When it comes to rolling stock on the Underground, it has become very easy in recent years to focus on the new. We have seen new trains on both the Victoria and the Sub-surface lines and we have seen the official launch of the “New Train for London” (NTfL) programme – TfL’s plan to replace all “deep tube” stock with a single, universal new train. What is easy to forget, however, is that NTfL will not be seen until the first half of the 2020s at the earliest and, as the supporting documents for the latest TfL Board Meeting help demonstrate, this presents some interesting maintenance challenges in the short term – not least for the Bakerloo Line.
The situation so far
We wrote extensively about the current NTfL proposal at the end of last year. Despite its billing (primarily by press and politicians rather than TfL themselves) as a “driverless” train for the future it will more than likely feature a driver (or at least be manned) for a significant portion of its time in service. Whilst debate after the announcement focused on this, and issues such as air-conditioning and funding what went largely un-noticed outside of the rail industry itself was the planned rollout date.
The NTfL concept
As we wrote at the time:
TfL have confirmed that the current schedule for deployment begins with the Piccadilly Line in 2022, to be finished by 2025. This is to be followed by the Bakerloo Line, completing in 2027 and the Central Line/Waterloo & City to be completed by 2032.
This is not an unnatural timescale for a project of this size – indeed those timescales themselves have likely been revised upwards slightly since, as more research and funding issues affect the project. For the average commuter, however, it is a long time indeed. In the context of the lifespan of the Bakerloo Line’s existing trains, it is arguably even longer still. The 72 Stock already found on the line has already been in service for over 42 years. By the time of withdrawal, it will be over 55 years old.
Rebuild and refurb
Life extension works and the refurbishment of old trains is, of course, nothing new. Indeed it has been a regular activity on the Underground for a number of years. There is even life for old Underground trains beyond the boundaries of the Capital – both in their traditional home on the Isle of Wight and in more modern, creative ways thanks to companies like Vivarail, who plan to refurbish old D-Stock into “D-Trains” in order to service the UK’s high demand for diesel rolling stock.
As a London Underground report included in the latest board papers shows, however, extending the life of the 72 Stock is not going to be as simple a task as hoped.
A lack of surprises
Some kind of life-extension work on the 72 Stock has always been planned. Even ignoring the fact that its nominal life-span was 40 years, a London Underground condition study back in June 2013 had concluded that repairs were needed within four years to ensure the fleet continued to meet relevant safety standards regarding performance in a collision or derailment. With the announcement that the Bakerloo would not receive the NTfL until 2025 at the earliest a full programme of renewal effectively became guaranteed and work began to assess just how extensive the work would need to be.
Estimates as to the work required were made, and a rough costing of £30m for the work established. As with many elements of maintenance and renewal however, the only way to truly establish the likely scope of what would be required was to take one (or more) 72s apart and see.
London Underground thus approached the board and sought permission to begin the process of putting three complete trains through the repair process, the goal being both to develop a production line methodology to use going forward on the remaining 33 trains and, more importantly, to truly establish what state the 72s are in and the level of repairs required.
Worse than planned
Unfortunately the results of this investigative work are far from pretty:
During repairs to the first train it has become apparent that the overall condition of the bodywork and under frame is in a worse condition than originally concluded. It is considered that the findings from this first train are representative of the condition of the remaining fleet.
It should be thoroughly emphasised that none of the damage discovered poses a short-term threat to the safety of the trains, but it does mean significant repair work will be necessary in order to keep the 72s in service until the NTfL arrives. Levels of corrosion, for example, have proven to be far higher than expected. Car body corner posts were initially planned to be replaced only as required, but all four on train 1 were found to be corroded beyond repair. Similarly it was expected that the saloon floors would only require partial replacement. Again, instead, train 1 showed extensive corrosion necessitating full replacement. Unexpected sole bar damage and corrosion were also discovered, and both external and inner door pillars were found to be cracked beyond repair. The side panel stiffeners were also in a far worse condition than expected.
Swan neck cracks (left) and after repair (right).
Corner post corrosion before and after repair
The scale of the work now required also means it will likely be difficult to repair the trains in the existing facilities at Stonebridge Park depot, and thus new workshop space will also likely be required. To this end, London Underground have suggested the creation of a dedicated workshop facility at Acton Works to allow London Underground’s own Train’s Division to carry out the work, with a new road-ramp constructed at Stonebridge Park to allow trains to be split apart and carried to the works by road when rail paths are unavailable.
Clockwise from left: corroded internal door pillar, floor plate corrosion, corroded kick plate, cracked external door
None of this will be cheap. According to London Underground’s revised estimates, this now means that the full cost of the replacement programme will be closer to £70m, twice the original estimate.
Given the pessimistic picture of the state of the 72 stock that the report paints, this seems a reasonable price for the work. One that TfL would likely much rather not pay, perhaps, but which it has little choice but to shoulder. Taking a different approach would simply defer and increase the cost of maintenance (and chance of disruption) down the line.
The simple fact is that unfortunately the age of the 72 stock means that in engineering terms it is well and truly on the far end of the bathtub curve. And as the report itself bluntly concludes, with its replacement over ten years away:
There is no “do nothing” option.
Cover photo, showing a unit of 72 Stock at Kilburn High Road, by Oxyman
Excellent analysis as ever.
The bathtub curve link isn’t working.
That’s more like it! Great article.
Will the 1973ts need some life extension work too given that the timescales for NTfL are continuing to slip?
fixed the bad link. Sorry about that.
A very interesting article. Whilst no one could be surprised, given the age of the stock, £70m doesn’t seem a large sum (particularly compared with the original estimate of £30m) to put matters right. Even allowing for the impact of discounting on the cost of new trains,the business case is surely robust?
Given the amount of work involved, there may be a case for keeping the 1972 stock a bit longer than planned and replacing the Central and/or the Drain first. (or doing the Drain and transferring the stock to augment the Central Line fleet as availability starts to decline towards the end of the bathtub curve).
The 1973 stock is to be replaced first, so will probably last long enough without such extensive work.
Wish we still had Metro Cammell and GEC about, I’m sure Alstom doesn’t feel the same though.
I happened to use a 72 stock train last week. It was my first trip on one for many many months and I was shocked at the state of the interior. The seats were filthy, the paint was chipped and peeling, corrosion was clearly evident. It was a start contrast to the 2009 stock I’d alighted from. While I recognise the seriousness of what is set out in the article I was left with the distinct impression that either the depot had given up trying to keep things running or budgets have been cut back so far that nothing of any great substance can be achieved via routine maintenance and cleaning. I almost felt I’d been transported back to the worst depths of late 1980s LRT operation – another time when money was cut back and investment delayed for years on end. We know what happened to tube service quality back then!
@MT
Alsthom (as it was then spelt) took over both Metro Cammell and the rail division of GEC in 1989.
Thanks, interesting. (and some pics look a bit worrying for someone who regularly travels on those trains, even if I’m sure they’re right that current safety is not threatened!)
To ask the question half of the readers might be asking… how does this affect chances of Bakerloo extension?
On the face of it I guess it makes no difference: TfL’s public lines say: Bakerloo will get NTfL by 2027; completion of any extension to the line ‘is estimated by the early to mid 2030s’. So they can order extra new trainsets to come in time for that. And they’ll still need to do the refurbishment work on the current stock.
But if the Bakerloo extension is brought forward, as some here hope/suspect it might be, could TfL order ‘extra’ NTfLs for the bakerloo in time for an earlier start? I presume that the manafacturers would be happy to provide extra trainsets but is extra signalling/platform work required for them? And though £70m v £30m doesn’t sound like a big difference for the additional cost of refurbishment, is there a point where this extra cost means it adds to the case for BLE being made a higher priority than CR2?
@timbeau
Under the original NTfL programme, IIRC, the Central Line fleet was to be replaced after the Picc, leaving the Bakerloo until later. That sequence was reversed some months back, when TfL signed off on the business case to replace the traction equipment on the 92 stock, at an estimated cost of around £280m. The 92s’ bodywork is some 20 years newer, but the DC traction package was never particularly reliable. The case for the investment was made on the potential energy saving and improved performance offered by the fitting of new AC drives.
I imagine that the deteriorating state of the 72 stock may also have been a factor in bringing the Bakerloo fleet replacement forward, but as JB points out, that’s still a decade away, and some serious patching will be needed to keep them going.
Seems the price of Boris becoming Mayor in 2008 is coming home given his failure to order new tube trains after 6 years as mayor !
Perhaps instead of plans to extend the Bakerloo Line we might have to look at cutting it back to say Queens Park in order to reduce the number of trains needed with extra trains on Overground instead ?
The Bakerloo also suffers from a number of twists and turns at stations which must surely affect trains with wear and tear .
Perhaps it’s time to consider whether any trains used on other lines would be suitable for use on the Bakerloo Line and either order a new fleet for that line or additional trains on top of what Battersea Extension will need for Northern Line allowing trains to be released to the Bakerloo Line thus allowing withdrawal of worst affected trains .
Could the Piccadilly Line trains be transferred to Bakerloo Line when NTFL is delivered even if a carriage needed to be removed ?
Anyone who has ever maintained (or attempted to maintain!) a 1970s British built ‘classic’ car will no doubt empathise with the situation London Underground find themselves in. Levels of corrosion… have proven to be far higher than expected is a familiar refrain!
“Cover photo, showing a unit of 72 Stock at Kilburn High Road, by Oxyman”
Kilburn Park surely? Kilburn High Road is very much above ground.
@ Melvyn – I know you like to knock Boris at every opportunity but I do think you’re being a bit unreasonable here. For as long as I can remember the Bakerloo Line has been at the back of the upgrade queue. That dates back to the late 1990s so you can hardly blame Boris for a sequence of upgrades that was set by LU long ago when it did its original Asset Management Plan work. Things have jigged round a bit in recent years in terms of deciding to go for a generic train design and then tying in the signalling upgrade. As has been explained in other articles the differing patterns of demand growth plus some political imperatives have also changed the relative priorities within the “new Tube for London” programme.
Where some criticism can be directed is that it took LU a long while to recover post Metronet collapse and then with Boris’s enforced collapse of Tube Lines. There was also a big corporate learning curve about how to manage works post PPP and to learn the lessons from the Jubilee Line upgrade. I also think that there was an element of deliberately forgetting everything that had been learnt during the PPP. It is fashionable to trash that period but some good things were done and important lessons learnt.
It is true that no new tube trains have been ordered but it has taken LU a long time to work out how it wants to do things and to then re-establish credibility with DfT and Treasury. You can’t get a politician to hand over the money without a clear set of requirements, a business case and a track record of effective delivery. I suspect the SSR resignalling problems haven’t helped in recent times with the credibility issues. I also detect slight signs that scoping the “new tube for London” is proving far more challenging than originally expected. Weren’t we supposed to have a prototype train being built by now and I’m not aware that LU has even gone to market yet to obtain such a train?
There will always be a line at the back of the queue but I don’t think the Bakerloo’s woes can be placed directly at the mayoral door. There are a lot of things that have happened to get us to this current position.
Kilburn Park surely? Kilburn High Road is very much above ground.
As is that train!
Bakerloo Line trains can run to High Road when they need to – primarily for turning if there’s issues preventing a normal service. That said, they can’t take passengers there when they do. The platforms are the wrong height.
Where does accessibility fit into all this? I thought all trains had to meet Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations standards by 2020. Is TfL assuming it can get exemptions to keep this fleet running or have I missed something?
@Ned
The plan is to do some RVAR stuff as part of this fit-out so that it doesn’t have to be done again. RVAR compliant flooring, for example, and I assume the creation of some wheelchair space where it’s possible to rip-out a few seats (although the 72s have an awful lot of gear in the cabins, from memory, so the latter might be trickier than one might think).
