In 2005 TfL’s plans to rebuild Camden Town station were wholeheartedly rejected by both the council and the community they were intended to serve. Ten years later, with a station rebuild now critical, a chastened TfL have returned to the table. We look at how the lessons of the past translate into plans for the future.
Failure to launch
“Whilst the station below ground would provide an important public benefit…” Wrote Planning Inspector K.D. Barton in December 2004, “it would not justify the proposed above ground development… [The Camden Town station] proposal would have an overwhelming impact on the surrounding area by virtue of its significantly greater height, the mundane use of modern materials, and completely ignoring the fine grain of the surrounding townscape and creating a more enclosed feel in the surrounding streets. It would be completely at odds with the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and detrimental to the Camden Town Conservation Area, contrary to national and development plan policy objectives.”
“I consider that these detrimental impacts would far outweigh any benefits of the above ground scheme and the proposals overall.”
Barton’s words, taken from his final report, were pretty damning. No one doubted that the station needed rebuilding – not Camden Council, not any of the local community groups that had vocally opposed TfL’s redevelopment plans. Camden Town was – and remains – a major London tourist attraction in its own right. The station is also a key interchange point on the Northern line, the first place where the two arms of that line briefly meet before parting again to take passengers via either Charing Cross or Bank. As early as the nineties it had become clear that major work there was needed if closure of the station during busy periods was to be avoided.
What people objected to was the way that TfL wanted to demolish and rebuild a small but, to the local community important, area of Camden Town centre. Seemingly without much thought for the character of the area or the people who lived, worked and socialised there.
It was this objection – and the validity of it – that Barton’s comprehensive report to the Secretary of State made overwhelmingly clear. And it was this that would ultimately lead to the scheme being rejected in its entirety in June 2005.
“While the station below ground would provide an important public benefit sufficient to justify the demolition of all buildings on the site,” then-Secretary of State John Prescott would say in his final judgement, echoing Barton’s words, “it would not justify the proposed above ground development.”
“The scheme would neither enhance nor preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.”
Planning permission was refused.
A transport bull in Camden’s china shop
Disputes over planning matters between TfL, London’s transport authority, and the local councils and community groups in the city are not entirely uncommon. Carrying the responsibility to take a wider view of London’s transport needs, it is inevitable that TfL will occasionally find themselves trying to argue that the needs of the many on a particular project should outweigh the local needs of the few. Our recent look at the trials and tribulations of the Cycle Superhighway Scheme (both online and in our magazine) provide good examples of where such conflict has occurred. It is rare, however, that relations become as fractious as they did over Camden Town.
It is not our intention to go into detail here as to what happened in the run up to the 2005 decision. To a certain extent we covered the topic ourselves in 2013 in our article We need to talk about Camden. A more thorough look at the major problems with TfL’s proposals, however, was put together by regular LR commentor Ian Sargeant on his own blog and is well worth a read (if Barton’s full 242 page report isn’t to your fancy).
Broadly speaking though TfL’s overall objectives were to:
- Improve access and interchange at Camden Town station
- Commercialise the expanded footprint of the above ground station in order to offset the costs of the project
It was the second objective that would prove to be so contentious. Not least because the expanded station footprint proposed meant wide-scale, and sometimes permanent, demolition within an area that had been flagged as a Conservation Area at the turn of the decade. This triangle included a number of key cultural or architectural Camden landmarks – a major reason for its special designation – and its protection had been supported by TfL at the time.
Indeed simply listing some of the landmarks which would have either have been demolished or adversely affected highlights precisely why the scheme went down like a lead balloon in the local area: Electric Ballroom, Trinity United Reform Church, Buck Street Market, the corner HSBC bank and, somewhat incredibly, the iconic, Leslie Green-designed, Camden Town station building itself.
The Electric Ballroom. Photo by Charles Yarnold.
Trinity United Reform Church
Camden Town station, by Rept0n1x
Resistance to the plans would likely have been lessened had the intention been to build a building that would have added in some way to the area. As Barton pointed out, however, this was hardly the case. What TfL proposed was essentially a cookie-cutter office block with a station beneath. Unfortunately few images of the original proposal remain in circulation, but the few that do hardly scream “Camden.”
The original architect’s impression, with apologies for size
Image extracted from 3D architect mockup
A physical model produced at the time
As can be seen, the plan was for a large (five storeys above the station itself) development that would take over a large chunk of the Conservation Area. Small though they are, the images hardly seem to contradict Barton’s conclusion that the design was somewhat tone-deaf for the area. It would also have hugely overshadowed Hawley Infants School behind and that, plus the impact that several years worth of noise and disruption would have had on the children there, were further reasons why the scheme was rejected.
By the time that rejection came, it was safe to say that relations between TfL and Camden Council were far from amicable. In a way, the entire process ended up being more similar to the kind of planning wars that increasingly happen over aggressive redevelopment of London’s pubs than over an important improvement to the transport network, albeit with a bit more civility. Business cases and expert witness testimony were changed at the last minute by TfL in an effort to make the scheme look better whilst on the other side of the fence temporary preservation orders were sought on various of the buildings affected in order to block the scheme.
Reading through the copious documentation produced at the time it is hard to escape the feeling that to a certain extent TfL were their own worst enemy. Their goal of overhauling the station was a valid one, but they were so focused on achieving it (and the associated oversite development) that they ultimately forgot that there was a local community there with valid concerns of their own.
Lessons learned
TfL emerged from the planning process chastened rather than enraged, and many of their own (and later Crossrail’s) planning submissions since shown that the lessons of Camden Town were hard-learned. Antagonising the planning hand that feeds was simply not worth the risk. At Camden Town, it effectively halted any plans TfL might have had for permanently re-segregating traffic on the two branches of the Northern line. It also forced them to completely drop a building project that they’d confidently put forward as a key part of their five-year Business Plan.
In many ways nothing sums up just how much the organisation has moved on post-Camden as the fact that relations between TfL and Camden Council have long since thawed. Indeed as we wrote back in 2013, this meant that genuine discussion of how Camden Town station might be rebuilt has now been underway for some time. The outcome of these discussions is a a new consultation from TfL on rebuilding the station.
More people. More places
That consultation is necessary because rebuilding Camden Town station is now more important than ever. For although TfL don’t mention it in the consultation itself, the permanent separation of the two branches of the Northern line is now all but inevitable. Passenger numbers across the network continue to increase and, as Jonathan Roberts covered in our article on Peak Tube, this means a need for more trains-per-hour. The signalling to support that is now in place on the Northern line and soon the last remaining barrier to increased frequencies will be the need for a simplified service pattern – something that can only happen by segregating the branches once again.
Overcrowding at Camden
Even if passenger numbers weren’t still climbing, the extension of the Northern line to Battersea effectively sealed the deal.
The full details as to why this is the case are a topic for another day. In short though, nothing ever happens on a contained railway (such as a Tube line) without ripples spreading elsewhere. For Battersea this means changes to the service pattern in order to serve the new stations in the most effective manner. It is also going to be far easier for Charing Cross branch trains to serve the extension than it is for Bank trains. Running more trains in future means getting maximum efficiency out of the service pattern and thus it almost certainly follows that (perhaps to the shock of any bankers who buy shiny new flats at Nine Elms) full segregation will occur.
Current passenger numbers at Camden Town. They continue to grow, but interchange numbers have essentially stayed steady… until now.
That segregation will instantly bring with it an enormous demand for interchange at the top end of the Northern line. Right now, passengers wishing to get from High Barnet to Charing Cross generally just wait for an appropriate train – the possibility of getting a seat and not having to change trains mid-journey outweighing the benefits of boarding the first train and changing. This keeps the number of actual interchanges at places where the two branches touch relatively low. In the future, however, passengers will only be able to do the latter and interchanges will inevitably soar.
This is a huge problem at Camden Town. The station is the first place at which the two branches meet when travelling north to south, and it’s the most natural interchange point on the line. Over a hundred years old, it is also a station that is spectacularly badly setup for such an action to take place. Nor is trying to discourage or prevent interchange at Camden Town really an option. This would just increase pressure on Euston which that station would be hard-pressed to absorb. TfL thus need to solve the Camden Town problem before full segregation can take place.
Camden Town station, current layout. Please note that this diagram is orientated south to north
The new proposals
It is fair to say that TfL’s new proposals are considerably more modest (indeed one might even say more humble) than those put forward before. You can read the full consultation details here but, in a nutshell, the goal is clearly to shift entries and exits away from the existing entrance to a new one elsewhere, whilst facilitating interchange by simplifying and expanding the connections between platforms.
The new layout, looking north to south.
The image above shows the new arrangement being proposed below ground. Three new (bi-directional) escalators lie at its core, along with step free access and larger sub-surface circulating areas. Whilst TfL describe the new setup as “adding a second entrance” it is clear this actually means shifting the entire centre of gravity of the station northwards. Like the (relatively) new Northern line ticket hall at Kings Cross, the goal is clearly a wholesale shift in how people navigate through – and out of – the station, rather than simply expanding capacity within the existing route-finding.
The new layout viewed from above
As the consultation states (and the images show) one of the clear aims of the new proposal is to avoid wholesale disruption (read: station or line closure). That said, with long-term Northern line closures planned for work at Bank, it would not be surprising to see some attempt to “double up” work should the opportunity present.
The internal designs are hardly inspiring at this stage. Clearly space is a greater priority than flair.
