December, amongst many other things, is a time for timetables. This tends not to get much publicity, particularly for the Underground, as normally there is nothing interesting to report. Superficially little has changed, but beneath the surface there are small but significant changes to the Sub-Surface Railway and some quite significant changes to the Northern Line. Here we take a look at the changes to the Subsurface Railway. We will look at the Northern Line in the near future.
Ringing the changes
As regular readers will know, the Sub-Surface Railway (SSR) consists of the Circle, District, Hammersmith & City and Metropolitan Lines. As these share tracks these are all highly interdependent, so a change in one may well cause a change to all lines. This is what appears to have happened in December 2014 with the most significant changes being on the Metropolitan Line and relatively minor adjustments to the Circle and Hammersmith & City Lines. The District Line is not running any more trains through the centre but is extending some existing services so that they terminate further out.
Things were complicated because the Metropolitan Line operates a leaf fall timetable. In common with many UK railways, this period has been getting later and later in the year and now, rather awkwardly, often spans the annual Network Rail December timetable change. This was the case for the Metropolitan Line and the leaf fall timetable has operated until 27th December. Engineering work on District and Circle Lines for the following three days means that Wednesday 31st December 2014 is supposed to be the first full day of the new timetable on all four Sub-Surface lines.
Look. No dagger!
Cannon Street tube station open on Sunday
It was inevitable that there would be a new timetable for the SSR. From December 14, Cannon Street tube station has opened on Sundays. On its own, eliminating the anomaly of it being the only tube station that didn’t open on Sunday would be enough to make a new Sunday timetable necessary for all four lines – even though it only directly affects two of them. There was probably no way an additional station call at Cannon Street could have been absorbed into the existing workings. The timetables are so tightly dependent on each other that once one has to be altered it is almost inevitable that all four have to be changed. In fact, the timetablers are probably doing well if they can make the changes without forcing a minor rewrite of the Piccadilly Line timetable as well.
Regular readers will be aware that from early January SouthEastern trains to and from Charing Cross will not be calling at London Bridge for around 20 months. Less well publicised is the fact that Charing Cross and Waterloo East stations appear to have no national rail trains on Sundays during this period either, with all trains terminating at Cannon Street. This means that Cannon Street tube station is likely to be busy on Sundays in future and a realistic dwell time really does need to be factored into a new timetable.
4 trains per hour (tph) extra off-peak from Baker Street to Aldgate
Diagram showing current off-peak frequencies on the subsurface railway
The big change on the SSR is that off-peak there are an extra four trains per hour on the Metropolitan Line from Baker Street to Aldgate. That might not sound like a big change. Indeed it never received a mention in the latest Commisioner’s Report. The significance of it is though that it brings the frequency of through off-peak Metropolitan services from Baker Street to 12. This, combined with the 12tph on the Circle and Hammersmith & City Lines means that most of the northern part of the circle has 24tph – the same as the frequency on the southern part.
It seems that the additional off-peak trains extended to Aldgate are Uxbridge ones that formerly terminated at Baker Street. This change has the additional benefit of having the entire 8tph off-peak Uxbridge service going to Aldgate as well as the Amersham (2tph) and Chesham (2tph). In fact the only off-peak trains that now terminate at Baker Street are the 4tph from Watford. This is quite a change given that 25 years ago all off-peak Metropolitan Line trains terminated at Baker Street.
One slight problem with the 8tph Uxbridge trains arrangements is that they have to fit into a 12tph pattern. Consequently, although trains leave Uxbridge at regular 7½ minute intervals, journey time from Uxbridge to Aldgate alternates between 56 and 59 minutes.
There is a similar problem with interval spacing with the Amersham and Chesham trains which also go all the way to Aldgate. These are further complicated by the need to segregate these from the Watford trains which share the same tracks to Baker Street. There are additional fast tracks but all LU trains call at all stations in the off-peak so the fast lines are unused by off-peak Metropolitan Line trains.
Watford trains terminate at Baker Street so do not have to be delayed to fit into an interval pattern further down the line. Nevertheless other complications lead to slightly lopsided intervals of off-peak trains departing from Moor Park to Baker Street in an alternating pattern 6 and 9 minute intervals with journey times alternating between 33 and 35 minutes.
The off-peak pattern for the Metropolitan Line as described is already believed to be remarkably close to what is intended in 2018 after resignalling. One obvious difference is the proposed 6tph to Watford Junction instead of 4tph to Watford (Met). This could probably be accommodated without too much difficultly once this link opens (now planned for 2018) and too much of a timetable change. Alternatively this could create an opportunity to recast the off-peak timetable if there were notable benefits in doing so.
District Line changes
Looking at the District Line changes in the working timetable we can also see a similar clear intention to move towards the proposed “final” SSR upgrade off-peak timetable. As mentioned at the start, the effect is to extend some existing services to terminate further out.
To quote from the Working Timetable the changes this time include:
During the Mondays to Fridays midday off-peak period and on Saturdays between 07.30 and 20.00, three additional trains will operate with half of the Tower Hill reversing trains (3 trains per hour) extended to operate to/from Barking.
and on Sundays
Six additional trains will operate between 11.00 and 19.00. In this period, trains previously booked to reverse at Barking have been extended to operate to/from Upminster providing a 5-minute interval service. In addition, half of the Tower Hill reversing trains (3 trains per hour) have been extended to operate to/from Barking.
This strongly suggests that here too the intention on the SSR is not to wait for the new signalling (or even replacing the old D stock District Line trains) before implementing the new off-peak SSR timetable previously proposed for 2018. It also goes to show how, more and more, the only real difference between the Saturday and Sunday timetables on many lines is the fact that trains start later on Sundays, take a little longer to reach their regular interval pattern and finish running earlier.
The District Line change highlights how interconnected the subsurface lines are. Because the District now has trains terminating off-peak at Barking bay platform, the Hammersmith & City trains now continue to the sidings to layover before coming back into service.
Why retain some off-peak Tower Hill reversers?
One can ask the question, why bother to extend only half the Tower Hill reversers to Barking? Why not extend all of them? One can think of answers such as a need to provide time for District Line drivers to undergo a conversion course to ‘S’ stock or even a shortage of trains. The off-peak timetable requires 64 trains which is not much fewer than the evening peak (76 trains). Putting it another way, the mileage run on Saturday, without a peak, is already 94% of the mileage run on Mon-Fri. This does not give a lot of opportunity for train maintenance.
In fact, the most likely reason for only extending half the Tower Hill reversers to Barking is to avoid doing anything too dramatic in one go. In other words, try extending half the service and make sure that runs smoothly before going the whole hog. This incremental approach is a frequently observed London Underground way of working. One only has to look at how they are increasing capacity on the Victoria Line by small stages – or alternatively look at the Northern Line (as we shall do in the near future).
What is a bit of a surprise about the off-peak Tower Hill reversers being extended to Barking is that the original board document (admittedly now almost five years old) made no mention of this and rather suggested that they would continue to terminate at Tower Hill. Like other changes there was no hint (e.g. reference in board or Rail & Underground Panel meeting documents) that these were likely to happen in the near future.
All change (of plan)
We last covered the deals of proposed SSR frequency only last year but it seems the plan has already changed since then. Or, to look at it from a different perspective, certain aspects of the new plan are clearly not now dependent on the new signalling and will be introduced by the end of 2014.
Much of last year’s article focused on how the SSR was going to have a very rhythmic timetable with evenly spaced interval between trains. It was basically close to a perfect timetable that had both a frequent and regular service despite the incredible complexity. By introducing an additional 4tph between Baker St and Aldgate in the off-peak 7 days a week, the latest timetable has effectively completed provision of the service around the circle that we were not expecting until 2018. It also makes it possbile for a regular pattern of trains to be run. Eastbound would have the repeating sequence: Aldgate, Circle Line, Aldgate, H&C to Barking. Westbound would be even simpler with trains alternating between Harrow-On-The-Hill (and beyond) and Hammersmith. Almost certainly this is the most regular timetable ever produced for this section of railway in its 150 year history. The introduction of this intensive off-peak service would suggest that the new signalling was not actually a critical factor but having a common rolling stock with identical, improved performance was.
The main SSR circle (the former Circle Line until a couple of years ago) now has 24tph off-peak between Baker St and Aldgate. Between Tower Hill and Gloucester Road it already had this frequency – in fact marginally more at a rather inconvenient 25.5tph until recently. The loss of 1.5tph (a reduction in Circle Line frequency) is arguably more than compensated for by a regularity of service.
It is worth noting that the High St Kensington – Edgware Road portion of the SSR still has a relatively poor off-peak service of 12tph – both peak and off-peak. This is served by the Circle and District Edgware Road – Wimbledon services. What frequency can be run here is effectively determined by how many trains you can get through Praed St junction and onwards to Edgware Road station. The frequency of the Hammersmith & City Line is a factor in this. In reality the Circle and Hammersmith & City need to operate the same frequency and it is also highly desirable that Wimbledon – Edgware Road is also run at the same. Effectively therefore the frequency of High St Kensington – Edgware Road (12tph) is going to be half the frequency of Praed St Junction (24tph) which with current ancient signalling is probably approaching absolute capacity. It will be interesting to see if this junction is resignalled early on in the SSR resignalling scheme and whether advantage will be taken of this at an early stage to improve the frequency of the lines that run through it.
The off-peak that is slightly less than the peak
A theme that occurs in many our reports of services on the Underground is just how close the off-peak service increasingly is to the peak. This is is the case for much of the SSR. Indeed over some sections it is identical. For Baker Street – Liverpool St there are now 27tph in the peak hour (6 H&C, 6 Circle and 15 Metropolitan). This means that the off-peak the service is now almost 89% of the peak service. For the Metropolitan Line as a whole the mileage on Saturdays is around 87.5% that on Mondays to Fridays which, considering that the mileage clocked up by the peak-only Amersham and Chesham fast trains to London is considerable, is surprisingly high.
Good or bad thing?
The intriguing question is whether or not this early introduction of the regular interval working on the off-peak Subsurface Railway is a good or bad thing. Certainly for today’s passengers it is a benefit. London Underground will probably be quite keen to point out that they can run the 2018 proposed off-peak service without being dependent on the delayed resignalling contract. That may save them some political embarrassment. On the other hand the fact that the peak-hour service is little better than the off-peak service also highlights the probable desirability for more trains in the peak period. The extra trains in service will be dependent on the new signalling and it now appears that any pretence that this will be fully in place by 2018, as originally intended, has totally disappeared.
The slightly worrying thing about the improved service is that it is probably being introduced now because of an existing need. One hopes that Crossrail will buy a few years respite but, if this level of service is not adequate in future, it will be hard to see how in the early 2020s London Underground will be able to provide an intensive enough sustainable service on the northern part of the circle – and this is before HS2 arrives at Euston.
Other than extending the remaining off-peak trains terminating at Tower Hill to terminate at Barking, it is hard to see how the SSR timetable can improve further until the replacement SSR signalling is introduced. This is not now expected to be commissioned until the beginning of 2017 at the absolute earliest. So the message is, make the most of the new SSR timetable. For the next few years this is likely to be as good as it gets.
@taz
“The problem with a Picc/District swap is there are currently many more Picc than District ”
Really? the timetable shows every 10 minutes (6 tph) off peak for District to Ealing, and for Picc to Rayners the frequency is errm, every ten minutes.
I think that the You Tube footage of the Beijing Metro that WW found is this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG-meaGqg-M
Ridiculous scenes indeed.
@ Timbeau – Looking at Ealing Common westbound from 18:00 for an hour I find 7 District and 10 Picc, so almost half as many again. Swap branches and could the District meet the demand? How could you get more District paths for Uxbridge? The West London Study looked at possible shuttle services west of Acton Town or west from High Street Kensington, but found them poor value for money. The diversion of District trains to other branches allows those to be boosted at no additional cost, whilst the diversion of some Picc trains to Ealing Broadway actually saves the cost of a few new trains that would be needed if they travelled further on current branches.
The future of Moorgate City Widened Lines is as much needed central London stabling accommodation. (see recently quoted: http://www.lurs.org.uk/articles11_htm_files/03%20aug%2011%20SSR%20UPGRADE%20ON%20TRACK.pdf ) Since then the Wembley Park sidings have been adapted for S7 rather than being abandoned, but CWL are now required urgently to release stabling at Neasden for the additional Jubilee Upgrade 2 trains. In fact, this is the greatest threat to that project (see http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/fpc-20141014-part-1-item-18-jubilee-line-wcc.pdf point 4.12) As it truthfully notes, “works are not yet complete” though perhaps it could have said that works are not yet started! Converting the current short Farringdon sidings into access to the CWL will require signalling modifications that likely await October 2017 planned Thales resignalling, although that date was estimated when contract signature was expected mid-2014 and it is still awaited. Jubilee Upgrade 2 works completion is June 2018, although the extra trains are not to be ordered until late 2015, including Northern Line trains for Battersea, so that time schedule has still to be revealed.
@AlisonW
” people are going realise the station-entrance-to-station-exit time includes an awful lot more entrance-to-platform time at each end than they previously wasted, especially compared to the shallow cut-and-cover stations. ”
@Walthamstow Writer
“You rightly state that access, egress and interchange times are likely to be long at many Z1 CR stations and that’s before you have to wait for the less than stunning off peak frequency.”
All I can offer here is the anecdote about a similar choice I have to make. I’m working at Westbourne Park, and live in the East (né Olympic) Village.
So, I have a number of ways to get there. I can either walk to Stratford and take the Central Line to Liverpool Street and catch the H&C to Westbourne Park. Another option is the train from Stratford to LST and then the H&C.
Or, for another £5 I can take the HS1 from Stratford International – with long escalators and not so frequent but much quicker trains to St Pancras, and then have the 6 minute walk from the HS1 to the H&C line and to Westbourne Park.
The HS1 route is a little bit quicker (but not that much, because of the long walk and lower frequency service).
And the point is that I would actually pay £5 to travel on the larger trains, with the modern stations, the dependable architecture, even though it saves a few minutes.
Aside from ngh’s quite valid point about the fact that people are either going to be on CR1 already (from Heathrow, Ealing Broadway etc), or will be going to Whitechappel/Stratford to take services that they might have court from a Z1 terminus so will want CR1 to make their journey that way. I would say:
1) It’s a £50bn novelty and people will want to try it out;
2) TfL have a new £50bn service on their hands and will publicize it to the max (the tube map will get redesigned to make CR1 the most prominent service).
3) People will be directed onto CR1 by journey planning software (TfL, Google Maps etc)
4) The slight length of entrance and exit walks isn’t really what most people notice: they will notice the fast trains, the impressive architecture, etc etc
5) The cut-and-cover-curmudgeons can still take their railway-mania-era drain-trains to go the slow way if they want! CR1 is not going to replace services.
“This is why I get so immensely irate with the people who say Crossrail will allow Oxford St to be pedestrianised because no one will want to catch a bus down Ox St anymore. ”
Looking at the videos for TCR it certainly seems that entrance and exit to the Central Line will be less unpleasant, but yes, there are certainly benefits to taking a Neo-Routemaster in terms of access to the rest of the street compared to short hop on the tube.
@Graham Feakins/WW- having now watched the Beijing video, I couldn’t help wondering about the legal claims TfL would face if passengers were “handled” that way here. Or the fighting that would ensue…
@ Graham F – yes that’s the video.
@ Graham H – well I suspect that TfL are rather more alert to the safety management issues than Beijing appear to be. Although the station on the video seems pretty spacious and can handle large volumes there are so many safety issues evident (to my Western eyes) that I am surprised there are not serious incidents on a regular basis. Perhaps there are? The other thing that’s evident from looking at too many Youtube videos of various newish Chinese Metros is how very similar to Hong Kong MTR stations they are. It’s almost as if someone has made the “Ladybird Book of Chinese Metros” based entirely on the MTR design template. I know MTR have the concession to build and operate a couple of lines in Beijing, Shenzen and Shanghai so some transfer of design knowledge is to be expected.
@Graham H & WW – Of course, I could have added is “what they need are double-deck trains”…… Trust me – solves all problems, Guv.
@ Graham F – I wonder if the Metro operators have bothered to tell the passengers that causing chaos every day with their poor behaviour simply wrecks the service because of the long dwell times? I’m assuming, of course, that the dwell times on that video are longer than actually scheduled which may or may not be the case.
The other thing that would be interesting to know is what causes the problems. Is it out of control redevelopment relative to supporting infrastructure, massive population growth or the effect of the Metro system itself growing hugely year by year thus triggering more and more travel? Peak demand at the level seen in the video is a serious problem which is not easy to solve in the short term. I wonder how long it will be before Beijing has to start building Crossrail type lines or adding more suburban rail lines? I think I’ve heard that they are considering building tram lines to relieve overloaded bus routes but I’m not very up to date with tram / light rail matters. I think there are some interesting parallels with what we face in London even though we are far more developed and “built up” than Beijing is and have a much much older tube and rail network.
