With Crossrail under construction and extensions to both the Bakerloo and Northern Line being mooted, it seems a pertinent time to provide a brief reminder into some of the whys and wherefores for those less familiar with subsurface engineering and London’s underground history.
One lesson quickly learnt by the early entrepreneurs who built early tube lines (and by this, as for the duration of the article, we mean the deep level lines) was that the longer the line and the bigger the network, the more profitable it was. To some extent this may seem obvious – a tube line between only two stations is of limited use (although exceptionally the Waterloo and City line manages to perform this role).
As usage tends to tail off at the extremities, it made sense to have the ends only being a small portion of the line. It also made sense to maximise use of resources. Trains sitting in terminal platforms were not in revenue earning service and a lot of the infrastructure – such as power supply – had large initial costs but the add-on cost for these items when extending the line was not that great.
Extending a tube line had a potential second benefit. If it could surface where there was an existing branch line that served the suburbs, then it could take over that branch. The users would have a fast frequent, electric service to the centre of town as an alternative to the slow, dirty and probably infrequent steam train that took them only as far as the mainline terminus. Furthermore, instead of the cold air and the London smog they would be warm in the bowels of the earth.
The Northern line to High Barnet and the Central line up to Epping and Ongar were extended in this way. Others were extended on the surface but took over the overground section of existing sub-surface lines (e.g. Piccadilly line to Hounslow), shared an already suburban electrified line (Bakerloo to Watford Junction) or built tracks parallel to an existing railway (Central line to West Ruislip and even the Jubilee line extension to Stratford) or simply built their own line mainly on the surface with minimal diameter tunnels as necessary (Northern line to Edgware, Piccadilly line to Cockfosters).
So if extending a tube line is such a good idea why is it not done for all lines?
Ultimately extending a tube line is very expensive. Modern day underground stations are even more expensive and tube track in bored tunnels is incredibly expensive to maintain. Nowadays this becomes even more difficult to justify as current rules mean an extension to an existing line must be built with an emergency walkway – adding to the cost of tunnelling but providing no offsetting revenue benefit.
As a result, there has to be somewhere worthwhile to extend it to that has sufficient traffic demand and sometimes the problem is simply that all the capacity has already been used up. This is why it is unlikely that the Victoria line will ever be extended.
Given the efficiency of modern tunnel boring machines and the fact that the size (bore) of the tunnel is no longer a critical fact in the cost, the pendulum is swinging in favour of building totally new lines capable of taking full size trains rather than tube extensions. And once you have started boring, you might as well keep going so megaprojects such as Crossrail are now seen as the cost-effective way to spend money.
So what about taking over existing lines – assuming there are any suitable ones still around? Well for a start a lot of the advantages have gone. We don’t have steam trains so the image of the sliding-door electric underground train doesn’t offer any appeal over mainline suburban stock. The smog is gone and the cheering thought of a warm underground has been replaced by the dread of being trapped in a sweltering Underground train that isn’t going anywhere. Indeed it might be a good idea to look back at the some schemes that were implemented and see if they really were fit for the 21st century.
Some above-ground extensions really do not seem to be really ideal for the modern world:
- Northern line to High Barnet. Dreadfully overcrowded and served by six-car Northern line trains. A tragic waste of capacity on a line built to mainline gauge size with platforms that could be extended, but this would be pointless as long as tube trains run on it.
- Central line to Epping. Demand at Epping, which serves a large catchment area, means that these trains get quickly packed. A tube service means there is no easy opportunity to miss out calling at some stations so journeys are unnecessarily long. Again the line was built to mainline gauge but is now constrained by tube line dimensions.
- Piccadilly line to Hounslow. This subsequently got extended to Heathrow using small bore tunnels. In hindsight using small bore tunnels seems to have been a really short-sighted decision. With a bit of switching of branches between the District and Piccadilly we could have had high-capacity S7 stock running to Heathrow.
- Queens Park to Watford Junction. Watford Junction in retrospect was really too far out for a tube line and the Bakerloo line nowadays does not go beyond Harrow and Wealdstone. Now that TfL have control of the surface line from Euston to Watford Junction their enthusiasm for extending the Bakerloo line to Watford Junction seems to have vanished.
One must not be over-harsh in criticism. Most of these extensions were probably the right decision at the time and even viewing these 20th century extensions with 21st century glasses one can see that they could be regarded as a good, cost-effective solution. It is only now with 21st century traffic levels and expectations that we are really starting to see them as slightly inadequate.
One learns from what happened in the past. One also learns from what didn’t happen in the past. So it pays to look at a couple of schemes that didn’t make it.
It the 1960’s there were parliamentary powers obtained to extend from Aldwych to Waterloo. At first sight this would appear to be quite a neat little proposal. It would be short extension, built under the Thames (which despite all the bridges is still a hindrance to free movement) connecting to a major mainline rail terminal. The problem, apart from lack of money at the time, was that the resulting branch line was just too short to capture much traffic. In any case the bus over this short distance is still a viable alternative. If such a proposal couldn’t produce a financial case then, it is unlikely to produce a financial case now. Not only would there be the cost of the tunnel with walkway, the entire cost of reinstating Holborn-Aldwych would have to be factored in.
The most famous of all is the 1950’s extension of the Bakerloo line to Camberwell that just didn’t happen. This in itself was a revamp of an earlier scheme that didn’t happen. The scheme is well documented in the book “The Bakerloo Line” by Mike Horne. Mike is an ex- LU manager who researches his books and articles to a standard that we can only dream of at LR. He generally goes back to original sources that are either publicly available or in his own vast private collection.
The critical point that Mike makes in relation to the proposed extension to Camberwell was that its primary purpose was not to provide a better service to the inhabitants of Camberwell – strange as that may seem. The problem with the Bakerloo at the time was that it had two branches north of Baker Street which led to an extremely overcrowded central section. The limit to capacity was the ability to reverse trains at Elephant and Castle and by building a three platform terminus further down the line one could increase capacity on the whole line.
Camberwell has always been recognised as somewhere not really adequately served by public transport. Since 1916, when Camberwell Station closed, it has not had any rail service. It is probably one of those places in which one could justify an underground station, if one happened to be building a line through it (something Bermondsey benefited from on the Jubilee line) but it would be very difficult to make a case of building a line specifically to serve it.
Currently there are very few realistic options to extend existing Underground lines. With the proposed separation of the two main Northern line routes through central London there has been an opportunity to consider an extension south of Kennington from what is generally known as the Charing Cross branch. There is a developer-backed proposal to extend to Battersea which we have covered before (and no doubt will again).