Nor is extensive reworking of the existing platforms clearly intended. This may come as a surprise to those who had envisioned a grander scheme involving a more drastic overhaul of the platform spaces, but it is not entirely unexpected. For a number of reasons Camden Town is a particularly constrained site. A truly impressive junction to the south limits scope for work there.
One hell of a crossover, as illustrated in Eagle.
This isn’t the only piece of interesting sub-surface architecture lurking beneath the station. There is also an oft-forgotten legacy of London’s wartime past – one of the eight deep level air-raid shelters built to protect civilians during the Second World War.
Built by London Transport on behalf of the government, these shelters were constructed beneath a number of Northern and Central line stations ostensibly so that, post-war, they could form part of a new high-speed Tube line either running under or as part of the lines they were in proximity to. In fact, even during construction, it was largely recognised that this was highly unlikely to ever happen. Nonetheless all eight remain today, lurking silently beneath London’s streets.
Indeed the presence of one at Camden Town has, perhaps naturally, prompted some to ask whether the need to expand the station might finally represent the opportunity to bring it into use. Sadly this is one of those ideas that is far better on paper than in reality. It is true that the scale of these shelters was vast. They are not, however, quite vast enough to be useful as platform tunnels (or transfer spaces) in their own right. Purely out of dedication to you our dear readers, however, we took a trip down the shelter at Clapham South (Camden Town shelter itself currently being entirely off limits) to give you an idea of the kind of space available inside them. A couple of photos from that visit are included below. A dedicated article on Clapham South will follow at a later date.
Connecting central passage at Clapham South
One of the 16ft diameter “running tunnels.”
In fact, if anything the shelter is a barrier to development rather than a blessing. “Deep” at Camden, it turns out, is not as deep as one might think. The shelter there is only 18m below the surface – just deep enough to clear the running tunnels. Thus any extensive redevelopment of the station would actually have to go deeper still and start below the shelter, adding cost and complexity to the project. Indeed if they have a use in the current project then it is likely the same as similar tunnels at Old Street – as potential storage space for equipment and material.
The big difference
The real difference between the current and previous proposals is above ground rather than below. The map below sets out the footprint of the new surface buildings and, as is immediately obvious, TfL have clearly decided to avoid touching the problematic Conservation Area as much as possible. It is this that shifts the station’s centre of gravity northwards, in the process avoiding almost all of the valid objections raised before. It also means that the existing station building can remain – although as indicated above, we suspect that TfL are underplaying slightly how much they intend to shift foot traffic away from it to the north.
That this can happen is down to a rather handy piece of real estate business entirely outside of TfL’s control. Hawley Street Infant School is relocating to a better site at nearby Hawley Wharf, cleared as a result of a devastating fire in the area back in 2008.
This has instantly made a whole section of land just to the north of the Conservation Area available for development and it is primarily here – albeit with some need for compulsory purchasing to the west – that TfL are proposing to site their new station.
A (most certainly deliberately) light and breezy mockup of the new entrance.
Keeping the elephant out of the room… for now
All in all, it is far harder to see the new scheme garnering the same level of objection as the first. Indeed it seems highly likely that Camden Council will have been heavily consulted before it even made it to consultation stage.
This is not to say that there aren’t potential hiccups there. The consultation, at least at this stage, neatly avoids any real discussion of over-site development on the new station itself, pointing out that planning for permission for the surface building will be sought separately. No doubt this is deliberate and another lesson learnt – as much as possible get the station build underway first, and tackle the thornier issue of property development separately. Any failure there thus doesn’t jeopardise the required station work itself.
Nor will the availability of the Hawley Street school site mean that the project can be disruption free. All the regular issues of noise, work-sites and spoil removal will need to be addressed and at least a few compulsory purchases required. Indeed it is not out of the question that TfL might still require a slice of the Conservation Area – albeit temporarily – if they cannot fit all of the required works within the station space itself. If that happens then the most likely location seems to be Buck Street Market, whose stall holders may find themselves either temporarily relocated or (in the worst case) simply removed should the council agree to a work site there.
TfL’s proposed timeline.
For now though, all these discussions lie in the future. What matters now, for TfL at least, is that a rebuild of Camden Town – any rebuild at all – is now finally on the table again. They, and indeed London’s current and future travellers, will be hoping that the process of documents to digging is less traumatic this time round.
Not a bad idea at first sight. Hopefully they make the existing station building entrance-only. It keeps the iconic building visible as a Tube station but without the massive overcrowding.
Doing it the other way round, making it exit-only, wouldn’t make any sense. People below ground don’t see the iconic building anyway and it would create confusion above ground (it looks like a Tube station but where is the entrance?). Besides, the busy part of Camden town seems to be shifting/expanding northwards making Buck Street a much more attractive and logical place for the bulk of the traffic.
“Even is passenger numbers weren’t still climbing”
[Fixed, thanks.]
One doesn’t like to correct such an esteemed publication, but aren’t the legends for the “Moorgate” and “Charing Cross” tunnels the wrong way round in the Eagle diagram?
Dan Dare says “talk to the hand.”
I went through the consultation questionnaire yesterday. It was surprising how short it was – one suspects TfL just wanted a thumbs up/thumbs down tally. And there is no mention of line separation and its benefits.
And there is no mention of line separation and its benefits.
Mainly, I suspect, because that falls into the “done deal” category. Not doing it isn’t really an option anymore, so why suggest there’s a debate?
“It is also going to be far easier for Charing Cross branch trains to serve the extension than it is for Bank trains.”
An understatement – the layout at Kennington will make it impossible for trains to run from the City branch to Kennington.
I think for safety reasons it will have to be necessary to allow exit from both entrances.
@”Sad Fat Dad”
yes they are – it has often been remarked upon but after 90 years it is probably now too late for the Eagle to issue a correction.
I really don’t see the new plans as being anywhere near effective enough. Only three more escalators isn’t going to make a great deal of difference today, let alone in ten years’ time. Similarly, the new cross-passages are longer than the existing ones, meaning that regular passengers will use the current shorter routes when interchanging; the new passengers will only get used for entry/exit at the new northern access.
And then there is the fact that there is no improvement for access from the main part of Camden! The new bit is fine if you are heading to the markets at a weekend but useless if you are going to the bank, post office, phone shop (we have way too many!) or supermarket. So again people will try to continue using the existing pitiful access.
Now if they’d proposed re-tasking the eastern shelter as an additional access route – with street access to the south on what is currently a very wide road but which Camden Council plan to make pedestrian-only then there might be some improvement there too. (Actually, use the northern end of that tunnel and you’d have direct access to one of the markets too!)
Overall, this is a way-overdue project which is needed more urgently that the proposed timescale permits. A T&WAO next year would be an improvement.
Seems like a sensible approach (finally!). I just hope that the final station will look a bit less bland – at least not as bland as the new TCR station…
Sad Fad Dad,
Yes, I think they are and this is a mistake often made as people don’t realise the lines cross again at Euston. Others have pointed out other errors in the Eagle diagram in the past.
I think it was a bit like those Network Rail diagrams a few years ago (there was a particularly notorious one of tracks through London Bridge) that had a bit of artistic licence added to illustrate the point but in doing so took away the accurate representation. In this case it was probably good enough for the target audience.
IAmHedgehog,
I suspect not quite a done deal but definitely a very serious aspiration. I suspect it is more that they don’t want the issue linked to the rebuilding of Camden Town. To be fair to TfL, Camden Town station needs rebuilding anyway so one could argue splitting the Northern line shouldn’t be introduced as a factor in the consultation. I suspect they are wary of mentioning that the split cannot be done without this rebuild as that could be taken the wrong way.
@Alison: the existing short passages cannot possibly cope with the volume of interchanging passengers after line separation (they barely cope now), so most of the passengers will have to use the expanded ones. We all prefer the shortest walk, but in plenty of stations in rush hour it is quicker to go a longer way round.
What I like about the new plan is the overall simplicity of the concept. The existing entrance/exit is too small and at the wrong end of the platforms (for the markets, at least). So solve both those problems (and the hidden one of line-separation) with a new entrance, in just the right place. Keep it simple.
(Oh, and I like the article describing it, too).
Perhaps the plan is to just get the new infrastructure in, then come back at a later date and see what can be done about the southern (existing) entrances to improve matters. Much easier to take them out of commission for enhancement works when you have a new high-capacity set at the other end of the station that mean the station can stay open during the works.
…and on the tangent of the deep-level shelters, I believe that the reason the tunnels are too narrow to be useful as platform tunnels is because they were intended in any new scheme to be running tunnels, a notable situation as a) they are wider at ~16′ than the existing tube tunnel’s ~12′ diameter, suggesting they were intended for larger trains (indeed, they are comparable to our other friend, the GN&C), and b) as ~16′ is noticeably narrower than the ~21′ platform tunnels, Camden Town would have been bypassed, which seems a tad strange given the interchange you would expect to have occurred. Even the modern JLE’s running tunnels were only built to ~14′.
Great to see a scheme coming forward, but with the new passages at the far north, it does seem that it will create long (and conflicting) walks for people changing trains. With 30+ tph they won’t clear the platforms before the next arrives.
The 2005 scheme’s wide concourse on both north and southbound levels was a great idea, more cross passages would seem to be needed, between the existing one and the southern tunnels, is that possible?
