has only accelerated since TfL took over. Back in the late 1980s, it had 2-car trains running 3tph. Now it's 4-car (and soon to be 5-car) trains running 8tph. I'm sure it must be possible to run up to 12tph at peak times.

 

[Katada]

The NLL is a real success story - and that success has only accelerated since TfL took over. Back in the late 1980s, it had 2-car trains running 3tph. Now it's 4-car (and soon to be 5-car) trains running 8tph. I'm sure it must be possible to run up to 12tph at peak times.

I'm not entirely sure although I suspect you may be comparing the Gospel Oak to Barking Line with the electrified North London Line, as 2 car 172s replaced 2 car 150s on the GOBLin and 4 car 378s replaced 4 car 508s on the NLL.

 

[jopsuk]

just imagine what could be done if there was a separate freight line...

After all, even if you send freight via GOBLIN it still has to use the same tracks between Willesden and Gospel Oak.

Getting the crayons out, I'd also completely four-track Dalston to Camden Road East junction, running ELL services on the southern pair of tracks onto the Watford DC. That would potentially relieve pressure between Willesden and Dalston.

 

[cle]

It's a tricky one, as it all depends on other projects. Now that HS2-->HS1 is dead, perhaps Camden Road can be rebuilt as a four platform station and increase capacity through there. I guess you would keep the NLL on the northern pair (rebuild Caledonian Rd platforms) - and possibly extend the ELL to Camden, Queens Park and onwards.

For the NLL itself, it seems frequency is maxed out but I'd like at least 8tph off peak and peak - with no Clapham-Willesden terminating.

There's seemingly no appetite to do works at Gunnersbury (third platform?) which might enable more trains to Richmond, which never really benefits. Scandalous the Chiswick Business Park owners got away with a white elephant bus station and barely anything at either Gunnersbury or Bollo Lane/South Acton. The BSI car parks are an eyesore and at least one could go to expand the station.

Also, running at 6-8tph until close (the last trains can be as busy as the peak!) would be a good aim. And later trains, until 00:30 like the tube.

 

[YorkshireBear]

At some point a orbital freight route across North London will be required. Within 20 years I can say with significant confidencr.

 

[joeykins82]

Yeah, my money is on the connection of the Watford DC route to the ELL; they need to send as many services away from Euston as possible for the HS2 rebuild and LO is a prime candidate. The pill of losing Euston services would be sweetened by the service frequency enhancements; I reckon 8tph H&I to Willesden Junction via South Hampstead with 4tph continuing to Watford Junction instead of the current 3tph, and as they're ELL services they'll be 5-car. They could reopen Primrose Hill station for a walkable interchange with the Northern Line at Chalk Farm too. The only tricky prospects are what to do about electrification: if freight is going to continue to run via Primrose Hill to the WCML it'll need to be electrified as AC rather than DC, meaning there'll need to be at least 2 changeover sections. Also Caledonian Road & Barnsbury station might be tricky to turn in to a 4-platform station.

 

[swt_passenger]

According to Roger Ford, the next step after extending all 57x 378 to five car is to buy 8x for GOBLIN and an additional 6x units for NLL, all four car.

A few issues back Roger Ford was explaining (wrongly AFAICT) that the Goblin route only needed four units, and also that some new four car trains would be ordered for the DC lines, to release six trains to other routes as the 5 car capacity was unnecessary on that line.

Presumably this is an indication that he's been corrected in the meantime...

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yeah, my money is on the connection of the Watford DC route to the ELL;

I disagree. This is no longer in any of TfL's published plans, the track layout along the NLL is designed around passenger services running in the middle with outer freight loops, and there'd be too many crossing moves on and off the ELL to fit into the existing timetable. These are similar reasons to why the ELL will never run to Finsbury Park, another oft repeated 'great idea'.

There are no published plans that I can find to seriously reduce the number of freight paths along the NLL either, and unless TfL stumps up the cash for a London freight bypass route there's little or no likelihood of it going anywhere else.

 

[Buttsy]

Once E-W is open fully to the GE mainline and Felixstowe - Nuneaton fully electrified as well, then there may be fewer freights along the NLL. At present I understand that a number of Felixstowe - NoE/Midlands freights are routed this way.

E-W would therefore effectively also become an orbital freight route around London as well as a very useful passenger link.

PS: I'm prepared to be shot down over my thinking.