The only other realistic possibility is the “big one” – the southern extension into southeast London of the Bakerloo line. It has been felt for many years, perhaps even a century, that the Bakerloo line really terminates too close to central London. It is also true that there is a serious disparity of northbound and southbound flow on this line with southbound trains in the morning being packed out but northbound trains being relatively quiet. So the capacity is already there. You just need something to tap into it and take advantage of it.
It seems an obvious line to extend into an area not served by the tube and with modern tunnelling techniques the harsher geology south of the river is less of an issue. Camberwell and possibly Denmark Hill are the most obvious destinations but they would have to be justified on its current merits and not a nostalgic desire to see a 1950’s scheme finally come to fruition. Peckham would be another alternative. The relative locations of Peckham and Camberwell mean that all serious proposals have included, at most, only one of these locations as otherwise choosing a suitable line of route would be challenging. Better to serve one of them properly rather than both of them in a half-baked manner.
The alternative is to be much bolder and take over a branch line out to the suburbs. None are conveniently located but the Hayes branch stands out as the most realistic candidate. Bromley North has also been suggested but this would almost certainly involve yet more tunnelling. Again, we have looked at suggested Bakerloo Extensions before (here also), and as recent activity surrounding Hayes amplifies, we no doubt will do again…
Could the Northern line still be bought to Camberwell, Denmark Hill etc? In the likely event of the Bakerloo not being bought to theses areas.
@Anonymous – in recent years, the Northern has acquired two southern branches (Battersea and Morden) neither of which go anywhere near Camberwell… They are also full.
Recent years @Graham H? Morden station was opened in 1926!
@The Other Paul – I knew that, but the original poster didn’t seem to be aware …
I think that ship (Northern Line extension) has sailed, but to Battersea rather than Streatham – although until actual shovels-in-the-ground action takes place, anything is possible. And I can’t see a Victoria Line extension happening either, although there is an argument that the best way to reduce the crowds at Brixton station is to let some of them get on at Herne Hill, Tulse Hill and Streatham instead of bussing it into Brixton.
@timbeau -I think that’s what The Other Paul and I were saying. My mistake was too use irony to make the point and I still haven’t learned – have I ? -that contributors here don’t do irony…
@timbeau,
I understand that at least various elements of TfL think that part of the solution to the Victoria Line capacity issue south of the river is to run a decent National Rail all stations service between Victoria and Croydon to serve places like Streatham. Why mess about digging holes in the ground to run piddly little trains when there is a perfectly good full size railway up above that (in their view) is not being utilised properly? Yes, I know all about train planning rules etc. but these (TfL and the mayors office argue) need to be challenged.
@ Graham H – I don’t think that irony has been installed yet. I don’t think it has reached the funding stage yet, let alone a Transport and Works Order!
@RonnieMB – No,no! Irony is so yesterday (after all the Americans abandoned it c1950 in favour of slapstick) – it’s just that you can’t get the craftsmen to maintain it any more.
Why does the central line not be extended to Harlow?or North Weald station be an enormous park and ride?
@tony denton:
Because it’s already full. Extending it will only make that worse, not better.
New lines are needed. Hence Crossrail, and (hopefully) its successors. Unfortunately, London should be in the middle of building Crossrails 3 and 4 by now, not Crossrail 1, which is a project that dates as far back as the 1980s. So the next step has to be to streamline the process of getting such infrastructure off the drawing board and into the ground. That’s a political problem, not an engineering one.
@tony denton – why stop at Harlow when Stansted and Cambridge beckon… or North Weald when Bury St Edmunds is only a couple of hours away? [This is part of my Norwich in 500 campaign]. Three hours on a tube from Harlow to Oxford Circus is just ….
@ tony denton
Somewhere on another thread, many months ago I told a story of my Uncle who worked in a ministry (he was also one of the 2 heavies used for hauling George Brown out of a pub and taking him back to his desk when he was Foreign Secretary – and I tell this just to relate to the era), he told me that in pre-M11 planning days, there was an “idea floated” to “consider” North Weald aerodrome for some sort of M11 Park & Ride scheme. But as GH later confirmed, he said that Essex County Council was about the WORST local authority he ever had to deal with and it was impossible to agree on anything with them. The whole concept probably got no further than “Any other business” at one of their liaison meetings, and as Uncle lived near Boston Manor tube station, he always hated having to go to Epping on the tube to have any meetings involving Essex C.C. who I seem to remember (might be wrong) he told me that they were the only bunch to turn up with chauffeur driven cars. Public transport was not for them!
@tony denton
if we’re going down that road, why not extend the Picadilly to Windsor? the Bakerloo to Oxted (why stop at Hayes?)
1. because they are full
2. because faster alternatives already exist from those places so nobody would use them
3. because they are outside the GLA area so how would they be funded
@ timbeau
TOTALLY agree with your points 1 & 3, but re point 2, if you put it there, people will use it. Not necessarily for journeys from Oxted to London or from Windsor to London, but for journeys from Oxted to Hayes/Lewisham and for journeys from Windsor to Heathrow or Uxbridge. This is not any suggestion that building such lines would be a good idea, but previous forecasts on rail usage for new routes have often proved to be wildly underestimated after the lines have opened.
@castlebar
” if you put it there, people will use it…… for journeys from Oxted to Hayes/Lewisham and for journeys from Windsor to Heathrow or Uxbridge.”
Enough people to justify the cost of building it?
timbeau. No of course not. Far from it in fact
The question the CR2 and other planners should be asking is ‘Who needs to go where?’, ie, where do people living in this or that area need to end up, how do they get there currently, where do they change and how do they contribute to congestion? Merely knowing that the SWML is overcrowded isn’t enough; you need to know WHY people are using that line and those stations. However, we seem to be going ahead with a hugely expensive scheme on the basis of very imperfect knowledge about passengers’ ‘desire lines’ (ie their ideal direct routes from departure point to destination).
People travelling from Surbiton to Docklands, for example, currently have to change on to the Jubilee or W&C at Waterloo, creating congestion along the SWML and at Bank. These people don’t WANT to go to Waterloo or Bank, but the infrastructure forces them to. Post-CR2, they’ll clog up Wimbledon, CJ, Vic and/or TCR instead. They don’t want to go to those places either, but once again the infrastructure (and withdrawal of Waterloo services) will force them to do so. In fact, CR2’s meander through south London and the change at Tottenham Court Road means the Surbitonians will have a longer ride to their Canary Wharf offices than at present. If they want to go to Croydon, Gatwick, Heathrow or London City, CR2 won’t help – unless they change in Zone 1.