@Graham F/WW- yes, the dwell times are striking,although I get the impression that, crowds despite, people are actually more disciplined there than they would be in the UK (eg forcible removal from the train wasn’t resisted!). I recall discussing the dwell time issue with the RATP DG back in the ’90s; he said then that if he could have made one modification to system design it would have been to have separate boarding/exit platforms on either side of the train. Double decking, of course, doesn’t help at all because of the restricted numbers of doors and the time taken to churn the coach’s contents at each stop – besides,you are lucky if you get 35% more punters fitted in, anyway .
Once the “2018” timetable gets fully implemented, then the only serious capacity play available seems to me extending the S7 to become 8-car.
This unfortunately then adds to the time to clear junctions. A 135m platform requirement would seem to be a good rule of thumb without SDO.
Given the operational advantage of common stock it would make this desirable to implement across H&C, Circle and District. Putting the Wimbleware platforms to one side, then Hammersmith (H&C) and Baker Street (Circle) are the most difficult.
BUT there are approx 100 platforms (excluding Wimblewares) which need further lengthening this would be a long expensive process. Would like to see this as part of any future station modifications. Not seen the final plans but current Whitechapel and Victoria works should ensure 135m District platforms are delivered.
Those pictures of overcrowded Chinese metros suggests they don’t follow a policy like tfl used during the Victoria Station escalator replacement work of closing access to a station when crowding reaches a set level. It also begs the question as to why PEDs were not installed.
Of course to fully understand the reasons for the crowding one needs system details given how some systems have used broader track gauges and wider door openings to cope with crowding with Hong Kong and San Francisco coming to mind.
As for CWL if a link is to be created then surely it makes sense to allow this route to be used by in service passenger trains given your talking about a city centre route with interchange to Crossrail at Barbican/ Moorgate something that passengers who currently travel to Liverpool Street to access Shenfield services might use to access service at Moorgate instead given they won’t have to cross full width of Liverpool Street mainline station to reach – when it comes to the new Crossrail distances are relative to what is now possible ?
AlisonW @ 31 December 2014 at 22:14
“Quite quickly after CR1 opens people are going realise the station-entrance-to-station-exit time includes an awful lot more entrance-to-platform time at each end than they previously wasted”
True, but
people will learn which part of the train is most convenient for their exit or change and quite a lot of them will board accordingly
Briantist “The slight length of entrance and exit walks isn’t really what most people notice …” – are you sure about that? Look at the CR1 maps and you’ll see — even horizontally -just how far the new line is from the station entrances. Yes, I will be one of those people using the new line at some point in order to look at “the fast trains, the impressive architecture, etc” but I can assure you I’ll not be using it for intra-zone 1 trips*
Another thing to note about the Beijing video — apart from a dwell time long enough to have allowed two services to call anywhere else — was just how wide the platform was. And such a level of overcrowding without PEDs too …
Alan Griffiths – but that was my point. CR1 will be used by those travelling into/outfrom the central area, and position themeselves accordingly, but ‘short’ journeys might well be faster for the *on the train* part of the trip but not overall.
* I usually do most of these by bus, in fact, as street-to-platform distances are frequently too high a proportion of the full journey.
I’ve been sharpening a couple of crayons …
It should be possible (read: pretty easy) to make a reversing facility on the north side of the met/circle/h&c — at Barbican instead of at Moorgate, and which is central to the running lines, meaning no junction blocking.
From Plat 2 at Farringdon (inner) slew across to head to plat 4 at Barbican (partially via 23 road?) and then west of Barbican head back to the existing through line (plat 2) at Moorgate. This would enable two central tracks to access the middle (2/3) island at Barbican for reversing services. The storage option at Moorgate 3&4 would still be retainable I think. Alternatively stop PAX at Farringdon (which is going to be very busy) and run empty into the Barbican as a reversing head.
@Alison. Sounds good to me.
(Once, that is, that I got my head round the way you described it. You refer to diverting the inner rail, i.e. the westbound track at this point. And you describe the changes to it, listing them from west to east. )
A cheaper variant would be to reverse only in Barbican platform 2, and use 3 for through westbound. That way you’d avoid refurbishing platform 4 (with any associated lift).
Melvyn – as I understand it, BART*’s broad track gauge was designed to stop any through running from (and hence possible operation by) mainline US railroads. It was not because of crowding – the intention was that the standard of accommodation would match the private car, including a seat for everyone.
But the correlation between track gauge and structure gauge is not that strong, anyway – tube trains and Eurotunnel trains are the same track gauge, and the structure gauges in Ireland, Great Britain and New Zealand are just about the same (as evidenced by all using BR Mk 2 carriages), despite their using three different track gauges.
And Beijing appears to be doing something about crowding, with the flat fare being replaced by graduated fares, with corresponding large increases.
*Bay Area Rapid Transit (San Francisco)
Re WW, (&Briantist, Alison)
WW comment
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/new-sub-surface-timetable-good-gets/#comment-237145
That was exactly what was worrying me – there isn’t actually a proper interchange. How long till there is an upgrade to crossrail 1.1 featuring better interchanges and other thing that gradually got dropped (or were left out of) the original scope. I suppose Crossrail’s view is that they shouldn’t have to sort out the already bad access to the D&C platforms that is LU’s problem!
Malcolm – yes, sorry about that. I realised I’d described it ‘in reverse’ as it were, but it was easier to think that way around! I reckoned that having two central roads/platforms meant a higher service frequency would be possible than a single might offer.
I’ve often thought (and mentioned) that Barbican could be used as a turnback -the island platform could be two terminating roads, and with a bit of track work, the outer platforms could be the through lines.
It’d partially use the Widened lines, and Moorgate could be for stabling of SSL trains. It would also mean no conflicts, assuming the old, wrecked westbound TL platform at Barbican could have the required track work to be accessed from the Moorgate westbound SSL platform.
Wouldn’t be a huge undertaking – not quite the connectivity of Moorgate but it’ll have Crossrail and enable more trains through the Kings Cross – Farringdon hubs. Wimbleware would be a great one to aim for in terms of reinstated connections, but probably easier for Met trains. Or H&C.
Yes, the western part of the Circle is the quietest, but the same argument can be made about the Overground lines, if you run a poor service then people take alternatives, and how many people are using the Central Line instead of the Circle, and thus contributing to that line being overcrowded?
Part of the reason for breaking the Circle, was to make the service more reliable. Extending Wimblewares past Edgware Road would reinstate a useful service, but won’t affect this reliability gain.
Edgware Road is a pretty grim place to change trains, and Westbound is even worse, as you then have to work out which platform to go to, to continue towards High Street Ken, with minimal information to tell you the first train. The station badly needs upgrading, especially as an awful lot of tourists (understandably) still use the ‘wrong’ Circle line station at Paddington
@Mikey C
“Part of the reason for breaking the Circle, was to make the service more reliable. Extending Wimblewares past Edgware Road would reinstate a useful service, but won’t affect this reliability gain.”
Are failing to notice making them go any further will put them into an already busy line Met-H&C-Circle service?
It is hard to see a way that having a reversing train between these trains is going cause anything other than a conflict. How can it be done without having to have an eastbound and westbound conflict?
“The station badly needs upgrading, especially as an awful lot of tourists (understandably) still use the ‘wrong’ Circle line station at Paddington”
They will be on already, or change to Crossrail 1 from 2019, won’t they?
Just putting an overall roof over Edgware Rd (D, C & H&C) would be a good start.
@Briantist (in Gigabit internet heaven)
Presumably the tourists who want to go into Central London (as opposed to Euston, St Pancras and Kings Cross) would take the Bakerloo Line anyway, and yes while CR1 will make a big difference, that’s still 4 years away.
And the northern part of the SSL is only overcrowded because of all those trains from distant parts of outer London and Bucks running through to the City!
AlisonW @ 2 January 2015 at 23:30
“Just putting an overall roof over Edgware Rd (D, C & H&C) would be a good start.”
And surely not too difficult or expensive?
@Mikey C
“…. would take the Bakerloo Line anyway, and yes while CR1 will make a big difference, that’s still 4 years away”
Yes.. The context, as I recall, was one of rebuilding another station to extend the Wimbledon-Edgeware District Service, something much more than 3-4 years away.
@Alison
@Alan G
“just”
I can’t believe you’re committing the crime of typing the word “just” here!!!!
@MIkey C. Think you may have had your tongue in cheek, but it’s not trains (from anywhere to anywhere) that cause overcrowding, it’s passengers!
Unless of course, yokels from Moor Park who had planned a day at Madame Tussauds, suddenly notice that the train which picks them up is going on to the city, and they decide to go to the Tower of London instead…
@WW – 1/1 10:46 “I wonder if the Metro operators have bothered to tell the passengers that causing chaos every day with their poor behaviour simply wrecks the service because of the long dwell times?”
Isn’t this just (yet another) practical illustration of the Prisoners’ Dilemma from game theory? There is a collective incentive for everyone to behave well, but a lot of people believe that they have individual incentives to behave badly.
While recognising that we are in dangerous crayon territory I’ve long thought that if someone was going to do something to ease out the capacity and interchange issues at Edgware Road that the more modest thing to do was to at least allow the Wimblewares to reach Baker St. I’m the first to recognise that won’t be cheap if you add one or two tracks on from Edgware Road and if add extra track(s) at Praed St junction. I’d never claim this was a panacea in terms of massively expanding capacity but it could at least remove the Edgware Road interchange for a proportion of passengers and get them to Baker St for far better interchange to other lines. Having two tracks to the south of the existing H&C / Circle tunnel between Edgware Rd and Baker St to a new stub end terminal at the latter plus a doubled Praed St would allow full separation through Edgware Road. Baker St station would obviously need a substantial rebuild to cater for the interchange flows and we soon get back to the vexed question of how many trains you can squash through Earls Court / Gloucester Road or east of Baker St. And I shall lock my doodling crayons away because they are itching to completely redesign the entire Sub Surface network. 🙂
The whole problem of tourists using Praed Street to access the northern part of the Circle would be at least reduced if only someone put up much better signs at Paddington mainline station. The historical problem is that the clockwise platform at Praed Street is by far the easiest Underground platform at Paddington to access. (Although it’s now the least useful one!) A straight line walk from the mainline platforms with very little elevation change required. Although the Bakerloo is much better for access to most of the West End, it involves a sharp left turn down a narrow crowded tunnel (or an almost invisible hole in the wall at the left side of the concourse). The H&C station might just as well not exist for those not very familiar with the station. Superior (large!) signs are needed to steer folk in the best directions, including getting them to reverse their way off the platforms to the bridge for the H&C station. However, Network Rail have standardised on minuscule signs, which might just as well not be there, for all the use they are.
TfL putting some mega-pressure on Network Rail would be a whole lot cheaper than spending zillions on Praed Street Junction or extra tunnels to Baker Street. Even if metaphorical blood had to be shed to get NR to change their ways, a big improvement could probably be achieved a lot earlier than any costly construction project would deliver.
@Fandroid
Paddington does have the Underground line coloured floor tape which eagle eyed transferring passengers, if they indeed notice it, can follow to guide them to the desired LU platforms. It’s been about four years since I’ve been there, so I’ve no idea if they are worn away, have been updated for the Tea Cup line platform changes, or go near all of the mainline platforms. In any case the tape lettering too is also to small to be readily noticeable.
@Walthamstow Writer
“…allow the Wimblewares to reach Baker St. I’m the first to recognise that won’t be cheap if you add one or two tracks on from Edgware Road and if add extra track(s) at Praed St junction. I’d never claim this was a panacea in terms of massively expanding capacity but it could at least remove the Edgware Road interchange for a proportion of passengers and get them to Baker St for far better interchange to other lines. ”
Whilst the idea has merits – especially the avoidance of conflicts with the Met services, I would suggest there are issues:
1) Baker Street H&C/C is the World’s Oldest Underground Station(TM) (“Baker St station would obviously need a substantial rebuild”).
2) If the terminating trains are close to the H&C/C platforms, passengers are simply going to get off a train and wait for the H&C/C one that was behind the one they were on, which doesn’t do anything other than move the problem;
3) The Eastbound Met services platforms are a long way from the H&C/C ones… so passengers are faced with a wait-or-walk conflict.
4) Yes you gain the Met “Metroland” services and the Jubilee Line, but you have already interchange at Paddington for the Bakerloo.
“the vexed question of how many trains you can squash through Earls Court / Gloucester Road or east of Baker St.”
I would be a great idea, wouldn’t it, to rename the Wimbledon-Edgeware Road line and give it another colour – especially if it were extended.
Tourists don’t matter(!) – they only make the journey once or twice. It is regular commuters we should worry about – all that time spent walking along endless corridors or queuing in inadequate interchanges – time is money etc.
And to be fair, TfL are addressing a few of these bottlenecks, but their preferred method of improving interchange is to add increasingly long pedestrian tunnels – cf Kings Cross – which can seem a bit counter-intuitive.
The problem with Paddington is that when you get off the train, you see a tube roundel in front of you, where you expect it to be on the forecourt, which is NOT the one you should be heading for. You have to physically go back on yourself to get to the H&C station – no-one really appreciates that there are 2 physically separate stations on the same line (sort of) within the Paddington Station complex. Signage will not really help unless that big helpful roundel is removed.
@Briantist
A new name is really needed, would help to increase the prominence of the Edgware Road service and encourage people to use it.
Could always call the northern station Bishop’s Bridge again, but as that would make it sound further away it might not actually help. “Paddington North” and “Paddington South” might though.
Actually, there would probably be a strong argument for *closing* platform 2 to passengers and making it exit-only, requiring all East-bound pax to head to platform 16.
(and Briantist – Yes “just”! )
fandroid
However, Network Rail have standardised on minuscule signs, which might just as well not be there, for all the use they are.
Sorry, but you’ve hit a nerve there …
There are still no signs at all, directing people between Walthamstow Central & the mis-named “Queens Rd” stations along the re-opened pathway.
And this isn’t “someone else’s railway” (which the UndergrounD is, but two NR track services, soon to both be operated as TfL concessions.
@ Briantist – I was careful not to overclaim the benefit for my idea of extending the Wimblewares. Much of the Underground is very old but that doesn’t mean you can’t modernise it. Let’s be honest and say Baker St is a disaster as a station. I haven’t been there in the peak for a long while but it was “hell” years ago so I imagine it is far worse than that now. The place needs really radical surgery to add much more capacity to allow people to enter, exit and change between lines. If my idea were ever to be implemented I’d expect there would be major surgery needed to add much more interchange capacity and possibly a new entrance – perhaps to the south of the Marylebone Road. There is also the vexed issue of making the place accessible – not easy or cheap to do. I wonder where Baker St ranks on the TfL “hit list” of station capacity works?
@ Greg – I rather suspect nothing will happen to W’stow Central’s signage until the ticket hall and gating works are done. Having been told off for daring to photograph the revised ticket hall I had a chat to one of the station staff. He confirmed the open interchange to / from Chingford line trains would be removed with people forced outside to re-enter again for LU (and vice versa). I honestly cannot see it working as there simply is not enough capacity to put enough gates in – especially on the “up” side. The ticket office on the “up” side is also going to close so that side of the station will be destaffed – not sure how that works with gates. Whoever has dreamt up the scheme runs a real risk of the thing unravelling (IMO, of course).
The thing about Paddington, is that we now have a situation that if the arrival wants to go to Notting Hill, South Ken etc, they go straight ahead to one ‘Circle Line’ station (and up a horribly narrow staircase to cross the track), while if they want to go to Baker Street etc, they have to double back on themselves, and go in the opposite direction to a different ‘Circle Line’ station. It’s hardly surprising they get confused.
As for Metropolitan trains between Baker Street and Aldgate, they never seem that busy to me. That trains from Amersham go through to the City along a Metro line is down to history. The majority of people arriving at Baker Street to go eastbound use the Circle Line platforms anyway.
@ Mike ” BART had wider gauge to prevent through running …” I would have thought broader gauge was to protect against earthquakes would sound better given lines need to be connected to through run.. Best watch out for a Chiltern DMU at Baker Street Metropolitan line …
The major problem at Paddington is that apart from passengers arriving on suburban trains on high numbered platforms the rest have a long walk off the platform and then an awkward walk made worse by station shops, heathrow express ticket office etc to reach H&C station although plenty seem to find the taxi rank which is just before the H&C station. Shame it could not be moved to inside the station !
Of course if you wanted to make the Circle Line a T Cup service then you could terminate the trains at Paddington instead of Edgware Road together with Wimbledon trains .
In fact looking at how close the Praed Street Station is to the new Crossrail Station beneath Eastbourne Terrace one wonders why it could not have been linked to it ?
It seems the only long term solutions to the SSL network will involve grade separation of junctions or even reviving deep level tube solutions which were once considered for the District Line but might need to be adopted for other lines ?
When one considers how Fenchurch Street and The MML at St Pancras work with just 4 platforms there must surely be a better use for those 4 platforms at Moorgate given it will be linked to Crossrail and thus serve many of the passengers that change at Liverpool Street and the new GTN franchise has plans for full time 7 day services from Moorgate next year.
@Melvyn,
In fact looking at how close the Praed Street Station is to the new Crossrail Station beneath Eastbourne Terrace one wonders why it could not have been linked to it ?