Very interesting article. One related point is that to a some extent the congestion in the current station entrance will solve itself with the splitting of the lines. This is because currently when you reach the bottom of the escalators if you wish to go Southbound, then you clearly have a desire to travel on one of the two branches… but to do so you can either turn left or right, as the signage indicates.
A result of this is that there are normally groups of lost visitors / tourists, staring in incomprehension at the signs and blocking the route. In their confusion they often stop fellow travellers to ask e.g. “which way for Leicester Square?” and when you give the correct answer: “either”. They stare further, and get more confused and usually then ask someone else! (It’s actually easier to just lie, and say “this way” choosing one direction at random. To which they are usually very grateful, especially if you are the fifth person they have asked!)
From looking at the plans, I don’t think the walks will be conflicting, there are, I think, separate straight passageways (straight in plan view) for the northbound and southbound interchanges. There will be changes of level, which look like slopes (in the funnel-shaped bits in the perspective drawing). This will suit the step-free requirement, but is slightly less than ideal for the interchange, though it will only be about six feet down and up again.
At least the interchange passages are biased in favour of south-south and north-north changes, in contrast to the existing ones (at the south end) which were mainly intended for the New Vaudeville Band.
There appears to be room for a pair of additional straight and level interchange passages nearer to the south end, passing just underneath the existing escalators. Possible reasons for not including these would be (a) underground obstacles, pipes, sewers, escalator equipment and so on, (b) cost, and (c) passenger confusion in being swept by the crowds into a passage which leads you only onto another platform which you might not want.
There would be no point in adding any more escalators than the proposed three. Yes, at market chucking out time the crowds might require any number of escalators, but they need not, and must not, exceed the capacity of the trains to take people away.
I’m quite excited now about the whole thing.
Many pressures to boost line frequencies to limit, including HS2 to Euston, so this is probably the simplest scheme in short term. Refit of existing station may then follow. Cross-passage tunnels at south end may threaten movement in existing escalator shaft. Better left until alternative entrance is open.
The new ticket hall at Kings Cross is not just a ‘Northern Line’ ticket hall is it?
It’s geographically northern as opposed to western – perhaps the ‘tube ticket hall’ should have been renamed eastern at the same time…
It’s a shame that whilst digging tunnels, one isn’t dug to Camden Road to improve the interchange, it’s also worth remembering that the Camden one way system means that most passengers changing to/from buses will still use the existing entrance.
@IAmAHedghog: There is a subtle allusion to line separation in the consultation pdf’s reference to “Enabl[ing] future capacity benefits on the Northern line”.
@mr_jrt: Surely the main reason for the deep level tunnel dimensions being what they are is that they were built as air raid shelters, and a 16′ wide shelter is more useful than a 12′ shelter (for example you could fit two 6.5′ bunks crossways with a gangway between), but not as labour-intensive as a 21′ shelter. In other words, any future transport use was a vague afterthought and probably not really thought through very carefully.
Anonymous: a tunnel to Camden Road would be almost as long as the Exhibition Road tunnel from South Kensington to the Science Museum. That would be a huge undertaking.
Anonymous 15 October 2015 at 06:47
“It’s a shame that whilst digging tunnels, one isn’t dug to Camden Road to improve the interchange”
Wouldn’t that cost nearly as much as the project now proposed,
for how much benefit?
Here’s a short article I did about the “war shelters line”: http://tubedreams.london/morrisons-half-built-deep-level-express-line/
Other than the usual complaint of “why does everything take so ruddy long”, it seems sensible. Something grander should’ve been brought, and the whole Camden heritage issue seems to stink of NIMBYism (I say that as someone who is entirely neutral about the markets, and the Electric Ballroom, and definitely can’t get excited about a bank building).
One real issue is that I think three escalators isn’t enough. We’ve seen at London Bridge how three escalator shafts just lack capacity, especially when two are being run in the up direction. Build a four-bore shaft and be done with it.
I have been waiting for this article ever since I saw the consultation online! Great read as usual. 🙂
I was thinking that maybe the southern interchange tunnels could be enlarged. That would help to segregate interchanging and exiting passengers. But yes perhaps that could wait a little while while till the new exit has been completed.
I think we shouldn’t see it as just 3 new escalators but in the end there will be a grand total of 5 escalators in Camden Town. Surely that would be adequate to deal with the crowds?
There is some mention of the Euston interchange above (not seriously suggested though), although in reality interchange there isn’t really useful as the bank branches are side by side with the Victoria Line.
However the Northern line tunnels do all go under Mornington Crescent, an interchange there would be nice (for SB changes) leaving the NB changes at Camden. Unfortunately that would add to the number of stops (which is a no-no) and I imagine the layout of tunnels at Mornington Crescent probably isn’t the most helpful.
In terms of the underground scheme it’s a real shame the previous scheme wasn’t built. The new scheme really doesn’t compare in scale of underground connectivity but we are in a different financial environment now!
Actually this is third time lucky. LUL developed a proposal in 1993 or 1994 since I was involved in that project.
From memory it was similar (if not the same as) the 2005 proposal.
United Reformed Church please! (It even says it in the photo!)
In the short term, is there any mileage in doing a ‘Covent Garden’ and encouraging market tourists to use nearby Chalk Farm as well? For the section north of the canal it’s as convenient to walk from Chalk Farm as Camden Town.
The deep level shelters might not be useful themselves but they do have two unused shafts to the surface. Couldn’t these be developed as additional entrances to the station ?
As for serving Battersea from the City branch being “more difficult”, I understand the proposed junction layout at Kennington actually makes it impossible.
A tunnel to Camden Road doesn’t seem to be advantageous, except when it’s raining !
The deep level shelters might not be useful themselves but they do have two unused shafts to the surface. Couldn’t these be developed as additional entrances to the station
If they’re anything like the Clapham South ones in terms of width and layout then not really.
I think it’s really easy to underestimate the difficulty of reusing old spaces. Unless, by pure chance, they happen to be in great condition, the right size and the right place it’s almost always easier just to start again.
That’s because the cost of widening spaces is not a lot cheaper than digging them to begin with, and because modern requirements for access – whether lifts or escalators – rarely fit nicely into existing spaces. It’s always harder to bring old stuff back into use when it’s about moving people rather than machines as well.
That’s not to say it’s impossible. The Connaught Tunnel on Crossrail is a good example of where it was (relatively) easy and good value to reuse old tunnels, but even there they had issues.
The north shaft is to be used for an immediate start on low-level tunnels whilst the station box is sunk, according to info for Camden Council in 2013, although that is no longer obvious in the limited plans provided for consultation.
I’ve wondered occasionally about interchanging between Northern Line branches whether it might be possible to put in platforms at Mornington Crescent on the
Charing CrossBank branch (under Eversholt Street). The tracks are about the same distance apart as they are at Camden Town.If it could be done, then passengers could be encouraged to change at Mornington Crescent northbound and Camden Town southbound and distributing the interchange traffic should ease congestion in both stations (especially as the interchange passages could then be designed to have more capacity in the recommended direction).
However, AIUI, converting a running tunnel to a platform tunnel requires an extended closure of the line, and there’s no way TfL would want to do that!
Duh, got my branches mixed up because they’re the wrong way around at that point… Bank branch, obviously.
Interesting article.
@ Alex F – like you I am beginning to tire of the “round beams over escalator shaft” design of every new tube station / ticket hall. I suspect we will be lumbered with the dull “LU design idiom” palette of interior finishes too. I assume we are now in an era where some design individuality or flourish is not permitted.
It is noteworthy that the quoted pass number total / trend refers to weekdays given that Camden Town was a rare exception to the rule because its weekend traffic was much higher than weekdays. When looking at the number of ticket gates needed we had to make sure we evaluated every day of the week and right across those days to make sure the worst case was evaluated. I wonder if travel patterns have shifted to make weekdays the busiest days?
The proposed design looks like it will have some real challenges if it is to provide step free access and interchange. The height differences between platform levels are not a matter of half a metre or so, they’re pretty substantial so how they’re going to ramp the connecting corridors plus coming down from the bottom of the new escalators to reach the existing “landing” level will be interesting. I note also the clever multiple low level tunnels and adits to presumably try to separate exit and interchange flows as much as possible.
What a fortuitous coincidence with the school moving site! It sounds like a real opportunity to actually get something built that won’t cause huge protests.
I accept @AlisonW’s comments that access from the current entrance won’t improve. All I can say as someone who visits Camden rather than lives there is that the new entrance is better sited for almost everything I would want to visit. If you can get the hordes visiting the markets to use the North entrance then the locals get the current entrance pretty much for themselves.
And yes, having to wait 4 years minimum for works to start is going to be very frustrating!
@Deep Thought
“All I can say as someone who visits Camden rather than lives there is that the new entrance is better sited for almost everything I would want to visit. ”
Don’t forget that the station is also the closest to the Zoo, and the new entrance will make the walk longer – albeit more pleasant, as you can use the canal towpath instead of the Parkway (whose name belies the rather noisome reality)
@timbeau – Ah yes, I forgot the zoo. Although personally Camden Road and the 274 is a better bet for that.
This new scheme sounds very sensible, just get on and build it 🙂
The weekend crush is towards the markets, so this northern entrance is perfectly located, while for the High Street itself, the load is spread far more evenly across the day and week.
Besides, many people use the bus or Mornington Crescent station to access the High Street
@Deep Thought
“the zoo. Although personally I would use Camden Road ”
Many visitors use Regents Park, despite being three times further from the Zoo entrance than Camden Town is.