The recent CR2 roadshow allowed residents to question some of the planners, and it was worrying to discover how little they really know about passengers’ end-to-end journeys. There seemed to be a blind assumption that somehow everything will come good once the trains are running. The likely effect of CR2 on the Northern doesn’t seem to have been explored in detail and, astonishingly, there are no plans to rebuild Balham station, which will become an even busier interchange post-CR2. The present three-level station is a hotchpotch cobbled together from sundry additions to a small Victorian station house, complete with narrow dogleg passages, squeezed into an awkward site between two main roads. It already suffers temporary safety-related closures at busy times, so the prospects are not good.
Perhaps CR2 should simply have parallelled the SWML before swinging off from Waterloo to Euston/KX and the northern suburbs, allowing intermediate stops such as Earlsfield and Vauxhall to be stripped out of the above-ground lines. By being relatively direct, journey times ought to be quicker, and it would improve access to St Pancras International, the City and Docklands (much more important these days than the West End – Londoners have abandoned Oxford Street to the tourists). However, without additional tracks to Hampton Court Junction, it’s hard to see how the promised high-frequency service could be delivered on the Surbiton-Wimbledon section. That point also calls into question TfL’s promises of huge service improvements when it takes over SWT’s suburban services.
I agree with you completely, Crossrail 2’s deviation through Balham seems to be a cop-out attempt at relieving the Northern Line. If you follow CR2 up the existing SWML to Waterloo and onto the City, where it really needs to go, you can build Crossrail 3 from Victoria to Kings Cross taking over Southern’s suburban services. Crossrail 2 really is a disguise for trying to solve a range of problems London’s rail network to get past the treasury, but creates more problems and questions such as the ones you present.
[This (and the previous comment) have nothing to do with Extending Tube Lines. Plan A was to hope everyone ignored the previous comment. That didn’t work. Plan B is … well I think you can guess what is coming. PoP]
I’d like to see a Victoria Line extension to Leytonstone so that you can interchange with the Central Line.. What do y’all think?
@Chris from Leyton
Read the eighth paragraph of the original article, or just visit Walthamstow Central in the rush hour.
Whether the slow stopping trains from central London to Watford are Overground or Underground, why would that matter?
Eh? Wrong thread perhaps?
As the Crossrail 2 thread is locked can I just add here that [Snip. Sorry, no cross posting on this site. Besides, you have not provided fact but hearsay. LBM]
Now the Greenford branch has it’s trains terminating at West Ealing, wouldn’t it make sense to have the trains run on to Ealing Broadway where it would connect with the underground? Or extend the EB branch of the District Line to run to Greenford.
Tom Rogers,
As always with these things a visit to the place in question should quickly enable you to appreciate the problems.
I would suggest that extending the District line from the terminating platforms across the rest of the station (now being expensively rebuilt) and beyond Ealing Broadway itself would be a good starter in appreciating the problems.
More significant, how about this? Instead, use the shuttle service to provide a feeder for Crossrail. The trains could be timed to meet Crossrail services. The benefits would probably be greater than extending the District line (for what purpose?). Above all, the cost would make it extremely attractive and easy to get past the treasury. Additional expenditure above what has already been spent: £0.
By the way, the usage on the line – even before being cut back – was extremely low. It contains some of the least used stations in London. See the report of Diamond Geezer’s visit to the line.
What happened to the proposal to give the Greenford branch 4 trains per hour?
I think 4tph to West Ealing from Gerrards Cross and beyond was a favoured idea with some of the management at Chiltern a few years back. The idea seems to be definitely out of fashion now. I think Chiltern are moving to longer trains rather than more trains.
And HS2 is going to sever the connection towards Northolt Junction anyway, IIUC?
HM
I beleieve that is no longer the case, or the severance will only be temporary, as it has been realised that those links are too useful to lose, permanently.
( Correction / update on this welcome )
@Greg T: And sometimes you really wish they didn’t though! Just look at “Govia go via Greenwich: GTR and the Thameslink Timetable”….
So what’s wrong with Tom Rogers’ suggestion of extending the Greenford Branch to Ealing Broadway? The Acton Diveunder provides a route to reverse, leaving only a conflict at West Ealing Junction. Crossrail could then nonstop through West Ealing.
The possible problems that spring to mind are: having a suitable reversing siding, performance mismatch of the Greenford trains and increased dwell time at Ealing Broadway.
@Tom because the District and the Castle Bar branch both end off the mainline, and there’s no space to connect them off the mainline. Not to mention the small and barely expandable stations, with no gates because of how little they are used.
Are Chiltern still getting the Castle Bar branch, rather than it staying with FGW?
Any services going North/West of Greenford from West Ealing would have to skip Greenford itself because the 3-car bay at Greenford faces South and there are no platforms on the South Ruislip to Old Oak line. In fact that line is several metres below the level of the platforms, so connecting new platforms on it to the existing station represent quite an undertaking with negligible benefit.
@Tom: Aren’t those problems enough? Considering that in the future West Ealing will already have frequent direct services to all of the Crossrail core, the number of passengers who would want to change for the District Line specifically must be minuscule. (And those who’d want the Central Line can change at Greenford instead, of course).
Add to this that extending to Ealing Boadway would need another train in service to provide half-hour service. If money to operate a second train were available, surely it would be be better spent on doubling the frequency between West Ealing and Greenford. Even for, say, Acton Town to Castle Bar, that would improve the average travel time more than running 2 tph direct from Ealing Common would.
As for “Crosrail could nonstop through West Ealing”, I daresay the locals there would be up in arms over getting a 2tph shuttle with a change at Ealing Broadway rather than ~6 tph Crossrail promises them or even the 4tph to Paddington they have currently.
@Henning Malcolm/Tom -having lived in West Ealing, I can assure you that the residential catchment of West Ealing is every bit as large as Ealing Broadway (even if the retail provision is not what it was).
I have lived in Southall where these 4 trains an hour also stop, resulting in one train coming quickly after the other and then 20 minutes nothing.
Both Southall, which is a very densely populated area and West Ealing deserve the promised 6 trains per hour.
Running West-Ealing – Greenford trains through to Northolt or even West Ruislip twice the hour seems like a good idea, taking people to Crossrail off Chiltern Railways stopping services and from other stations served by the Central Line.
.