But surely they could have been but this would be a bad thing to do. The whole point is that you don’t want to make it easy to link to Praed Street (District & Circle Lines) because this will mislead a lot of passengers into going to the wrong Circle Line station. I know some will want to go south via Notting Hill Gate but that is unfortunate. Go to Praed Street platform 2 (eastbound) and look at the number of passengers there. Then remember that just about every single one has gone to the wrong Circle Line station so shouldn’t be there and is unnecessarily changing trains because of this.
When one considers how Fenchurch Street and The MML at St Pancras work with just 4 platforms there must surely be a better use for those 4 platforms at Moorgate
But the vital difference is that Fenchurch St and the MML at St Pancras are all terminating platforms. Unless the 2 out of 4 terminating platforms on an intensively used metro are the centre two platforms (as at Aldgate) and it is a desirable place to terminate they are of reduced usefulness. And what benefit is there in terminating anything at Moorgate? It wouldn’t be additional to what is already being run – it would be a replacement for a through train currently going beyond Moorgate.
@WW
There are 6 tph on the Wimbleware and 6 tph on the Circle Line, and extending them to Baker Street doesn’t change that – it merely gives a greater choice of what the next eastbound train should be. People on the Wimbleware south of Earl’s Court in the peak will most likely be targeting:
the City (Upminster train);
the West End (any train plus Piccadilly from Earl’s Court);
Canary Wharf (Upminster train plus Jubilee from Westminster).
Also, people on the Western part of the Circle Line are unlikely to be targeting the City. Does extending the Wimbleware to Baker Street represent value for money?
@WW – I wonder where Baker St ranks on the TfL “hit list” of station capacity works?
London Infrastructure Plan 2050 had Paddington Bakerloo for 2024 and then South Kensington followed by Baker Street (no years for these more distant schemes, but with five later stations by 2035). *Wherever possible* these schemes will include step-free access.
Fandroid @ 3 January 2015 at 15:48
“The H&C station might just as well not exist for those not very familiar with the station. Superior (large!) signs are needed to steer folk in the best directions, including getting them to reverse their way off the platforms to the bridge for the H&C station.”
The saga of signage at Stratford (national rail parts of station) did not get resolved until the change of TOC from National Express to Abellio. Just before the Olympics, but long after opening of Westfield’s shops.
The other issue at Paddington is arriving by LU SSL and trying to find your mainline train. Screens on the pedestrian footbridge from the H&C platforms would help. Why do I need to arrive at the H&C platforms and then walk to the Lawn, instead of directly to the correct platform?
“Paddington Integrated Project” apparently only applies to construction.
@Ian Sergeant
“There are 6 tph on the Wimbleware and 6 tph on the Circle Line, and extending them to Baker Street doesn’t change that – it merely gives a greater choice of …”
IMHO it would be more confusing because you would then have section of line where there would be circle line trains that go off in three directions!
The current way is at least easy to understand. Having a double overlap in a transit line seems like a recipe for lost tourists.
WW
You are only too horribly correct.
What makes it worse is that all the works you refer to will be completed only a month or two before the whole thing becomes a TfL concession/operation of some sort.
How long it will take before the (now singular) operating authority (for want of a better description) realises that they have a compete total SNAFU on their hands is a. n. other question.
[ I agree, btw, that your prediction of serious overcrowding &, I suggest, possibly dangerous “crush” conditions at the new barriers can be expected. ]
Melvyn
We’ve been here before … the worst problem, that has only recently been invented, is the distance on foot, from platforms 12-14 to 15 & 16 @ Padders ….
No efforts seem to be under way to remedy this – but we have discussed this before, with IIRC no satisfactory conclusion.
@ Ian S – I am not making any great claims for a stonking business case and I did hint that it was more a case of my own musing / itchy crayons. 😉
@ Briantist – I think we have plenty of people who are confused by London’s transport system and they live in London! The slight risk of the odd confused tourist is not a deal breaker when it comes to service patterns here or anywhere else in the world. There are loads of aspects of how we run tube, rail and bus services in London that will not be sensible or logical to others.
@ Ian Sergeant
“There are 6 tph on the Wimbleware and 6 tph on the Circle Line, and extending them to Baker Street doesn’t change that – it merely gives a greater choice of what the next eastbound train should be.”
Many of these people are changing to the Jubilee and Metropolitan lines, so it saves having to change trains at Edgware Road, especially as the trains coming up from Hammersmith are already pretty full.
@Walthamstow Writer
“I think we have plenty of people who are confused by London’s transport system and they live in London! The slight risk of the odd confused tourist is not a deal breaker when it comes to service patterns here or anywhere else in the world. ”
That might be true as a general point, however I was making a specific comment about extending the Edgeware Road services to Baker Street on “new platforms”, because people “don’t like Edgeware Road station”.
You would have, at Baker Street:
Platform 5: eastbound H&C, eastbound Circle to Great Portland Street
Platform 6: westbound H&C, westbound Circle to Edgeware Road THEN Royal Oak
Platform 11: terminating trains from eastbound, then westbound Circle to Edgeware Road then Royal Oak
Platform 12: same as Platform 11.
as well as
Platform 3: eastbound Met to Great Portland Street (to Aldgate)
Platform 2: westbound Met from Great Portland Street
to complement
P1 Northbound Met, P4 Northbound Met, P8/P9 Bakerloo P7/P10 Jubliee.
And *ALL* this because people don’t like Edgeware Road very much.
Let’s put on of those “Just” roofs on Edgeware Road!
@Mikey C
“Many of these people”
How “many”? Of what people? Any …. figures.
“are changing to the Jubilee and Metropolitan lines .. so it saves having to change trains at Edgware Road, especially as the trains coming up from Hammersmith are already pretty full.”
This is no doubt true. The question you have to ask is
1) It it worth spending £400m* for this idea?
2) Does it create additional capacity? No, as no additional trains will run.
3) Does it free up resources elsewhere? No…. even the Edgeware road bays would be needed for the access to new platforms at Baker Street.
4) Is there a cheaper way to do it? Yes, people can change as they do now.
* – station rebuild £250m, track extension in busy/heritage area £150m.
@ POP Moorgate has 6 platforms on SSL 2 through platforms, 2 used for terminating trains and 2 former CWL platforms that belong to TFL and the station already has a roof !
Perhaps we should look at extending all/ some of the District Line trains from Edgware Road to Moorgate and reduce the same number of Metropolitan Line trains beyond Baker Street .
In fact , I often take advantage of easier access to Edgware Road trains at Paddington and board a Circle Line train to Edgware Road and remain on the train and return through Paddington when travelling to say Victoria stations in the city . And I am guaranteed a seat 100% of the time !
As for the H&C station at Paddington this situation will only improve if Paddington main line station gets an upgrade similar to Clapham Junction or Kings Cross with lifts at country end of platforms and maybe escalators as at Kings Cross to the bridge that links to the H&C station and thus encourages passengers to enter/ leave at both ends .
@Melvyn,
Moorgate has 6 platforms but two are unelectrified and are to all intents and purposes useless. Even if electrified they is no real way that they can be sensibly used if you retain through trains.
Perhaps we should look at extending all/ some of the District Line trains from Edgware Road to Moorgate and reduce the same number of Metropolitan Line trains beyond Baker Street .
This makes absolutely no sense at all. If you reduce the number of Metropolitan Line trains then extend an equivalent number of District Line trains to Aldgate. Terminating at Aldgate means that busy Liverpool Street is served. It also has the terminating platforms between the running lines which reduces conflicting movements.
To suggest extending the Wimblewares to Aldgate is a very reasonable suggestion but … (there is always a ‘but’ isn’t there) in the peak there will be no capacity to terminate the displace Metropolitan Line trains at Baker St. Baker St can only terminate 12tph (even with the new not yet existent signalling) in the two side terminating platforms because of the conflicting moves with the through trains. These 12tph are already spoken for.
The Edgware Road shuffle isn’t that inconvenient. Circle line terminators arrive and depart on platform 2, from where it’s a simple cross-platform interchange to the Kings Cross trains on platform 1. Wimbleware trains arrive and depart on platform 3, which does indeed require use of the stairs; but this could be avoided with a simple announcement at Paddington South telling passengers with heavy luggage to wait five minutes for the next train.
Westbound travellers heading to South Kensington need to use the stairs, but I imagine most people would use the Jubilee + Piccadilly for that journey. All other westbound travellers are ok. Spending millions to solve a five minute delay for a small category of customers does seem a bit excessive.
It would help if the tube map showed the true track layout at Edgware Road, rather than incorrectly implying that the District and Circle lines terminate on platforms 3&4. But then the same could be said for many places on the tube map.
@Andrew M
Yes, it’s not that inconvenient, if you are able-bodied, and it is a nice warm (non-windy) day. For me, it is just annoying, having to change, when I didn’t used to have to (is that correct grammar?). But if my slight annoyance makes the whole SSR network of lines run more smoothly, then I guess I will have to live with it!
To me, it seems that the stations I have to wait around at are the most neglected and depressing ones – Kennington is similarly depressing to wait at (but at least it is not windy), and there never even seem to any adverts to stare at on the flaky walls facing the platforms. Every other station on the northern line seems to have been renovated or refurbished in the last 20 years, except for Kennington…
Perhaps at some point (25/50/75/100 years time) the Metropolitan line north of Baker Street will be subsumed into a crossrail type scheme. Given the loading gauge and frequencies it would seem a suitable candidate. That would obviously release much more capacity to play with between Paddington-Aldgate. As others have said though Crossrail is likely capable of satisfying much of the demand for the coming years.
Re Baker Street station though it’s a bit disingenuous to say it has 24 or 27 tph eastbound. Because the Met and Circle/H&C trains leave from different platforms you have to basically take a punt on which platform to go to because, as mentioned earlier, trains rarely arrive at Baker Street on schedule. The departure board in the booking hall switches between the 1st train to go at will or sometimes just goes blank. I tend to opt for the Met platform since they appear to have priority over the Circle trains (maybe the Mets are playing catch up). But that means the true tph from Baker Street is only 12 or 15 unless you want to risk a heart attack trying to get to the other platform when a train comes in – which you can see over the tracks but not get to easily/quickly.
JA says “Perhaps at some point (25/50/75/100 years time) the Metropolitan line north of Baker Street will be subsumed into a crossrail type scheme.”
Err, it’s already in a crossrail type scheme. The Met and District lines pioneered the concept of trains from “suburban” distances eschewing termini, instead stopping repeatedly in the central area, and proceeding to a different suburban destination the other side of London.
Having said that, the current trains through Baker Street do not quite cut the crossrail mustard, what with only going as far as Aldgate. Ideally they would extend to Upminster or somewhere; but there’s nothing much stopping them from doing that.
(The proposed diversion from Aldgate to dive under the Thames and link up with a suitable South-Eastern line would make a better balance for Metroland, maybe, than Upminster.)
@Malcolm
Hammersmith to Barking (via Baker Street) is essentially a Crossrail though. And the met used to also run to New Cross via the ELL, and onto he GEML via he link at Liverpool Street
Although there was a link at Liverpool Street, I thought that it was never used for any regular through trains onto the GEML. Am I wrong?
Going back a bit on what I said earlier, given that many trains do terminate at Baker Street (and they have to, because not enough paths beyond), there might one day be scope for what JA implied, sending them through a new tunnel to … (get behind me, crayons).
JA/others,
The main feature of Crossrail, like the Paris RER, is having fewer stops in the city centre. To turn the subsurface lines into a Crossrail-like scheme, you’d have to close Great Portland Street station, merge Euston Square and Kings Cross into a single double-ended station (as proposed for Crossrail 2), close Barbican, double-end Moorgate and Liverpool Street (as for Crossrail 1), close Aldgate East, and so on.
With Crossrail in place, there’ll be no need for such a solution. Particularly if an interchange station is built at Northwick Park / Kenton, allowing Met passengers to transfer onto Crossrail’s Tring branch.
The trick at Edgware Road is to remember to catch a Circle Line train from stations via High Street Kensington in order to guarantee a cross-platform interchange to continue onwards via Baker Street (well worth it if a Circle Line is only 1-2 minutes behind a District Line train, which naturally everyone piles on anyway if it turns up first).
I just wish this useful fact were more obviously advertised by TfL at stations via HSK to reduce the level of unnecessary traipsing over the stairs at Edgware Road.
@ian
Is the Circle P3 and District p2 pattern consistent enough to rely on?
And is it easy to tell them apart anyway – surely they all just say Edgware Road on the DMIs?
@Ian @timbeau
The front of the trains and the destination boards do mention whether they are Circle or District line trains. Annoyingly, the Northbound platform indicators at HSK (unlike the southbound ones) only mention the first train, with no time indication… and the frequency is pretty erratic by that point. The same applied to Notting Hill as well, I can’t remember what the other stations are like.
The Circle runs 6tph and Wimbleware another 6tph, interleaved. So in theory there should be a train every five minutes. But when you’ve already been waiting four minutes for a train, only to be told to then wait another five minutes to avoid hauling your luggage up the stairs, you won’t be terribly impressed.
If you arrive on a District at Edgware, there is always the option to cross-platform change to a H&City/Circle toward Hammersmith, then cross-platform again one-stop down at Paddington for a train toward the city!
May seem a little mental, but with the waits often experienced for a city bound train at Edgware Road, you’d be more likely to bag yourself a seat at the previous station, before the train arrives at the masses scramble on! (Providing of course you don’t just miss one by do this! – it’s all a gamble…)
Having an hour to waste yesterday I pottered over to Edgware Road, Baker Street and Bishops Bridge. It was immediately clear that there were many people alighting westbound at ER with their wheelie cases in order to get a train to Praed Street.
Also notable was that the frequency of services along the top of the ‘tea cup’ do not feel very frequent but I don’t see that widening the cut east of Praed St junction so that the lines don’t block each other wouldn’t be much help either; any extension would need to reach *beyond* Baker Street precisely because people wouldn’t change to platform 3.
@AlisonW
“Also notable was that the frequency of services along the top of the ‘tea cup’ do not feel very frequent but I don’t see that widening the cut east of Praed St ”
I think that it is worth recalling that when things happened “the old way”, the Circle Line service was awful.
Aside from the much better idea of sending 12tph to the H&C Hammersmith station, the Circle line does now interleave properly.
Yes, you MIGHT have to wait for the 6tph service if you want to do *that bit* of the circle, but before the service was clumpy and you OFTEN had to wait 20 minutes because the service was so easy to disrupt.
It seems to me that people have a very rose-tinted view of how the Circle Line used to run.
It’s far better under the t-cup than it was before. It’s just such a tantalising shame/irony that services end at Edgware Road rather than Baker Street – with its connections and being an actual destination – but can’t be helped.
Paddington to the south west corner of the Circle is difficult at the best of times – circuitous by the Circle Line, not very frequent, some guess work (it is sometimes – but not always – quicker to take the first train and change at Earls Court if necessary), but no real alternative: the presence of Hyde Park precluding any direct bus services. For Victoria and east thereof, there is the possibility of going via the Bakerloo, but for South Kensington and particularly the Royal Albert Hall it is almost as quick to walk.
It would be easier if all trains went to earls Court, to take the guesswork out of it, but this would require 12 tph extra through Earls Court (6 from Padd, 6 from South Ken) to maintain the frequency on the west and south sides of the Circle, which is probably not acheivable.
@timbeau
“Paddington to the south west corner of the Circle is difficult at the best of times “…
It’s a very strange subset of journeys that are effected by the change, because if you’re actually on the street at Bayswater, 300m away is Queensway with it Central Line; only 40% of trains from Wimbledon go via High Street Ken, at South Ken and Gloucester Road the Piccadilly is better, and from Sloane Square you have the fast Victoria Line one stop eastwards, so it’s really only the very specific High Street Ken to Baker Street that is the problem. (Also Paddington station is 500m from Lancaster Gate too).
Curious logic here, Briantist. I’d agree with all your reservations about the passengers who do not regret the old Circle, for the reasons you give. But I would rewrite your conclusion as “so it’s really only High Street Ken (alone) to anywhere between Baker Street and Kings Cross (inclusive), plus anywhere between Wimbledon(+Richmond+EB) and Earls Court (inclusive) to Baker Street (alone)”.
Malcolm – all of those I’d say ‘Piccadilly from Hammersmith/Earls Court to Green Park and then up to Baker Street’ would always have been easier.
None of them had direct trains before to Baker St either – always a change at Edgware Road.
TfL were in front of the Assembly Budget Committee today to answer questions on the 2015/16 budget. Peter Hendy, the Transport Commissioner, was asked about the SSR resignalling. He confirmed that tackling the Circle Line signalling in Zone 1 was the priority as it delivered a lot of benefit early. He also said he hoped a deal would be reached with Thales “within weeks”. He seemed confident that Thales’ body of experience of working with LU should allow decent progress to be made although he would not commit to a 2018 completion date. He mentioned that the Circle Line frequency would increase after resignalling which I didn’t think was part of the plan! Finally he also said that he’d been back to Bombardier demanding more money back from them for “having sold LU a dud” (my words). He was clearly pretty cross about the entire episode saying that he expected big multinational businesses to deliver what they promised. “It’s not as if we were buying from the “Peter Hendy Signalling Company”” he said. 🙂
There were also other insights into the fares package for 2015 and he strongly defended the nature of the daily caps and off peak increases. I don’t think any of the politicians in the room were convinced though. They clearly had that their policy positions to stand behind. One other thing that came in for criticism was the Night Tube. Labour members had clearly been trying to get hold of the business case and had been given conflicting info. When the outline numbers were given the debate then moved on to questioning the rationale of the whole scheme and why so many costs were not yet finalised. The backdrop to all this criticism was really trying to find out whether Mayoral policy demands have the same rigour applied to them as other projects. I suspect this one will pop up again after TfL have sent through some more numbers and the opposition politicos decide to target their ire at the Mayor.