The trouble with usage stats for Camden Town is that they will be skewed by the restricted access at weekends. It has to be assumed that “if you build it, they will come”, so the only way to upgrade the existing infrastructure will be to temporarily close the existing entrance on the day that the new one opens, before finally having both entrances open simultaneously. The restricted access at weekends is a clear demonstration that the project is justified even without splitting the Northern line, so TfL are justified in keeping that issue out of the consultation.
As for improving interchange with Camden Road, I would suggest that the most cost effective plan would be to enhance the on-street route – pavement resurfacing/widening and improved signage, maybe even erecting canopies over some/all of it.
@timbeau: must be because (a) the Zoo is IN Regent’s Park (so people alight there); (b) the announcement on the Bakerloo Line at Regent’s Park does direct people to the Zoo (albeit by means of buses).
Typo in the article – the plural of “storey” isn’t “stories”, it’s “storeys”.
[Corrected. Thanks. PoP]
For the curious, the 2003 application is viewable online at http://planningrecords.camden.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer17/GeneralSearch.aspx by searching for application reference: 2003/1451/P
The original floorplans are at:
http://camdocs.camden.gov.uk/webdrawer/webdrawer.dll/webdrawer/rec/3879324/view/
Interestingly, the new proposals appear to have much less circulating space than the 2003 plans. I do wonder if the current plans really do provide sufficient space? They appear to really only provide one additional access passage to each platform.
…unless of course this proposal is merely an alternate version of the “temporary” station that TfL proposed in 2003, and once that’s finished, they’ll try again with the redevelopment of the original station site 😉
Mark,
I may be wrong (and it is hard to find the correct drawing) but I think the whole point is that the original plans were based on a station concrete box which was very much in favour at the time (think of Canary Wharf and North Greenwich on the Jubilee line and Stratford International).
The original plans didn’t have many passageways because the idea was to have a vast circulating area. However this would have led to entering and exiting passengers mixing with interchanging passengers.
One of the problems with the concrete box approach is you cannot choose your site if you have existing platforms and everything above it has to go – no ifs or buts. Hence demolition of so many sensitive buildings.
The revised plans seem to utilise traditional tubes (in practice they will almost certainly be sprayed concrete lining but the look is similar) and keep the interchange traffic separate from the entry/exit traffic.
The concrete box approach is great if you have suitable site but, as seen with Crossrail, most sites can, at best, only partially adopt this approach. I think only Paddington and Canary Wharf (built in a dock), and maybe Woolwich, have fully embraced the concept. So you really have to only use it when appropriate and the lesson has been learnt.
As such, I don’t think we will see any kind of revival of the original plans.
I may be totally wrong on my recollections and am willing to be corrected if someone knows better.
Weird question, but does anyone have a reference for the Eagle junction spread i.e. publication date? I’m trying to track down a higher resolution picture; I think it’d make a great wall poster!
@PoP I wasn’t being entirely serious with my suggestion that they’ll revise the original plans 🙂
I may have given a duff link – a better one is http://camdocs.camden.gov.uk/webdrawer/webdrawer.dll/webdrawer/rec/3879319/view/Drawing.PDF (esp. pages 12 / 13)
Under the old plans, each platform had at three good-sized access passageways to the circulating space – more than in the new plans. Agreed that you would have interchanging passengers mixing with entry / exit, but there was substantial circulating space.
The new plans don’t seem to fully separate interchange passengers with entries / exits – the drawings appear to show that the only situation in which interchanging passengers have a route that doesn’t involve mixing with entries / exits is on Northbound Northbound transfers. Southbound Southbound will still be mixed with entries / exits, but under these plans, there is much smaller circulating space.
Absolutely understand that the old plans were not viable due to the box construction (indeed, I submitted an objection to Camden’s Planning team because of the surface demolition), but I am surprised to not see more cross-passages in the new design.
Mark,
Thanks for that. I hadn’t realised there were multiple pages. Yes that does seem to confirm that the original construction proposal involved a triangular concrete box. Once you understand that it is seems to make sense what was going on – to me at any rate.
Of course the other main change is that way back in 2004 there was deep suspicion of sprayed concrete lining (then called the New Austrian Tunnelling Method) as it had resulted in a collapse on the Heathrow Express at Heathrow and safety concerns (unwarranted as it turned out) led to it being largely abandoned on the Jubilee line extension which put up costs enormously.
Since then sprayed concrete lining has been accepted as very safe if done properly and was used extensively on Crossrail and Victoria Station Upgrade and will be used extensively on the Bank Station Upgrade.
I wonder if the new Northern Entrance becomes Exit only and the Southern Entrance Entry only.
As someone who has used the Camden Town – Camden Road interchange several times, I can happily say that it’s fairly good above ground, but, as usual, could do with dramatically enhanced signage. Why these interchanges are so pathetic is a big mystery. The costs of truly decent signing is always minuscule compared with any construction-based solution. Where is the OOS Interchange Department on TfL’s organisation chart?
@Rational Plan
Why wouldn’t it be like every other double ended tube station on the network with both entry and exit from both ticket halls?
@CG, the main two issues I’d give regarding Chalk Farm are:
1 – Is the station big enough to handle the additional footfall? Especially given how tiny the surface level ticket office area is.
2 – As Chalk Farm is obviously after the difference branches diverge by a fair distance, it would be a lot less useful as a potential exit / entrance point meaning that a large number of people using it may have to change at Camden Town anyway to get onto the correct branch.
@Dan Oxford Circus and Heathrow have separate booking halls and sets of escalators going in and out, some of the ones at Oxford Circus are reversed in the morning peak.
The Southern entrance just has two escalators and the Northern will have three, so the station is unbalanced. The entrances are not far apart, as the Southern entrance starts in the middle of the Station.
As that trains will deliver people in clumps it seems better to have three escalators going up and two down.
It also presents clear signage at platform level to one exit. No confusion for tourist hordes who want to go to the markets.
If the two entrances are both up and down then the Southern entrance could still experience overcrowding if demand exceeds a single escalator.
You could also just have one ticket hall and only one entrance open in the evening to save running costs.
Another alternative could be Southern exit only with one up and two down at the Northern end. That may be worse for the weekends though but you could have four up in the mornings at weekends switching back to normal at 1 pm or so.
But maybe demand from the South will be low and it does not matter
@mark
“I wasn’t being entirely serious with my suggestion that they’ll revise the original plans”
I thought you really meant alternate – see-sawing between the “temporary station that TfL proposed in 2003″, the big proposal of 2005, back to the current/2003 modest proposal and back once more to the big one.
“I wonder if the new Northern Entrance becomes Exit only and the Southern Entrance Entry only.”
Would that be allowed on safety grounds? In emergency people will gravitate to any route to the surface, especially if they came in that way.
@ Mark – thanks for the second set of drawings. I had not realised how ambitious the original redesign was. Tellingly it seems that a temporary station was needed to the north of the existing one and that would eventually be replaced by the new “in a box” station. The construction period, to build two stations, must have been considerable and the impact in Camden Town itself would have been huge and over a long period.
The step free provision was seemingly only one lift to cover movement over multiple levels. I can imagine the wait times to be ridiculous – especially if you were changing between southbound and northbound levels. The other telling aspect is the need for stairs / escalator between northbound and southbound levels whereas it seems the new scheme won’t have this. I’m therefore bemused as to how the level change will be achieved – perhaps I need to go and torment former colleagues at the public exhibition? 😉
WW
I suspect the answer is that the N/B and S/B tunnels are only (vertically) separated by about 12 steps ie 9 feet….as the lines diverge to the North,and the new access tunnels are further North than the old,I suppose they are far enough apart for ramps from an intermediately-paced concourse to not be too steep.
Great link to the old plans. That design definitely would have been better from a transport perspective, with plenty of space for interchange. The current plans look like they need at least one more platform to platform link tunnel to ease the future interchange load.
For more on L Ashwell Wood & the Camden Town tunnel diagrams – try here:
http://bearalley.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/l-ashwell-wood-behind-scenes-part-4.html
That school building on the site looks like it would make a nice characterful station entrance with a hole dug in the floor. Of course they won’t do that but just bulldoze it and replace it with some pathetic box (already shown on the drawings).
I was surprised that the earlier cutaway was as late as 1950 as all the buses on the street look decidedly pre-war: the RT was about half way through its production run by 1950.
Both 1950 and 1960 drawings appear to have the City and West End branches transposed
So Edgware to Battersea will logically keep the “Northern” name? And a new name would be needed for Morden to High Barnet(and Mill Hill East)? Any suggestions? “Southern”?!
Albert – in view of its close relationship with the Victoria Line.
Or, as it connects (South) Wimbledon with Euston Cross and Barnet (albeit High rather than New) , rather like a certain project that is much talked about at present, how about Crossrail 2a?
Any way, why would the EdgBat part get to keep the name? The Northern Line name was coined because it incorporated the Northern Heights lines to Mill Hill and Barnet.
@timbeau. Sorry yes, you are right, I was thinking the Northern Heights was on the Edgware branch. So logically the Morden-High Barnet would remain Northern, and the Edgware Battersea would need a new name.
So whilst I like your Albert, and Crossrail 2a ideas, they are no longer needed!
@Ig
Albert might work for the CX branch – the new terminus will be not a million miles from the bridge, and it meets the Vic twice (three times if you count the non-interchange at Vauxhall). Or go back to the original “Hampstead Tube”
Portmanteau names like Batterware or Edgersea doen’t really do it for me.