Anon 22:54
The photo claims to be of Kilburn High Road and actually has a station sign saying “Kilburn High Road”. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and all that.
The fourth rail runs from Queen’s Park to Kilburn High Road in case for any reason a southbound Bakerloo Line train cannot access the Bakerloo Line platform at Queen’s Park station. It may have to go to Kilburn High Road with two members of staff in the cab if there are still no tripcocks on this route.
The really surprising thing is that only one track at Kilburn High Road station is electrified with the fourth rail and the train is on the the other track! Methinks there is or was a loco at one end. It is certainly strange which is probably why the photo was taken.
What happened to the old Victoria line stock — might some of that be resurrected to help out the Bakerloo line? It might even be in better condition, having had about the same amount of time in service as the Bakerloo stock, in less hostile conditions (almost entirely below ground on a smoother, straighter line).
@ WW I know all the troubles of the Bakerloo Line is not BORIS fault but his failure to order new trains for the Piccadilly Line as was planned means Bakerloo will need to wait even longer .
That’s why I raised suggestions / ideas to at least reduce these problems via cascade between lines .
Recent news on delay to NTFL only adds to this problem .
John Bull,
I think the main reason they can’t take passengers to Kilburn High Road is more to do either with the tripcock issue or the need for train movements not normally authorised when in service. It would not surprise me if someone pipes up with a railtour many decades ago when they visited Kilburn High Road station in 1938 stock – special arrangements being made to get around whatever the problem normally is.
@ Anon – I heard rumours that some 67 stock cars were to be “reserved” for the Bakerloo Line but I have zero evidence as to whether it happened. It dawned on people that LU had done this before (with the 72 stock) and that there might be benefit in doing it again! I am sure someone has records about what happened to each car of 67 stock and I suspect almost all of it was cut up for scrap. I do know a couple of motor cars were retained for the new Track Inspection Train (or whatever it’s now called).
@Anonymous
I think you’ll find them in kit form in Rotherham.
[“1967 Victoria Line Stock at Booths Rotherham [scrapyard]”.
Please add better descriptions so the reader doesn’t have to open up the link to decide if they want to view it. LBM]
Thanks for the article.
Given that the cost price for new tube trains is put at £4m each, what on earth is the point of paying out £70m to refurbish 35 trains to get a decade of use out of them?
Perhaps it might mean putting orders into factories in China (which is good enough for Apple, Inc) but there is supposed to be a lot of capacity in the world’s markets at this time… can’t a deal be struck?
In this modern world, NTfL can be designed anywhere and built anywhere else?
Why delay?
As usual with refurbishment, there seems to be an impression the cost of taking it apart is somehow ‘free’, but because its all going to be re-used or carefully repaired then those awkward stuck bits can’t be removed with whatever violent method is convenient.
@Anon 0f 2254 – and indeed the current Bakerloo WTT shows de-icing trains 741 and 742 as scheduled to work to KHR -although the chances of anyone getting a good photo at around 0200 are slim. (Incidentally, this would appear to be the last scheduled working of tube – as opposed to SSL – stock over NR metals). In another place, there has been quite an extended discussion about these Bakerloo workings including the tale of a driver (possibly Ben Trovato as usual) who forgot that the fourth rail ended at KHR.
[ Re. Graham H 16.49, 16/03/15]:
Would it actually be cheaper (In the long run, that is & looking at full-life costs) to simply order some “new” trains RIGHT NOW to an existing ( or largely existing) design & just get on with it?
How difficult would it be to leave passive provision inside the vehicles (given that this is deep-level tube stock & therefore space is at a premium) for upgrades & insertion of replacement “bits” as technology changes?
Um.
[Irrelevant and repetitive bits snipped. LBM]
Re SE Londoner (at Al)
Cost for new units based on standard car length (S stock) is £1.1m/car
Cost of refurbishing ’72 stock £330k/car
(hopefully have the numbers right)
So headline annual cost spread over the life of the respective stock is similar.
However the NTfL would need several big refurbishments over its life any way pushing the costs up than illustrated above and the outright purchasing or financing (and thus leasing) costs would also be higher.
If a ROSCO type financing model was used for comparison the refurb cost for remaining 15 years of extra life might be equivalent to circa 5 years of leasing cost for new stock.
Thus as you surmise it is unlikely TfL probably wouldn’t want to push ahead with the Haykerloo any earlier (unless they find a few large vaults worth of spare gold) and shouldn’t effect prioritisation of CR2 vs Haykerloo.
For the first time ever, I took a train from Kilburn Park last week – very much underground – and celebrating its 100th birthday with photos on display in the station building.
I am not surprised about the cracking. Parts of the Bakerloo have severe curves, and on occasions I could hear metal on metal noise when going around the bends, with some low booming sounds which may be `stress` related.
I found a paradox with the life expired seating however in that it was more comfortable in my opinion than, say, the Victoria line stock.
@ngh – I think you are right about the equivalence of costs, and any spikes in refurb for NTfL are so far away in time terms that the effect of discounting would be to reduce them substantially.Your figures are probably as close to an answer as Greg can get on present knowledge.
BTW, the cost f the extra trains for any extension of the Bakerloo (20 sets=£150m?)is too small in relation to the cost of the infrastructure (several billions depending on howfar) to be a material issue in the timing case.
Re Greg,
Your post wasn’t visible at the time but hopefully my post provided a useful answer.
Refurbing the Bakerloo Stock also makes sense because it gives flexibility in timing for new deep level stock on all proposed lines not just the Bakerloo. Bakerloo (and other line) re-signalling and Bakerloo extension all of which might be wise given recent/ current TfL experiences.
Beside some of the Bakerloo stock could find a new home on the Isle of Wight to keep up the tradition of “new” stock there being over 50 years old when introduced 😉
I was shocked to see the corrosion, especially the floor pan. Surely the floor pan is a particularly critical part of the train. Any corrosion here surely should not be a surprise.
I am sure the Evening Standard will make a lot of noise if they see these pictures.
I appreciate the article`s comments that there are currently no risk of catastrophic failure, but really….
I remember when my car failed its MOT with a very minor hole in the `pan`.
@PoP
“only one track at Kilburn High Road station is electrified with the fourth rail”
Are you sure about that?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/24772733@N05/5154714937/
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/1972_Stock_at_Kilburn_High_Road_5.jpg
@WW “the Bakerloo Line has been at the back of the upgrade queue. That dates back to the late 1990s”
Oh, much longer than that: the last completely new trains for the Bakerloo Line were Standard stock in about 1930, and it was getting the Picadilly’s cast-offs as early as 1932 (the “Cammell-Laird” trailers). Even the 1938-stock fleet was augmented by fifty-eight secondhand standard stock trailers.
As far as infrastructure is concerned, has there been any significant enhancement since the 1938 extension to Finchley Road? (which has not been part of the Bakerloo since 1978)
@ngh
“Isle of Wight to keep up the tradition of “new” stock there being over 50 years old when introduced”
The standard stock cars that went to the IoW in 1967 were then “only” between 33 and 44 years old.
Re Graham H,
“BTW, the cost f the extra trains for any extension of the Bakerloo (20 sets=£150m?)is too small in relation to the cost of the infrastructure (several billions depending on howfar) to be a material issue in the timing case.”
Indeed it is much more about the practicality for other reasons than cost of the stock for extensions – i.e. production line still open, stock needed for other lines , timing of multiple re-signalling schemes and especially having a limited number of suitable staff in various areas. Holding off on new Bakerloo stock provides a lot of flexibility and will help even out the very cyclical nature of new stock requirements on the Underground as multiple lines needing new stock in the same decade. (Assuming Northern + Jubilee Stock looking for replacement in the 2040s, delaying the Bakerloo as much as possible evens things out as much as might be possible from the current starting point)
Briantist, Greg et al,
You also need to take into account, as stressed in the report, that part of this money is for setting up the facility. I get the impression the building used was little more than a shell. It had to be supplied with power, heating etc. At the end of the refurb it will still be an asset and probably will almost certain have future use doing a similar thing. There are probably great savings in bring this all in-house (again). The original Acton Works was really too big and underused as trains got more reliable and required less maintenance and repair but I suspect a smaller, leaner version of it makes sense.
You also forget that when they started they did not exactly know what they were dealing with. A builder can cost a new house (or railway station) fairly accurately but as soon as you ask for major repairs on an existing property that may expose existing unknown problems you tend to find that costs start escalating as more knowledge about the true state of things is established.
That said, I also broadly agree with ngh in that, not only is “made do and mend” in fact a relatively cheap option when compared with a new tube that itself will need regular refurbishment in any case, what you are effectively doing is buying time and flexibility for the greater benefit in the future.
ngh,
Indeed. Especially if the NTfL continues to get delayed (and finishing by 2035 does not currently seem unreasonable – even without extending to Hayes). By then the older Northern and Jubilee stock will be around 38-39 years old which used to be considered a good life for tube stock. By then you can justify replacement even if you could conceivably get more life out of them. So, on the Northern Line in particular, if fully segregated, you could reasonably extend NTfL, which hopefully will be in continual development, to one of the Northern Line branches. After that you should be able to concentrate the soon-to-be-introduced clone stock to either the Jubilee or the other Northern Line spin-off and get rid of the remaining 1995/1996 stock by introducing NTfL on the non-clone line by which time the Victoria Line stock will be roughly 35 years old so …
timbeau,
Obviously I am wrong. I was sure I read that on District Dave some years ago.
Re PoP 17 March 2015 at 10:39,
That was my thinking too, someone has done some very sensible and logical scenario planning…
Northern and Jubilee – the first released stock from that potential 3 phases of replacement would create a float of stock to allow a big refurb program on the other remaining stock to take place, to scrap the worst and most problematic ones in service (large stock of spares created too!) and may be add a bit of extra capacity.
With TfL taking over NR services ie. WAML it is probably about more than just the underground (Crossrail being treated seperately) that is being factored in. 2030s would also see some big stock investment if Tfl took over Southeastern Metro services (465+466 replacement) hence wanting to spread out tube stock replacement.
@ PoP – your point about “continual development” is very pertinent. If the Bakerloo Line fleet is not replaced until the early 2030s then we’ll be talking about a train design that will be 10 years old by then. Given how quickly modern technology becomes obsolete there will need to be some deft specification and design work done to ensure a reasonable upgrade path for later builds. Will anyone want to buy a 20 year old design of NTfL for the Northern and Jubilee Lines? The procurement and maintenance strategy for this rolling stock will also need to be pretty clever. This is one downside of the tube upgrade funding being extended over a long period – whatever “solution” you initially settle on will be at risk of some obsolescence by the time you come to order a follow on fleet for the next line in the programme.
Would I now be right in thinking that the only line with “secure” funding is the Picc and we now have initiatives planned for the Bakerloo and Central line fleets that could delay their upgrades by up to 20 years later than originally planned? So much for the line upgrades being guaranteed.
And now a PS – I see JB has got London Reconnections on the telly in his debate this morning on London Live with Christian Wolmar. Fame at last for our erstwhile leader and editor. 🙂
ST
Well, seating comfort & depth is another repetetive topic.
Trouble is, it is not just a “London” problem & may be outwith the parameters of this specific discussion.
Is anyone here any sort of expert on seating, including relative costs, btw?
I am sure the Evening Standard will make a lot of noise if they see these pictures.
Well, they will now, won’t they?
PoP et al
OK, so it will be cheaper to do a proper refurb … but at least we know now that this is probably the case.
Incidentally, I used to love to old Cammell Laird trailers on the ‘loo – even had hints of a clerestory roof – &, err, confortable deep seats – like the “standard” stock on the Northern & Picc routes.