@Harjinder Singh
Agree with requirement for frequency/capacity on the GW inners. Crossrail timetables state that there will be 6tph via Slough and 6tph to Heathrow, with Acton
TownMain Line, West Ealing, Hanwell and Southall each getting one or other of those routes (i.e. 6tph). There will be an aspiration to keep those as balanced as possible, but fitting HEx [Heathrow Express] into the mix and leaving suitable gaps for freight paths could prevent even timetabling, but I doubt that TfL would allow more than a 15-minute gap between services.Logistically, as mentioned above you can’t serve both Greenford and stations NW thereof. While S Ruislip might be possible if the Down platform was reversible (given most Down traffic uses the new fast line that bypasses the platform, the very fact of its possibility is due to there no longer being a valid connection in the Down direction. Proceeding to West Ruislip and turning there would take up paths of which there aren’t many. Yes, it may be possible to fit them into the gaps left by via-Amersham services out of Marylebone, but that would remove a lot of the timetable’s resilience. Anything going to Northolt Park would require a reverse at West Ruislip as the Down platform at South Ruislip can’t get to the Up line, so two sets of mainline paths would be required per service. Reversal couldn’t happen West of Wembley Stadium, and even then it would have to happen in the depot, requiring a crossing of the Down on the flat: there just aren’t the necessary turnback facilities. If a train had to be emptied it would take up way too many slots on the main line: there aren’t any passing loops East of South Ruislip.
As an occasional user of the Chiltern ‘outers’, I can’t see much appetite for indirect access to Crossrail. Even if these hypothetical Ruislip-West Ealing trains were upped to 4tph, there’s still a 15-minute gap. Would you:
(1) wait up to 15 minutes (avg. 7.5) for something that is going to travel at Rev Awdry speeds (let’s say 20 mins to West Ealing) and then wait another 10 mintutes (avg. 5) for an already-busy Crossrail train that’s still out on the edge of Zone 3, 21 minutes from Liverpool St, 54 minutes from South Ruislip.
OR
(2) stay on your existing train to Marylebone (20 minutes max), walk to Baker St (10 minutes platform to platform) and get a Met/Circle/H&C to Liverpool St (15 minutes) totalling 45 minutes for the same journey with a much better chance of a seat for more of it.
Most folk would go with (2).
Souls desperate for West Ealing could still Central from Ruislip to Greenford and change there, although people wanting Crossrail generally would likely be better off staying on ’til Marylebone and taking the Jubilee from Baker St to Bond St or the Bakerloo from Marylebone to Oxford Circus and walking at the other end.
London Overground trains should get a route (London Euston – Queens Park only route and extend Bakerloo line services from Harrow and Wealdstone to Watford Junction. Kensal Green to Watford Junction will be Bakerloo line – only stations which shows that the Bakerloo line services will replace London Overground services to Watford Junction which will be easier than a mixed height that we have at the moment where London Overground services terminate at Queen’s Park and Bakerloo line will take over London Overground’s route to Watford Junction.
@Aran
Given the locations of their respective depots, both Bakerloo and Overground trains have to share tracks at least between Willesden Junction and Queens Park. There are no suitable reversing facilities at Willesden Junction (the bay is too short, I think), and Harrow & Wealdstone is the first suitable point for turning back. Proper big-sized Overground trains are more suited for the long run to Watford. (And it would seem that, at least in 1982 when the through Bakerloo service to Watford was withdrawn, most passengers from beyond Harrow wanted Euston anyway)
Mixed height platforms have been used between Queens Park and Harrow & Wealdstone (and Watford until 1982) since 1917. And indeed for a period in the 1930s both the Croxley Green and Rickmansworth Church Street branches were operated by Tube trains
http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/r/rickmansworth_church_street/
* (And it would seem that, at least in 1982 when the through Bakerloo service to Watford was withdrawn, most passengers from beyond Harrow wanted Euston anyway) “. Are you sure? By the ’60s’ if not much earlier, Euston was not a significant destination for anyone. The more interesting question is whether the – no doubt, deliberate – rundown of the services to the City marked the real decline north of Willesden. Arguably, An LO service to the City – now, alas, impossible – would , even now, be much more useful than a service to Euston ; a slowish service to the West End at least serve one of the two major traffic objectives in the CAZ without change (Note – interchange penalty 15 minutes).
The significant problem with re-extending the Bakerloo is cost – additional power supplies, additional stock, and so on.
@GrahamH Arguably, An LO service to the City – now, alas, impossible – would , even now, be much more useful than a service to Euston
LR likes comments explained and expanded, since “impossible” has a price what factor is being referenced? The LO ‘Network’ aspiration would be more complete if connected. Watford via Shoreditch is as City as Broad Street.
@Graham H
I should have cited my source for the assertion that in 1982 the majority of passengers from north of Harrow wanted to go to Euston. It was CULG’s Bakerloo Line page.
@Aleks – Having worked in the City (and used Broad St as a destination) for many years on and off, I can assure you that Shoreditch is not in the City and never has been, and is a good 10-12 minute hike to the nearest edge of the CAZ (the EBRD building, in this case.). A return to Broad Street is physically impossible. Broadgate sits on the site.
My assertion about the O/D of people using the Euston dc services reflects the accumulated studies made by BRB over many years. People coming from the northern part of the dc lines went to Euston to interchange (and in the absence of major new office developments in the Euston area, probably still do).
I read “impossible” in a different way. Obviously Broad Street is no more, and Shoreditch High Street is a poor substitute. (There is of course Graham Road curve, intended to address this, but see below).
The difficulty/impossibility which I saw was fitting any more trains on the North London Line. With already two flows merging at Willesden Junction (from Olympia and from Richmond), adding a third flow of peak time trains, given that the existing ones are all packed solid anyway, would be at least politically impossible, because of the number of existing passengers who would lose out. A similar argument (but perhaps even stronger) would apply to trying to get them injected into Liverpool Street.
(Whether the hypothetical Watford-City trains went via Primrose Hill or not is immaterial, as there would still be a bottleneck at Canonbury).
@Malcolm – I agree, you could have kept Broad Street and sacrificed some Richmonds and (now) Claphams but now you can’t as Broad Street doesn’t exist+, and Shoreditch ++ is no substitute.
+ About 20 years ago, when NatEx was bidding for the then Silverlink services, we did note that the Broadgate development had left the stub of the Broad Street throat such that you could have terminated a three car set at a single platform face. Operationally a nightmare, and not much by way of capacity. Hardly worth saying that NatEx were not interested in the cost of that. Probably not available now, anyway.
++ Back in the day, English Partnerships, who were underpinning the Spitalfields development – halfway between Shoreditch and the northern edge of the City – offered to buy a new station on the Central, which passed underneath. LU were naturally uninterested as they needed a new station on the Central like the proverbial hole in the head. We did think briefly about an extension to the Drain (confessions of an extendador…), but NSE’s share of a new station at Liverpool Street and the associated works at Bank and tunnelling would have been the thick end of 0.5bn – not the sort of money that was floating around then.
The glory days of Broad St were so long ago that was not on my list.