How about naming it the Mornington Line after its most famous station – perhaps that would help people remember which branch “The Crescent” is on?
Is it straightforward that the Edgware branch would be paired with the CHX branch under full separation? I’m sure I read somewhere in the past (on LR?) that a higher percentage of Edgware branch passengers head for the City, and the routing at Camden would be pretty straightforward if that was what was decided.
@Toby Chopra: The routing at Camden would be straightforward either way (that’s what the Dan Dare junctions are all about). But Northern Line main depots are at Golders Green and Morden, and Morden has to be linked with Bank because of the (future) layout at Kennington. Running with two big depots on one line and only one small one (Highgate) on the other would be somewhere between tricky and impossible.
@timbeau – yes, but once one mentions Mornington Crescent, the game is necessarily stops. Given the provenance of the drawings, perhaps the Mekon and Digby lines? [sorry, frivolity moment over].
Whichever branch furth of Camden Town is connected to Morden, that branch and the City branch need to keep the Northern name … if only to preserve the delightful absurdity that the most southerly point of the Underground is on the Northern line!!!
… I’ll get my coat!
“In the land of Morden, where the shadows lie”
Greg – what is the origin of that quote? (clearly not Betjeman,who would never be so overtly negative about the suburbs).
Graham: try Tolkien.
Ah yes, of course, Rivendell is on the Hainault loop, I forgot.
Re Greg,
“In the land of Colliers Wood, where shadows of the Brown and Root tower lie” may be more appropriate for the northern???
Here’s the partial quote, there are five lines of verse before these:
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
Great article, and thanks Malcom@14/10/2015-22:46 for a big fat guffaw about the New Vaudeville Band!
I understand that shortly after the last attempt to rebuild Camden failed, the Council asked for a meeting with Tim O’Toole. The Chief Exec and Leader said that they wanted the scheme to go through but had to be seen to oppose it for political reasons – objectors included Dame Judy Dench and Boy George. Tim made the observation that getting the scheme to Public Inquiry had cost LU £10m and that Camden was no longer a priority. The Camden folk said that without an upgrade the area would suffer economically. Tim agreed – and pointed out that there were other locations in London needing infrastructrure upgrades where delivery was easier.
The previous attempt included:
a) Alternative scheme designed by objectors via Ove Arup (which folk at Arup’s were embarrassed by) which attempted to provide an upgrade without demolishing anything.
b) Claims by Camden that growth could be accommodated by sending passengers to Mornington Crescent and Chalk Farm (which has only two lifts).
I wonder what will happen this time?
@ Transport Insider – I rather suspect that there is a lot of agreement between TfL and Camden about aims and objectives and preferred outcomes. However none of that can get in the way of a properly conducted process or else any objectors will have a field day. As PoP has said many times there are plenty of lessons and good practice from other schemes and I expect LU / TfL will be applying all of those to ensure a successful outcome here. If there were to be a further failure to secure powers then the Northern Line is probably doomed to decades of substandard operation and not achieving the full potential that the signalling and extra trains would permit. The objectors’ gain would be London’s loss. Without overegging things this is an important scheme and the stakes are relatively high for all involved. I can’t see Camden Council being happy at having a substandard tube station for up to 20-30 more years. It’d do nothing to help the economic health of Camden Town. Your comments above show what was at stake previously.
WW
If the new proposal is rejected, there is a simple option, to be followed on real safety grounds.
Close the station for all entrances & make it exit-&-interchange only.
Actually, if I were TfL, I would be tempted to offer that as “the only practical option, should a rebuild not go ahead”
Might concentrate a few brain cells?
[slightly edited by Malcolm to reflect the fact that the previous proposal was rejected on what are now seen to be entirely proper grounds, so commenters should not make needless derogatory references to local people.]
@Greg. Making Camden Town permanently exit and interchange only is not, and never will be, the “only practical option”. To make such a threat would be childish, and quickly seen through. It would also not go down very well with planning authorities and inspectors, who, quite reasonably, tend to resent being held to ransom.
Actually, in fairness, you did say “would be tempted to”. So maybe if you were to resist the temptation, your position as deputy for the TfL organisation would be secure after all…
@ Greg – You’d be sacked for making such a silly threat. People don’t respond well to threats from large organisations. The political fall out from that sort of threat would be enormous and it’d take about two or three phone calls for the axe to be swung. The reputational damage to TfL could take years to repair. Malcolm makes several other pertinent points which also apply.
Apologies for the slight tangent, but I’ve just stumbled upon the map from an article on the 1946 railways report which proposed lots of new infrastructure to transform London’s rail network, which I thought I’d share as it’s quite interesting. The justification I have for mentioning it is that I think it shows why the deep tunnels at Camden Town were intended to be running tunnels (i.e. it shows where the stations/interchanges would have been), so if you’re curious I’d direct you to look at line 12a.
Walthamstow Writer,
Agreed one can’t make silly threats but one can legitimately explain the consequences of planning consent not being given. I think one of the differences this time is that the undesirable threatened consequences (if I could describe it as such) are going to happen in a much shorter timeframe. Previously the people and councillors of Camden could take the attitude that they could ignore this for the moment. This time they can see that it might well be them stuck outside the station trying to go out for the evening or even, worse case, regularly unable to get to work on time without leaving home earlier.
I suspect another issue is that Camden could take the attitude in the past that “you need this more than us”. Now that London Underground reckon they could manage 32-33tph without full line segregation it is probably a case of LU implicitly suggesting to Camden “you need this more than we do”. London Underground can’t really lose. Either they get planning permission or they don’t in which case they will probably be able to place the blame firmly on those who opposed this scheme.
It is interesting though that I am not aware of any opposition to the current scheme.
PoP
Thank you
It’s obvious, now, that I expressed myself very badly there.
But, if nothing is done, then Camden Town Underground will (quite soon) become inoperable except as an interchange-&-exit-only station … would have been a much better way of putting it.
Don’t worry, btw, there WILL be objections – someone will find something to complain about.
This, of course is one of the standard problems with “planning”
No matter how good an official idea is, someone will object & contrariwise, no matter how bad an official idea is, some loon will lap it up.
[ I can think of one built object & one proposal in the latter class, btw …. ]
@Greg/PoP
“But, if nothing is done, then Camden Town Underground will (quite soon) become inoperable except as an interchange-&-exit-only station ”
And the local council should know this is no idle threat – Camden Town is being operated on that basis at this very moment, as it is on most Sunday afternoons – so they know TfL can do this. If nothing is done, TfL may need to extend the times when this expedient has to be used.
@Greg: PoP is right, I was perhaps a bit too quick to berate the way you expressed the idea, whereas the underlying point (about undoubted serious operating difficulties if improvements fail) is a good one.
But when it comes to objections, although you are undoubtedly right that the total number of objectors is most unlikely to be zero, it does seem possible that there could be quite a small number, and from individuals rather than societies for the preservation of this or that. Which would be quite a contrast to last time. So it seems quite probable that permission will be granted without too much fuss. Which is just as well, really, because, as has already been said, the consequences of rejection, both for Camden Town itself, and for other places where infrastructure work is needed, would be quite severe.
Luckily, most of the London press/blogs (City Metric, Londonist, Standard) seem positive about the proposal.
@ PoP – a fair response and Greg has said the wording was perhaps not the best. Giving a lucid and fair explanation of possible consequences of the scheme not proceeding is fair enough. Making a “threat” will never go down well and local council leaders can get to the top of City Hall or TfL with great ease. I suspect you may be right about the balance of priorities now between TfL and Camden and who has the greater need for a better tube station.
@mr_jrt
Very interesting. Thanks for posting.
Thanks for the credit JB. A few points:
1) Regarding objectors, the only people I feel this is likely to upset are the Buck Street market traders if the market is used as a work site. This I don’t feel is a show-stopper, re-reading section 5.7 of the inspector’s report, which is talking about the potential permanent closure of that market. At the time there were spaces at other markets in Camden which have accommodated some, if not all of the traders. One presumes that the market would return after the hypothetical use of the work site.
2) While some have suggested the previous scheme was better in transport terms, it has to be remembered how busy the front of the station is in terms of people and cars. Making it more so would be likely to be unacceptable – indeed this was one of the main reasons for rejection.
And a question if I may. The removal of the access to the deep-level tunnel on Buck Street takes up space which could be given to the market. Granted this is within the conservation area, but it isn’t listed. Does anyone know whether it is intended to remove this access as part of the project?
Camden town is full of tourists, so I think you have to ensure the new design is ‘tourist-proof’, where you can let tourists be tourists, rather than trying to get them to change their bumbling behaviour through audio announcements or signage.
Tourists will always stand around at key junctions in their own world, indifferent to blocking others, because they are confused by signs with minimal detail, because they dont speak english, because they are waiting for their family/friends to catch up, because theres just so many people everywhere panic panic, etc.
I think because of all this you kind of have to make those key crossover junctions as big as you possibly can, so there’s space for them to stand to the side out of the way – and the proposed sizes dont seem big enough for this.
I can’t get my head round the perspective / angles in that grey diagram just below the heading “The New Proposals”. Can anyone help / clarify, please?
North is left, south is right; I believe both branches have left-hand running at Camden Town, so the two tunnels cut away / edged in orange are both Northbound.
Come in at the new entrance on the left, down one of the bank of three escalators. Is that striped section of passage way a long flight of steps? If so, that is most unusual for new construction nowadays. This appears to pass over the southbound interchange passage: is that correct?