The new sponsor for the Cycle Hire Scheme should also be announced within weeks.
The session was webcast and it will be accessible via the London.gov.uk website if anyone wants to sit through 2+ hours of discussion.
@Walthamstow Writer
Annoyingly, despite the broadcast being listed on http://london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/webcasts, the media player reports that it cannot find the file.
Broadcast is here. [Updated PoP]
Circle (and Hammersmith & City and Wimblewares) will increase in peak hours to 8tph according to the published plans. It has always been presumed they will go down to 6tph of-peak.
I could see a good case for making these 8tph all day (currently 6tph all day) with more off-peak Metropolitan Line trains terminating at Baker St – if it weren’t for the horrible knock-on effects on the District Lines which effectively has three western branches (Ealing Broadway, Richmond and Wimbledon).
It will be interesting to see if there is pressure in 2018 to make the SSR off-peak service much better than we believe is currently intended – which is more-or-less the current off-peak service. The issue would be about improving the “inner” SSR services (Circle, Hammersmith & City and Wimblewares) at the expense of the “outers” (through trains to Aldgate on the Metropolitan and District branches via Victoria) . To sort out the latter one would probably have to do something drastic like run Ealing Broadway – Acton Town shuttles. One might just get away with this once Crossrail is open as far as Ealing Broadway.
@Pedantic of Purley
“I could see a good case for making these 8tph all day (currently 6tph all day) with more off-peak Metropolitan Line trains terminating at Baker St – if it weren’t for the horrible knock-on effects on the District Lines which effectively has three western branches (Ealing Broadway, Richmond and Wimbledon).”
OK, trying to understand that…
The first bit I get, because there can easily be another 4.5tph terminating at the two Baker Street platforms, certainly until the New Watford Service opens.
“The issue would be about improving the “inner” SSR services (Circle, Hammersmith & City and Wimblewares) at the expense of the “outers” (through trains to Aldgate on the Metropolitan and District branches via Victoria) .”
I got that until the ” via Victoria” bit… Does this mean taking the 3tph that are going to Tower Hill and replacing them with +2tph on the Circle?
” To sort out the latter one would probably have to do something drastic like run Ealing Broadway – Acton Town shuttles. One might just get away with this once Crossrail is open as far as Ealing Broadway.”
Do you mean run all the 13tph to Richmond and have a shuttle service from Turnham Green (is this possible?) or have a double-shuffle from Ealing Broadway->Acton Town->Turnham Green?
or
The alternative question is: can you run 14tph into Edgeware Road termination platforms, 30tph via Embankment (and terminate 11.5tph at Baker Street from Metroland) and leave everything else alone.
If 30 is your magic working number, you THEN extend the Tower Hill 3 to Barking to get 30tph though.
Which I think looks like this in peak, which has 30tph everywhere (except via Euston Square, which you could get by having 3 of the 11.5 terminating Metrolands)
http://ukfree.tv/styles/images/2015/newSSR.png
Thanks.
@Pedantic of Purley
… (has a shower and realizes that…)
if you can’t make 14tph into Edgeware road terminators, then you would have 8tph on the Circle to Edgeware road terminators, 4tph to Wimbledon and have 2tph from Wimbledon to the terminating platform at High Street Ken.
Also notes: if you have 8tph on the H&C and 8tph on the Circle, then these have to take “priority” in scheduling terms as they don’t have anywhere to recover (by stopping short) whereas the DIstrict, Wimbleware and Met do.
@Briantist,
I didn’t want to enter too much into timetablista territory but once Praed St junction is resignalled you could run an off-peak service of 8tph on the following routes:
Richmond-Upminster
Wimbledon-Upminster
Uxbridge-Aldgate
Circle Line
Hammersmith & City Line
Wimbleware.
That leaves the 2tph Amersham, 2tph Chesham and 6tph Watford terminating at Baker Street. It also leaves the Ealing Common and Ealing Broadway unserved by District Line trains so you would need a shuttle to overcome that deficiency.
A potential problem with the above is that the intervals will be uneven on the Upminster and Hammersmith branches although some clever timetabling with slightly longer waits at critical points could minimise this.
That is just one possibility. If you are prepared to accept uneven frequencies there are loads of other options.
I put it forward, not because I believe it is what ought to happen, just to show that you can run a better service in central London off-peak if you are prepared to sacrifice a bit of frequency and convenience on the outer sections. This is counter intuitive because usually the two go together.
Alternatively you could just run the peak service, or something close to the peak service, all day if one was sufficiently confident it was sustainable and you had the staff and money to do it. A compromise might be to run a near peak service in the centre based on 7tph but this gets awkward for the Metropolitan Line which is timetabled and parts only have a half-hour service.
@ PoP – sometimes you have to wait to the following day for the media file to be available. I had missed the 8 tph peak service for the Circle so I was wrong and Mr Hendy was correct. Just reinforces why they want to do the central area + H&C resignalling first.
The Victoria and Jubilee Lines are planning to move to 36tph peaks, 27tph off-peaks in the next few years. I presume that the complex SSR layout will struggle to reach that peak level even with new signalling, but the off-peak total should be possible with current signalling.
@pop
“To sort out the latter one would probably have to do something drastic like run Ealing Broadway – Acton Town shuttles. One might just get away with this once Crossrail is open as far as Ealing Broadway.”
Do you mean run all the 13tph to Richmond?”
That wouldn’t reduce the number through the core, and Richmond probably couldn’t cope woith them all anyway – remember it has the Overground to cope with as well, and in particular the flat junctoin at Gunnersbury.
If the through trains to Ealing were to be replaced by a shuttle from Acton Town, then even if Richmond could take some of the former Ealing trains, that would still reduce the service at the busy stations between West Kensington and Turnham Green inculsive – and leaves Chiswick Park with no service at all. Reversal of a shuttle from Acton at Turnham Green would be difficult with the existing layout. A shuttle from Richmond would be only slightly easier, but would not be very frequent because of the long single track running between the diveunder and the statoin at TG, and would block one or other District Line platform during the turnround.
@timbeau,
Whoops. I shouldn’t write when I am tired. I had totally overlooked Chiswick Park. In my head I have already reassigned it to the Richmond branch. That does rather wreck the idea until the Piccadilly takes over the the Ealing Broadway services – or at least until Chiswick Park platforms are moved to the Richmond branch. I was thinking post 2018 but perhaps this is more post early 2020s.
Ignoring the fundamental flaw that you have pointed out, this would only be off-peak so Ealing Broadway would still get its future 8tph peak hour trains and Richmond would get 8tph both peak and off-peak. I know the shuttle proposal would lead to a reduced future off-peak service at places like Turnham Green from 12tph to 8tph. It would also make it inconvenient for Ealing Broadway travellers who wanted to continue to travel to a District Line destination and didn’t want to use the Central Line or Crossrail. This would have to be weighed against other considerations such as more trains to Hammersmith and Wimbledon off-peak and more Circle Line trains for those “round the corner” journeys. Also, specifically in Turnham Green’s case, being also served by the Piccadilly Line eventually. All I am saying is that in future there will be alternatives possible and whatever you chose there will be winners and losers. If I get any time at all at the weekend I will do a diagram to illustrate what I was suggesting as one possible long term off-peak alternative.
I understand that current thinking is that the current long term desire (mid to late 2020s) is for the peak District Line service to be be 12tph to both Richmond and Wimbledon via Victoria (+ the Wimblewares) with Ealing Broadway served by Piccadilly Line trains (and Crossrail) to replace the District Service.
Alternatively for the off-peak as Taz implies, we may get to the situation where 27tph is regarded as the off-peak standard. Clearly this couldn’t apply to the whole of the SSR. It would take some complicated messy timetabling but I suppose it could be done on the north and south side of the circle. The south side had an off-peak service of 25.5 tph until they reorganised the Circle Line. Whether it would be worth the extra 3tph for the additional complication and erratic service that would produce is another factor to be considered in future.
I think options for Chiswick Park were part of the discussions about the LR article a year ago regarding possible changes to the District line services, but I’d need to re-read the comments to remind myself of any conclusions.
I’m not a railways engineer but I’d have thought changes to allow access to the Richmond line at Chiswick Park would require significant work and they might impinge on the nature reserve and the station itself is Grade II listed.
In the interim, could Ealing Broadway remain at 6tph even in the peaks, with Richmond taking on the 8tph all day? Would be an increase of 2tph but still 6tph for Chiswick Park – probably enough.
The other option is for Uxbridge/Rayners Lane trains to switch onto the slow outer lines after Turnham Green (where everything will stop by then) – does the right pointwork exist?
@c
Carto metro shows no connections between District and Piccadilly from east of Hammersmith to just before Acton Town
http://carto.metro.free.fr/cartes/metro-tram-london/
There is also no connection between eastbound and westbound District west of Turnham Green until just before Gunnersbury, which would severely limit any shuttle service on the branch.
@WW:
The backdrop to all this criticism was really trying to find out whether Mayoral policy demands have the same rigour applied to them as other projects
That sounds a bit like trying to find out whether the Pope is Catholic, but I suppose the art is in trying to prove the point.
A trickier question would be whether Mayoral projects should have the same level of rigour applied? Or does the Mayor’s democratic mandate override the normal decision-making process?
@ Ian J – in theory all projects should be evaluated on common criteria and have an appropriate level of benefit. We saw that the recent order for 200 extra NB4Ls had a poor business case but it was still approved by the Board – presumably with the Mayor’s endorsement / support. Of course all the current political “noise” is a bit one sided because if we had a Mayor from a different party and they wanted their favourite policies implemented then there’d be no noises from their own people about whether there was a business case or not or about the process. Unfortunately this is where the practicalities of political commitments meet with standing orders and governance. Regardless of who was in power I’d prefer that money was spent wisely and only beneficial schemes were approved, even if a political commitment had to be broken, but I know I’m dreaming about “planet perfect” rather than living in the real world!
Reading the article on the changes to the Northern line prompted me to think about line speeds on the sub-surface lines.
Will the SSL have faster line speeds post-resignalling? Some sections feel particularly slow: Paddington to Hammersmith, Putney Bridge to Wimbledon, amongst others. The Metropolitan line seems fairly swift (a feeling no doubt encouraged by greater distances between stations) but other trains seem to dawdle along the line and linger for ages at stations. Changing from the deep tubes to the SSL feels like stepping back in time.
Or am I just imagining it? Even our deep tubes feel slow compared to Paris, where the doors start to open before the train has even stopped.
@Andrew M,
Coincidentally there is a discussion on this on District Dave. I think part of this is down to the way trains on the SubSurface Railway have to interface at junctions so they may have to dawdle so as not to reach the next junction too early. Conversely they may have to proceed with all haste because another train is waiting for them to clear a junction. If I am correct about this then it is not so much down to the trains but down to the signalling.
While we are at it, another comment on District Dave suggests that there will be a District Line May timetable change. My guess is that the remaining off-peak Tower Hill reversers will be extended to Barking then.
The closeness of the tunnel walls give an impression of speed in the deep Tubes that is absent on the SSL (and indeed on Tube lines on the service, which generally seem slower than in the tunnels)
timbeau
Unless you are coming down the hill from Epping!
Today’s TFL page in Metro features new S Stock trains for the District Line . Does this mean the full District Line is now cleared for S stock trains from Upminster to its 3 western terminals ?
The TfL page in Metro is a thinly-disguised advertising slot which over-eggs anything it thinks is good news – promoting the S-stock as “cool” air-conditioned trains when the temperature was -4C this morning was not ideal timing!
District Dave has the details
http://www.districtdavesforum.co.uk/thread/15708/stock-delivery-introduction-discussion?page=116
Not sure if they can go to Richmond yet
And of course, their arrival means
http://www.districtdavesforum.co.uk/thread/24849/stock-withdrawal?page=3
The first cars left by road today
They have been cleared to Richmond this week, according to posts elsewhere.
I spotted new train to Richmond and to Wimbledon via Victoria route tonight I have seen new trains to Ealing Broadway but not tonight !
I suppose given BORIS record TFL have to make the best out of Kens work even after 6 years …!
One observation on the original subject of the thread: it’s interesting to note that many of the scheduled eastbound H&C / Circle journey times from Hammersmith to Liverpool Street have been reduced by 1-1½ mins in the peak. Easy enough for those trains, which had plenty of dwell time at Paddington / Edgware Rd / Baker St, but how have they been able to fit them in past Baker St?
And a comment on the future timetable speculation: have any of the people happily diverting District service from Hammersmith/Turnham Green to Wimbledon visited TG in the morning peak? The service there is already inadequate, so any proposal to cut it for the benefit of Wimbledonians will have Chiswickians choking on their cappucinos.
@AndyR,
I am not clear what proposal in the next few years involves cutting peak period trains from the Richmond and Ealing Broadway branches to bolster the Wimbledon branch. I may be wrong but I didn’t think anyone, official or unofficial, was suggesting this in the short term.
The only one I am aware of is a very long term one involving removing the Ealing Broadway service from the District and boosting the Richmond and Wimbledon services. Since this can’t happen until the Piccadilly Line upgrade and by then Turnham Green will have between 33 and 36 tph on the Piccadilly Line in the morning peak, I can’t see the problem.
Saw S stock train to Upminster at Barking tonight at 17.30 must be a new working as its first one I’ve seen to Upminster .
@Melvyn
Two District “main line” duties have been rostered for S stock since January 19th.
According to a notice to staff this week, the long awaited programme to upgrade SSL track layouts in preparation for resignalling (see http://www.lurs.org.uk/articles11_htm_files/03%20aug%2011%20SSR%20UPGRADE%20ON%20TRACK.pdf ) is now expected to start at Christmas 2015 with the installation of a new high-speed scissors crossover west of King’s Cross to replace the trailing crossover east of the station. The intention is to improve service resilience, with a capacity to reverse over 20tph east to west from the two platforms after commissioning early next year. To me this does not look like great resilience for the current 24tph off-peak service, 27tph peak, and 32tph planned peak service. Brixton already manages 34tph through a similar layout. However, this hopefully suggests that other planned track changes on the Metropolitan Line can be commissioned by modifying current signalling rather than awaiting the proposed new TBTC system which has still to be contracted with Thales. The Distict Line signalling is much older, and modifications there may still await the new TBTC system.
Surely, tourists using the wrong station at Paddington are a good thing. If everyone using Praed Street went to the H&C instead, the H&C barriers and platform would be more crowded and the Praed Street ones under-used. The regular passengers are more likely to get a seat than those changing at Edgware Road. So, don’t improve the signage, let the occasional users get it slightly wrong and spread the load, it won’t happen to them very often, and is not a huge inconvenience. Similarly, if they are going to Victoria, they probably won’t think to change at Oxford Circus and clog up the Victoria Line but will go round the circle (not even changing at Earl’s court if a Wimbleware comes along first).
@Anonyminibus,
Surely, tourists using the wrong station at Paddington are a good thing…
I find this idea absolutely extraordinary. Ignoring for a moment the ethics of deliberately sending people to the wrong station (and please lets not re-ignite the debate about interchanges being longer than they need be) the reality on the ground just doesn’t back up this idea.
Paddington (Hammersmith & City) is a rebuilt station with a wide enough island platform and three sets of stairs to the platforms and lifts. It has been rebuilt to handle the levels of passengers expected in the future. Paddington (District) is an awkward station with narrow passageways little changed from the 1860s. There are severe conflicts of arriving and departing people. Even if no-one arrived at the District Line station to catch a train to Edgware Road and beyond I still don’t think you could describe it as underused. On the other hand you could describe the Hammersmith & City station as underused as it was built to handle more people than it currently does.
To my mind you want to direct (or by default fail to direct otherwise) people to the wrong overcrowded station instead of to the correct modern station designed to handle them.
@poP
To encourage more use of Bishops Road I suppose you could hide Praed Street (by calling it that, and/or not signing it from the main line station) but that seems a little extreme.
…. To encourage more use of Bishops Road, you could actually make it easier to get in to & out of, without a sabbath-days-journey around, over & through two sets of gates!
[ Like footbridge access from p/fs 12-14 again ]
Anonyminibus @ 9 February 2015 at 13:14
“don’t improve the signage, let the occasional users get it slightly wrong”
Got off my mainline train early evening Saturday 07/02/2015 and made a short walk to the H&C platforms, intending to change at Liverpool street. Trains running no further east than Bakers Street due to weekend works. Ah! That’s why I was advised to change to Bakerloo at Oxford Circus during my morning outward, journey.
It would also appear that while Crossrail will be directly linked to Praed Street, it will be a circuitous OSI from there to Bishops Road, likely irritating enough (I’d say) to stop me from bothering with it, and instead change at Bond Street or TCR for north side of the circle destinations via the deep tube.