@ PoP 1025 – while it’s obviously a fact that a facility was needed to deal with the pilot refurbs on the 72 stock I am left wondering what happened to the TMU (Train Modificiation Unit) at Acton. It was a scarce resource under PPP and was retained and was certainly contracted to do works on various stocks. I would have thought TMU would be precisely the right place to mod the 72 stocks (assuming price, quality and programme were satisfactory). Do you know if TMU are doing this work or is it a new separate team? I confess I have not ploughed right through the Board Paper so am being a tad lazy in asking you!
WW
Your post crossed with mine…
Is there a way we can “watch again” for this TV epic?
Details PLEASE?
@ngh – I entirely take your point about the cost- neutrality giving more flexibility, although it’s a two -edged weapon – it leaves the field open for the Treasury to use the Cornfordian argument that doing nothing has no consequences… [A refurb has no degree of commitment for the long term future, whereas new stock implies a longer operational life for the stock and hence also the Bakerloo*].
*There used to be a Whitehall joke that the Treasury Christmas card never wished anyone a prosperous new year, on the grounds that (a) it implied some economic forecast which might be wrong, and (b) that it also implied a commitment to having a new year anyway.]
@timbeau – “the last completely new trains for the Bakerloo Line were Standard stock in about 1930, “. Not so, the Bakerloo received an allocation of the 38ts at the time of its introduction, with at least 9 trains running by July 1939. Although by no means a complete conversion of the line, the 38ts was at least new. [It was everybody’s bad luck that it was kept going for the next half century…]
Walthamstow Writer,
I don’t think even the Piccadilly is fully funded but given the pressure to increase capacity on that means I can’t see it not happening.
I know nothing about the TMU.
There is no “erstwhile” about it. If anything his level of activity is growing and is more committed than ever. The fact that you don’t necessarily hear from him on a day to day basis doesn’t mean he is not active. I wouldn’t want to compare him with Putin because you would get the wrong idea …
@ Greg – it was the London Live debate and I only found out that JB was on via Twitter. I missed the first section. Looking at the London Live website it looks like it will become available on Catch Up at some point. The two previous debates are there so keep checking back. I don’t think the programme is repeated having scanned the schedule for a week.
@ PoP – I fear I used the wrong adjective in writing “erstwhile”. 🙁 No suggestion of JB’s demise or desertion.
Please find link to London Live interview of Chritian Wolmar –
http://www.londonlive.co.uk/programmes/the-headline-interview/d4487ed6
One thing he did explain was how 1 hour ticket would work by allowing you to change buśes without paying again in same way you can change tube trains without paying again ..
@ Melvyn – that is NOT a link to this morning’s debate though. It’s a different show.
@Graham H
17 March 2015 at 09:53
Very unfortunate typo in line 3.
[Now rectified thank you. As a general point referring to line numbers is not helpful as it depends entirely on the device it is being read on. So in my case it was line 2. PoP]
@Graham H “the Bakerloo received an allocation of the 38ts at the time of its introduction, with at least 9 trains running by July 1939. ”
So it did, but I said “completely new”. The Bakerloo fleet included 58 converted trailers of standard stock. (One per train, or were there some complete 1938 sets as well?)
@ngh
” 2030s would also see some big stock investment if Tfl took over NR services (465+466 replacement).”
If TfL take over SWT (please!) they’ll need to start before that: the 455s are already over thirty years old and will hit their half century in the 2030s.
(Indeed the ex-class 508 cars are already nearly forty)
@Greg
“Incidentally, I used to love the old Cammell Laird trailers on the ‘loo ”
I’m referring to the “1920 stock” cars, not the later standard stock, some of which was also built by CL. Are you really old enough to remember rolling stock that was withdrawn in 1938?
http://www.ltmcollection.org/images/webmax/gp/i0000agp.jpg
https://www.flickr.com/photos/train-pix/5927788650/
http://transportforlondon.wikia.com/wiki/1920_Tube_Stock
@ timbeau I think you are referring to the 1927 stock. When I first came to London to work in 1971 I seem to recall that the bulk of each consist was made up of coaches built in 1932 with two other coaches inserted which displayed 1927 on the floor plate by the doors. They were distinctly different from the other stock and their style suggested an earlier period of design but they were comfortable and well lit.
@Greg
Must confess it never occurred to me that the Evening Standard reporters` read London Reconnections!
timbeau
Richard B has the correct explantion for the “odd” trailer-cars in the ‘loo stock (I think)
Re Timbeau,
TfL taking over SWT metro & 455 replacement – this would be CR2 linked and probably packaged up separately for financing purposes. SE would be more like the WAML take over.
[TfL taking over SWT metro I’m not sure would see too many improvements out side CR2 so is probably the least likely, SN Metro should sort itself out post London Bridge Works, the only advantage there being TfL BCR calculation methodology].
and back on Topic-ish:
If Wandsworth get their wish (and are seemingly more helpful etc in achieving this than some SE London Councils 😉 ) and the Northern line extension goes to Clapham Junction* presumably even more northern stock will be needed for the Charing Cross Branch (or whatever the line is called by then) which will effect what happens with stock cascades on Northern 1 & 2 and Jubilee.
* Similar length of tunnel but only 1 station and no complex junctions so should be cheaper than the current extension to Battersea.
Re Steven Taylor,
Intersting article suddenly appear in the Standard upto 2 weeks after articles or comments on LR, I’ve noticed this a few times over the last 3 years…
@timbeau – the 1927 trailers were apparently shared between the Northern and the Bakerloo until 1941.
@Anonmous of 1305 – I was embarrased and ashamed by my mistype and thought it better not to draw attention to it; the same should apply a fortiori to you.
@Anonymous:
The missing space after the full-stop? I’m quite fond of the neologism on line 2.
It could be very usefully employed under some very specific circumstances, such as excising certain 1970s DJs from the BBC’s archived recordings of “Top of The Pops”.
@ S Taylor / NGH – of course LR is read by journalists as are all sorts of forums. The respective press offices / media people of various organisations and companies read too. This has been going on for years and stretches back to the days of Usenet and well before Twitter and Blogs and online forums.
Being on Twitter is even worse! I made one somewhat pointed remark yesterday and ended up in a debate about bus cuts with Stephen Greenhalgh’s campaign team (I doubt it was the man himself). If nothing else I learned that all sorts of people are following what’s said and that it’s not just “night buses” (well, late evening ones) that Mr G thinks transport “ghosts” and should therefore be cut back. Any “underused” bus (route) is in the firing line for deployment elsewhere and there will be no network expansion in terms of mileage, just a redistribution within the capped mileage total.
@WW
Mr Greenhalgh was using a very poor example – of course that bus was almost empty – it was heading into London in the late evening. I bet the buses going the other way were busier! There being no wormholes to allow empty buses to teleport back to central London, they have to be driven back on public roads, and might as well do so in service.
@ngh
“TfL taking over SWT metro I’m not sure would see too many improvements ”
Management who don’t treat metro clients as cash cows to be herded, bullied, heckled and ignored would be a start
@Richard B – which line was this 1927/31 stock on in 1971? The “58” trailers were indeed part of the 1927 build of Standard Stock and were not withdrawn until 1973, but they were formed in trains otherwise made up of 1938 stock. Apart from the handful which lasted until 1983 working with the 1960s stock on the Woodford/Hainault shuttle, no other Standard stock operated after 1966.
Q stock on the District and east London Lines included cars built in various batches between 1923 and 1938 (including 1927 and 1931) but were all gone by the end of 1971 (except for Q38 cars converted to R stock).
@WW, timbeau
Discussion of Mr Greenhalgh’s ill-informed transport thoughts shouldn’t be discussed on LR – it’s clear he has very little practical knowledge of how transport works – but are best left to newspapers, for which political fodder like this is encouraged.
@timbeau I was referring to the rolling stock operating on the Bakerloo line in 1971/72. I am sure about the 1927 stock as I was astonished that coaches over 40 years old were still in service. The bulk of the consist was “newer” stock. I am fairly sure it was dated 1932 on the floor plates not 1938
@LBM
point taken – although we should note that just because a mayoral hopeful’s dislike of something is irrational doesn’t mean they won’t be able to exorcise it should they get into power. Watch this space.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Mercedes_Citaro_G_London.jpg
@LBM – I understand your point but it was clear from my twitter exchange with “him” that there is thinking going on, however well or badly informed it is. Whether we like it or not he is the only politician, looking to occupy City Hall, that has said anything of any substance about buses. We may or may not like it but there is, at least, something to refer to. I suspect there is some element of “testing the waters” going on to flush out a response. He certainly got a response – largely via the ES comments box but also from TfL – which is probably what he wanted. We’ll see if his ideas are fine tuned in the future and at least the thoughts so far are more about service levels and the commercial structure than an obsession over vehicle designs. That’s a change from the last 12 years of nonsense. I will now shut up before you swing the axe.
@Richard B -the only tube stock of any description that entered service in 1932 was the completion of the 1931 order for Piccadilly stock. That never ran on the Bakerloo and had long gone from the Piccadilly by 1971. The next new stock was the 35ts, which included the streamlined cars. Timbeau is correct, the only pre-1938 stock that ran with the 1938 ts were the specially converted 1927 trailers. There is an extremely useful Capital Transport book – Underground train file, tube stock 1933 to 1959 – by Brian Hardy,which disentangles the very complex history of both the post 1923 stock and the 1938 stock andits derivatives.
There was a comment way further back about Bakerloo trains not being able to take passengers to Kilburn High Road, due to the platform height. I do wonder if an accessibility audit will ever look at the Watford DC and the platforms the Picadilly shares with the District & Metropolitan and go “hang on a minute, are we really doing this?” It really it is quite curious to have stock with such wildly different floor height sharing platforms, with accessibility here being far more than just wheelchair access. But operationally splitting the deep tube from the shared SSL/Overground sections is the sort of thing that can’t get much past crayons.
@Al-S
If the grandfather rights ever expire, it could be done, very easily, with minimal civil engineering.
1. Terminate the Bakerloo at Queens Park (with empty stock moves to Stonebridge Park). (that will also allow the worst 1972 stock to be discarded)
2. Improve the clearances on the South Harrow line so you can send the District to Rayners Lane again, with a shuttle between Ealing Broadway, Ealing Common and Acton Town. (that will also allow a few 1973 stock units to be taken out of service as they wear out, and/or improve the Heathrow service)
I can’t see either plan being vote-winners, especially in the Wembley / Harrow area who would lose both:
– their Bakerloo line service (could the Overground service cope with the extra people? – there is no room at Euston for the extra trains that might be needed to cope with demand beyond Queens Park)
– and their fast services to central London from Alperton, the Sudburys, and South Harrow.
An alternative might be to run tube-size trains on the Euston-Watford Overground services, but they would need dedicated platforms at both Euston and Watford Junction, and would have to omit Watford HS if the Met calls there (or do a Wimbledon Thameslink/ Worcester Foregate Street, and operate the station as two single-track bi-directional lines).
£70m+ to repair trains you know you are going to have to replace soon seems like bad value for money.
Can the order for the new trains not be brought forward? 7 years for the first new train to enter service seems like a very long time. What takes so long? How hard is it to build a train?
And do the new trains really have to go on the Piccadilly Line first? Does this discovery mean TFL should reconsider its schedule and do the Bakerloo line first. Or could replaced Piccadilly Line trains be moved over to run on the Bakerloo for a few years?
I don’t know the answer to any of these things but £70m just seems like a staggering waste of money.
Euston HS2 works may cause problems for Overground Watford-Euston services during the next decade, so having a decent Bakerloo service along the DC lines is quite important.
There is probably room for a new article on 1992TS on the Central line as well – new traction equipment and motors to be fitted plus plenty of other works to keep them going till the NtFL train replaces them.