Beyond that, all is clear: first turn right for southbound from Edgware, second turn left or right (by the number 3) for northbound platforms; third turn left or right for the old entrance / exit passages to the southbound platforms; fourth turn left or right for the old entrance / exit passages to the northbound platforms.
What is the step-free route?
Down the lift at (2): that disappears from view – does it lead into the first curving passage upwards (in the diagram)? It seems a left turn leads to the north end of the southbound platform from High Barnet. Alternatively, if you turn right at the end of this curving passage, it seems you then pass under the passage leading forwards from the bottom of the escalators, to the north end of the southbound platform from Edgware.
But what about step-free access to the northbound platforms? It seems a very convoluted route through these new passages.
Surely it can’t be that difficult: what have I missed?
@ Outside Observer – I am guessing but I think the new scheme makes extensive use of gently sloped connecting corridors. I also think the “steps” beyond the new escalator bank is also a ramped corridor and there is a link tunnel underneath it.
Step free access is hard to determine but I’d not be shocked if the lifts from the new ticket hall have two lower level stopping points – one for a northbound link corridor and the second for a southbound link corridor.
Hopefully I will get to the public exhibition and try to get my head round the layout. LU might have done one of those nice cut away models that shows the complexities of the scheme. If so I shall try to take some piccies.
@Ian Sergeant 18 October 2015 at 20:17 The Camden Council presentation said the deep level access would be removed after works, and a new access provided from the staff area of the new ticket hall.
@Taz
That makes a lot of sense, and it was the answer I wanted to hear. Is the Camden presentation online?
@ Ian Seems to have gone now, but the LURS report is here (on LURS site).
@ Ian S / Taz – the presentation is still there (2nd link below). It’s rare for councils to make mass deletions of what was discussed at formal council meetings.
http://democracy.camden.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=123&MID=4631#AI13885
http://democracy.camden.gov.uk/documents/s29641/Item%208%20Presentation%201.pdf
Been to see the exhibition, and the 3D model makes it all make sense. The stripey thing is not a flight of steps but the floor/ceiling dividing a double-deck tunnel. The two decks are at the levels of the northbound (upper) and southbound (lower) platforms. Both have access from the lifts (which have three landings including the surface level) but only the upper has direct access from the escalators.
The lower deck (which will be narrower than the upper one because of the curve of the tunnel) is accessed from lower landing of the lifts, and leads to the cross passage connecting the southbound tunnels.
On the upper deck, from the escalators you first pass a link passage on the left leading by steps down to the lower cross passage, then you pass over that passage, then you pass another link on the right also leading by steps down to the lower cross passage, then you reach the upper cross passage which connects to both northbound platforms. If you continue further you reach the existing point where the existing cross passages meet at the bottom of the existing escalator shaft.
It is the double-deck nature of the main concourse (marked 6 on the plan view) which makes the perspective view so unclear.
@ Timbeau – thanks for the explanation. Nice to see I guessed part of it correctly – the lifts going to two lower levels!
Re Timbeau (and WW):
“If you thought this was complicated – wait until I’ve explained…”
One thing needed to be kept in mind: ramps are dangerous / useless for people in wheelchairs. Losing grip (hands or motors) on downward slopes as shown would lead to someone heading onto the tracks (eep!) and upward ramps are not usable by self-powered users as chairs don’t have ratchets or other backslide-prevention.
The only safe access is a flat access.
I don’t think there are any slopes in the plan – all is level except the two link corridors between the upper landing and the lower cross corridor, which have steps, and can be avoided by using the lift.
@Alison:As timbeau said, there do not appear to be any ramps in the design, earlier comments were apparently a result of people (I include myself) misunderstanding the diagram.
Your ramp assertions could do with some expansion. I have certainly seen many (typically young) self-powered wheelchair users who make mincemeat of slopes, kerbs and rough surfaces. Millions of pounds has been spent ensuring step-free (but ramped) access to above-ground stations and other public places (and indeed people’s homes). The many people who can use these would not consider the money wasted.
But of course you are right that for many other wheelchair users, ramps are unuseable or dangerous. I think this is probably well known to designers, and designs with ramps are unlikely to be produced, or to pass muster, in underground stations.
@timbeau: Viewing the drawing again after your explanation, suddenly makes it look very different! Once you know there are two levels, they suddenly jump out…
@Alison/Malcolm – leaving aside the capabilities of individual wheelchair users there are 2 major issues of concern in confined spaces.
First, no matter what type of wheelchair or the capability of the user, in congested surroundings mixing pedestrians and wheelchairs can be very dangerous. Pedestrians simply may not see a wheelchair until they trip over it because it is below their sight line – has almost happened to my wife on numerous occasions so I now know to ‘run interference’ in front of her for everyone’s safety.
Second, powered wheelchairs usually steer by the application of differential power to the driving wheels; controllers seldom have sufficient authority to override the effect of a transverse slope. Additionally when going down even quite a shallow slope, unless the control laws have been specially set up quite a bit of forward acceleration demand is required to achieve any lateral authority. Negotiating a down ramp of any significant length can be something of a lottery.
Hello,
Interesting article. I’ve been following this scheme for years and being raised and lived in Tufnell Park all this area is my manor some what and know it very well. Also working for LUL and using Camden Town on a daily basis.
Firstly- London underground bang on about heritage and good design but their first scheme, which was thrown out, was far from a good design and completely contradictory to the great station designs which adorn the network. So thank fully it was thrown out.
Secondly- There are disused passageways which connect the platforms to each other. I know of one but not sure if there are two. But in the years which the passenger numbers have risen it would have been common sense to open the passageway to add an extra interchange route. Not as a solution for the long term but to help in the short term that is the past 15 years at least.
Thirdly- One thing that really grinds my gears is the ever excuse that we must simplify the junction to improve services.
Those of you aware of the junction rebuild was that it came about so northbound and southbound services can operate with minimum of conflicting trains. An engineering marvel.
This junction is not only the best on the entire system but one of its kind on the system. Looking at various underground systems around the world that have many more multiple, very complicated, junctions flat and dive under, they can cope.
Plus all our other junctions are flat and again we manage.
In this technological age of anything is possible I don’t think the junction is a problem. I think the mentality of those who make the choices are the issue and want an easy way out without having to tax themselves with providing a service using the junction.
Basically somebody pushes a type of ideology, usually for money or custom, and all follow regardless.
Lastly- This scheme though is an improvement and makes more sense. Keep the existing station building and escalators, which keep the heritage and function. But at the same time adding a second entrance/exit with new passageways and escalators increasing the capacity without infringing too much above. I hope they will fully renovate the Leslie Green building.
M: I have sympathy for your view that the each-way service via the splendid junctions south of Camden Town should remain. In the past I put forward the same argument here: the signalling should be made to cope, and if it cannot, then someone should just try harder.
I have reluctantly changed my view, based on the simple finding that, although the signalling can cope up to a point, “splitting” the line will provide a little more capacity. Yes, many many users are going to have their journeys made harder, just to provide this small bit of extra capacity. In a sense, this is a hidden cost, which (many) passengers will pay. But even if these passengers could be compensated in money for their worse journey (and actually I don’t think they can), this would still be cheaper than any other way of adding the equivalent extra capacity. (Such as lengthening all the trains and most of the platforms on the line; doable in theory, but horrendously expensive). So unless tube usage suddenly stops increasing (not a realistic prospect), the split is just a sad necessity.
There are four factors which make the split an operational convenience.
1. Both routes through Camden Town become simple shuttles, and timetabling is much easier.
2. A problem on one line is contained on that line, and the other half can carry on regardless. A delayed train on one branch will inevitably cause delays on the other when it misses its slot.
3. Speed limits can be higher through the junction if the points are optimised for the route taken (or plain lined)
4. You are saved the maintenance and reliability headaches of sets of ponts shifting every couple of minutes.
However
1. More people changing at CT means longer dwell times.
2. You lose the flexibility to keep both northern branches going if one of the core routes is lost. Moreover, if the southbound were blocked at Bank tonight, LU can still run trains through the northbound to keep some sort of service running, by returning everything southbound through the West End. That would not be possible with a split.
@M – “In this technological age of anything is possible I don’t think the junction is a problem. ” If only that were true. All junctions are constrained by the laws of physics. At a flat junction crossing , the limit is set by the time taken by a train to (a) be detected approaching, (b) stopped if necessary (c) pass over the crossing, and (d) to get out of the way safely. Any less time and the risk is that the other train will hit the first one. No way of avoiding that, I’m afraid. And at a junction itself, the limit is set additionally by the time taken to move the point blades and for the signalling to check that that has happened (and again, there is as with flat crossings at junctions, the need to allow sufficient time for an approaching conflicting train to be detected and if necessary, stopped). The practical experience of engineers and operators throughout the world is that anything much below about 85 seconds is impractical and cannot be sustained day in day out.
Graham: What you say about point blades and such is absolutely correct. But its relevance to the Camden Town situation may be slightly less clear-cut. Even with an out-and-back metro line, with no forks or short workings, every train has to pass over the same set of points (well, more than one, of course) (say the facing points near one terminus, delivering arriving trains to different platforms). So the frequency of trains might be constrained by that set of points. (Or it might not, of course, because of dwell time at a particular station, or some other constraint).