@ Jamesup – I think any interchange from Crossrail at Paddington will be an OSI. I don’t think there is any paid side to paid side interchange being provided although I’m not fully clear about where the Bakerloo Line interchange link materialises at Crossrail or at the Bakerloo Line.
There will be a new sub surface link from Crossrail to the Bakerloo at Paddington.
Contract has been let.
The Crossrail interchange comes out opposite the bottom of the escalators to the Bakerloo line, so presumably starts from the paid side of Crossrail
@timbeau 9 February
The Praed Street station is still needed for people going south/anticlockwise towards Earls Court and Victoria etc, both popular tourist routes, so hiding it from tourists wouldn’t be very helpful!
The problem with Praed Street station, is that with the new arrangements the main people who should be using it are those going south/anticlockwise, which requires climbing a pokey and steep staircase over the tracks, whereas if you are going north/clockwise, then you have a nice flat walk to the platform!
@Mikey C
“The problem with Praed Street station, the main people who should be using it are those going south/anticlockwise, which requires climbing a pokey and steep staircase over the tracks, ”
But if you hid Praed Street they would use from Bishops Road, from where they can make a cross platform interchange at Edgware Road towards High Street Kensington!
@timbeau
I’m not sure making people go one stop then changing at the drafty and crowded Edgware Road would be an improvement, especially as half the trains would require a walk over the bridge!
Incidentally, one of my moans about the current arrangement happened tonight, coming up from High St Ken to Edgware Road, then finding the first eastbound train coming up from Hammersmith was packed already. Amusingly, one of the people who couldn’t get on was Jeremy Paxman! I’d love to have seen him grill TfL bosses 🙂
@Mikey C
my suggestion was not entirely serious.
Talking of destinations & routes …
Oh dearie dearie me – &who did THAT?
It seems 24 hour operation is under consideration for SSL lines see link below – http://railnews.co.uk/news/2015/02/20-plans-for-more-24hour-trains.html
Please note that while press talk of 24 hour Overground this release only talks about this type of service on Eaśt London Line part of Overground which TFL and not Network Rail controls.
Of course a little matter of an election is fast approaching and politicians are apt to promise things this side if the election .
“if this level of service is not adequate in future, it will be hard to see how in the early 2020s London Underground will be able to provide an intensive enough sustainable service on the northern part of the circle – and this is before HS2 arrives at Euston.”
So what’s next? Perhaps the only available capacity to divert people to is the surface is to move trips to the surface. But the buses are crowded too. Dare I say trams?
A more intensive service would require biting the bullet of removing the flat junctions- the H&C has four, at Praed Street, Baker Street and two at the Aldgate triangle. This either means grade separation or a huge simplification of the SSL network: would anyone accept
– no Circle Line
– Met services all terminating at Baker Street,
– H&C terminating at Aldgate with interchange via Aldgate East for onward connections (or of course via Liverpool Street and Crossrail or the Central Line)
– to avoid conflicts at Earls Court, the only District services being (in this direction only) Paddington – Wimbledon – Upminster – Ealing/Richmond – Paddington (with eastward connections to Edgware Road and beyond only via the Bakerloo or Crossrail)
You would certainly get more trains through
timbeau,
True that you would get more trains but not that many. If SSR resignalling can deliver 32tph as intended the gains to be had aren’t that great. Removing the junctions will only at at best provide 36tph which is believed to be the current realistic maximum for a simple out and back line. That’s 12% and not to be sniffed at but I suspect most people agree that it is not worth it for 12% extra capacity.
You might not get a significant increase where trains are already frequent, but you would on the worst served section from Edgware Road to Baker Street.
@ Anonyminibus
And from Baker Street station itself which because you have to choose which line/platform to take you have effectively halved the capacity eastbound from that quite key station. Contrast this to say Great Portland Street one stop further east, a much less used station, where because of the single platform it enjoys doubling of capacity compared to the stretch you mention including Baker Street station.
As you say, 12% improvement in service frequency is not to be sniffed at, but it does require a lot of currently-through journeys to involve a change. Could Baker Street, Earls Court, Paddington, and Aldgate/Aldgate East cope with the extra people? Even allowing for Crossrail taking some of the pressure off these last two?
Would running Hammersmith – Paddington as a shuttle, allowing trains from the Earls Court direction to travel to Baker Street be an option? (I think platform lengths would preclude running them as an extension of the Crossrail terminators, tempting though it looks!) ?
And there is no need to do all those things timbeau listed. Just terminate all Mets at Baker Street and extend everything that currently terminates at Edgware Road through to Aldgate.
I think discussed before but Baker St might not be able to accommodate all Mets terminating there hence half or more trains go through to Aldgate. There is also the political issue of keeping direct trains to the city from Bucks etc.
@phil
There are some CEEFAX-style information screens above the gate line on the sub-surface lines concourse at Baker Street. The bottom line of these screens will advise you whether to turn left (Met) or right (H&C/Circle) for the next Eastbound train.
@ Moosealot
Thanks I know, but through experience I find the information is not always reliable such that you head left or right for the first train mentioned only to find it is then held by a red signal whilst they let the second/other train through first. So the signalling is done in tune with the timetabling of trains whereas the information board tends to show the order of trains to arrive, but that is not necessarily the order in which they depart!
@anonyminibus
The Met trains are 8 cars, the H&C/Circle trains are 7 cars. Running smaller trains is not going to help ease overcrowding. Not to mention that Baker St would fail to cope with the interchange flows – especially from platform 6 (toward Hammersmith) in the evening peak, which happens to not be step-free and barely manages at the moment.
@timbeau
“A more intensive service would require biting the bullet of removing the flat junctions- the H&C has four, at Praed Street, Baker Street and two at the Aldgate triangle. This either means grade separation or a huge simplification of the SSL network: would anyone accept …
– Met services all terminating at Baker Street,”
There is another option – at least it seems that way to me.
For the purpose of discussion, how about joining up the Wimbleware Service with the Mets from Baker Street. Add a new junction and then trains from Watford (say) could do
Finchley Road, Baker Street, Edgware Road … Earl’s Court … East Putney, Wimbledon.
Yes… it would need to build a link, but it would “free up” the rest of the H&C/Circle route to Aldgate.
[Getting close to a wax based line… what would the benefit & cost of the Finchley Road to Wimbledon section be? LBM]
@LBM
“[Getting close to a wax based line… what would the benefit & cost of the Finchley Road to Wimbledon section be? LBM]”
Ok, if you will just indulge me for a moment.
Several things are clear, I think, if you are trying to run metro-type train services over existing infrastructure:
– The best way if to have single line that doesn’t share tracks with anything else.
– If you have a single track line, never terminate it in the middle of the city because you need a lot of expensive platform space for idle trains.
– If you must have junctions, let them only be for the line you are considering.
– Sharing line with other tracks for short sections means that delays on one line transfer to the other all the time.
– Junctions with other service on other lines are a total nightmare!
OK. So, let’s roll with the idea of building a MET junction just north of Baker Street. This links to two platforms at Edgeware Road (District/Circle/H&C). Let’s just assume that we also now bypass the Praed Street Junction and so 6 trains an hour now go on the met from Finchley Road, to Edgeware Road and then via Earl’s Court to Wimbledon.
Assuming this, then this would take out 6 trains an hour from the Baker Street Junction, which means that where would be room to run 6 MORE Ham&City trains between Liverpool Street and Paddington.
Yes, some passengers coming into Central London will have to change at or before Finchley Road if they want an Aldgate train.
Set aside this, you can get to Finchley Road from Earl’s Court on a single train. Perhaps even Wimbledon to Watford Junction!
I know the plan requires new tunnel, but it might even free up some trains as 12 (6 Aldgate, 6 Edgeware Road) trains won’t be sitting around and/or potentially blocking up the system.
IMHO this is a simple plan, requires no new trains or platforms. Yes, it does require a short section of tunnel and some work on junctions.
But from a thought exercise it gets rid of TWO lots of terminators AND keeps almost all the existing services. Just a bit of lateral thinking?
Go, the Metropoltian Wimbleford line! (ahem)
As an ex-resident of Harrow, I can assure you that the suggestion of direct trains to Wimbledon instead of the city would not be well received, to put it very very very mildly! From my experience a significant number of people leave and join at Finchley Road, and then most stay on through Baker Street. Any engineering based option would be best for Praed Street, should crayons/real money be involved
@ Briantist
I added my comment before your clarification, I assumed you meant the whole Met service… but I would again suggest sorting Praed Street is a bigger win
@Briantist:
Edgware Road was, in fact, rebuilt many decades ago as part of a plan to build a second line down from the Met’s tracks. The new portal would have been at the western end of the station. Although the new line was dropped when the Bakerloo (now the Jubilee) was extended to take over the Stanmore branch from the Metropolitan, the rebuild of Edgware Road was completed as intended.
However…
A key problem with any proposal involving major surgery on the Sub-Surface Lines (‘SSL’) is implicit in the name: they really were built just below the surface. You can see the disruption this method causes to the roads above. (The technique was also used for Rome’s first* metro line, its ‘Colosseo’ station is shown here under construction in the 1950s.)
You have to literally rip up the ground above and use the same cut-and-cover techniques to add anything to the existing SSL network. As the section either side of Edgware Road is also the oldest part of the London Underground network, there are bound to be heritage / conservation issues involved in performing major surgery on it as well.
(Note, too, that Tunnel Boring Machines, such as those used to build Crossrail, only make sense for long tunnelling runs. They also can’t be used this close to the surface.)
In short: you’d be much better off digging a brand new deep-level tunnel using TBMs instead. And if you’re going to build a tunnel with one end near Wimbledon, you may as well call it “Crossrail 2”.
* Line B. Don’t ask.
@Briantist
Having read your explanation more properly, you say that junctions with other lines are a nightmare, and yet you seem to be adding two more? And if you were linking two terminating services then surely that is the ones terminating at Baker Street, so there isn’t any more capacity east of there? Spending the sums involved (£many millions) for 6 trains an hour is unlikely to get a reason cost:benefit ratio either
@Herned
“Having read your explanation more properly, you say that junctions with other lines are a nightmare, and yet you seem to be adding two more”
Actually, if you think about it, having the dive-under to reach Edgeware Road would mean that you could obliterate Praed Street because it would be come two bits of straight working:
1- The H&C/Circle line on its way to Hammersmith which would be 100% independent of
2- The Met (was District) line on its to High Street Kensington.
The Circle Line trains would be in the latter path and use the remaining two platforms for the terminators.
So, that’s one junction less. And I said that having a line split is BETTER than a cross-line service (a flat junction) so having a split to get the trains from West Hampstead to Edgeware Road isn’t SO bad.
So that does leave Baker Street Junction, but that would be switching the other way now, with 18tph (6 Circle,12 H&C) to Paddington, 9tph to West Hampstead and 27tph to Kings Cross.
Looking at the numbers, taking 6 trains from the Met from Bakerloo to Aldgate means you could reverse the extra 6 H&C line trains at Aldgate (they would be better off going to Barking).
“Spending the sums involved (£many millions) for 6 trains an hour is unlikely to get a reason cost:benefit ratio either”
Actually, it’s not THAT much money, the tunnels would need to be all of 800m, and aside from the breaking apart of Pread Street.
I’m guessing you don’t use this section of tube at rush hour, because “just” another 6tph would help out an awful lot.
Also … if the running was simpified, it could be the basis of getting from 27tph to 34tph, which would be a “game changer”.
IMHO, of course.
For the avoidance of doubt, I was discussing what could be achieved with the existing layout. But the omelette of slightly greater capacity may not be worth cracking the eggs of lost through journeys.
@Anomnibus
Thanks for your comments.
As far as I know Crossrail 2 isn’t going anywhere near anything that this would effect. I’m not sure how it would help – if anything this thought process is complementary to Crossrail 2 (“EusFul” as someone called it).
For the record, as the idea is all of 800m I wasn’t proposing that it was to be dug a) deep underground; b) with TBMs; c) over the top of the existing line.
As a thought process it’s just like one of those concrete boxes that railway bridges are done using these day. Lots of prefab steel reinforced concrete.
Perhaps it’s doable, perhaps it’s not, but it *IS* a logical way of getting more trains into this bit of ancient railway with minimal disruption. Yes, I’m guessing it would cost at least £300m.
It was, as I recall, in answer to the conundrum about terminating Met services at Baker Street to make more room for H&C trains.
Without doing a proper survey of the possible routes .. who knows for sure?
Just for clarity, here is the idea on a diagram:
http://ukfree.tv/styles/images/2015/Wimbledon-Watford%20service.png
I don’t understand why people are asked to cost ideas? What matters isn’t cost but the benefit-cost ratio and nobody seems to ever be expected to quantise the benefit so providing cost estimates in the absence of quantised benefits seems redundant.
So I’m with Briantist on this one. I think his suggestion is interesting and might have potential.
@Theban – out here in the real world, absolute cost matters – as a reductio ad absurdem a £1tn project may have a BCR of 50 but no one can actually afford it. TfL.like everyone else,has to fund things from within a budget, and prioritise accordingly.
Of course I understand the logic behind the idea, I apologise if I came across as harsh, and I completely understand the need for more service on the H&C.
I just don’t think it’s that simple, you would need to build a grade separated junction with the Met line somewhere near Lord’s (with added complication of the Regents Canal) and then go southwest to somewhere along Praed Street. I don’t see how you could serve Edgware Road without new platforms if there are no new junctions with the Circle line.
This would need to demolish everything in the way if you aren’t using TBMs, the engineering involved would be on a heroic scale.
And no, of course proposals don’t need to be costed, I have made the odd one or two myself but it needs to be considered on some level.
@Herned- “of course proposals don’t need to be costed” – Why ever not? We have had this debate on this forum many times. If money were no object, you’d build the bridge over the Atlantic. Get real. Things cost money. Otherwise we’re in fantasy land.
How would the original proposal to connect the Met main line to Edgware Road have been built? Would that have involved grade separation where it met the existing lines west of ERd station? ? And would it still be possible to build it today, or have subsequent developments got in the way?
Graham H,
I think Herned was agreeing with you. Read “proposals don’t have to be costed” in a sarcastic tone. That, I think, is the point he is making. Any idiot can make a proposal. And, in their dream world, they don’t need to be costed. Only serious ideas need to be costed.
Of course this is strictly true. A scheme has to start somewhere. The first stage is a proposal. The next stage is to consider what it would cost and what the benefits (if any) would be. The latter, hopefully, should have prompted the proposal in the first place. We don’t start with a sum of money and say “What can we do with £X?”. The proposal is the Blue Sky Thinking stage that doesn’t involve costs.
What one would like is that that if people aren’t prepared to at least think about what their proposal entails in terms of money and other major issues then they keep it to themselves. Otherwise we get the “just rebuild this junction” mentality which takes no account of the buildings surrounding it and other problems.
Since a second ticket hall and escalator shafts at Vctoria is costing £700 million grade separating a few complex junctions might I suspect cost a pretty penny.
All that for not much capacity increase.
Most of the people who stay on the trains on the Metroplitan are heading for the City.
The most obvious solution to the crush of the Northern side of the Circle is to build a new express tube line below the existing route (roughly) to at least as far as Aldgate.
With Stops at just the busiest stations.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zuDmANN-25E8.kiGp3F8Xfpgw
I’d have Baker Street – Euston – Kings Cross – Old Street- Liverpool Street and then Aldgate. This diverges a bit from the traditional route and follows the Northern for a while, and misses Farringdon, but it is more direct and besides Crossrail and Thameslink can be accessed at other stations on the route.
This would be a 5 station extension that would not to too exhorbitant in cost, compared to a Crossrail and importantly provide a big increase in capacity without anyone losing their existing journey patterns. Plus new opportunities such as Extending Wimbleware to Aldgate or More Hammer City trains.
As a second stage or as a bigger project such a line could be extended to provide much needed relief to the City from the South.
A short section from going : Aldgate – Tower Hill – London Bridge and Elephant & Castle, would provide relief to the Northern Line and help provide extra capacity for an extended Bakerloo line from South East London.
Such a link would also provide a direct connection between London Bridge and Liverpool Street, without a change at Bank.
After that, any further extensions could head South into Tubeless South London as far as money and traffic levels could bear.
@PoP -Sorry,having an irony bypass this morning – still gobsmacked by Theban’s comments… [One of the problems of this sort of forum – and one for which there is no obvious answer – is that people do say the most outrageous things as if they are selfevidently true and unless you have a clear view of their contributions over time, you cannot always tellhow firmly the tongue is in the cheek….]
Your description of the scheme generation process is, of course,one that I am wholly familiar with from my professional career. NR beautify it with the GRIP process but in devising “real” schemes, I have invariably started with a rough idea of what costs might be even before digging out a fag packet and thinking about detail – GRIP -1, in effect.
@Rational Plan – even DLRL have such crayonista dreams – I understand their current long term ambition is to provide a a non stop Bank-Euston link. (Not something that is in the 2050 plan and not something that would stand up easily to scrutiny in terms of vfm). [Apologies for thread drift].