@timbeau -indeed your proposal is almost exactly the reverse of what the punters would appear to want. Euston is (pause whilst the HS2-ites tell us otherwise) not a major destination in its own right and certainly not so by comparison with central London. It wouldbe far better to extend theBakerloo back to Watford and close the Euston-Watford dc s and KHR altogether. This would have the useful effect of releasing two platform spaces at Euston, and would relieve the interchange pressures there. TfL London Rail did,in fact, look into this a little while back (2005?) but a certain important personage who lived in Kilburn would have none of it, not even if KHR was keptopen by slewing the slow lines across and stopping some of the Tring starters there. It’s not an especially cheap option because of the need to reinstate the fourth rail and at least one substation but it does seem a plausible thought with very positive outcomes.
@Andy M -I’m afraid that £70m is small change in the world of rolling stock procurement and maintenance. There are,in fact,a number of well established tools for comparing alternative investment streams such as here. The most commonly used is discounting which rests on the proposition that if you can defer expenditure,youcan do something else with the cash meanwhile(not least stick it in some form of alternative investment). The effect of discounting is that the further away any expenditure is from the present, the less net present cost it has. At current discount rates of about 5%, the present cost of something halves about every fourtenn years or so (don’t have the discount tables before me at the moment). In the case of refurb versus new build, we have present costs of around £70m to be spent now on refurb, versus about £140m (which discounts to about £70m NPC) to be spent buying new trains in 2031. So – much the same answer.
Why is it time consuming to build new trains? If the tube had bog standard loading gauges and technical standards, it might take as “little” time as the Crossrail or TLK builds- about three years from design to putting the prototype on the track*. (Note that fleet service takes a good deal longer – up to two years more -because of the time it takes to make each train and therefore to accumulate a big enough fleet to run the service) But the tube is decidedly non-standard and an extra two years to achieve fleet service is not really surprising.
@You might like to compare that with, for example, the time taken to design and build new aircraft for fleet service. My brother in law has recently spent about a third of a working career (15 years) on Airbus’ latest offering….
@graham H – I was not so much proposing it as indicating what would have to be done (and what what have to be sacrificed) to eliminate dual level operation
@AndyM
It is m y understanding that the longer 1973 stock cars, with their greater throwover on bends, wouldn’t fit in some of the tight tunnels on the Bakerloo.
@timbeau- indeed, I realised it was a straw man but thought it worth setting a contrarian view (as usual….). Personally, I think it a very slippery slope to suggest truncation of a route through rolling stock shortage; it makes it very very difficult to reinstate what was offered before.
@Graham H
” It wouldbe far better to extend the Bakerloo back to Watford and close the Euston-Watford dc s and KHR altogether. This would have the useful effect of releasing two platform spaces at Euston, and would relieve the interchange pressures there. TfL London Rail did,in fact, look into this a little while back (2005?) but a certain important personage who lived in Kilburn would have none of it”
Very good points, I agree.
I suppose there could always be the option of doing as you say and re-extending the Bakerloo back to Watford and perhaps having a 4tph link Kilburn High Road->South Hampstead and finding their way over to Camden Road? (Primrose Hill station is too long dead, I guess) – looking at http://carto.metro.free.fr/cartes/metro-tram-london/
It’s not like the Overground trains at Euston are easy to connect to. I always find it strange that at Euston Square the trains announce the change for the Overground and it’s miles away.
I note that Euston->Swiss Cottage is 19 mins (Jubilee/Victoria) and 9 mins on the overground, but the 10 minutes you can save is totally obliterated by having to wait 20 mins for the Overground.
The other comparison is Euston->Kilburn High Road – 11 mins on the Overground compared with 21 mins via Bakerloo/Victoria (via Oxford Circus), again the whole ten minute faster journey time lost to the poor frequency.
In reality you either need to provide a more useful service for Kilburn High Road and South Hampstead or close them and let people use Kilburn Park and Swiss Cottage instead .
In 1995 lul tried matching a 72 stock as a crew rtrain if 1995 stock not authorised but so many electrical issues it was abandoned , also GEC brought met cammel rebranded gec alstom then closed mcw works ! After 95 and 96 stock built, gec then sold off business as alstom , the bakerloo is always low priority with network railsvdecaying signalling reliability nth of queens pk even though resignalled in 80s , harlesden doesnt have same ring as battersea wharf !
The 83 stock was scrapped but cars too long for bakerloo runners
@Briantist – I agree about frequency. I used to live in Goldhurst Terrace a number of years ago and the choices for travel to (in this case) Marsham Street were either the bus (slow and unreliable,but frequent and close at hand) or the Bakerloo (frequent and reliable, but even more crowded at the time than it is now); travel to Euston and thence by Victoria from S Hampstead was never a serious option despite the proximity of the S Hampstead station.
@Keith ward -I never cease to be surprised at the parts of inner London that come up in the world. Harlesden’s housing stock is never going to be of Islington quality but the inexorable march of high priced property even closer in to the CAZ will eventually encourage (re)developers to look towards Harlesden. Give it 10-20 years?
Does anyone know roughly just how many gauge infringements there are on the Bakerloo to prevent using stock from other lines (e.g. the Central/Northern/Piccadilly/Jubilee?)
Where I’m going there is a wonder if we could find it easier to enhance the gauge of the Bakerloo tunnels slightly so that we could split the Northern Line fleet between the Jubilee (to increase frequencies/reliability without having to manufacture /new/ 20-year-old trains) and the Bakerloo, and then advance the Northern Line’s replacement stock in time for Battersea and any potential line split. I suspect the Northern would also offer enough stock to cater for the Bakerloo’s eventual extension, should that happen. Given the Northern line trains would be 30+ years old by that point hasn’t been lost on me, but getting another 10-20 years out of them might be worthwhile if it bought you more time.
…and you end up with slightly more standardised infrastructure too, which is nice for future stock deployment plans, whatever they might be.
Graham H
Indeed.
Now is the time to invest in Harlesden property…..if OOC takes off,the Victorian terraces complete with gardens will be highly desirable.
This is a glorious opportunity to be bold (pause to allow politicians to pick themselves up from the floor, as ‘bold’ = extra money spent) and rebore the Bakerloo to main line gauge to take advantage of those trains’ better carrying capacities. Also that the northern end is already full-size (as in Overground) and the proposed southern extensions will interface with extant main lines in some form. HMRI do not like mixed-loading gauge working, so this may become a real option.
As for the Evening Standard, they nose in everywhere, having realised that enthusiasts are more than ‘sad cases’, a means to decode management spin. Whenever LOTS or LURS have interesting speakers, the usual suspects from ‘Fleet Street’ are in the audience (spottable a mile off – they haven’t a clue what others are talking about), taking in especially the q-and-a. When so few mainstream media now have a ‘transport correspondent’ worth that title, and just recycle press releases, the more attractive meetings of bigger enthusiast groups become must-do events, while still of course holding us in great contempt.
Apologies for rant – time for me tablets…
Re JohnM 17 March 2015 at 19:37
I had missed that! 2800 AC traction motors + control gear out for tender in January. The original product lifespan design life was till 2033 but if the bogies and now the traction gear have been replaced then they might last beyond that instead of needing replacement sooner due to poor reliability and may be even last longer too.
http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:36866-2015:TEXT:EN:HTML
The original NTfL schedule for deployment was
Piccadilly Line in 2022 – 2025
Bakerloo Line 2025 – 2027
Central Line/Waterloo & City 2027 – 2032
But if Central / W&C replacement could be pushed back that might them mean Bakerloo getting pushed back a few years to align better with the potential Haykerloo extension.
(This would also further reduce the unevenness in the rolling stock replacement cycle over time)
@DT
“rebore the Bakerloo to main line gauge to take advantage of those trains’ better carrying capacities”
We’ve been through all this for the Drain
1. You would have to close it completely for several years.
2. A TBM can’t cut through cast-iron tunnel linings, so you need to dismantle them (by hand) and then shore the tunnel up with something until the TBM comes along.
3. Most of the “better carrying ability” is length (10 or even 12 car), not height (width is about the same) so you would need to extend all the stations (or probably close some of the quieter ones like Lambeth North, Regents Park, Edgware Road).
4. Bigger trains cannot cope with such tight curves, meaning completely new alignments in places – good luck threading that through Paddington in particular!
It would probably be cheaper to build a completely new tunnel between the Elephant and Queens Park, with a few strategically-placed stations – and you’d then have both that and the Bakerloo!
@Doubting Terrapin
Reboring tube lines to a larger gauge is one of those recurring subjects often raised here. The consensus seems to be that doing this cannot cost less than building a brand new line of the same length, particularly given that all the stations would have to be rebuilt to take the extra traffic. (The line would also have to be closed for several years while it was done). Therefore it’s better to leave the line alone, and use the same money (supposing you have that money) building a new one.
Of course, if you have detailed arguments or evidence why the above is wrong, then that could be interesting.
A clever Mayor could use HS2 to solve these problems on the Bakerloo.
For example , re-extension to Watford Junction with a new fleet of trains would allow removal of Overground into Euston which would release space taken up by current overground to be used as space to divert existing lines thus reducing the amount of land needed for HS2 .
The Overground Trains released would then be available to extend into South East London from New Cross allowing replacement of old trains on South Eastern network.
Of course the real problem is the sharp bends on existing lines and whether solutions could be found in a similar way that re profiling stations has allowed lift access at stations like TCR . A way of removing bends especially in stations where profile has a serious affect on access to trains a problem that would be serious of step free access was installed .
@PoP & timbeau – that supposed missing fourth rail at Kilburn High Road – this may be a better picture to illustrate that the train in the lead picture of this article is located at the gap in the centre rail:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/24772733@N05/5154714937/
@Melvyn: Did Wolmar also go into more detail about his flagship policy that “Buses barely travel faster than pedestrians along [Oxford Street] making bus or taxi travel redundant” and that making the Central Line free would be an adequate substitute for the current bus routes?
Or does Wolmar, like Greenhalgh, fall into the category of people with so little practical knowledge of how transport works that they should not be discussed here?
Graham Feakins & Timbeau,
I am not disputing the evidence but looking at Carto Metro I cannot see what the purpose of having a 4th rail on the line serving platform 2 is given that trains must reverse using the trailing crossover to the west of the station.
Ian J,
I would suggest that Wolmar can be discussed a someone with knowledge of transport. One might not agree with him but he does argue his case well and tends not to fall in the trap of saying things that are intrinsically daft.
As someone who has political ambitions then to be even handed we should not really be discussing any obviously politically motivated comments he makes. An unsatisfactory answer I know but the best I can suggest.
I would be interested to know what caused the corrosions discovered – electrolytic through current leakage or adjoining dissimilar metals, for example; external corrosive vehicle wash or floor washing, water pooling and so on. Fractures are well-known in all sorts of train underframes etc. and are usually dealt with by welding up as illustrated.
One thing often misunderstood is that storing a service train overnight in the open air can be more beneficial than housing it in a depot building because the air circulation benefits the car body more than when confined to a depot.
As a personal opinion, what the photos point to is rather more a lack of heavy overhaul maintenance and inspection when it would have been required periodically more frequently in the past and as such would have been dealt with at the then fully-equipped Acton Works – but that is before everyone thought that the local depots could handle most of the work. Stitch in time and all that. It’s no good simply pasting over the cracks with a new livery to delight the public.
As for the curves on the Bakerloo, they are no more severe than those to be found on other lines and so that is not perhaps a fair comparison to ascertain fatigue on the bodywork and thus possibly causing some fractures. I’ll concede that the Bakerloo tunnel sections are full of curves!
Having been involved with main line train (and tram) restoration, I would prefer to say that, whilst not cheap, such on the Bakerloo could be achieved inexpensively as opposed to expensively. Time-consuming, perhaps, bearing in mind so much has to be done to rectify what appears to me to be the past neglect.