The City has also changed. Stock Exchange has gone to St Pauls, Bloomberg could be considered todays Reuters from Fleet St, old Bank HQs are now Hotels and Restaurants, Royal Exchange is a shopping centre.
Shoreditch is also not recognisable from even 10 years ago. It’s not an ideal ‘City’ station but it is available and in an economic area.
It would not be for everyone so limited ‘overloading’. Willesden Junction would still have peak shuttles, changing for the City there would be quicker than Highbury.
The impossibles discussed before are signalling extensions, single track section at Westbourne Rd, doubling Camden Rd bridge bottleneck, reinstating northern pair through Camden, which could be grouped as ‘Cannonbury’.
The connection offers more City commuting destinations than Euston and the Bakerloo covers the West End.
@Aleks – of course, Shoreditch – and Spitalfields (and Hoxton) are growth areas but still nary a bank in sight, and still not near enough to the City to be called as such (except by the more dishonest marketing folk) , but I see little point in arguing further.
Shoreditch may not be “the City” but it’s only 5 minutes walk away from Liverpool Street station
Moreover, whereas previously Shoreditch/Old Street were previous cheap and scruffy, that’s not the case now. Much of the “new” money is now located there, I’m sure far more internet entrepreneurs get off at Old Street or Shoreditch High Street than get off at Bank, for example, to go to their regular workplace.
Mikey: these observations about Shoreditch are undoubtedly correct, but this bit of conversation started with the (probable) impossibility of providing through trains between Watford Junction (WFJ) and “the City”. It is OK to widen this, or indeed to use a wider and looser definition of “the City” than the customary one. But it may be somewhat of a futile distinction to draw, since we have concluded (I think) that even if we do that, the through trains are still impossible to provide.
It’s not much use to anyone now (and it wouldn’t have helped Busheyites), but we recently almost saw through trains from WFJ to the official city going via Finchley Road.
@Mikey C – you must sprint – by the published maps, it’s a good 800 m door to door.
Hmm… About six miles per hour. A brisk walk?
@Malcolm
I wasn’t suggesting that such trains could or should be provided, just suggesting that they might be attractive!
Wasn’t it a TfL idea from a few years ago to redirect all the Watford to Euston trains via the NLL to Stratford? To remove trains from Euston (maybe in advance of HS2)
@Balthazar – indeed – quite tricky on London’s crowded pavements.
Walking at 6 miles an hour is very fast, almost running. Average walking speed in London is 3.5 miles an hour. (If you walk at less than 3 miles an hour, you should really go and see your doctor.)
@Mike C – during my time at TfL London Rail, they were considering replacing the Watford dcs with a re-extended Bakerloo, serving Kilburn High Road by slewing the NR slow lines to allow the semifasts to call there, and closing S Hampstead. That this didn’t happen was probably the result of two things – the cost of re-equipping the power supply, and the fact that S Hampstead was close to the home of the then mayor. It did, however, reflect the unimportance of Euston as a destination in its own right. A pity in many ways.
I don’t recall any thought being given to taking the Watfords to Shoreditch (or anywhere else for that matter), as there was the well known problem of the Canonbury bottleneck; the focus was on trying to provide an even interval passenger service combined with the freight paths on – as has now appeared – a circular route,
Graham H & others
The “Canobury” ( actually Camden Town ) bottleneck is a political problem, actually.
One house ( building, anyway ) has to go … as the trackbed for 90% of the bottleneck is still all there, though IIRC two bridges would need rebuilding/re-decking..
IF political will could be found as well as the (relatively speaking ) modest sum, then it would be easy to have the circulars running on the northern pair of tracks round to Kentish Town W & Gospel Oak, & all other services via Primrose Hill ( A station I have actually used several times ) – including freight of course.
Benefit / Cost ratio? Would it look a lot better if the total “big picture” including reduced delays across the various junctions was considered?
Note that the crayoning length involved is less than 200 metres (!)
@Greg T 🙂 Yes, the last Willesden LL -Broad Street (which I used to use as a commute) ran via Primrose Hill.
In a spirit of crayonism, and at the price of a flat crossing, a Harrow or Stonebridge to New Cross would be at least worth evaluating under your scenario.
Greg T — The HS2-HS1 Link report (that concluded there were “better” i.e. cheaper options available) had some detail on the costs and environmental impacts of the widening the bridges, remodelling the junctions etc etc. Overall the figure was something like £750-800m but (and I can’t easily find the relevant Appendix) there may be a breakdown to support your crayonism. Presumably the expensive bit was the HS2 to NLL link rather than the NLL works.
A-Mous
Yes … the HS1-HS2 bit would have been expensive, but my crayonista exercise is for trains travelling at no more than 30 mph, with all the paasenger services stopping at Camden Road, so a lot cheaper.
@Greg T
Don’t forget the fact that the trains you’re talking about would fit the British loading gauge instead of being continental gauge.
‘Greg/Graham et al
“One house ( building, anyway ) has to go …”
Google Street View shows the building to have been a dental surgery in 2017.
Immediately to the west of Kentish Town Road, where the viaduct is only double track, there is some space either side of the viaduct, apparently providing access to the rear of the premises on that side of the road, (said dental surgery on the north side of the viaduct, and whatever was being built on the south side of the viaduct when the google car last went past,) and maybe just enough to squeeze one track in each side and still avoid both buildings.
(It would require slewing the existing tracks, as on the east side of the road the space is all on the north side of the existing tracks)
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.54208,-0.1419053,3a,75y,275.22h,74.12t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sdaVpBK06xnJOYnwITVVvkA!2e0!5s20120501T000000!7i13312!8i6656
I see from this weeks Watford Observer that local councillors are saying that the Euston – Watford LO service will go after the HS2 rebuild as the no-high speed side of the new station will have less platforms than now and services will have to be cut, with the LO service the low-hanging fruit in this scenario. They are calling for the Bakerloo to be extended back to WFJ.
Re Stationless (No Longer)
Local politicians in the local paper – a particularly potent strain of public information, requiring a very large dose of salt.
The article actually suggests that it is rumour, and both TfL and NR categorically say it’s not the case.
Um. If the Overground DC platforms are supposedly going to be demolished, then wouldn’t those platforms also be the ones that would be needed for any re-extension of the Bakerloo Line?
@Phil E
No – the Overground platforms that would be lost are at Euston, meaning the loss of the Wat-Eus service. The suggestion is that stations north of Harrow would be covered by extending the Bakerloo Line to Watford Junction. (Presumably South Hampstead and Kilburn High Road would be lost in this scenario – both have Tube stations very close by).
Quite apart from the need to re-install the 4th Rail, where they think the extra trains would come from to cover the extra distance to Watford I don’t know. The Bakerloo is not expected to get new trains until several years after HS2 is completed.