BTW, those who advocate “simple” and “cheap” extensions/double- ending of existing tube stations (not you RP!) might like to ponder that £700m figure for Victoria. On a new tube line, that would pay for a new station…
Graham H,
Well the Victoria Station Upgrade is effectively a big new 21st century station for the Victoria Line (minus platform tunnels and platforms) with the old original minimalist one refurbished and tacked on.
Victoria and Bank Station Upgrades are very expensive indeed due to their particular situation. Probably a more reasonable comparison would be Holborn station upgrade which is expected to come in at £200-£300 million at current day prices, if I recall correctly. At present they are very expensive because it is in the nature of the beast that the stations that need most desperately doing are very expensive – either because of where they are or because if it had been cheap it might have been done long ago.
@Rational Plan
“The most obvious solution to the crush of the Northern side of the Circle is to build a new express tube line below the existing route (roughly) to at least as far as Aldgate.
With Stops at just the busiest stations……….This diverges a bit from the traditional route ”
Have you heard of Crossrail?
@PoP -indeed: my engineering colleagues working on the Victoria upgrade stressed the difficulty of threading (and then excavating) new circulating space through the existing congeries of tunnels and access routes, all within a site that couldn’t be closed off completely. I guess Holborn came out relatively cheaper because it’s a somewhat simpler site (£300m would still buy you quite a lot of a basic new tube station,tho’ !).
@PoP 12:27
If you can upgrade Holborn station for the price of a monthly Travelcard you’d probably get the job – I suspect a few noughts were missing.
[Ho. Ho. Corrected. PoP]
@timbeau – it’s just that PoP doesn’t deal in numbers less than £1m?
We were discussing solutions to congestion problems on the sub surface network and people were talking about grade separating junctions. Either Crossrail provides these lines with relief or it doesn.t. Or at some point we are back to where we started and more capacity is needed. I just think a relatively short separate line could prove a much greater increase in capacity.
It might only be a few times more expensive as all this rebuilding work.
Also something needs to be done about the City branch of the Northern line,three or more stations further on and you can also provide a solution to the south.
@timbeau “How would the original proposal to connect the Met main line to Edgware Road have been built?”
According to Jackson’s Metropolitian Railway, Selbie’s plan was for a flat junction at Edgware Road, although this limited the number of trains through the 15ft 5in diameter tunnels to 10 trains per hour.
At the time of the original plans (1925) 30 x 8-car trains travelled between 8:30 am and 9:30 am from Finchley Road to Baker Street East; 17 of which went forward to the city.
I wonder if we’re approaching “Peak Upgrade”: the point at which upgrading existing, ageing, infrastructure becomes more expensive than simply building new infrastructure nearby instead.
A key problem with ‘upgrading’ the route around Edgware Road station, for example, is that the Bakerloo line lives very close by, and there will be the usual rat’s maze of services and utilities that will need to be located, identified, and moved out of the way first before the really expensive stuff can even begin.
*
For Praed St. Junction, it occurs to me that the key problem is that you have a bunch of services, mostly terminating at Edgware Road, coming in via Bishop’s Road. If you could segregate these terminators from the trains coming in via Paddington into Edgware Road, you can greatly reduce conflicting movements here.
Perhaps “all” we need is a “simple”, short stretch of four-tracking, with the H&C services using a new, northern pair of tracks, while (mostly terminating) services via Bishop’s Road use the existing pair. The quadrupling would “only” be needed from a point near Praed Street junction itself. Only through services would continue on to the east of Edgware Road, which, given the current service patterns, means services via Paddington.
Assuming TfL have been using Groupon to get discounts from Laing O’Rourke, BAM Nuttall, and Balfour Beatty, I’d say £200 million + VAT seems a reasonable costing.
I may, however, be talking bollocks. It’s been known to happen.
@Anomnibus
I think you have confused Bishops Road (the H&C station) with Praed Street (the District Line station). It is trains through the latter which terminate at Edgware Road.
I’m happy to give Briantist a hearing!
Here’s my view of his (welcomely lateral [to me] – actually triangular) proposition. I don’t think it’s impossible – but is it worth it – is the question to ask?
The good bit:
• You are stuck with trains terminating at Baker Street from the north, until Crossrail 3/4/5 – take your choice and decade.
• You are similarly stuck into an infinite future with trains terminating uselessly at Edgware Road from the South West, one station too short.
• Why not combine the two?
• Anyone recall a similar recent inefficiency – I do – Bedpan and Holborn Viaduct – outcome = Thameslink.
• Through journeys, operational savings, connectivity, lots of other gains.
SSR. Mmmm. 32 tph I’m being told on this website.
OK, 32 tph at Aldgate junctions. Various detailed junction parameters. It will work because it is sophisticated electronic stuff, apparently.
32 tph at Earls Court-Gloucester Road etc. Easier as some flying junctions.
16 tph at Baker Street. Ditto.
Why then it is a problem to make a wider version of ‘Baker Street’ a 32 tph triangular, especially if it unlocks the west-side Circle?
Isn’t it an opportunity?
My view – you would need to start north of St John’s Wood (Acacia Road), because you would need to go under the Regent’s Canal. Then a curve under, east of Marylebone, to Edgware Road, avoiding the Bakerloo and Jube tubes along the way (they’re north of the Marylebone Road) – then towards Praed Street line. Keep clear of the Hammersmith & Circle tracks. Ideal if cross-platform with Hammersmith & Circle, but still need reversing platforms for Circle trains via High St Ken. Sounds like large-scale cut & cover excavations under the Marylebone Road/Westway approaches. Could need 4-tracking Edgware Road to Praed Street junction and flying junction there, to avoid too much extra operational grief.
Length to build? About 1.6 miles x 2 single track tunnels + major station rebuild at Edgware Road + works to Praed Street junction. NO station assumed on this route at Baker Street – but is 24 tph adequate for that plus Jube Tube etc?
Outcome: Direct NW London to W and SW London connectivity, plus lots of extra handy tie-ins around the CAZ. Harrow to High St Ken? Maybe direct, or same platform. (The Evening Standard, High St Ken based, will support…) Also inner suburbs to other inner suburbs. Not to be underestimated.
Harrovians will still have loads of trains to the City, don’t see that as too much of a problem.
Costs. Definitely need costs.
3.2 miles of tunnel = 5.2 km x £75m/km = £400m. But you need a TBM site – where? Under Marylebone Road? Is that then to become the new expanded Edgware Road station? You also need to join up with existing historic brick tunnels in several places. Let’s add another £200m for grief and difficulty. Edgware Road station works. A cool £50-100m on top (actually, below), at Marylebone Road. Lots of local environmental protection. Section to Praed Street junction – try another £100-200m. Other works along the west-wide Circle, to lengthen platforms to 8-cars long? Ditto at some Wimbledon line stations unless SDO. Another £200m? Guesstimated capital cost so far the wrong side of £1 billion.
Benefits/disbenefits – adds little to overall capacity, merely another 6-8 tph ‘round the corner’ service for convenience, reduces capacity to/from Baker Street interchange for Met main users. Doesn’t sound great.
BCR starts to sound poorly.
Alternative suggestion: build new westbound line at Baker Street (from a junction east of the present ‘main line’ junction), with a new WB platform, to allow some of the Edgware Road reversing trains to reverse instead in what is the present WB platform at Baker Street. Costs? Let’s say £350m. Equivalent to a tube new platform plus tunnelling either end, some extra complexity in interfacing with existing brick tunnels, and only just below surface level.
Benefits/disbenefits – doesn’t disturb Met main frequency to Baker Street. Increases east-west capacity and connectivity Baker Street-Edgware Road, and recreates Baker Street to west-wide Circle service. In simple terms, I would expect BCR to be 3-4 times better than the first scheme, in a GRIP -1 sense.
Rational Plan
The principal reason for the horrendous costs at Victoria is the cramped site & the necessity of keeping a very busy station working through it.
Would cost a lot less, if there was more space to start with!
Anomnibus
I take your point about “peak upgrade” … the long-delayed cost of course, of not doing anyhting at all 1969 – 1991 approx & not a lot since until CR1 + Thames Tunnel/Overgound happened.
And now it’s coming back to get us.
@Milton Clevedon – recent tunnelling costs suggest something more like £100m/mile per single track bore. Then there’s the cost of gauntleting the new tunnel into the existing line, which can’t be done by TBM – ? another £50-150m perhaps? I suspect your total bill might well be c2bn.
Milton Clevedon suggests an interesting alternative. But it does not solve the original alleged problem, which was the tph cost of Praed Street junction.
If it was pursued regardless, I suggest leaving out the new westbound platform at Baker Street, just build an avoiding line round the back of the current one. Then it would be even cheaper.
Although a cheaper way of not achieving the stated objective is a bit of an odd thing to promote…
Let’s not forget there are currently multiple issues with the Metropolitan Line at Baker Street. Platforms 5 & 6 cannot currently take S7 stock without severe use of SDO – applying to the entire last carriage in the case of eastbound trains on platforms 5. The step-free access is non-existent and a proposed scheme a few years ago was aborted in the recession spending cuts.
On top of that I suspect that Baker Street is one of the major restrictions preventing S8 use of S8 (or S7+1) stock on the Hammersmith & City Line (H&C). I suspect the other main problems are Edgware Road and Hammersmith Depot. Yes, I know there are arguments involving interoperability with the Circle and District Lines which may make S8 on the H&C less desirable.
Baker Street is finally on the radar for station upgrade some time in the 2020s. What I would be interested to know is what would be the additional cost of Milton Clivedon’s proposal if done at the same time as all the other work. I am presuming they will finally sort out the S7 issue although in reality I have my doubts.
Also, the idea would lead to an imbalanced service between Edgware Road and Baker Street. So also of interest would be a second terminating platform as well as a new westbound line. This would enable all trains currently terminating at Edgware Road to terminate at Baker Street which in turn may well give the opportunity to plain line Edgware Road and make it suitable for S8 stock.
Thank you all for your help with this.
I’m just going to post a brief reply now as I’m busy today, and I have sketched out full costing but I need to do some research.
Can I just address @Milton Clevedon “Benefits/disbenefits”.
Here’s my objectives:
1) Remove the Praed Street junction as flat junction, becomes two lines (mirroring what the H&C does between Westbourne Park and Royal Oak). This will make the current “system” reliable.
2) Running the Met trains to Wimbledon at 6tph frees up enough capacity from the no-terminating-platforms to run the extra 15 minutes of each journey. So, ALL of the Wimbleware trains are free for other services.
3) These free trains run an extra 6tph from Hammersmith the Barking. Simpler layout means more reliable services;
4) Once bedded in run 6 more trains per hour from Hammersmith, but to the now-free terminating platforms at Aldgate- or all the way to Barking.
5) Perhaps, later then bring *another* 4tph from the Met round to Earl’s Court and end them at Ken-Olympia?
6) Able to run a few more tph round the circle too if Praed Street junction is turned into a flyover.
I need to research:
a) As there is no width at Praed Street one line will fly over the other. Do A and B go OVER C and D or under, or do you lower half of one and half raise the other?
b) How much does Edgeware Road need to be rebuilt, if at all?
c) Would it be cheaper to raise the line from Bayswater OVER the dismantled Pread Street Junction, build new higher level platforms at Edgeware Road so the NEW MET line is already over the H&C lines … makes it possible then to get a shorter route to join up with the Met Lines without going anywhere near the Regents Canal…
I’ll look this all up and post up a bill of costings.
@Graham H
I stand by my point. I’m not saying that the cost of a project doesn’t matter. Of course it does. What I am objecting to is that some peoples ideas on here get shot down because they don’t have the knowledge to cost them. That to me seems arrogant since almost nobody here has the knowledge to quantise the benefit and we know that when it comes to choosing which schemes to promote TfL etc rely on benefit cost ratios. I just feel that either people shouldn’t get moaned at for not having enough experience to cost a suggestion **OR** people should be expected not just to give an indication of cost but also give an indication of quantised benefit.
Way back on 26th, timbeau flew a kite about taking out all the flat junctions on the subsurface lines, and thereby getting 32 tph. (This did not seem much of an increase for the number of journeys which would gain extra changes). We’ve concentrated on the north-west end, but perhaps we should remember that we could only get these 32 tph by turning everything at Aldgate. So all the passengers currently travelling over the northern bit of the Aldgate triangle would have to walk between Aldgate and Aldgate East. (Unless I have misunderstood).
I think any mayor associated with this would find they have suddenly got awfully unpopular with most of East London.
All right, the discussion has moved on, I know. But I think we may have collectively begun to forget exactly what problem we are trying to solve? Or rather, each contributor is solving some problem, but not necessarily the same problem as anyone else.
I would be delighted to be proved wrong, of course.
@Malcolm
I sort of agree. I think it’s easy to look at cities with lines which don’t have junctions and think simplifying London in the same way is the correct approach. The danger is that increase the number of interchanges made by passengers which increases journey times.
An aspect of increased journey times is overlooked. While people are underground they need to stand (the new sitting) somewhere for the entire time whether that is on a train, on an escalator or on a platform. All of that real estate is in short supply. So if all journeys were increased in duration by 10% then our total capacity of trains + platforms + escalators would also need to increase by something approaching 10%. (Probably a bit less as there is some spare capacity.) So schemes which require more interchanges might cause almost as many problems as they solve.)
@Theban. I agree. Your point about real estate has not been mentioned before, AFAIK. But I see it as an aspect of the general rule about transport. Whenever any given journey is made shorter (in time) (by any method), there are two gains. One is to the individual, but the oft forgotten one is to the transport provider. They gain by being able to make more use of their generally expensive assets, because the passenger is off them more rapidly. Speed is not just trendy and exciting and whizz-bang, fast is also the new cheap.
OK, this does not apply when the passenger is occupying some very inexpensive asset (standing on an otherwise empty platform in the middle of nowhere, or even better standing at a bus stop, on someone else’s asset). But at all other times, it does.
Of course, my principle above does not apply if, instead of considering the passenger as wanting to go a fixed distance, we suppose that he or she wants to spend a fixed time travelling. In the long term, commuters may be like that; they want (up to) an hour’s journey to work, and if faster trains are available, they promptly all move to Grantham, to give themselves an hour’s journey.
If all passengers behave like that, we may be better off making journeys as slow as possible!
Surely any changes at Edgeware Road using new tunnels needs to combine both Edgeware Road Stations together into a single interchange which would allow passengers to change to/ from SSL Bakerloo Line instead of at Baker Street . In fact doing this would move the SSL lines further north making use of the wide space the road offers in this area ?
From what I’ve seen most commuters on Metropolitan Line trains alight at Liverpool Street Station so is there any way to re-open what I believe was a 3rd platform at this station which is now being used for Crossrail works ?
If the above was possible fewer trains would need to go to Aldgate .
While the opening of Crossrail which will also serve Moorgate may lead to passengers changing at Moorgate instead of Liverpool Street ,
Final thought, if a few tiles at TCR create such a fuss imagine if major rebuilds of these stations to make them fit for purpose were proposed would create among the ones who can’t accept change.
As a general point, adding tracks between Praed Street Junction and Edgware Road station looks like an obvious thing to do. It improves reliability. However, on its own it does not help increase overall capacity due to the way the sub-surface lines are highly interrelated. To increase capacity you need to do that and something else – or more likely that and at least two other things.
@Melvyn,
We have been through the bay platform at Liverpool St before. Basically it was decommissioned when underground usage was going down. When they wanted to reinstate it they couldn’t because, signalling wise, it couldn’t be made compliant with current rules due to the restrictive space there. As it had been decommissioned one could not rely on grandfather rights.
In any case it is not really much use as it is on the wrong side of the tracks or rather it is on the side whereas ideally it would be between the running lines. On that basis Aldgate is a far better place to terminate trains although Liverpool Street would be useful to recover from late running or if unable to get to Aldgate.
@Timbeau:
“I think you have confused Bishops Road (the H&C station) with Praed Street (the District Line station). It is trains through the latter which terminate at Edgware Road.”
That’s quite possible. It’s been a few years since I left the UK and my memory was never that great to start with. I always thought “Praed Street” referred to the junction, not the station. There doesn’t even appear to be a “Bishop’s Road” near the station; it looks like the H&C tracks run under today’s “South Wharf Road”. So I’ve no idea where that came from.
Nevertheless, I stand by my hasty, ill-researched attempt at parody.
Anomnibus: Bishop’s Bridge Rd, across Paddington’s throat, used to be Bishop’s Rd, hence the suffix applied to the Met station following the opening of Praed St.
@Theban – I doubt if anyone here has the skill or the time to produce a detailed cost estimate for their crayonism, let alone a full CBA. Nevertheless, there are some indicators around which enable people to come up with something not unreasonable as a first guesstimate (I have mentioned some typical prices before, and there are lots of helpful examples around). It’s one of the strengths of this forum that contributors are able to point out maps, published data, and analysis about a whole range of matter from station loadings to bus traffic.
It’s the opposite of arrogant to expect people to (a) delve a little to see what data are available) and (b) to apply commonsense; not to do this is in fact, itself arrogant as it assumes that their opinion is worth something without any back up info.
Melvyn
Indeed there was a southside (“Inner rail”) platform at Liverpool St Met, but I don’t think it would be long enough for modern stock ….