Nice diversion clip of 1991 at Acton here (includes underframe view being ‘inspected’):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwEWqE-BFX8
@PoP: Fair enough, although I have never seen anything he has said about buses in general and buses on Oxford Street in particular that strikes me as anything other than intrinsically daft – I suspect he has a bit of a rail enthusiast’s myopia about bus transport.
@PoP at 02:24 – I don’t know either but it could be related to an electrical feed further along.
I accept that reboring and platform extensions on the Bakerloo are completely infeasible….but wasn’t something similar carried out on the Central line during the 1930s, as part of the New Works programme?
The original Central Line tunnels were only 3.56m diameter and were enlarged segment by segment, but are still less than the 3.66m standard of the time so allow standard tube trains but only with high-lift positive shoe gear fitted. The City & South London started with only 3.20m tunnels which were enlarged to 3.66m standard segment by segment whilst trains continued to run in some areas through the special tunneling shield used. However an accident brought closure until completion. The Great Northern & City built for surface stock to Moorgate used 4.9m tunnels which indicates the scale of enlargement required. Current works to just reline 90m of the Jubilee Line tunnels near Bond Street have been progressing for two years already! (dimensions from Wikepedia Loading Gauge page)
Re: extending the Bakerloo to Watford again:
Would a follow on build of SSR stock to run Queens Park – Watford help with:
1 economising on use of bespoke Bakerloo 72 stock?
2 offering a better service than the ex Euston Overground?
Or are the gauge clearances and platform heights a show stopper?
I guess Derby could put a commercially compelling case and TfL would have “more of the same” in its fleets.
Can someone explain why replacing mainline sized trains to Hayes with Bakerloo line tube trains is routinely rubbished (because it would overload the line further in, because the existing passengers don’t want it, because there is nowhere to put the extra tube trains needed, etc), yet received opinion here seems to be in favour of replacing mainline sized trains to Watford with Bakerloo line tube trains?
It seems interesting to me that TfL talked up the idea for a while and then dropped it, and I don’t think opposition from Ken Livingstone (who hasn’t been mayor for 7 years) is an adequate explanation. Maybe the increase in usage of the DC lines since Overgroundisation has rendered the idea unfeasible?
@Taz: and if you were reboring tunnels now you’d need to include space for an evacuation walkway – for comparison Crossrail tunnels are 6m diameter.
The Watford line, which has parallel rail routes that are more frequent, has not had a big increase in traffic like the North London, many passengers as far as Harrow and Wealdstone already use the Bakerloo, which has longer trains.
@mr_jrt
“Does anyone know roughly just how many gauge infringements there are on the Bakerloo to prevent using stock from other lines (e.g. the Central/Northern/Piccadilly/Jubilee?)”
Given how important this point is for the discussion, I find it odd that I can’t for the life of me find this information anywhere. I’ve looked in the Railway-Junction-Diagrams.pdf that I have of “London Underground Railway Junction Diagrams June 2000 issue Schematic track layout of the Underground System”
I’ve stuck a JPG of the relevant page here – http://cdn.pseph.co.uk/styles/images/2015/bakerloo.jpg
@Ian J – “I don’t think opposition from Ken Livingstone (who hasn’t been mayor for 7 years) is an adequate explanation.” Well,one can only report what the most senior management of TfL London Rail thought at the time. The advent of LOROL postdates that by several years (during which the idea has disappeared below the horizon again) and so can’t be part of any alternative explanation.
Graham Feakins,
The point about the curves on the Bakerloo Line was that the trains were based on the design for 1967 stock for the Victoria Line due to time constraints. The Victoria doesn’t have tight curves and the smoother running was probably taken into account when designing the trains. LU found that they had to have a difference maintenance routine for the two different stocks as the 1972 stock took more of a rough hammering in daily use. Had there have been time to design a suitable train, it would have probably would have been more typical of Underground stock elsewhere as regards structural strength.
As to storing in the open, it is the case that trains (and buses) tend to get a wash before being stored and I understand it is that (or rain) that is the reason it can be better to store outside. Of course if the vehicle is dry to start with then it is better to store it inside to stop it getting wet.
I would suggest a bigger factor is that with modern manufacture using corrosion resistant techniques means it doesn’t particularly matter if stored inside or outside so why go to the cost of providing covered accommodation?
It is notable that on the Victoria Line, which entirely underground and was subject to severe budgetary constraint, it was thought worthwhile providing 100% enclosed accommodation.
For roughly the reasons you give, you are advised not to put a wet car into a garage. If the car is dry put it in, if wet then leave it out.
If the 1972 stock is in such a poor condition, what about 1973 stock, or was more work done to them when the end windows were put in?
The Bakerloo trains also for many years had the living daylights shaken out of them by the appallingly maintained track north of Queens Park …
…Orange,
The 1973 stock was designed from scratch rather than be a botched adaptation and was designed to be much more modern and, I believe, make far more use of aluminium. If I understand correctly, the extensive use of aluminium not entirely advantageous. It causes fewer problems but any cracks etc. cannot be rectified by simple welding. The concern expressed (by Sir Peter Hendy amongst others) is that, although the 1973 stock currently performs well, there will come a time when it is simply not worth attempting to repair. Hence, once the NTfL programme started slipping, the Piccadilly Line trains went to the head of the queue and will remain there. There is also the issue that they need the extra capacity on the Piccadilly Line so repairing the existing trains won’t solve that.
@Malcolm
@Doubting Terrapin
“Re-boring tube lines to a larger gauge is one of those recurring subjects often raised here….”
It would be interesting if anyone knows of underground railway where this has happened, because the only known example seems to be the C&SLR a century ago.
Given how often people seem to suggest it, I find it intriguing that it’s never followed up by an example of it being done.
I ask out of genuine interest.
Extend the Bakerloo to Watford instead of the Overground. Extend it to Hayes. Replace the signalling with ATO and drastically increase service frequency. Time all of this in conjunction with the Bakerloo receiving its NTfL fleet.
If you also do a branch swap, with the Piccadilly taking Ealing Broadway and the District taking Rayners Lane, then at a stroke the only stations on the network needing “compromise height” platforms would be Watford High Street and Ealing Common.
@Graham H: so can you ask the senior TfL management why they haven’t raised the proposal again since Ken ceased being Mayor?
@Ian J – No,I don’t work there any more nor do the proponents of the scheme ( Harrison-Mee, Peter Field and Ian “Teflon” Brown)
Given how much work needs to be done, would it not also make sense to re-fit the trains with the same (or similar) traction package to that which is due to be installed on the Central Line? In 10 years DC motors and parts for those will become rather hard to find. Also, even with a refurb, the trains will become less reliable with age and there is no source of adequate ‘booster’ stock (unless TfL squirrelled away some ’67s?) to assist. Switching the motors from DC to AC would increase reliability significantly.
[Snip. PoP]
Andy M
I asked the same question, way back “up” the thread – PoP answerd to the effect that, it seems odd, but it is good value for money – provide you do have to wait for new trains.
Putting Bakerloo-replacement stock first just might change the equations…(?)
Graham H
Close KHR, but what about S Hampstead? Unless, of course you are re-proposing to re-open a through service via an also re-opened Promrose Hill?
[snip. PoP]
Ian J asks “Can someone explain why replacing mainline sized trains to Hayes with Bakerloo line tube trains is routinely rubbished (because it would overload the line further in, because the existing passengers don’t want it, because there is nowhere to put the extra tube trains needed, etc), yet received opinion here seems to be in favour of replacing mainline sized trains to Watford with Bakerloo line tube trains?
There are other explanations, some already given. But an obvious point to make is that commentors here are diverse. So as a group we have, and should be expected to have, a range of sometimes contradictory opinions. There is no “receieved LR commentors’ opinion” on anything, nor should there be.
It is anyway not the case that there is any significant volume of opinion here in favour of re-extending the Bakerloo to Watford. A small number of people have mentioned the idea (generally without much apparent enthusiasm) that’s all.
straphan,
I also wondered why they didn’t also do the ac motor trick at the same time. It seems a reasonable question to ask. The best I could come up with was:
– there might be no particular benefit in linking it with the other work. After all it is basically about sorting out the bogie not the carriage structure and bodywork
– it would almost be an admission that they still intend to keep the Bakerloo trains in service for around another 15 years. I suspect they need that long to make it worthwhile.
I too would like a have a knowledgeable response to this question.
@Greg T – S Hampstead would, I guess, have to be the price paid for re-extending the Bakerloo. Certainly, TfL London rail thought so; I don’t have strong views except to remark that whenever I have used/travelled through it, there seems to be a lot of empty space on the platforms perhaps for the reasons implied in my earlier post about travelling to Town from Goldhurst Terrace…
timbeau
4. Bigger trains cannot cope with such tight curves, meaning completely new alignments in places – good luck threading that through Paddington in particular!
Not true. The tightness of the curve that a train can cope with is almost entirely dependent on track gauge. It doesn’t matter what is above the bogie. As the DLR and trams show there are other issues such as cant and the fact that you can choose stiff bogies (better at straight running, lousy on curves) or flexible ones (can take tighter corners but give poor ride quality at any kind of speed).
Because practically the only thing that matters is the bogie, assuming identical bogies are used, long carriages can take just as tight corners as short carriages but, of course, with long carriages the displacement from the centre of the curve is larger at the middle of the train so they need a wider swept area (which may mean bigger tunnels).
Of, course a big train on a narrow gauge would tend to be more unstable at speed and that it another issue. A further issue is that the tighter the curve, the slower a train or tram has to go through it. This is mainly for passenger comfort reasons, partly to reduce wear and tear and in general very little to do with the risk of derailing.
Looking at that metal-rot they badly need Corrosion Block. Someone tell me who and where on http://www.corrosionblock.co.uk/other.htm and I’ll send samples. It is what the RNLI use.
@Ian J
“Can someone explain why replacing mainline sized trains to Hayes with Bakerloo line tube trains is routinely rubbished, yet received opinion here seems to be in favour of replacing mainline sized trains to Watford with Bakerloo line tube trains?”
Simple arithmetic.
The Hayes line has ten-car trains (and aspirations to go to twelve). Replacing those with seven-car Bakerloo trains would not be an improvement.
The Euston Watford line has four car trains (or five at most). Replacing those with seven-car Bakerloo trains would be an improvement.
The fourth rail at KHR – there are many places on the dc lines where the fourth rail has remained long after 1970, when the conversion of the Class 501s to three-rail use made it redundant, as discussed in reference to the Christmas quiz question about Croxley Green. See this 1984 picture for example http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/c/croxley_green/croxley(ivan_stewart8.11.1984)green_old22.jpg
or this one in Silverlink days (post 1997)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watford_High_Street_railway_station#/media/File:London_Overground_train_for_Watford_Junction_at_Watford_High_Street_Station.jpg
(captioned as an Overground train, so could be even more recent)
@PoP: SWT could convince both themselves and the DfT that there is a business case for replacing the traction packages on the 455s even though these are not planned to hang about more than 10 years following retractioning. SWT’s key argument was that the purchase of the additional Class 456 and 707 vehicles meant they would either require the 455/456 fleet to be more reliable or they would require a new depot. We could argue the Bakerloo line is not faced with such extreme alternatives, however, as I said before, it is not very wise to assume that these relatively limited-scope mods will enable the fleet to remain as reliable in 15 years as they are today.
Also, bear in mind the Central Line traction refurb is in no small part a response to the problems that LU have had with turning out enough stock to operate the new enhanced timetable with 34tph peaks and more frequent weekend/off-peak services. They learned the hard way that trying to squeeze more stock with less maintenance time out of an ageing fleet was probably not a good idea.