 

[eastwestdivide]

I'm not entirely sure although I suspect you may be comparing the Gospel Oak to Barking Line with the electrified North London Line, as 2 car 172s replaced 2 car 150s on the GOBLin and 4 car 378s replaced 4 car 508s on the NLL.

transmanche who you quoted was probably referring to these - 2-EPB units of class 416 in the late 80s

 

[swt_passenger]

Once E-W is open fully to the GE mainline and Felixstowe - Nuneaton fully electrified as well, then there may be fewer freights along the NLL. At present I understand that a number of Felixstowe - NoE/Midlands freights are routed this way.

EWR being fully open is well into the dim and distant future - it is nothing more than a back of a fag packet design at the moment. Suggest you're looking at well into the 2020s...

Freight - as repeatedly discussed, diversion of the freight from Felixstowe that currently goes through London is already planned to be replaced by the forecast additional trains from London Gateway, for which there is no suitable 'bypass' route.

 

[cle]

SWT - don't you think something will be done with the DC line?
I agree on your points re: ELL pollution, but maybe we could see some swaps in service - e.g. the DC becoming a NLL branch instead, running Watford to Stratford?
And more trains from Richmond/Stratford onto GOBLIN to balance it out? Kentish Town West being a loser here.

That would leave the ELL alone (although I think at least ELL to Camden Road should be aspired to).

 

[transmanche]

I'm not entirely sure although I suspect you may be comparing the Gospel Oak to Barking Line with the electrified North London Line, as 2 car 172s replaced 2 car 150s on the GOBLin and 4 car 378s replaced 4 car 508s on the NLL.

No.

2-EPB 416s replaced the 3-car 501s when Broad Street closed and the NLL was diverted to North Woolwich. These were replaced by 3-car 313s and eventually 3-car 378s - which were expanded to 4-car 378s and will soon be 5-car 378s.

508s are 3-car and to my knowledge have never worked the NLL (although some did work the Euston-Watford DC lines).

 

[RichmondCommu]

At some point a orbital freight route across North London will be required. Within 20 years I can say with significant confidencr.

Wire up the route from Ipswich to Nuneaton via Peterborough and the problem is solved. Much cheaper than building a new line across North London!

 

[jopsuk]

Wire up the route from Ipswich to Nuneaton via Peterborough and the problem is solved. Much cheaper than building a new line across North London!

No it isn't. That route can handle all the Felixstowe traffic (and they'll diesel haul it- many more paths being created thanks to re-signalling), but currently it is envisaged that the paths freed by that will be used by London Gateway freight traffic (there's no chord to allow London Gateway traffic to head north on the GEML)

 

[swt_passenger]

No it isn't. That route can handle all the Felixstowe traffic (and they'll diesel haul it- many more paths being created thanks to re-signalling), but currently it is envisaged that the paths freed by that will be used by London Gateway freight traffic (there's no chord to allow London Gateway traffic to head north on the GEML)

Concur. How come when this regularly comes up so many people just don't seem to get this fundamental issue about freight routeing from London Gateway replaces stuff from Felixstowe, and all the forecasts I've seen suggest it will be at similar or greater frequencies.

Without looking it all up again I think it is fairly all covered in the London and SE RUS?

 

[RichmondCommu]

No it isn't. That route can handle all the Felixstowe traffic (and they'll diesel haul it- many more paths being created thanks to re-signalling),

I'm sorry but I can't agree with you on this. I think the route will electrified for the same reasons given to justify the Electric Spine.

but currently it is envisaged that the paths freed by that will be used by London Gateway freight traffic (there's no chord to allow London Gateway traffic to head north on the GEML)

In all fairness it would be madness to run anything from London Gateway up the GEML as it would take much longer than running round the NLL. However, I'm not convinced that London Gateway will generate that much rail freight as most of those containers will have the SE as their final destination. In which case most of it will go by road!

 

[Buttsy]

Concur. How come when this regularly comes up so many people just don't seem to get this fundamental issue about freight routeing from London Gateway replaces stuff from Felixstowe, and all the forecasts I've seen suggest it will be at similar or greater frequencies.

Without looking it all up again I think it is fairly all covered in the London and SE RUS?

Does London Gateway already have the contracts signed up for all the frieght that is forecast to be moved by rail? If not, I can see it being underused initially from a rail viewpoint.

There is also a route from the terminal to Ely that doesn't involve a reversal, though it is a tad convoluted.