[ I have got off a loco-hauled train there, more years ago than I care to remember ]
I still think a better option would be a total rebuild of Moorgate Met, with terminating platform(s) in the middle, as there IS space, ( all that 4-track Barbican undercroft) if you are crafty.
Expensive, but do-able.
Baker St met needs platform extensions at the W end …
As for easier passenger flows & step-free … err, umm ….
And, of course, the original platforms are, quite rightly, listed – so alterations must be either extensions &/or “out of direct line-of-sight.
PoP
Yes, well, we’ve been around the 3/4 track Paed St Jn – Edgware Rd problem before, haven’t we?
Digging up the roads for it could be fun, for various values of “fun”
Try this:
http://binged.it/18bARua
The Met station is visible to the right top & the junction is under the y-fork in the roads bottom left/centre.
If you look carefully, you can also see the edge of the Paddington Canal Basin & the “other” Edgware Rd station surface buildings.
@Malcolm
I think the fixed time principle can apply to a certain extent to long-distance commuting such as how popular Grantham is, although at those sorts of distance cost becomes an issue too. I don’t think it’s much of a factor within the area served by the sub-surface lines however.
@Graham H
I guess it’s like whether one supported Thomas Edison or Nikola Tesla. Edison ground out achievements but Tesla was a visionary. Many of his ideas were impractical but many more which seemed impractical to his contemporaries proved revolutionary. The same could be said of Leonardo da Vinci. Many of his ideas were sheer fights of fancy at the time but today his vision is prized.
So personally I happen to value ideas whether or not they or costed and whether or not they are wholly impractical flights of fancy because I think vision is what is so often lacking – the ability to come up with ideas which nobody else has thought of. If they are stupid then they are easily dismissed and don’t take up too much time but even stupid, instantly dismissed ideas can spark somebody else to see things differently and come up with a derivative idea which is neither stupid nor fanciful.
I can see that historically cost has been central. In terms of London transport that has been key for our generation and the schemes being implemented now. Historically. That though, IMO, is changing. There are still some schemes coming along which look similar to past schemes – the Croxley Link and Crossrail 2. We are, however, starting to hit some real constraints in terms of what is possible. It’s hard to see how Bank can be expanded any further – although just maybe it could cope with an increase in DLR frequency. Beyond HS2, Euston-KingsX-St Pancras is going to be really complex. It’s hard to add more entrances in the immediate environs of many central stations. New lines might need to be very deep. Sea level is rising.
Everything points in my view to a sea change. Any metro schemes for the CAZ (which, as we have discussed Crossrail isn’t) are going to be very, very expensive. That’s a given. Instead of trying to find schemes which are cheaper, the challenge I believe is going to be finding schemes which can get the most benefit for the tens of billions any scheme will require.
So, I can see why when talking about schemes in the suburbs it might make sense to expect people to come up with cost estimates for their ideas but not quantised benefits. Within the CAZ I think the reverse is true and it’s more important going forwards to quantise benefits than cost because costs to an order of magnitude are pretty obvious. As I say, I don’t think many people here can quantise benefits. Quantising benefits isn’t saying it will add 2tph or 6tph, it is estimating the econmic gains, including monetising social improvements.
Now since few commentators can quantise benefits, I stand by my view that it is arrogant to expect people just developing an interest in transport to be able to cost ideas. Either we should expect properly quantised benefits when as well as costs when people make suggestions or neither.
@melvyn/Theban – there’s a certain amount of research (not very recent, I suspect) that suggests that people have a time budget for travel to work,although I also suspect that both the steady rise in the cost of travel (as Theban remarks) and the gradients in house prices have shifted past habits. It’s also noticeable from the census data that typical London commuting times are longer by a factor of 2 or 3 compared to the provinces. [Not that the census is wholly reliable – the 1971 census famously showed a Leeds resident whose main mode of commuting was by tube to, err, Leeds; it wasn’t recorded whether this was by W&C – but,hey, extendadors live!]
@Melvyn
“As there is no width at Praed Street one line will fly over the other. Do A and B go OVER C and D or under, or do you lower half of one and half raise the other? ”
I doubt very much that either would be possible. The SSL lines were built immediately under the streets – there is no room above them without raising the road level. The Bakerloo Line passes underneath the area – I cannot imagine that it was built any deeper than necessary to pass under the SSL tracks.
A Bayswater – Met route would have to run below all this – and Crossrail too.
The advantage of terminating at Liverpool Street instead of Aldgate would be the reduced traffic over the flat junction between those two stations. However, with the old bay being at the side, it would simply move the flat junction – moving the location of the conflict rather than eliminating it.
However, if the old bay could be converted into a through eastbound track, with the existing westbound becoming a terminating bay (similar to the arrangements at Mansion House and Tower Hill), we might be looking at something useful. nevertheless, I assume if this were easily do-able, it would have been done.
(Similar suggestions have been made from time to time for Moorgate, where again the terminating platforms are at the side rather than in the middle – the problem is that there are buildings across the end of the terminal platforms blocking connection to it from the eastbound track. Moorgate is of course less useful as a turnback point than Liverpool Street because so many journeys start/end there)
@Graham H
Thanks for the challenge.
OK. I have a really good think about this and I feel that there are several real-world constraints to making a workable plan:
– It is not acceptable to close any service for anything other than a few big-bang weekends
– Having lines cross multiple times isn’t going to work
– The only place with reasonable access is Edgeware Road station because it is below ground and open to the air.
– There are two tunnels on the assignment to join the met to the wimbewere: the Marylebone tunnel and the jubilee line.
– As the Praed street junction is before ground. The only nearby access is on the district line to the southwest.
– The only place on the met with any access is the closed Lords station.
So, this means:
* The district line will have to go below the h&c at Praed street junction. There is no other way because it is the only way to get around the Bakerloo, jubilee and mainline tunnels.
* We are going to have to take two of the six platforms out of use at Edgeware road for rebuilding work. For a while some Wimbledon Services are getting turned back at high Street Kensington.
The work:
• Start the work at lord’s station: create the junction from the abandoned platforms and start the dig south. Going to cut and spray with concrete, like the Crossrail 2 stations.
• Close two platforms at Edgeware road. Dig them down 4 metres.
• Once this digging is done the start of the dig from here to Lords starts. It will first have to go under the existing H&C lines.
• From the new low-level Edgeware Road platforms are constructed, they can also be used to dig towards, and then underneath the junction at Praed Street. Construct tracks to platforms as you go.
• Once the dig between Edgeware road and Praed Street is done, close off the District from the junction, and then use the “steam escape” space at the south west of the junction to dig down to new line to low-level Edgeware road. Move the District and H&C line services to here.
• Once the new platforms are open, now dig down the central strip of the station to lower the central two platforms. As soon as they are done, restore the H&C and Wimbleware service as before.
• Remove the junction elements from Praed Street so it is just a two-line railway over the new lower section.
• When the tunnel is dug from Edgeware road station to Lords, you can insitigate the new service.
• New signage for all of the met stations to show the new extended service, also on all the stations between Wimbledon and Edgeware Road.
Benefits:
1) Removal of conflicts at Pread Street
2) Removal of trains waiting at the end of the line at both Edgeware Road and Aldgate;
3) Better connections for Metroland-Earls Court;
4) Initial boost to 18tph on Hammersmith via Westboune Park;
5) Later boost to 24tph on Hammersmith via Westboune Park;
6) Increase from 6tph to 12tph possible for Circle Line terminators at Edgeware Road.
7) Possibility of ALSO serving Addison Road/Olympia from Met Line (4tph?) – perhaps services from new Watford Junction Met station?
8) Part of the solution to getting 30-34tph on the Kings Cross stretch of H&C/Circle/Met station
Costs:
2 x 350m tunnels from Edgeware Road to Praed Street Junction
2 x 1000m tunnels from Lords station to west end of Edgeware Road
Total: 2700m of tunnel at “£100m a mile single bore” = £167m
Reconstruction of Edgeware Road station: £20m (based on £33 million cost of a Crossrail station at Old Oak Common).
Need 6 extra trains to (using free-ed up Wimbleware) take Hammersmith&City service to 12tph.: £24m
Signs, station refurbishment: £5m
BASIC COSTS – with 16tph From Hammersmith – £216
Extra trains to increase H&C line capacity to Barking: £4m each. 2-hour round trip, so need 2 trains for extra 1tph. Extra 6tph= 12 trains = £144m
FULL SERVICE COST – with 24ph from Hammersmith and extra Circle line services: £360m
@Malcolm 23:25
I think the removal of the flat junctions in the Aldgate area offers greater potential benefits to capacity and tube coverage than the Praed Street junction/Edgware Road station rebuild would.
The 15tph Metropolitan line service currently terminating at Aldgate is ripe for extension into SE London. The 8 car trains also provide a high capacity. The round the corner Circle Line service to Embankment could be broken without causing too much inconvenience as other routes exist and passenger numbers are rarely high enough to fill the existing trains. With Crossrail providing a new route from Farringdon/Barbican/Moorgate/Liverpool Street to Whitechapel the inconvenience of losing the direct Hammersmith & City line service between the east end of the District Line and the northern Circle Line would be reduced. A total of 30tph could be extended from the northern Circle to SE London and the Gloucester Road-Whitechapel section of the southern Circle would be revised to operate a through 30tph service by joining the remaining Circle and Hammersmith and City Line services together.
My initial thoughts would be to divert the line into deep tunnel south of Liverpool Street and extend to New Cross Gate, perhaps taking over the paths of the 5 car London Overground services which are packed in the peaks and waste capacity on the slow lines south of New Cross Gate. There could an intermediate interchange station with the District line/DLR at Tower Hill to retain connections and an interchange station with the Jubilee line, perhaps through a a new station at Tower Bridge Road, thereby providing a new station in an area with significant office/tourist/residential passenger traffic (GLA HQ/LB of Southwark HQ/Tower Bridge/Shad Thames etc)and relieve London Bridge tube station. Finally there would an opportunity to provide a new station along Old Kent Road to encourage regeneration. I won’t comment on how this might stack up against the costs of a Bakerloo line extension with its shorter trains and slow curving tunnels in its central section….
timbeau
Liverpool St.
Forget it – as I said, platform & “hole” space isn’t big enough
CAN be done at Moorgate with a bit of imagination – remember the “widened Lines” are defunct so you have width to play with, which you can parlay into enough length if you move the “junction” back westwards towards Barbican, allowing full pf lengths.
Briantist
Only 4 platforms @ Edgware Rd Met …..
( like it, though! )
Evergreendam
Don’t even think about it!
Quite a lot of people get on to the Circus, oopsCircle @ Liverpool St to go round the corner to the S side of the circle … SSL stock, NOT deep-tube & faster interchanges …..
Also, again, what’s the bcr for your crayon-pack?
@Greg Tingey
“Only 4 platforms @ Edgware Rd Met …..”
Sorry, I’m also including the two sidings (26, 25) in the plan. But you’re right, they aren’t platforms.
@Evergreenadam
While the 5 car Overground trains are too short that shouldn’t be seen as a reason for abandoning the hugely popular Overground service from Crystal Palace and Croydon. It would force more passengers from SE London into London Bridge and on to the Jubilee line which couldn’t cope. You’d also have nowhere to terminate the a ELL trains from Surrey Quays.
It seems totally impractical to me.
@Briantist
I like that you are trying to avoid closures during works.
The more comments I read here the more it becomes clear that “you can’t get there from here” is the answer to the northern side of the SSL. There isn’t the room to squeeze in more tunnels, nor the desire to cut&cover extensions, parallel metals, or new junctions. Creating a surface rail (tram ) solution suffers from the same issue as C&C in that the roads in the area just could not take an extended period of unavailability so maybe there is only one other option?
And no, I’m not going to use the ‘M’ word, but the ‘L’ word.
Unlike many metro systems, that of London doesn’t come above ground (or even *to* ground) level in the CAZ. Unlike, for example, Paris, we don’t see lines rising above obstructions before returning to the subterranean depths. But maybe that would be a possible option? Bring the Praed St lines up to the surface and then on an elevated track to platforms *above* Edgware Road (cross-platform exchange as per Canning Town) and then along through (above) Baker Street etc towards Euston Cross.
‘Crayonista’
ps. The district of London, the station in that district, and the station on the road to that district are all called EDGWARE. They are *not* called Edgeware.
Just going back over Briantist’s diagram showing 15tph terminating at Wimbledon. Makes one think whether there might be [partial] alternatives to Crossrail 2 by expanding those terminators into the SW metro area freeing up paths into Waterloo.
@PoP: Let’s not forget there are currently multiple issues with the Metropolitan Line at Baker Street
Another one to add to your list would be the lack of step-free access – before the Olympics TfL were prepared to spend £75m just to fix that (there seems to be a general acceptance that step-free access is a wider social good that does not always need as strong a cost-benefit ratio as other schemes – see the Crossrail outlying stations for examples). Doing a Bank to Baker St Met could as a side-effect make adding lifts etc more straightforward.
@Graham H
I have known many people who have expressed their maximum commuting difference as a time budget. When it is high it is usually predicated on getting a seat (especially on the return trip) so that the commuter can work on the basis that there’s little difference between having to do an hour’s extra work in the office and having to do it on the train.
@Theban – one can see the sense of that, although, curiously, the research (I wish I could remember who published it now – someone at Imperial as I recall) suggested that the budget was independent of mode, but then it did date from the early ’90s – ie before the general availability of laptops,mobile net etc . More generally, your point is one that is undermining the case for highspeed travel – the value of time saved is accordingly less. [One of the arguments for HS2 that was quickly abandoned referred to the value of business people’s time savings – but, hark, already I hear a snipping sound…]
Bruantist,
Sorry, I’m also including the two sidings (26, 25) in the plan. But you’re right, they aren’t platforms.
Unfortunately they aren’t sidings either. One of them still is. The other had to be sacrificed for the electricity sub-station due to the higher power requirements of the new stock.
It is a bit tragic that there is so little operational space left at Edgware Road given that it was the original depot for the very first underground line and was once extensive.
I know I am repeating myself yet again but I think this proposal indicates the danger of armchair suggestions not based on previous recent site visits. The latter often highlight problems not discernable from online maps, streetviews, satellite imaging etc.
@Pedantic of Purley
“Unfortunately they aren’t sidings either. One of them still is. The other had to be sacrificed for the electricity sub-station due to the higher power requirements of the new stock”
I had another look this morning and I don’t think that this would be a problem as the sub-station could stay where it is as the “new platforms” would be below this level.
Why so much discussion about potential changes to the SSR’s flat junctions to allow 32 tph? Isn’t the 2018 resignalling supposed to give 32 tph anyway, as discussed at length in previous articles.
Forgive me if I’ve missed something significant here…
@Briantist
I fully appreciate the logic behind your idea but I think you are making a lot of assumptions that can’t really be backed up. I am not a civil engineer but I would suggest that reusing the platforms of a station closed in 1940 to launch major tunnelling works is not a realistic plan. The lines are literally just below the road surface, as you can tell from the fact it crosses the canal on a bridge!
Also if you used Edgware Road station in the past you may have seen the scale of the substation that was built there, I would be amazed if you could find an engineer who would suggest building platforms underneath it was a workable plan.
If any new Met line tunnels were built the first sensible place to start north of Baker Street is probably the car park at the O2 centre
@AlisonW:
Paris has the advantage of hillier terrain, and there was also the small matter of the city’s different geology and a lack of suitably experienced engineers and workers. I think it also helps that the elevated sections are short, and, unlike their New York and Chicago counterparts, are rather less visually obtrusive. In the US, many ‘Els’ had wide four-track sections, resulting in the sun being blotted out almost entirely from the streets below.)
* On Trams *
[Severe snippage. Not so much because of the content but because you keep repeating and plugging these ideas. I don’t think anyone loses out by not reading them yet again. PoP]
(@PoP: At the risk of severe snippage, I would like to point out that this site is called “London Reconnections“, not “London Railways”. There’s an understandable bias in favour of rail here given the nature of London’s existing metro infrastructure, but London’s future connectivity will clearly mean going beyond conventional technologies sooner, not later. Chances are, it won’t be anything I’ve thought of either, but I do hope this blog stays open to new ideas and doesn’t degenerate into a glorified rail advocacy site. That will do little or nothing to help Londoners reconnect.)
[I cannot comment on the direction people’s comments will go but there is no intention of having the articles “degenerate into a glorified rail advocacy site” although I wouldn’t put it quite like that. PoP]
@Anomnibus – well, yes,and no – if only we had an inkling as to what that new technology might be; in the absence of that, every wierdo will be advocating hoverbuses, jetpacks and maglev monorails without any reference to important things like engineering feasibility, costs, usefulness and so on.I hear what you say about suspended systems, but even those require substantial supports which would intrude into the buildings and require substantial property take if inserted into existingstrees – Wuppertal, for example. And in terms of volumes that have to be shifted, I can’t see other road users being happy at encountering a 160m “train” suspended just above the road. [Having seen legislators wrestling with hovercraft (a whimsical vision) , I can’t wait for them to get to grips with suspended monorails in the street – is it a bird,is it a plane,is it a train ? No,it’s Airtram !]
@Anomnibus
Paris metro elevated sections short and not not visually intrusive?