The other aspect is how long before people start demanding similar service improvements on the Bakerloo Line. I appreciate its central section will be somewhat relieved by Crossrail in the southbound (Paddington to Oxford Circus anyway), but in the northbound there will be more and more people getting off at Waterloo and wishing to access the West End. Now I appreciate the Bakerloo timetable is somewhat ‘hemmed in’ at both ends (limited turnround opportunity at Elephant & Castle, need to interwork with Overground north of Queen’s Park), but I’m sure someone will pretty soon start demanding the Bakerloo Line runs at a frequency similar to other stretches of tube in Central London. What then?
straphan,
All good questions I wish I had asked (yes Graham H, I do know the Oscar Wilde quote). I can only say I tend to agree with you and don’t have any answers.
@briantist re widening tunnels: they did that in Madrid on one of the lines for a shortish distance (they have small and large profile lines, the small ones are more like the Paris metro than the tube though). No idea how it was done, I expect the is something on the Internet
@straphang
” I’m sure someone will pretty soon start demanding the Bakerloo Line runs at a frequency similar to other stretches of tube in Central London. ………….limited turnround opportunity at Elephant & Castle………What then?”
A better turnround facility at the southern end of the line would seem to be the answer, but as you say there is no space for improvement at E&C.
To improve turnround times at Charing Cross the Hampstead Tube built a terminal loop. A similar solution (with a station at Herne Hill) has been proposed for the Victoria Line at Brixton, and the arrangement is commonplace on the Paris Metro.
Could a modest extension to somewhere with more space be the answer for the Bakerloo? (A mile or so south perhaps?) I wonder if anyone has thought of that before?
As with both the Charing Cross and Kennington loops, the line can always be extended further, although we may be wandering into the realms of fantasy here
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/haykerloo-bakerlewisham/
@timbeau: I think you missed my point. My point was: what is meant to happen if the Bakerloo cannot cope with demand before the new stock arrives? Or – worse yet – if TfL have to reduce service levels due to stock unreliability…
Regarding widening the tunnels: I am sure it is technically possible, but the cost and associated disruption (you would need to close the line or portions of it for years) is much more expensive than resignalling and buying more trains. In my opinion it’s just not worth it!
@Straphan
“SWT could convince both themselves and the DfT that there is a business case for replacing the traction packages on the 455s even though these are not planned to hang about more than 10 years following retractioning. ”
The history of rolling stock on the South Western, is rather like “Trigger’s Broom” Many of the 455s have ex-4SUB motors, and some 4SUB vehicles were built on pre-war frames which originally had wooden bodies recycled from Edwardian steam-hauled carriages. I would not be at all surprised to see those traction packages recycled under new units when the 455s eventually go.
Similarly, the 4REP units included former Mark 1 hauled stock, and when they were scrapped their traction equipment was re-used in the new Wessex 442s. There have been proposals to convert the 442s to unpowered units for push-pull operation.
http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/files/ATOC%20Rolling%20Stock%20Strategy%20-%20Final_1.pdf
see page 13
Back on topic, such make do and mend also used to be common on the Underground – the incorporation of Standard stock into 1938-stock (the “58 trailers”) and 1960-stock formations for example, the recycling of 1949- stock shunting control panels in the 1972 stock UNDMs, or the conversion of Q38 stock to run with new R stock vehicles. There was even a plan to incorporate 1983 stock cars into the 1996 stock fleet.
@Straphan
“My point was: what is meant to happen if the Bakerloo cannot cope with demand before the new stock arrives? Or – worse yet – if TfL have to reduce service levels due to stock unreliability…”
Thinning out the service north of Queens Park, possibly with more or longer Overground trains to compensate, might be the least worst solution.
I may well be about to talk rubbish but isn’t the retractioning question about “why not do the Bakerloo if they’re doing the Central” about different generations of traction technology? I think the Bakerloo is simple “hit it wiv a ‘ammer” type technology whereas the Central is a tad more sophisticated and therefore there are greater gains to be made in easing out the maintenance, obsolesence and reliability issues on the 92 stock than doing anything with the 72s? In short not much of a business case for doing the 72s. Those who are far more knowledgeable than I on things like traction motors can now come along and “rubbish” my comments. 🙂
@ Ian J – Mr Wolmar did not really mention buses in the “debate” with JB on London Live. It’s available on catch up now for those who want to view it. To be fair the debate was largely about rail matters with a bit about “what has to be done in the future” and buses did not feature.
On your second point about tubes to Watford Junction I wonder if LU has simply lost its “grandfather rights” to run north of Harrow and Wealdstone? This is purely speculation on my part and others may be better informed on such matters. IIRC the B’loo service to WJ ceased in 1982 as a result of the Fares Fair judgement. We have since had rail privatisation in 1996/7 which may have drawn a line at that point as to what rights various bodies had in respect of their running / traction rights on NR metals. I therefore wonder if there is simply a massive cost entailed in meeting new standards if you were to try to run a tube profile train north of Harrow and Wealdstone. Given we’re talking about 20 years of legislative change including things like accessibility it may simply be impossible to construct any viable case to extend tube trains north of H&W. The apparent lack of demand (latent or otherwise) for a slow service on that route must also make things difficult. Loads of people want a fast journey from Watford to London but not an all stations one!
Re Walthamstow Writer 18 March 2015 at 12:11
Exactly & different solutions for different problems…
The problems on the Bakerloo Stock are mainly structural where as the Central /W&C issues appear to be traction equipment related hence very different solutions. Retractioning the Bakerloo stock is effectively a solution in search of problem.
For what it’s worth, the introduction of new CAF-built trains on Rome’s Line A resulted in this work having to be done* to mitigate unexpected vibrations. Until this was done, the new rolling stock had to crawl very slowly through the reverse curves and across the bridge over the river.
Note that even though this is an (almost) mainline gauge line, with double-track tunnels on this section, the work still took 15 days, during which time this section of the line was closed. In the much smaller Tube tunnels of London, this kind of work is much trickier, so even project like this would take longer and cost more to do.
Also, for those wondering what building HS2 will be like, here’s what tunnel construction on such projects looks like. (The video is actually only about 12 minutes long.)
* The quality of the translation is shockingly bad here in all the Gruppo Salcef videos, which is a shame. Nice to see every worker listed in the end credits though.
“new worshop space”
London Transport is a religion for many 🙂
[Ha. Ha. Now corrected. Thanks. PoP]
So what’s the state of the stock? Three trains out of 33 were checked and it’s extremely unlikely that they got the three best ones – or the three worst.
It’s statistically likely that there are cars out there in worse condition: possibly far worse, although I have some confidence that TFL’s safety inspections would ensure that they never run a train iin a dangerous condition.
However, we’re left with a significant probability that one or more cars will not be repairable – not unless ‘repairable’ means the budget and the tooling to do a complete rebuild. Effectively, a new car with some fittings recovered from an old one.
Maybe TFL are prepared to do that. If not – or if the time required to do that takes other cars beyond their safe service life – we’re looking at losing a train set. Possibly more than one.
What are the service implications of that?
Also: the economic case for the repair program is marginal, even in an optimistic analysis – “We can keep ’em running ’til the new stock comes in, on time and on budget” – but the optimism about service life and delivery dates is unrealistic and TFL are being prudent.
If I were to offer a pessimist’s analysis, I would ask if there is rolling stock elsewhere that might need a serious rebuild in a decade, when the Bakerloo work is completed.
The Bakerloo line trains do look very tired inside, even after this work they will stick out as being of a previous generation of train.
I assume neither of the most recent stock tube stock designs will work on the Bakerloo, as the 1995/1996 carriages are too long while the 2009 stock are too fat, so without the NTFL design there is little that can be done about replacing the 1972 stock.
@ngh: I appreciate there are no serious issues with the Bakerloo traction packages NOW, but will these not only last 15 years, but also deliver the same levels of reliability as today over those 15 years? If not, then maybe it would be a good idea to do something about this…
@timbeau: fair dues – although if Old Oak Common takes off within the next 15 years this could end up being problematic…
For those people who think £70million is a lot for this work, this comes out at around £300K per car. This compares to around £1million per car for new S stock, so is around a third of the cost of buying new. So is it worth spending three times more to get new stock rather than refurbing for 10+ years ? You need an accountant to answer that, but if you are short of money, you have to go for the cheaper option rather than the best.
@Jim Cobb – as I pointed out only the day before yesterday, the net present costs for the two options are much the same. In terms of cash flow, the cheaper option will always win in the very short term but may not, of course, be the best vfm.
Re Staphan,
The Central line traction issues appear to be partly due to the combination of DC traction motors and early solid state traction control equipment combined with unsophisticated ATO that appears to turn the motors on and off to rapidly causing lots of fatigue issues as well as shaking things to bits variable frequency AC control systems are probably far gentler mechanically. (Worst possible combination?)
SWT have been nursing some reused EE507 traction motor on 455s that are upto 74 years old, so age isn’t necessarily an issue. DC motors need frequent carbon brush replacements which won’t change over time.
Perhaps not retractioning the 72 stock is a way of drawing a line in the sand as to when they need to be retired and replaced by NTfL stock. TfL should perhaps be applauded for the fact that they appear to be manoeuvring the chess pieces for a rolling stock strategy for the next few decades, where once NTfL construction begins it should continue steadily for a couple of decades. No more boom & bust!
I have not had time to read all of the comments, but please take it from the ex Duty Manager that Bakerloo trains can go to Kilburn High Road single-manned under normal working. There are no tripcock restrictions etc. They are not allowed to take passengers there.
[Snip. LBM]
Braintist
Because, even then, IIRC, the re-gauging/re-boring of the C&SLR cost humungous amounts of money, but it was felt to be utterly necessary. But, having done it once, there was never any desire to do it again, if al all possible, for reasons of both cost & time.
straphan
The ‘loo frequency is a lot better now, than it was 10 years or so back, even so.
Of course they can handle it at Queen’s park because some trains will turn around there & some go on, so the E&C terminal is the real pinch-point. (I think)
Meanwhile, enough of this
http://i463.photobucket.com/albums/qq356/Greg_Tingey/Harrow%20and%20Wealdstone%20March%201985_1%20%20001.jpg
Note the stock variety & the 4th rails ….
[Photobucket link fixed. LBM]
Surely one other issue with retractioning 72 stock is whether it would have knock on consequences to the traction supply system itself? I think it has been the case that all full line upgrades have included large scale power infrastructure upgrades including current rails, sub stations, cabling and extra / restored ventilation (to reduce heat). There is no point in triggering short term work to rolling stock that then has significant other consequences that are bettered handled in a full upgrade project.
WW
I wonder when the first tube stock will be built,that uses LESS power than the stock it replaces?
Re WW,
Power supply upgrade and replacement – how did I forget about that?!?
Yes new stock has tended to use more power but often only for short periods, the real killer had often been more ( & more frequent) + longer trains running.
@Walthamstow Writer:
The work would have to be done for the NTfL stock anyway, surely? The money spent on upgrading the power supplies won’t be wasted.
Re Anomnibus,
But if you can align the work with when some of the existing equipment has reached the end of it useful life you can replace and add capacity in one go. A quick check suggests this will be the case if stock refurbishment is done – also a point to decide what to do with the Watford DC lines?
Re: KHR/South Hampstead
We’ve had this discussion on this forum before, and I will make the same point again. Kilburn & Hampstead is currently the most marginal Westminster seat in the country, and is likely to remain near the top of the list. Both stations are quite well used, considering their proximity to tube stations and the relatively poor service frequency for inner London.
The nearby tube services are of course very busy and unpleasant to use in the peaks, so the Overground service to Euston is perhaps more of a quality choice for the South Hampstead suits than it is a journey time choice, but nonetheless it’s not something they’ll lose without punishing those responsible at the ballot box.