 

[87015]

Concur. How come when this regularly comes up so many people just don't seem to get this fundamental issue about freight routeing from London Gateway replaces stuff from Felixstowe, and all the forecasts I've seen suggest it will be at similar or greater frequencies.

Without looking it all up again I think it is fairly all covered in the London and SE RUS?

Not just Gateway. All the (open) North Thameside terminals seem to have increasing traffic levels, not to mention that Bow Depot is open again and also busy. That traffic is more of a path killer than comparatively lightweight liners and much more likely to remain diesel hauled.

 

[jopsuk]

I'm sorry but I can't agree with you on this. I think the route will electrified for the same reasons given to justify the Electric Spine.

Oh, it may well get electrified (I hope it does) but electrification is not required for the capacity, the current signalling (and new chord at Ipswich) projects along the route are required for the capacity.

There is also a route from the terminal to Ely that doesn't involve a reversal, though it is a tad convoluted.

If by this you mean to send it up the Lea Valley, that's a non-starter!. Too constrained by capacity as it is

 

[Buttsy]

If by this you mean to send it up the Lea Valley, that's a non-starter!. Too constrained by capacity as it is

Though that was up for tripling and then quadrupling at some point...

 

[Tobbes]

Routing the London Gateway / Thameside - Midlands / North container trains away from London seems very sensible, but getting to GEML is problematic. With my crayonista hat on, I've wondered whether it would make sense to construct a line from Pitsea - Wickford and then a E-N chord onto the GEML south of Ingatestone? This would allow the liner trains to avoid London and to avoid impacting on Crossrail, too, though it wouldn't add much in terms of regional connectivity.

For a more useful regional option that opened up new journey opportunities, rebuilding the line from Wickford via Maldon to Witham (is it feasible?) would also avoid Chelmsford, as well.

Either way, an electrified E-W line from Cambridge would be a useful strategic freight route, too.

 

[deltic]

In terms of what can be done for NLL the clear answer to cope with demand is increase fares! £1.50 (on Oyster) for an hour long train journey from Stratford to Richmond must surely be about the cheapest rail journey in the country.

The additional revenues generated from going from 4 to 5 car operation does not actually cover the cost of the leasing charges for the 5th additional carriage which is bizarre.

The service is fantastic and a great improvement on what went before but we need to be realistic in pricing it.

 

[RichmondCommu]

In terms of what can be done for NLL the clear answer to cope with demand is increase fares! £1.50 (on Oyster) for an hour long train journey from Stratford to Richmond must surely be about the cheapest rail journey in the country.

The additional revenues generated from going from 4 to 5 car operation does not actually cover the cost of the leasing charges for the 5th additional carriage which is bizarre.

The service is fantastic and a great improvement on what went before but we need to be realistic in pricing it.

Whilst I concur with what you've said you have to remember that in areas such as Hackney and Newham people don't have a lot of money! Cheap train travel opens up employment opportunities and the chance to get out of their pit on a sunny day. £3.00 to go and spend the afternoon on Hampstead Heath / Richmond Park; yes please!

 

[transmanche]

In terms of what can be done for NLL the clear answer to cope with demand is increase fares! £1.50 (on Oyster) for an hour long train journey from Stratford to Richmond must surely be about the cheapest rail journey in the country.

I seriously doubt that many non-enthusiasts make that journey - certainly not on a regular basis. Making that journey via Waterloo will always be quicker.

NLL traffic is mainly short distance - hence why the 378s have transverse seats.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I seriously doubt that many non-enthusiasts make that journey - certainly not on a regular basis. Making that journey via Waterloo will always be quicker.

NLL traffic is mainly short distance - hence why the 378s have transverse seats.

I concur but the point still stands that travel on the NLL is very cheap!

 

[cle]

Pricing people off the NLL makes sense in a purely economics sense, but is awful from a social one.

 

[transmanche]

I concur but the point still stands that travel on the NLL is very cheap!

However that is a deliberate decision by TfL and/or the Mayor and not specific to the NLL. £1.50 is the off-peak charge for any TfL-priced rail journey in Z2-6.

You could travel from Epping to Richmond (Central line to Stratford and LO to Richmond) if you wanted to - all for £1.50. Heck, you could even do Epping to West Ruislip (avoiding Z1 by using LO between Stratford and Shepherds Bush) for just £1.50.