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@48.883977,2.351339,3a,75y,90h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sa4sRUho_QKHPT2izZTt0Og!2e0
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@48.830506,2.346335,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1so7LrMSvRQQJngzGmbgmG8g!2e0
There are very few streets as wide as this in London – and can you really imagine running one of those down Park Lane?
timbeau
Bit
I COULD imagine something like that down the “Euston Road”, taken in its wider context … Edgware Rd – Angel, say.
Or Oxford St?
See also Ian Visits earlier this week.
[This is not an open invitation for anyone to muse about hypothetical transport modes, we do strive to stay ‘grounded’ as it were with our discussions. Hence elevated schemes in the Central Activity Zone would not be feasible for site-line and historical reasons. LBM]
@Briantist, @PoP
The wall of the new substation is located in the exact same place as the original brickwork retaining wall that it replaced when it was built.
The removal of the siding was related to the S7 stabling program as they were both originally only long enough for the C Stock, so one had to go to provide the right stabling length – similar to what happened at the Triangle sidings.
@Greg
Even the Euston Road is narrow compared with those French boulevards. They can get a double track railway in (or above) the width of the central reservation.
To maximise benefits and minimise disruption to existing services a new Met line needs to be built from, as suggested by Herned, the o2 Centre to Euston, Holborn, City Thameslink, Bank, London Bridge, Old Kent Road, Lewisham and then on to Hayes. Full size trains, with aircon, no platform rebuilds.
I raised the question of the 3rd platform at Liverpool Street as it fitted this discussion re SSL lines and improvements .
Given it seems this platform is unlikely to be reopened it begs the question as to whether its space will be used to expand the westbound platform circulation area as part of Crossrail upgrade and even be used to give direct interchange to Crossrail which could also make this platform step free ?
Perhaps the only solution lies in ” the old deep tube District Line idea,..!” And build a new Crossrail style tunnel beneath Euston Road but instead of introducing a new service it would be used to divert Hammersmith And Circle Line trains with stops only at main stations like Baker Street, Euston , Kings Cross, Farringdon , Liverpool Street, Aldgate East and Whitechapel with a junction with Dustrict Line Eaśt of Whitechapel ?
As for Moorgate Station it looks like we may miss the chance to upgrade lines at this station again if oversite development linked to Crossrail is done as planned in the near future thus blocking off chance to relocate lines deeper down to create new through route.
I hate to say it, but this thread is showing every sign of rapidly descending into crayonista fantasy land. Dragging in the Hayes branch deserves some particular prize for bringing together the Bakerloo and SSL threads. I know! Let’s have that Hayes debate all over again … after all the last post on that was only a few days ago.
Mornington Crescent!
Whilst I accept that Met to Hayes will not be considered until the following high BCR schemes have been completed: Northern split, 12-cars on most mainline commuter lines, crossrail 1 at 30tph and 11-cars, Piccadilly upgrade, Bakerloo upgrade, and Crossrail 2 it may become relevant in the 2030s and would certainly trump rebuilding the SSL junctions, extending the DLR from Bank to Euston as well as extending the Bakerloo to Hayes. Don’t worry I will be end this Crossrail 3 thread here.
@Melvyn
I am confused as to the location of the third platform at Liverpool Street, does anyone have a plan of the station or at least the former track layout?
@evergreenadam
The present westbound Metropolitan platform at Liverpool Street used to be an island, with the old bay on the opposite face to the platform that is still in use. Carto Metro shows it very well. Here is a photo taken about five years ago https://www.flickr.com/photos/londonstuff/4696851360/in/set-72157624141521773, but I believe the trackbed has now been built on – see the comment on 8/6/12 here
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2012/a-brief-history-of-sidings/
@Herned
“I am not a civil engineer but … The lines are literally just below the road surface”
Thanks for your input. I thought I had made it clear that the sidings and platforms would be lowered by digging down into the ground between 5 meters and 10 meters? If not, then I need to re-itterate this:
In this plan, the Kensington-bounds lines will be lowered to allow the line to pass under the Hammersmith-bound lines. Lowering half the stations gets your the room to pass under the Euston-bound lines to the west of Edgeware Road station to then go north to “Lords” and also means to the west the junction at Praed Street can be tunnelled under.
This IMHO is the only way such a plan could work. I can’t say the exact depth because I can’t see from my visits exactly how deep you would need to go to provide clearances at both ends – and not-too-steep an incline for the trains not to get stuck!
On a separate note: Someone asked how the Met was going to join up to Edgeware Road in the past. I think I know – it’s the route that was taken by the Fleet Line (was Met, now Jubliee) when it was extended south to Bond Street.
Just a guess, can anyone confirm?
[I have let this one go but, given that this is getting awfully crayonista, it would make a lot more sense to post this on your website and just provide a quick link for those who want to discuss this. PoP]
@PoP
“I have let this one go but, given that this is getting awfully crayonista, it would make a lot more sense to post this on your website and just provide a quick link for those who want to discuss this. PoP”
Yes… I was really just trying to deal with the challenge from you and @Graham H about providing costings, no more. I’ll post this up on my site and post a link later.
@PoP
Crayonista appears to be a noun, what are the verb and adjective forms?
@Anonymous of 16.29
May I suggest:
Verb – to crayon
Adjective – crayonista, for example, “that’s a really crayonista suggestion.”)
Adverb – crayonistically, for example, “You’re going about this crayonistically, not factually.”)
Adjective – crayonistic?
“how the Met was going to join up to Edgware Road in the past. I think I know – it’s the route that was taken by the Fleet Line (was Met, now Jubliee) when it was extended south to Bond Street”
I doubt it – firstly, the extension was to have connected to the west end of Edgware Road. Secondly, the 1938 extension (originally Bakerloo, now Jubilee) faces the wrong way at Baker Street – note the cross-platform interchange with the Bakerloo, of which it was a part until 1978.
Oh, and simply because of that extension, burrowing up to connect with the Met at Lords would encounter a rather large obstacle – not to mention the Chiltern Line at the same level as the Met.
@Briantist
I’m surprised you haven’t even so much as looked at the obvious location of Wikipedia‘s Met article.
I’m fairly certain seen this alignment elsewhere before in print, so it’s not Wikipedia fiction…
In print – probably Mike Horne: The Metropolitan Line. (Capital Transport)
That alignment (along the Edgware Road, (Watling Street, or what is now the A5) was also proposed for several earlier Tube projects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgware_Road_Tube_schemes.
I have also seen a suggestion that, before the CSLR was taken over by the Combine, there was a proposal for it to come under Metropolitan control and extend it from its then terminus at Euston to Finchley Road, thereby providing a Wembley – Bank – Clapham route
@timbeau
Thanks for the link. There’s not much detail, it points to p. 59 of Klapper, Charles Frederick (1976). London’s Lost Railways. Routledge. ISBN 0-7100-8378-5.
Which doesn’t seem to be in print or downloadable….
@Briantist (in Gigabit internet heaven) 4 March 2015 at 10:58
[quote]@timbeau
Thanks for the link. There’s not much detail, it points to p. 59 of Klapper, Charles Frederick (1976). London’s Lost Railways. Routledge. ISBN 0-7100-8378-5.
[b]Which doesn’t seem to be in print or downloadable…. [/b] [/quote]
Having looked at my copy of Klapper, the article seems largely based on page 59, which does not seem to add anything. In fact, the addition in the article of maps makes things easier to understand.
I’m puzzled. Is there any particular reason to suppose that a crayonised line gains any kind of respectability by being in approximately the same place as a line which may have been crayonised eighty years earlier by someone else?
@Malcolm
I think the difference is that the Edgware Road and Victoria railway, and the North West London Railway’s crayons were on plans laid before Parliament (and even received the Royal Assent), and had financial backing. The Metropolitan Railway’s version got even further, including the rebuilding of a station to accommodate it. So these are more akin to the Northern Heights extensions, or the Chessington to Leatherhead line. The way things are going, the Croxley Link may well end up as another example.
timbeau,
I would regard the fact that plans went before parliament and financial backing as little reason for thinking something was more than crayonista. Read Antony Badsey-Ellis’s London’s Lost Tube Schemes to realise that there were no end of these and some were even more impractical than some of the dafter suggestions we get here.
At least someone did spend money on promoting them but yes, some were very far-fetched. See for example the Kearney proposals
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Kearney_high-speed_railway.jpg/265px-Kearney_high-speed_railway.jpg
(I think we should be allowed to mention them because they did have two rails, even though they were arranged one above the other instead of the more conventional arrangement!)
@Pedantic of Purley
“Read Antony Badsey-Ellis’s London’s Lost Tube Schemes to realise that there were no end of these and some were even more impractical than some of the dafter suggestions we get here.”
Nice. Ordered.
Re Briantist,
Ditto – got the last new one they had in stock…
Ah the Morgon tube scheme.
Must have a thumb through the book again. I can’t remember any particularly bad schemes, but thats probably because the easier to remember ones have maps in the book and come from the Edwardian period. The stranger ones come from period between the subsurface network and the arrival if electric traction.
ooh – some interesting plans there I’d never heard about before. Of course, a tube connecting Edgware Road – Marble Arch – Hyde Park Corner – Victoria has always seemed one of those ‘so logical’ connections on the geographical maps which doesn’t (still, yet) exist.
(Its time will come…)
@ Briantist – love the idea of Wimbledon – Met (north of Baker St), especially if services stopped at Wembley Park on match days.
But, I suspect a better idea would be to divert the Met (north of Baker St) onto CR3 (big box of crayons required for possible NW-SE routes) and then use the freed up capacity to extend the Wimbledon trains along the H&C route to Aldgate/Barking.
My preference for CR3 would be to use the Snow Hill tunnel and build a new tunnel for Thameslink.
Looks like LU have concluded their negotiations with Thales and agreed a contract to resignal the SSR lines. No press release yet – just some Tweets from Tom Edwards of BBC London.
SSR re-signalling delay press release:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2015/march/plans-to-improve-next-four-tube-lines-confirmed
[Lots of waffle removed in quote below]
[I appreciate that waffle was removed but it was a very long extraction from the press release which anyone is free to read. We really do not want to encourage large scale cutting and pasting – even if it does include some editing. PoP]
So Delayed 4 years
Cost +£1.28bn (I wonder if this includes Croxley?)
Explains which Croxley signalled twice and Croxley cost goes up.
Additional SSR (infrastructure) enhancements presumably includes Croxley but whatelse have they added too. Another fewer years of solid usage growth since they last reviewed the outputs and specifications might have changed views on a few things?
Shame about the delay but then perhaps Bombardier didn’t appreciate how complex it would be when they first gave a timeframe as 2018. But even if some parts eg outer Met/District lines were resignalled earlier this doesn’t help if the trains on the circle themselves haven’t been. Is there any comment on which parts would be resignalled first and whether that would offer modest improvements to the whole SSLs? We have had a long discussion about the various junctions on the circle and I would assume that if signalling for those were sorted first that must help with the rest of the system (assuming no other solution as proposed by Briantist and others).
Re Phil
From the quote above:
Work is expected to begin later this year, and customers will start to see the benefits of the work on the Circle line in 2021, with customers experiencing the full benefits across all lines in 2022.
Lots of surplus S stock moth-balled up somewhere for a very long time?
Re ngh
Yes so that suggests resignalling on the circle first which must be good news. But I wonder if it will be possible to deal with part of it eg Hammersmith to Aldgate/Aldgate East first, and then the lower and side sections separately given that the northern part of the circle seems to be the most in need at the moment.
Re Phil,
Pedantic linked to the previous plan in this comment above:
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/new-sub-surface-timetable-good-gets/#comment-236907
Plan link:
http://cdn.londonreconnections.com/2013/ATC_Migration_Sequence-Aug14.pdf
Which shows starting with circle and working outwards. The new plan might have the same order but just different dates???
If people can try and hold off commenting further about this announcement about SSR resignalling, I will try and get something up in the next 24 hours to cover this. There are all sorts of issues raised.
Hmm two major issues here – the contract’s not signed yet but “in the final stages”. Let’s hope no one blinks too soon! The other is the massively extended timescale and the apparent knock on that the Picc Upgrade work won’t *start* until 2022. That’s what I infer from the press release wording but we have to hope that’s not true because it means a massive delay to the Picc upgrade. I expect the TfL Business Plan will have to be rewritten at a detail level to reschedule the capital spend.
@ Phil – as it always takes “two to tango” I’m afraid I don’t just single out Bombardier for “over enthusiasm” about timescales. It should have been perfectly possible for LU to suss out before signing any contract what each supplier’s system was capable of. I just think people were entranced by the prospect of “doing it our way” and not as it had been done in more recent years that some of the rigour fell out of the process. Signalling engineers are perfectly capable of asking every awkward question possible about a proposal in order to be certain about what’s being bought and whether it will work. Past audit reports on the failed contract showed a load of problems with the contract and the procurement process. There have been repeated statements that the Thales work “could” be completed by 2018 but it was obvious, as time ticked by, that was very unlikely to happen. A delay of 4 years shows that Thales have clearly pressed hard to get a realistic timescale and I assume the extent of possessions / blockades has been minimised to reduce inconvenience for passengers.
It looks like this has been sort of “pre-announced” today to get round the purdah provisions in the event that the contract is settled during the general election process.
Re PoP,
Press releases and other material have a habit of disappearing after a while (especially with a big website refresh) so posting in a comment on LR has a far higher chance of preserving the certain key bits of text especially as this will get revisited! (Or the maps in the Christmas “Chaos” report)
Re WW,
2 to tango – Plenty of recent examples where more realistic timings are being proposed, maybe some good has come form this already?
@ Ngh – on the timing point I think there are a lot of factors working together. One is to minimise risk of overruns, another is minimising reputational risk for LU / TfL after the Jubilee Line upgrade, another is to reduce the extent of disruptive engineering closures, another is experience where people have learnt the hard way (e.g. Jubilee Line) what works and what does not, better client / contractor relationships, use of technology to raise productivity and better planning. However I do have a note of caution which is that the “mega cock up” fear seems to be dulling the desire for ambitious project management. There’s nothing wrong with ambition provided you’ve planned properly and I keep hearing whispers that the fear factor is even affecting projects with excellent pedigrees for delivery. That’s more NR than TfL but it won’t take much for the “infection” to spread. The fear of what Government control and oversight means for Network Rail cannot be helping either. We also have the ORR getting its warning shots in early about CP5 progress, efficiency and costs. NR can’t be too nervous or else it will waste a lot of time and money panicking and worrying and replanning and not getting stuff done that was perfectly deliverable before the worry and panic set in.
TfL will face similar problems over the next year as the battle for the Mayoralty and the future work programme and scale of the TfL organistation hots up. As I have warned before all sorts of views are being expressed about the running and organisation of TfL from across the political spectrum so it’s entirely possible that candidates of the left, right and the centre will all be wielding axes and chopping blocks and heading for Windsor House!! I expect there will be some deft political planning going on at the heart of TfL to lobby, persuade and listen to those candidates. Always good to have a survival strategy in place as well as impersonating a chameleon so you can appeal to everyone all at the same time. 🙂 Keeping projects running and the organisation functioning well will be key but people do worry when you get to election time as to what a change may bring.
I was going to post announcement on Modern Railways site but give POP request to hold fire I havent ….!
Melvyn,
I am pleased you didn’t. That Modern Railways announcement said absolutely nothing that wasn’t in the TfL press release so would have been utterly uninformative. Ask yourself “what new information am I supplying?” In the case of the MR announcement I think the answer is none.
So I would have probably deleted it anyway.
Is any more detail available? The increase in Circle Line frequency from every 10 minutes to every 4 minutes seems suspect.
[Please, for the sake of a few hours, could people be patient and we will report on this press release. Otherwise we are just going to have the usual London Reconnections muddle of discussions being all over the place and impossible to logically follow. PoP]
@ ngh 24 March 2015 at 13:24 There would appear to be no spare S8 trains available, since to release a couple for remedial works has required the use of two S7 suitably lengthened for some time now. Presumably the slower running times of current signalling uses as many trains as the planned upgraded services.
@Taz
The BBC London news suggested more trains would be built for the enhanced service levels – but whether these would be further S-stock or some new design wasn’t made clear.
WW 16.44 24/03/15
Your last para. re-emphasises the point mentioned on the second cycling thread: That personalities / phobias / obsessions of individual politicians, as well as the diverging national policies of their respective parties (which may not themselves be consistent) can & will heavily influence what is even proposed, never mind what actually happens on the ground.
Examples: Boris & Tram project cancellations & the Arabfly Dangleway ( Oh, see DG today about the latter, whilst we are there … )
There’s also this not-very-informative link as well:
http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-03-24/cost-of-modernising-large-section-of-london-underground-rises-by-more-than-1bn/
Let’s see what PoP can drag out in to the daylight, shall we?
@Greg
“Examples: Boris & Tram project cancellations & the Arabfly Dangleway”
Not to mention the replacement of the bendybuses by a triumph of style over substance, which is overweight, full of hot air, makes a lot of noise without going anywhere, needs someone to cover the rear, and constantly harks back to the classics. I would almost say it is designed in his own image, except that, unlike its top-deck passengers, no-one can accuse him of lacking vision.