And PoP et al, I do apologise for sloppily referring to this place as a “forum”. You’re welcome to edit that to say “site” if you wish.
@timbeau: The Euston Watford line has four car trains (or five at most). Replacing those with seven-car Bakerloo trains would be an improvement.
Remember the Bakerloo trains are narrower and have shorter cars than the mainline stock. TfL state the capacity of 1972 stock to be 730 passengers and of Class 378s to be 150 per car. So simple arithmetic would suggest replacing 5-car Overground trains with 7-car tube trains would reduce, not increase, capacity. You could run the tube trains more frequently, of course, but you could do that with the Overground trains already if demand called for it. And it would be much easier to further lengthen the Overground trains than the Bakerloo trains in the future.
@Malcolm: It is anyway not the case that there is any significant volume of opinion here in favour of re-extending the Bakerloo to Watford
A fair point. I should have asked why some commenters seemed to take it for granted that a northerly Bakerloo extension (and abandonment of the DC lines south of Queens Park) was worthwhile.
I assume that the current Bakerloo stock does not have regenerative braking (?). If that were in place it would have some +ve impact on lineside power requirements.
Here’s a thought…..if the Bakerloo service north of H&W had survived 1980s cutbacks, would it still exist today? Or was it always doomed to be closed eventually for operational reasons (i.e. to allow the BR/NSE/Silverlink/LOROL service to take over it completely)? I seem to recall that that they restricted service north of Queen’s Park to peak hours only for several years in the 80safter services to Watford were withdrawn…..why was the all-day service only restored to H&W and no further?
@The Other Paul -“Both stations are quite well used”. Well,the average number of ons and offs at S Hampstead is about 15 per train (annual useage 0 .5m) – one of the lowest for any station in the Greater London area. KHR is about three times that, but, just to give a comparison, nearby Brondesbury is about four times that level.
@Ian J – to recap, the case for closing the dc service into Euston is that it would release two much needed platforms there, which would greatly ease the problems and cost of rebuilding whilst affecting relatively few people for whom a reasonable alternative exists already. (Of course, any closure is accompanied by political noise – often from those who don’t actually use the service – and there would be a loss of quality in the sense that the displaced punters would no longer have a spare seat for their umbrellas – but,hey,neither do the rest of us these days.) I agree that the case is not open and shut (pun alert) but it would be silly to dismiss it out of hand.
Anonymous
Time taken to trundle out & back to Watford, thus stock-occupation/availability & there is a convenient turnback siding (Single now, not the double that my 1985 photograph shows) @ H&W
And … traffic is increasing & continuing to increase.
What astounds me is that Euson-Watford is still not every 15 minutes, as the rest of LOROL seems to be – the approaches up/down Camden Bank are not that crowded for frequency actually. Compare number of trains over 4 tracks with Waterloo [main+pf’s 1-6] or Liverpool St [ Main + Lea Valley] or London Bridge LBSC pre-rebuild or even Blackfriars in 1960, oops.
Graham H
Thanks – I had missed the point (though mentioned earlier?) that the “pinch” @ Euston was not track-occupation, but supposedly platform occupation. Though again, comparison with other termini makes this allegation suspect IMHO.
@Greg T – in fact, the pinch point in Euston platform capacity may be traceable back to the need to park the sleepers there during the peak (PV at 07.30 just as the peak is building…). I wouldn’t wish to go quite as far as saying that we are collectively going to pay £1.2bn just to accommodate the sleepers,but there are some difficult questions to be asked – and answered – here.
Up until 2010 I lived a short walk from both KHR and South Hampstead. For a trip into central London it was always easier to get the Bakerloo or the Jubilee, during both the Silverlink days and then on LO. LO is quicker into Euston, but unless that’s your final destination you’ve then got an awkward rush hour change onto the Vic or Northern; the Jubilee gives you direct travel to Canary Wharf, the Met from Finchley Road a direct route to the City and the Bakerloo is good for the West End. I very rarely took the LO even though it presented a viable commuting route for me, and the station was physically closer.
What the area lacks is decent cross-town links, so a direct route to Camden and the rest of the North London Line would have been very useful despite the existence of West Hampstead LO not far away.
re Fandroid 19 March 2015 at 07:26
“I assume that the current Bakerloo stock does not have regenerative braking (?). If that were in place it would have some +ve impact on lineside power requirements.”
Usually too +ve for the track side power supply which would generally need huge upgrades (replacement) to deal with regenerative braking, the trains are the easy part if they already have rheostatic braking (if not regenerative braking just disabled in the software.)
DC line service frequency – potentially limited by power supply?
Thanks for the comments on my hobby-horse about reboring tube-dimension tunnels to main line gauge. I knew the technicalities involved (as a former Underground stations planner), but the long-term benefits (if you do a genuine benefit:cost analysis, taking in all the relevant material and not the DfT/TfL cherry-picking models) are substantial. The opportunity to straighten severe curves comes with this option, and with hardly any heritage issues on the Bakerloo, some really, really good 21C upgrades would be possible. The Bakerloo has some operationally useful reversers to enable a staged conversion, and neat inter-tunnel gaps for temporary two-way working etc (pause for screams of terror); on paper, it’s do-able. Like the Vic Line openings, reboring could be done in stages… But this IS the real world and it won’t happen – still a dream to cherish.
@Ian J
“TfL state the capacity of 1972 stock to be 730 passengers and of Class 378s to be 150 per car.”
So about the same then, if you have a 5-car 378. But the Watford dc lines seem to manage quite well with 4-car trains: they will be the last to get the 5 car sets, and I read that longer term plans will see the order for 4 car sets for the Goblin and Anglia lines also include some for the Watford line to allow its five car sets to be transferred to service enhancements elsewhere on the NLL and ELL.
@Doubting Terrapin
Re-boring. Your post makes an interesting dent in the “not possible” argument, but I think the “money better put towards new construction” argument is still very much sitting there undinged. As perhaps your closing sentence suggests.
The point at which re-boring becomes worthwhile is presumably around the same point you run out of earth to dig through at <60m depth???
‘@ Doubting Terrapin
It’s not just the tunnels.
The Bakerloo stations were built with lifts and escalators were added later where possible but they they don’t provide step free access.
@Doubting Terrapin:
The problem with re-boring is that you still have stations designed for the old, Tube stock, which is less capacious. Make the trains bigger and longer, and you have the problem of how to get all those extra passengers in and out of the stations. They’re unlikely to be able to handle a big increase in patronage as they are.
The only advantage of re-boring is that you don’t need to build new stations, but if those stations will need major surgery to cope with the higher passenger flows, even that advantage is gone.
That said, replicating the Crossrail approach—it’s basically adding fast tracks to the Central Line through London’s Zone 1—for the Bakerloo might be viable. Rather than trying to run tiny little toy trains over the Hayes branch, you’d build a new Crossrail for that, running roughly parallel and connecting to one of the commuter routes (e.g. Euston DC, or Metropolitan north of Baker Street), and limit the Bakerloo’s southern extent to, say, Camberwell or New Cross.
I see the future of most of the Tube network as providing ‘local’ services alongside ‘express’ Crossrails. Expanding the older network really doesn’t make much sense today.
Graham H
IF that is correct ( & it has been discussed here before, hasn’t it, now that you mention it) then …
The obvious, money-saving answer, given that sleeper timings are not anywhere as near critical as daytime trains is to do what has also been suggested before, & send them to Waterloo’s highest-number platforms.
[ Actually the “international” platforms @ StPInt’l would have been even better but UKBA would have 40 000 kittens. ]
Anomnibus
Yet again, that is CR3, as seen in the various versions of the post-War London Rail plan, effectively from Finchley Rd to Lewisham in various forms.
We will have to await LBM’s prospective article on the “Fleet/Jubilee” saga for more on this, as I assume he will be including the older historical data & plans as well.
I wish him luck of the exercise, incidentally, as it’s err – complicated.
If re-boring tube tunnels ever becomes worthwhile (a big if), it beats me why you would start with the Bakerloo. The technique would pay off better on the busiest line, surely?
Re Malcolm,
It might be easier not to start with the busiest ones especially if you want to extend (inc add branches) to your enlarged tube?
@Malcolm:
It depends. Re-boring tube tunnels—assuming this becomes financially viable—would save some money because you don’t have to build as much brand new underground support infrastructure (i.e. stations). You’d definitely need to expand those stations, but this may still be cheaper than new-build, given how much already lies under central London’s streets.
The Bakerloo has the added advantage of having one of the shortest tunnelled cores of the ‘proper’ Tube lines. (The W&C really should be regarded as a shuttle service that just happens to use the same technology.) With most of its existing stations already on the surface, there’s a lot less work needed to adapt those for the bigger mainline trains.
By comparison, the Northern Line is around 17 miles portal-to-portal if you go via Bank. That’s a lot of underground stations to convert.
If the awesome new “Tunnel Re-boring Machine” I’ve just invented in my head is going to be trialled, doing so on the least busy line first actually makes more sense as fewer passengers would be affected by the disruption.
@Anomnibus 19 March 2015 at 12:42
“If the awesome new “Tunnel Re-boring Machine” I’ve just invented in my head is going to be trialled, doing so on the least busy line first actually makes more sense as fewer passengers would be affected by the disruption.”
So, let’s just follow this logically. Your “Re-boring Machine”… where does the spoil go? Where do the extracted rings go? How do the new rings get in?
@Anomnibus: I agree: Hayes and other places in South East London and Kent would proably be best served by Crossrail 3, with the WCML and Chiltern forming its other end.
Re Briantist + Anomnibus,
How I would start thinking about it:
Most of the rings are cast iron so should be relatively easy to chew through – still best avoided, the duplex stainless steel ones used in highly corrosidve area not so easy to crew through…
1. Strip track, signalling and ballast – removed via old tunnel
2. Unbolt rings (or torch if unresponsive)
3. Automated loosening / dismantling of rings (just not to far in front of the cutting face) done in a simlar way to the current Jubilee segment replacement see – https://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/acid-works/
What to do next with the rings
a) retrieve all through the old tunnel – unlikely
b) have a suitable large hole in the centre of the cutting face on the TBM to allow the segments to go through
c) a mix of the 2 above.
4. TBM supplied with new rings etc from the tail as normal. For a CR based tunnel the volume of earth extracted would be less than 2/3 of the normal amount if following the path of the old tunnel making the logistics a bit easier.
If passing the centres of the old and new tunnels align then differences in the cutting speed between teh edge and centre will be reduced.
So a faster rate of tunnelling than CR might be possible unless it is all limitied by the rate of (new) concrete ring assembly?
@ngh, at the risk of thread drift, do you know how the new Northern line tunnels at Bank will be excavated in 2020?
Re David G,
Covered here in the last section:
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/bank-station-part-3-revised-upgrade-proposals/
With the retirement of the D-stock, the Bakerloo trains are now the last to retain a decent amount of transverse seating. (The new S8-stock have some transverse seats, but far fewer than they used to.) I’m in favour of make-do-and-mend on the Bakerloo trains for as long as possible, so that future generations of tube passengers remember that it is possible to have comfortable seating on the deep tubes.
Transverse seating on deep tubes is a bit of an anachronism given the volumes of people they are expected to handle these days.
During the rebuilding of Euston in the early 1960s, some southbound sleeper trains were diverted to Marylebone (from Bletchley via Claydon and High Wycombe).
On some occasions in the 1970s when there were special trains in the morning to the Motor Show at NEC, some southbound sleeper trains were diverted to Kensington Olympia.