So the points at the Camden Town junction do not, of themselves, just being points, constrain the frequency. Trains could theoretically arrive at 85 second intervals (or whatever the figure is), and if a train has arrived simultaneously from the other branch, then they could both pass through the junction together. The next pair of trains could pass the other way – that is the magic of this particular junction.
But the current configuration cannot quite manage that every time. Trains do not arrive exactly simultaneously, and as soon as they start getting out of step, even slightly, then the junction starts to be a constraint on the maximum frequency. Not a big constraint; they have modelled it and the result is only a small difference in possible total trains per hour. But the difference is there, and it is to avoid that small difference (and for the other reasons timbeau gives) that it is planned to split the line.
@Malcolm – indeed so, not least at the termini. My point (pun alert) was simply that,contrary to what M asserted, there are limits to what can be achieved regardless of technology. The only way of eliminating the problem is to have end loops – those have other issues,of course, I’m sure you’re right that it is the elimination of the need for “simultaneous presentation” that gives the reliable increase in tph.
Just to add that not only are there the normal “laws of physics” about the operation of a junction / points you must also bear in mind the specific constraints at a given site. People may perceive those points and tunnels at Camden to be a marvel but they have their own physical constraints that limit speeds and run times. The Camden Town derailment and the mass of subsequent reports and analysis made that clear. Colleagues and I had to read them all!
As discovered on the website of the company who are designing the new TFL Station Design Idiom – a conceptual finish design for Camden Town Station.
http://www.egretwest.com/projects/camden-station
http://www.egretwest.com/images/camden-01-563a472608d9f.jpg
Thoughts? It certainly references the old part of the station in design – I was afraid that the old and the new would not mesh together well. For much as I enjoy the architecture of the JLE stations, bare concrete would clash horrifically with the original Camden Town station.
@James Scantlebury: The giant “N” and “S” above head height seem like a good idea but would be more effective with more colour contrast. And it seems to confirm that the all-white look in the pictures in the article does not represent the final finish, which is good.
Obviously a slack day, judging by the half-dozen separate passengers!
Please, not uniform tile-colouring across the whole syatem.
This was & is a way of varying the experience & helps travellers, so NOT plain white public bog tiling, purrrlease?
It seems to me that those N and S signs need to be visible from along the main tunnel. Also the last place you want people to stop to consult a station list is just inside the cross tunnel entrances. Also, when it’s busy this list is too low down to be seen. Perhaps this is not the sort of detail they are required to consider.
@ James S – it’s difficult to really judge the effect of lighting against tiles etc but I’m not terribly impressed by that Camden design. It just looks rather dingy to me but the reality way well be different. I was not convinced by the combination of dark blue and “gold” finishes as an element in the design idiom. As for giant N and S – looks more like a way of avoiding having signage hanging down from the ceiling in the main circulation area. I’m not sure that just having signage in the vertical plane works and especially not in a station renowned for large volumes of visitors unfamiliar with the tube network. It creates an uncluttered visual but what’s the point if hundreds of people come to a grinding halt besides the N and S wondering where to go next because they’ve had no advance wayfinding info? Obviously lack of space creates that congestion problem in the current station but the image shows there’s rather more space in the new station.
The problem with the N and S (apart from Ian J’s point about lack of colour contrast) is that it doesn’t convey enough information clearly. The salient point is not N (followed in small lettering by Edgware) or N (Barnet) but surely large signs saying just Edgware and Barnet. A rare occasion when the Paris metro”Direction Porte de Vanves” approach seems better?
A further difficulty with N and S at Camden Town is that (after the line is split and if one particular renaming suggestion is followed) the four platforms will be used by (in no particular order) the Northern Line northbound, the Northern Line southbound, the Southern Line northbound and the Southern Line southbound. Err…
@Malcolm:
If the Northern Line is indeed split in two, then it probably won’t matter: LU will most likely just use the names of the termini at each end of the line instead. I.e. “to Morden” instead of “Southern Line Southbound”.
That said…
Although “N” and “S” would likely be understood by anyone speaking a Latin or Germanic language as the initial letters for those remain the same regardless, “East” and “West” are more problematic: in Italian, it’s “Nord, Est, Sud, Ovest”, for example, while the German equivalent is “Norden, Osten, Süden, Westen”. Seeing “to Morden” could easily confuse German speakers into thinking that’s the northbound direction.
I think introducing a set of stylised compass icons, with each one highlighting one of the four cardinal points, might be useful for future station designs.
@WW I’m guessing that the blue of the design idiom is the “London Underground blue” currently skirting all tube trains and the gold is actually bronze, given the art deco look of the ticket office exterior, any maybe a nod towards Holden.
I like the green tunnels for Camden Town, but full walls might be a bit darkening, even Leslie Green only went with half-and-half!
Odd, I always thought it was called Camden Town station. Studio Egret West appear to think it’s only Camden.
I am also distrustful of designers who can’t be bothered to quote their own phone number in the correct format.
“Creative”, or just sloppy?
It’s worth pointing out at this stage that Camden Town station is NOT listed. Such a design in a listed building would be discouraged as the styles of the tiling in the new and old parts of the station are the same. I think it’s an unadventurous design. Whether that is the brief Egret West have been given I don’t know.
I must admit, the Egret West image is growing on me, despite the “clip-art customers”[1]. I don’t mind the floodlit concrete approach that has been popular since the 1990s, but it’s been overused of late. The use of colours and up-lighting is actually in keeping with older stations like Camden Town, so it certainly fits this one well. That image is supposed to illustrate the point where the new and old sections join.
Egret West are referring to the project as “Camden” because that’s where the station is; the project also includes some external public realm work, not just the station itself. They discuss this aspect in the first of the links, roughly halfway through. Although the image resolution isn’t high enough to see it very clearly, if you look closely at the top of the station list shown in the first side-passage, it’s definitely still “Camden Town”.
As for the phone number: that’s the correct format for international direct dialling. Type that into any modern phone and it’ll work just fine, even when calling from the UK.
[1] The use of clip-art images in these renders means the lighting never looks right. 3D modelling tools like Poser would produce better results in projects like these, though even that can be misused.
@Anomnibus – no it isn’t.
The correct international format is +44 (0) 20 7549 xxxx.
In the UK it’s (020) 7549 xxxx or 020-7549 xxxx.
Picky, I admit, but these people are responsible for specifying signs, name plates and the like. These have to be just so.
Also their title clearly says “Camden Station”. There is more than one station in Camden. i.e. just plain wrong.
When I did an image search for Camden Town Station I couldn’t find anything which looked as dark as the Egret West one. The colours were very different as well. I couldn’t find an image of the area at the bottom of the current escalators so I don’t have the colours in that specific area to compare. If it’s the colours of the proposed image I’m inclined to ask if that is what people want to keep or would they prefer to change to the platform colours in other areas.
[Digression on phone number format snipped as off-topic. LBM]
Re. “Camden station”.
I pointed out that “Camden Town” is definitely there in the rendered image. Ergo, the design team has not made a mistake at all.
However, the design team working on this project is not the same team that runs the company’s website! It’s easy to forget this distinction.
As an illustration: at the time of writing this post, I notice their website misspells “infrastructure” as “infastructure”. (Scroll down to the sitemap at the bottom of the page.) The same misspelling even appears in that page’s filename in the address bar.
Should this mistake be considered the fault of the Camden Town project team as well?
Whatever criticisms you may have about the Camden Town station project, you can’t blame the design team for the corporate website team’s errors. The latter presumably have their own house style guide. Hopefully, Egret West’s “LU Design Idiom” document includes a more extensive section on proofreading and QA procedures than their in-house equivalent.
@Anomnibus
I’m not criticising anyone’s design team. I was merely commenting that shoddy publicity material doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in an organisation engaged to enhance the Underground’s corporate image.
Anyone wanting the correct form for an international telephone number can refer to the ITU standard section 7 (page 3).
Edgepedia
You and Anomnibus are both missing Nameless’s point, which is that there is no 0207 exchange. The London exchange is 020. The 7 (or 8) is part of the eight-digit phone number, not part of the exchange prefix. This matters because if I want to ring that company on a landline phone from within London, I can leave out the 020 prefix but I have to dial all 8 digits, i.e. 7549 1730. The incorrect way the company has presented its number would leave me to suppose that I only have to dial 549 1730. And I agree with Nameless that a company that cannot get such details right should not be trusted with anything.
[This is the end of phone number format discussion, as it is a long distance off-topic. All further comments will be disconnected without warning. LBM]
I do remember the 1993 plans. I wonder why simple below ground alterations were not made without altering the surface station.
Concerning the present plans I wonder why no use has been of the disused passages located between the current escalators and emergency stairs. I.e. leading to and from the former lifts. I have never had the chance to see inside them so I don’t know how much they are blocked up with modern machinery.
Line names could reflect historic origins. Easy to resurrect Hampstead tube for the Charing Cross/Edgware. Maybe Beesee-ess or BCS for Barnet City and South [London].
Has any thought been given to reinstating the portion of the original Camden Town station building that was lost to a WWII bomb? Surely that can be rebuilt and used as an additional entrance/ stairwell access?
Latest TfL paper on Camden Town capacity enhancement and step free access
https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/fpc-160121-item14-camden-town-station-revised.pdf
Desserted Desert
Eh? I thought that was rebuilt at the time and reinstated. Where exactly do you mean?
@PoP
I thought it would be really easy to demonstrate what was and wasn’t rebuilt, but far from it. Remember the impact was only on the Chalk Farm Road side of the station.