@timbeau and others – there is in fact, a business case to be considered for all this. During rebuilding, the footprint of Euston has to be enlarged to accommodate a couple of extra platforms for decanting purposes @ ~£100m a pop.. It’s also – as we all know – fairly controversial. Avoiding this extra cost would go some (most of?) the way to funding the Bakerloo re-extension. But I doubt that any of this lies behind the local councillors’ thinking, which presumably has more to do with the MLX travails.
As well as re-installation of 4th rail, would platform heights have to be adjusted if 1972 stock replaced 387s (or 710s) on the Watford Junction line? Or does 1972 stock still have grandfather rights to operate to Watford Junction with compromise height platforms? And if so, could any replacement tube stock inherit those rights?
As an alternative, and assuming widening at Camden Road is a non-starter, would re-building Primrose Hill, and reversing trains there, be an option? Primrose Hill has a connection to the Underground as Chalk Farm station is just across the road – probably a shorter walk than at Euston!
Primrose Hill station, currently a junk shop, is literally 2 mins walk to Chalk Farm tube. My family speed walk it everyday.
The house, converted to a dental practise,at Camden Road, is lower than the adjacent trackbed, which sits on a bridge & then brick viaduct.
The disadvantage of google earth is that it can’t tell you this.
So extra tracks to separate Gospel Oak to Camden Road station line from Primrose Hill to Camden Road line could bridge over the electric drills or alternatively the building could be purchased for two million pounds.
@Jim Elson
“The disadvantage of google earth is that it can’t tell you this.”
Google Street View can.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5421434,-0.141895,3a,75y,278.61h,85.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLzSxM_ocPL18Uc9km3xlTQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
@Timbeau: I love it that your link includes two chaps in Hi-vis either side of the bridge….
@ Timbeau
If only tube stock were running then the tracks could be raised for level boarding. I was about to say that it should be straightforward, but years of reading the comments here have taught me not to be so rash. No doubt dumping 6 inches extra ballast to raise the tracks will add too much weight to a culvert or something meaning the whole WCML would need closing whilst it is rebuilt at a cost of £ouch
I am not sure whether for convenience sake I would either prefer for the Bakerloo line to be extended from Harrow and Wealdstone or for more of the London Northwestern Railway trains from Euston that serve Watford Junction to also serve Wembley Central and Harrow and Wealdstone.
A few other possible extensions I wondered whether there would be local appetite for are:
the Mill Hill East branch of the Northern Line to Mill Hill Broadway;
the West Ruilsip branch of the Central Line to Harefield;
the Ealing Branch of the Central Line along the Uxbridge Road towards Hayes End or even Uxbridge;
the Northern line from Morden to Sutton
the District line to Twickenham and/or Kingston
And re-routing the Greenford branch rail line after Castle Bar Park to a new station at Greenford Broadway, closing South Greenford station.
I do not know whether this is right place to advocate:
A Central Line station at Park Royal
A Chiltern Line station at West Hampstead or Finchley Road
Metropolitan Line trains to stop at Willesden Green
Anthony
Dealing with your crayons in order & purely from my own judgement ….
Mill Hiil – Broadway: Of course this used to exist, but the route has been built on at the W end …….
W Ruislip – Harefield: Population density? No of bums on seats? Forget it.
Ealing Bdy – … Uxbridge – err .. no: How much property are you going to knock down?
The 6-tracking of the GWML out to Airport Jn would be a much better option, but even that stands no chance, because of ££££££.
Morden – Sutton: Realistic, BUT – maybe, just maybe & only after CR2 has been built – have you seen the loadings on the Northern line towards London in the AM peak? And you want to funnel more traffic onto it?
This is why the Vitoria Line is not extending beyond Walthamstow ….
Extending the DIstict past Wimbledon – flyover or diveunder ( ££ ) & CR2 will come first ( If ever )
Greenford: Why? Cost-benefit?
Moving Park Royal & Interchange – maybe, just maybe – would you close the existing “PR” station?
Chiltern @ W Hampstead – ONLY if you can find room for FOUR tracks & TWO platforms, so that the longer-distance trains can run through – and there would be a lot of property demoliotion – so no ( ££££ again )
Met @ WIllesden Green – why? There are too many stops on the Met outers already.
Extending the line from Ealing Broadway towards Southall and Hayes might relieve the horrifically slow bus jams up the Uxbridge Road.
Mill Hill East extension – unlikely to be very useful: Mill Hill Broadway already has a direct service to Kentish Town, St Pancras and beyond
West Ruislip extension to Harefield – unlikely to have enough potential users, and little chance of any more given it’s Green Belt
Ealing-Southall-Hayes – isn’t that Crossrail?
Northern to Sutton – Northern is overcrowded already. A better use for the St Helier line would be as a branch of Crossrail 2. There are also plans to extend Tramlink to Sutton
District to Twickenham/Kingston – they tried that in the 1880s (from Hounslow) but didn’t get anywhere. Extending from Richmond and across the Thames would require quadrupling – difficult without demolishing the centre of Richmond and building an extra bridge over the Thames . Extending from Wimbledon – well, that’s what CR2 will do.
Re-routing the Greenford branch would destroy its prime purpose as a freight route.
Central Line at Park Royal is, I understand, on a TfL wish list but if it was easy it would probably have been done by now. It will involve more than just building a couple of platforms and a access route from the Picc.
Moving the Met/Jubilee interchange from Finchley Road to West Hampstead looks useful, but is the space available. Stopping Chiltern as well probably too much, although an interchange at Neasden might be useful if the stations between there and West Ruislip ever got a decent service.
Anthony,
I do not know whether this is right place to advocate…
There is no right place to advocate these sort of things on this site unless specifically relevant to the article and backed-up with good analysis. This article was more about the general principle than specifics.
I will only comment on Metropolitan line trains stopping at Willesden Green. There is no reason that this could not happen now. The platforms are useable and permitted for use and contain all that is necessary e.g. CCTV for the driver. Indeed it happens at times of major disruption on the Jubilee line. So the only thing financially preventing it is lack of rolling stock (it would probably require an extra train*) and the cost of putting it on the tube map.
So the question you have to ask is ‘why don’t they do it?’ The answer is simple and answered by Greg Tingey – there are too many stops on the Metropolitan outers already. Or at least quite enough. One hardly wants to add to them. The proposal would benefit a few people and disadvantage a lot more (adding at least a minute to their journey – completely unnecessarily).
*Yes, I know that there was an extra S8, well S7+1 actually, train order for the Metropolitan Line extension but, according to the District Dave website, this has already been reconfigured as an S7 – a re-formation which is, arguably, far more useful for future use.
One thing that does appear in the background of Anthony’s comments , & picked up by Timbeau is – Uxbridge.
Once having had to commute there for over a year, it’s an appallingly slow drag. The never-quite realised joining-up of the two separate GWR branches never happened, unfortunately.
And “Uxbridge” ( a.k.a “West London” ) Tram was stymied by bad planning & PR with respect to both Southall & W Ealing, which was a crying shame.
Post Dec 2019, I’m wondering what the bus-loadings between Uxbridge & W Drayton ( & “H&H” ? ) will look like, as I supect that getting a bus to the CrossLiz line will be faster than bumbling into Baker Street & onwards?
@Greg – There is a report from TfL “Changes to suburban bus services to support the Elizabeth line”. Figure 5 on page 6 has a diagram to show this. High growth around Hayes, growth around West Drayton, a drop north of Hillingdon Hospital to Uxbridge.
Have you ever had the pleasure of doing the 222 between Uxb and WD at peak time? Don’t bother…
Interestingly the privately run shuttle to Uxbridge Industrial Estate shows a bit of growth. This was formerly an option considered for the U10 but ruled out when money for a drivers loo could not be found, IIRC.
Uxbridge stand space is awkward.
@ Greg
The U3 from Uxbridge to West Drayton takes 22 minutes according to TfL. Bond Street is 24 minutes by XR from there. Compared to 42 minutes via Met/Jub. Liverpool st is 53 minutes via both Met and XR/bus. So will depend where you live in relation to the two stations, although the convenience of knowing you will always get a seat on the Met (inbound anyway) will surely be a factor
Elizabeth line can replace Great Western railway to Greenford Station as the line would serve the Greenford Branch instead of Great Western railway. Elizabeth line would serve Greenford Station, South Greenford Station, Castle Bar Park Station and Drayton Green Stations and passengers on the Greenford Branch of the Elizabeth line do not have to get off a terminating train at West Ealing to change towards Ealing Broadway Station,Acton Main Line Station, Old Oak Common Station and Paddington Stations as currently trains on the GWR on the Greenford Branch terminate short at West Ealing instead of Paddington Station as passengers will be able to go to Ealing Broadway Station,Acton Main Line Station, Old Oak Common Station,Paddington Station, The West End,The City and Canary Wharf , the significant parts of London staying on 1 Elizabeth line train. Another proposal is to extend Elizabeth line towards Southend Victoria Railway Station from Shenfield Railway Station. Another proposal is to extend Elizabeth line towards Oxford Railway Station from Reading Railway Station . One other proposal is to extend Elizabeth line towards Staines Railway Station from Heathrow Terminal 5.This would mean that an extra platform at Staines Railway Station would be constructed. One final proposal is to extend Elizabeth line towards Windsor and Eton Central Railway Station from Slough Railway Station as passengers will alight for Windsor Legoland.
Elizabeth line service patterns:
.4 tph between Oxford and Southend Victoria.
.4 tph between Oxford and Gravesend.
.4 tph between Windsor and Eton Central and Southend Victoria.
.4 tph between Windsor and Eton Central and Gravesend.
.4 tph between Staines and Southend Victoria.
.4 tph between Staines and Gravesend.
.4 tph between Heathrow Terminal 4 and Southend Victoria.
.4 tph between Heathrow Terminal 4 and Gravesend.
. 4 tph between Greenford and Southend Victoria.
.4 tph between Greenford and Gravesend.
.4 tph between Tring and Southend Victoria.
.4 tph between Tring and Gravesend.
The reason why to extend Elizabeth line towards Southend Victoria Railway Station from Shenfield Railway Station is that passengers will get a frequent link to The City, The West End,Southend Airport and Southend Victoria Railway Station. The reason is for Elizabeth line to replace GWR trains to Greenford Station as there will be a frequent link between Greenford Station and Ealing Broadway Station,Acton Main Line Station, Old Oak Common Station, Paddington Station, The West End, The City,Canary Wharf,Gravesend,Southend Airport and Southend Victoria Railway Station. There would be a link between Staines Railway Station/ Heathrow Airport and Southend Victoria Railway Station and Southend Airport
Where to start?
The stations on the Greenford branch cannot take nine car trains. Nor can Windsor & Eton Central. The latter station is about three miles from the entrance to Legoland
Greenford already has a direct service to the West End and City – it’s called the Central Line.
Passengers from Southend and Oxford to London do not want to travel on an all stations service (with no toilet facilities).
Extensions beyond Heathrow have been proposed before – both to Slough and to Staines.
Your proposed service pattern has 48 tph through the core, meaning a train every 75 seconds – with six different western termini and two eastern ones. Even if you grade separated the flat junctions at West Ealing and Slough, that would be challenging. The simple end-to-end shuttle that is the Victoria Line manages 36tph when all is going well.
I’m sorry to see that crayonism has reared its ugly head, just when we all thought that rationalism was safe. I see no costings are offered
A “ .4” service is pretty useless…
Doing the maths I only see a 4.8 tph service through the core… 😉 Which is probably about all you’d manage anyway with this from and to everywhere service pattern.
I note also that the proposal assumes, without comment, that there will be extensions to Gravesend and Tring. I think the opportunity for the latter, at least, has passed – one of the key drivers for that idea was to relieve Euston during the work for HS2. That work has already started, and it is unlikely a connection from Crossrail to the West Coast Line could now be built until after the scheduled completion of HS2.
In addition to the points already raised…
Southend already gets 4 tph from the City – Liverpool Street station is in the City – and these are fast trains, rather than the slow, all-stations Crossrail trains. In fact, if you include Fenchurch Street, there are 8 tph to Southend.
After a hard-fought battle to get Crossrail trains into Terminal 5 at Heathrow, this service pattern is suggesting removing them and just serving Terminal 4. Serving Terminal 5 is far more lucrative than the Greenford branch, which has some of the least-used stations in London.
Oxford already has fast trains to Paddington, so why would people choose to take a slower train, rather than changing at Paddington (or Reading).
Crossing from the slow lines over the fast lines at Slough to get onto the Windsor branch is not possible without sacrificing some of the fast line paths, which no-one will agree to. Windsor & Eton Central is also only 6 carriages long and is on a viaduct, so would need a very expensive extension to take 9-carriage Crossrail trains.
These services would require a lot more trains, and some changes to track layouts. As Crossrail is very late and very over budget, there is no chance of any kind of extension until the current traoubles are forgotten.
People who suggest these kind of extensions seem to forget that Crossrail is a slow service, stopping at all stations. As it is, the service from Reading or Shenfield is only beneficial for intermediate stations as most people will take the fast service to Paddington/Liverpool Street and then change. There needs to be a better understanding of why services are split into Slow, Semi-Fast and Fast services.