The station before bombing
Bomb damage
The station today
(Credit to original photographers)
So basically, the station frontage was the width of three big windows instead of two.
It looks, from the photo’s, as though the effect of the bomb was :-
one third demolished, one third heavily damaged, one third lightly damaged. Of course, from one photo. this can only be a superficial assessment.
They appear to have preserved two thirds and abandoned one third. If the damage was all at, or above, ground level and the capacity problems are below ground there would be no capacity benefit from reinstating the ground floor.
Ian Sergeant,
Thanks for that. I have seen the photos before but not together. Because the station appeared symmetrical before and after I had assumed a complete rebuild – in the sense that it was put back to how it was before. I can now see that on the second storey it isn’t quite symmetrical but you have to be looking to notice.
But yes, I agree with RayK, having extra surface space is desirable but doesn’t solve the main problem. There would not be enough space regained for a new escalator so reinstating it, in that sense, doesn’t achieve anything. It could be used for a lift shaft if you are extremely lucky and it comes out at a suitable place at platform levels.
On a close look it appears that the station had been modified before the WW2 bomb – on the first photo that Ian S links to, the three arched windows are equally spaced, directly below the groups of three windows above, with tall small windows in between, similarly directly below the single windows above. By the time of the second photo the right-hand arched window had been moved to the left, displacing the small window there; a new shorter small window has appeared to its right, and the other small window, now at the far left, has been shortened.
Changing the large arched window would have been a significant job: I wonder why/when it happened?
Could the remodelling have happened when the lifts were replaced by escalators? When was that?
Note the complete change in style of the corner Midland (now HSBC) building.
@Mike
Fascinating. Not much I can add, except I found a picture of the remodelled station in 1937 here – note that the area below the left-hand window is already being used as a shop. The first picture I posted is from 1927.
@timbeau
I suspect the remodelling has something to do with the conversion to escalators as well, but I can’t find a plan of the original station. Wikipedia notes, unattributed, that “One set of the original lift passageways became part of the ventilation system, but the remaining one adds to the confusion of the station. “
Surprising how old the “modern” building next door actually is.
By the looks of it,I’d have said 1960s,but there it is in a photo dated 1937 (but not the 1927 one).
According to Leboff[1] the Camden High Street elevation was substantially rebuilt in 1929, when the escalators were added.
[1]Leboff, David London Underground Stations 1994
The gap between the station building and the 1930s building must be one of London’s very last remaining undeveloped bombsites from the Second World War,
IJ
Probably because it belongs to LUL/TfL
https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2017/01/13/camden-tube-station-upgrade-moves-forward/
There will be a public exhibition showing the plans at the Arlington Conference Centre, 220 Arlington Road, London, N1 7HE on:
Thursday 19 January 16:00 – 20:00
Friday 20 January 10:00 – 14:00
Saturday 21 January 11:00 – 15:00
It’s interesting that Ian makes the point I’ve been making for years – putting the entrance to the north of Buck Street eases the planning process, at least in theory, by moving out of the conservation area with what is visible. TfL do need to be wary of cries of ‘over-development’ though, and to work carefully with Camden to avoid a repeat of the previous fights. I’m sure there are those readers who can assure me that this is taking place in the background.
Quite a logical solution, considering how expensive the previous scheme would have been for fewer escalators. I wonder whether the platform level layout would be sufficient for splitting the lines. There will still be a large concentration of exiting and interchanging people converging at the northern third of the platforms with no mitigation measures to the twisty cross passages at the southern end – which is also where the level-boarding platform humps are located.
@NickBxn
The new design adds new cross passages in the middle of the platform (presumably the platform humps would move here too) and it appears to expand the size of the northern cross passage. Presuming 50% will change trains with the proposed line split, that should be adequate – although it isn’t ideal.
I suspect that platform humps can only be moved at one station if they are simultaneously moved at every other station on the line. That sounds expensive to me.
The number changing trains at Camden Town will, on average, be somewhat less than 50%, because some passengers currently getting a through service but forced (after the split) to change, will instead choose a different route altogether, changing elsewhere.
But this is only a minor quibble, since I suspect that such journeys will be relatively few, and passages big enough for 45% (or whatever it is) will not be much different from passages fit for 50%.
@Malcolm
The 50% is probably overestimated because some existing passengers already take the first train and change, rather than waiting for a train to the desired branch. There are also some destinations, such as Euston, Holborn, for which either branch will do equally well.
But if the Northern line is permanently split, there will no longer be direct trains from both northern branches to all destinations, so some northerners will have to change at Camden, just like southerners do at Kennington.
ChrisMitch: Exactly. This is a well-known consequence of any split. It is the reason why it is generally accepted that Camden Town must be improved before the split can occur (in addition to other reasons for upgrading the station). The recent discussion relates to just how capacious the extra passageways will have to be.
@Malcolm: I suspect that platform humps can only be moved at one station if they are simultaneously moved at every other station on the line
And you would have to move the wheelchair spaces inside the trains at the same time, since the humps line up with them*. This document mentions that the wheelchair spaces are where they are because other parts of the train have equipment under the seats.
* A complication would be that the Kennington loop means Northern Line trains can be turned around, so you presumably need two symmetrically placed wheelchair zones on each train, only one of which lines up with the humps in each direction.
Note that the consultation is only about the oversite development for which TfL are putting in a planning application to the council – the station redevelopment itself will go to a public enquiry under the Transport and Works Act. I assume the point is that if TfL can get the contentious over-site bit agreed by Camden then that makes getting approval for the transport scheme more straightforward.
@ Ian J – tactically it makes sense, given the history, to sort out the street level impacts first including any extra station access. While it gives no guarantees for the other works it should reduce risk in the TWAO process. If the locals do go into outrage mode over the current proposals you have to wonder what on earth can ever happen at Camden Town. At some point some uncomfortable truths may have to be spoken about the propsects for a continued tube service at Camden if the station cannot be expanded to allow for safe operation relative to demand. I know the locals have every right to object to development proposals but continual rejection of proposals does have consequences.
I still find it odd that LU has struggled to make progress given that Sainsburys got approval for their monstrosity of a supermarket barely a few hundred metres away from the station.
WW
Two points…Sainsbury’s store is (was) outside the Conservation area and…granted,this is a matter of taste…is a considerable improvement upon the buildings that were there before (the Aerated Bread Company’s bakery)
@Ian J
That article says that the Northern Line trains have wheelchair spaces in cars 2 and 5, and humps on the platforms to line up with (both of) them. Since car 2 becomes car 5 when the train is reversed, it doesn’t make any difference which way round the train is.
@Chris Mitch
“But if the Northern line is permanently split, there will no longer be direct trains from both northern branches to all destinations, so some northerners will have to change at Camden, ”
Quite so – the discussion was about whether it would be as many as 50% of current through passengers, given that some people will change elsewhere, and others already change at Camden rather than wait for the right train. As with Kennington – if you wait long enough a Morden via Charing Cross (or vice versa) will turn up.
@ Ian S – the diagram on the Ian Visits site shows all of the new cross passages to the north of the existing ones that lead to the existing escalator. This will leave the same long gap between here and the southern passages. The crossings at Kennington are more evenly distributed, yet they get pretty intolerable at times. Camden Town would have to put up with similar concentrations in the evening peak if the lines are split.
@NickBxn – indeed, I was fooled by a diagram on the original consultation that the new cross passages were in the middle, between the two existing passages. I can’t help but feel that this will encourage changing passengers to the back or front of a train, and it doesn’t feel adequate. The plan at Kennington is for “up to two” additional cross-passages per platform pair between the existing passages, which seems better to me.
The consultation response has been published (including a shoutout to this site in section 5.3)
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/development/camden-town-over-station-development/results/camden-town-development-pre-application-consultation-statement.pdf
As I read it, the consultation response shows no consistent negative reaction and a majority of positive reactions.
The document in the link concerns the above-ground development rather than arrangements below. It looks kinder on the street scene than the previous proposal whose the shape, size and more southerly location were more problematic. This probably explains how it met with more favour this time.
@NickBXN
The document mentions that when they last sought a TWAO there was general agreement that the station needed to be expanded – the main reason it was rejected was due to objections to demolishing the iconic buildings in the triangle, and the design of the development that would replace them (which was generally deemed not in character with the rest of the architecture in Camden Town).
They’ve split the project up into chunks and sought approval for the most controversial bit first. One feels that approval for the new passageways underneath the triangle will be easier to gain.
I think they’ve not just put “the most controversial bit first”, but the bit that can prodiuce a capital receipt for TfL. “One feels that approval for the new passageways underneath the triangle will be easier to” pay for.
Isn’t the demolition required in order to provide a work site whilst they build all the below ground ‘stuff’? If so, then they can’t build on top until the below ground is finished. (Or at least the structures) this means that that which will bring in the capital will be the last to be built.
TfL have revised their plans for the Camden Town capacity expansion project. They are also consulting on the revised proposal. Looks like they are trying to reduce the local impact of the proposals and also construction impacts such as lorry movements.
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/camden-town-station-upgrade/
I’m still concerned at how inconvenient it will be for wheelchair users to negotiate the length of crowded platforms with conflicting passenger flows to get from the end where the lifts will be to the platform humps at the far end. They really ought to duplicate the humps with a set at the north end of the platforms – including of course at all other stations where they are present. It would also mean that both cars with wheelchair bays would be available at all times.