So, these proposals are not practical, offer few benefits and would be far too expensive. The irony is that they whole purpose of the article to which this is a comment, is to explain these sorts of points and show why proposed extensions are often pointless.
@JIMBO – Great explanation as to why inner suburban frequent stop services can’t realistically be extended beyond the first major interchange they encounter outside London where an ‘Intercity’ or other express service tier also calls routinely. The running time on Elizabeth from Reading to Paddington will be approximately double that on an express for example, so most time pressed people are bound to vote with the seats of their pants or the soles of their feet, as even standing for a fast dash will be preferable to an interminable all stations schlep. For similar rational stopping pattern segregation reasons,
HS2 proposes no intermediate stations between London and the West Midlands. Simply removing the fastest non stop expresses from the WCML, MML & ECML will allow released capacity to be used for a vastly more effective semi fast regional express service on those lines, but, just as with the inner/outer London suburban split, the trains remaining on the classic routes will likely not project as far north as the expresses removed. A big Chilterns parkway on HS2 would have been more inconvenient for most travellers from it’s notional catchment than stations on existing lines, but might abstract significantly from their revenue if popular. It could also increase road traffic in the area and even require highway expansion, Not a good result in an area where the project already faces environmental pressures. Most importantly however, using some of HS2’s capacity for shorter distance commuter flows means that capacity is no longer available for the longer distance traffic that is the line’s whole purpose.
@Jimbo
“After a hard-fought battle to get Crossrail trains into Terminal 5 at Heathrow, this service pattern is suggesting removing them. ”
Whilst I agree with the most of the points you make, note that the proposal includes an extension from T5 to Staines.
Staines (and thus also T5) has 8tph in the proposed service pattern.
@MT -“A vastly more effective semifast service” – that could be true had not ministers very publicly and repeatedly promised that all of the “wayside” stations such as Rugby and Stafford would receive the same level of service as now. Not merely the same level of service either, but the same level of connectivity, too, so those classic trains will continue to be projected to N Wales, or Shrewsbury or Blackpool etc. The net result of this is a trivial gain in paths taking the network as a whole – as many as two, to be precise. So, “slightly” more effective might cut it…
@GH – Nothing has been confirmed yet as to where those trains will stop at the south end of their journeys though. I suspect that wherever they terminate in the north, many will gain additional stops at some or all of Watford, Milton Keynes, Rugby and selected Trent Valley stations, and the withdrawal of the fastest high frequency expresses should allow that. Such stations could thus get a much improved service frequency both to London and to major destinations in the Midlands and North West, even though the total number of paths on the fasts will not increase (significantly). Reduction of skip stopping patterns should also result in travel between such stations becoming being more attractive. There is a plan to run an hourly Macclesfield HS2 service now, diverging at Handsacre and running via Stafford and Stoke on Trent. Now Blackpool is under wires, an extension of the planned Preston HS2 train might be possible too, as long as it was formed as a half length set (it might divide from another portion at Crewe or Preston). Electrification to Chester could allow a regular HS2 portion to go there from Crewe. North Wales Coast and Shrewsbury will always be more difficult due to lack of electrification (and lack of any realistic case to provide wires), and these comparatively infrequent services are the most likely to remain very limited stop at the south end of the WCML to maintain journey time. I fully agree that continuing to run high frequency largely non-stop tilting express trains on the WCML to a wide range of NW destinations in parallel to HS2 is the very antithesis of rational stopping pattern segregation, but I don’t think that’s what will happen.
@MT – NR’s modelling to meet DfT requirements shows classic trains from the NW (eg Shrewsbury, N Wales, Lancs) continuing to stop at Stafford, Coventry and Rugby (an especial bugbear of the timetable planners) and continuing to Euston. NR have – one can create one oneself – a table of existing station to station through journeys that must be maintained. Needless to say, this consumes capacity as if it were going out of fashion. So, at this stage, the idea of classic feeders to HS2 fasts is dead. Rational or irrational, that is what we are faced with. What this does for the business case is undisclosed by HS2 Ltd – there has been no public revisiting of the case recently. One can guess why. Any suggestion that the line is to be branded as “The Norwegian Blue” should be discounted…
PS There are similar debates going on in the E midlands and Yorkshire, of course.
Commentors are reminded that this is LONDON reconnections. Discussion of HS2 and its ramifications, if it occurs at all, should really be focused on implications for the London area, if it is to avoid the vorpal sword.
A large number of people have talked about metro-ising National Rail routes to maximise capacity. This means standardised stopping patterns and might require some track alterations. If the objective was set of making Watford Junction, Milton Keynes Central and Rugby standard stops on the fast lines out of Euston, and they started examining what needs to be done to maintain journey times with the extra stops, there would be enormous benefits. I am far less familiar with the challenges north of Rugby, but an approach similar to that used the straighten the East Coast Main Line when Deltics were introduced in the 1960s would be appropriate.
However, even if there were marginal increases in journey times, most would accept then if they saw a more frequent service or more through trains – eg folk in Liverpool able to alight at Milton Keynes all day without having to change trains and not just at on very occasional trains
I would simply comment, that until HS2 is actually built, arguing about what services will and will not change, and/or will or will not run is largely speculation – especially given how fast the political winds can change.
At the moment optimal rationalisation of stopping patterns might seem out of the question – but that could – and, given the current political climate and how many years it will be until it is actually running – is likely to change at the drop of a hat.
There is hope, that maybe someone, somewhere will see sense and try to arrange a properly integrated network – which would make journeys with changes much more reliable – and hence politically defensible given faster overall journey times – as an example of one way the above-mentioned political change could happen.
It is a situation directly comparable to the current changes to the bus network in London. How that will end up looking in reality in eight years time, either after another few terms of Khan or with a new mayor is anyone’s guess.
All the long-term planning in the world is not worth the paper it is written on, if the next politician charged with implementing said plan tears it up and starts doing their own thing.
@DM1 and others – one of the problems of railway management and planning is that you design a system to do X (however defined); it is rare, however, that the entire system is taken up by the planned service: once it commences operation, people notice that there are opportunities, some good, some poor, which depend on 2 things – exploiting spare infrastructure, and exploiting spare capacity (usually, he said through gritted teeth, that spare capacity that was deliberately designed in in the first place to ensure reliable operation.)
The downside of this is that (a) the system maybe relying on being able to operate without margin for error throughout the day, and (b) – and this is the TLK case, for example, the “minor tweak” may turn out to be much more successful than anyone thought and the cost of meeting it becomes enormous.