@Guana -you’d have serious trouble fitting the sleepers into Marylebone these days! Given the length of the trains,WIT – until full – is probably the best option but that window of opportunity may close again before it’s any use to HS2. (It would be absurd if the problems of finding a temporary home for the sleepers drove the timescales for rebuilding Euston,but stranger things have happened…)
At lot of people seem to be opposed to transverse seating, but in most instances on the tube you’re not going to get a seat anyway so it makes sense to maximise standing space rather than priorite the few people sitting down. I’m also confused how anyone can find the bakerloo line trains ‘comfortable’ in any way.
Just a quick point about Hayes, I think many people forget that although it may be 6tph and 10 car in the peaks, it’s 4tph and usually 4 car the rest of the time. So 7 car would provide a better service off peak.
@Briantist and ngh:
I was being facetious, but since you ask…
Modern tunnelling regulations mean the new tunnels would be substantially bigger than the old ones. (Remember, you need to include walkways as well now.) Crossrail’s TBM cutting heads are 7.1 metres in diameter, producing a 6.2 m diameter tunnel.
The Bakerloo’s tunnels are about 3.6 metres, excluding the lining. That’s quite a big difference and means there is potential scope for a future Tunnel Reboring Machine to be designed that can be wrapped around the old tunnel. The key difference would be at the cutting head, which would be have a cutting ring on the outside, with a hole in the centre that the old tunnel lining would pass through.
The ‘TRM’ would chew through the ground behind the existing tunnel lining for a few metres. The TRM’s structure would be protecting the workers dismantling the old lining, while, a little further back, the new lining is installed.
Meanwhile, temporary support structures are built for the existing track and signalling, so it can be used for logistics. (It might even be possible to design a TRM that can be left in situ while services are run during the day, though this would mean the project taking a lot longer to complete.)
Once the re-boring process is done, the old track and temporary supports are removed and the process of installing new track and signalling can begin.
*
I’ll grant that the devil is in the details, and a TRM as described above would not be as quick as a TBM chewing a new tunnel under London from scratch—it’d probably be closer to the old ‘drum diggers’ used for the Victoria Line in terms of process automation—but… Herrenknecht AG already have this Partial-face Excavation Machine in their catalogue. It’s not quite a TRM, but it’s not all that big a step from that to what I’ve described above.
Give it 10-20 years.
Of course, there’s the small matter of dealing with the existing stations, but I have to leave something as an exercise for the reader!
I found this video re how a tunnel was enlarged on Canada USA border to allow larger modern freight trains to use an existing tunnel . Although not on the same scale as Bakerloo line it does show how they did it –
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fnSfOuCJdR4
As for Bakerloo Line given its low usage and stations like Regents Park Station which is close to Baker Street Station a re-bore could include new sections built in normal way to either serve other stations ( Bakerloo Baker Street to Euston then Oxford Circus !) .
Tunnel enlargement was part of building Victoria Line where tunnel sections were enlarged to accommodate cross overs or links to existing platforms .
Given the size of the new concourse at TCR above the Northern Line one could imagine building a new level at a station and then diverting trains onto that level which would then become platform level for larger trains with small bore platforms abandoned .
The problems with reboring a tunnel are legion. I can not see how it could be cheaper than building a new line. Indeed there the cost would have to be at least the same percentage cheaper to build for the percentage uplift in passenger numbers in comparison to a new line.
Say for example the cost of the new line was the same as a rebored line, and for example you can now carry twice the number of passengers on the rebored line. It would then be still advantageous to build a new line as you would create a new line as well as have the capacity of the existing line for the same cost.
For it to make sense the line would need to be much cheaper to rebore talking into account the cost per passenger and the lost revenue from closing the existing lline down.
Then we get to the core of the problem. This is not just building a new junction to connect up new pieces of tunnel. You could not rebuild the line in stages. It’s everything in one go. So we are talking about closing a tube line from a minimum of five years ( more likely 10) while you rebuild it. Where do those passengers go in the meantime ho would the other lines cope, and what about those areas that are only served by a station on that line, they’d be cut off.
The fundamental problem is if the system could cope with a line being closed to rebuild then it does not really need any extra capacity in the first place.
@Melvyn
Good find! The engineering of the tunnel enlargement starts at 5.15 and shaves some tunnel lining at the top and at the bottom of the tube section, so it’s not a complete rebore.
Furthermore the tunnels have no intermediate stations, being under the Detroit River. The narration notes that the northbound bore (I shall bore you with the fact that Detroit USA is actual north of Windsor Ontario Canada, the only part of the lower 48 states that is actually north of Canada, not including Alaska of course) is kept open for freight trains whilst the southbound was being enlarged.
I agree with the comment re. the time for re-boring arriving when there’s physically no space left to tunnel in the ground, and the killer seems to me to be that lets say you spent 80% of the cost of a new line reboaring it to double the capacity (and I doubt it would be that cheap), then you’d end up with Bakerloo x 2.
[Crayonista warning>]
If you leave the poor thing be, curtailing at Queens Park, dig a new tunnel from somewhere on the Euston approaches to somewhere useful in south London (Lewisham, and then to Hayes?) then you can keep the Bakerloo as it is, with its existing capacity, but have a whole new faster line serving the extremities, and providing a new route in the centre. Such a line would give you a total boost of Bakerloo x 3, but likely not cost proportionately more when you factor in a disruption costs.
If London Bridge et al teach us something useful, it should be that over-provision of new infrastructure (that will likely fill, given Londoners enthusiasm to relocate over time for convenience sake, see Walthamstow) is better than an upgrade that reduces capacity now in order to supply inadequate capacity later.
A Watfayes/Lewishford line could also do the job of a new southerly route from Euston (so CR2 can leave Euston alone), use full size stock so no issues at Watford Junction, and mop up the development opportunities on the Old Kent Road, leaving the Bakerloo line free to serve Walworth & Camberwell whenever TfL/The Mayor realise that replacing the crawling buses on Walworth Road with a tube makes a great deal of sense.
[/Crayonista warning]
I can see no merit at all in reboring any existing tube line. Rational Plan has covered much of the detail that I wanted to say. I would just add that we also have small issues like the proximity of other lines at interchange stations as well as side by side junctions at Baker St. It is not just a question of how you rebore an existing line it is also how do you not damage any other line or cause them to be partially closed while all hell is knocked out of an existing tunnel above or below the line that’s supposed to be open. There are also daft issues like the generation of vast quantities of dust and dirt that would pollute other tube tunnels and damage the trains and other assets. I know things can be sealed off but it’s never perfect.
The issue of displacing millions of pass jnys for many years on a system that is already chronically overloaded is probably insoluble. The political fall out would stop it being done. Building completely new lines or putting an extension on an existing one are pretty straightforward and a full asset upgrade is something that just has to be done anyway. Let’s just build the new lines we need plus any required extensions.
Closing the dc service into Euston has something else against it: it provides the ’emergency’ service for when the mainline south of Watford is unavailable, indeed it can run when the mainline can’t (except in the Euston throat.) I used to live in central Watford and would use both the Junction (mainline) and High Street stations, depending on where I was heading for and time of day.
(and night-time staff trains up the line were out of Euston on the DC)
I agree with most of what most people have said. Can I suggest that we put the reboring issue aside for now – unless someone is really desparate to add something? The question is sure to come up again in a year’s time, but meanwhile perhaps that’s enough for now!
From next month even the sleepers will be able to use the dc lines, as the class 92s can work on dc! If there isn’t room for them at Waterloo or Euston, how about Liverpool Street (via the Graham Road curve) or Stratford?
If the sleepers are to be diverted, temporarily or permanently, it must be to somewhere with very long platforms (or that can be extended), not full up in the morning rush hour. Primrose Hill, Shoeburyness, Watford Met and Folkestone Harbour spring to mind.
@timbeau -do you think there is any spare peak capacity at these places?
Malcolm: Primrose Hill has no platforms currently (and no way to reach them if it did, either)
@Graham H
Liverpool Street might have some capacity after Crossrail is complete, even if only temporarily before demand builds up again. Long enough to enable Euston to be worked on?
@Graham H: it would release two much needed platforms there, which would greatly ease the problems and cost of rebuilding
But if you really wanted the platforms that badly, why wouldn’t you just divert the Overground trains through Primrose Hill, instead of trying to cram everyone onto the Bakerloo line? Or divert the sleepers during the rebuilding program?
Or to put it another way, given the enormous increases in demand into Zone 1 from all directions London is experiencing, why would anyone want to close a double track rail route into Zone 1, even if it is operating below its nominal capacity? I know BR did it in the early 80s with Broad Street (and some tried to do it with Marylebone)*, but those were very different times economically and politically. “Reasonable alternatives” require spare capacity on alternative services which simply isn’t there.
*and TfL undid that mistake 20 years later
@Malcolm, Alison W: Primrose Hill is basically at Chalk Farm tube station so if you built platforms (on loops so the freight could get through) there it wouldn’t be a terrible sleeper terminal – basically the Paris Bercy of London. Wouldn’t go down well north of Berwick, though…
@ngh – “Usually too +ve for the track side power supply which would generally need huge upgrades (replacement) to deal with regenerative braking, the trains are the easy part if they already have rheostatic braking (if not regenerative braking just disabled in the software.)”
I wouldn’t describe the rheostatic equipment on the ’72 Stock having anything near “software”. As WW so ably describes the kit, it’s more “the Bakerloo is simple “hit it wiv a ‘ammer” type technology”. I’ll add “wonderfully simple”.
Of course, that braking power could be diverted at least in part away from the braking resistances (rheostatic braking) into other things on board. Maybe it already does. Electromagnetic track brakes were considered, but rejected, at one time, for example. To avoid excessive rail wear, the arrangement could be such that full or part of the rheostatic power was diverted into the electromagnet windings which would cause the electromagnets to draw on a brake linkage to apply wheel brake shoes before full or any effort and contact by the magnet(s) is applied to the rails. The back EMF of the motors works to provide the majority of the braking effort. The resulting current can be utilised as described. This is not crayonistic stuff – it was common practice on the LCC and LT electric trams (any waste energy through the resistance box under the stairs heated it up nicely to keep the tram drivers’ Billy cans of tea warm on top). This image will do to illustrate the electromagnetic brake itself:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Septa_PCC_car_truck.jpg
These days, rheostatic braking effort could be more usefully used in the form of regenerative braking, without notable heat and energy losses through the resistances, to help supply train heaters (when needed), air-con, driving the air compressors, lighting, recharging the on-board batteries etc., all of which could be done without feeding back to the current rails whilst even reducing the overall current draw. You might need a tad of ‘software’ (but I’m sure there’s an efficient, sorry, cheap, electromechanical equivalent) to cope with the waves of power input and subsequent loss (the latter when slowed down/coming to a stand) on board whilst braking but there would be the fall-back of supplying the resistances if nothing else ‘wanted’ to use the power.
As for the motors themselves, not I note subject here to official criticism regarding the condition of the stock, I suggest that they and related kit can be kept going dare I say ad infinitum. Whilst nobody manufactures DC traction motors these days in the UK, there are several elsewhere in Europe who do. There are, however, many firms such as Sulzer in Sheffield who are happy to rewind and refurbish DC traction motors. It’s usually the insulation of the motor windings that eventually degrades to require attention rather than any interacting moving parts which a spot of normal maintenance and refurbishment on removed motors cannot cope with at the local depot – oops, I nearly mentioned Acton Works again. That will apply to AC motors as well…. I wonder how long they will last as compared with their DC forebears – see comments above.
Just to touch on re-boring the tunnels. One must be most careful to distinguish between re-boring and enlarging. Enlarging tends to take place ring-by-ring on the ‘tube’ and is only done traditionally to remove extremely tight clearances (e.g. around South Kensington on the Piccadilly because nobody important enough had taken into account the extra length of the cars of the ‘new’ stock – the 6-car 1973 Stock replaced the former 7-car stock with consequent overhang problems until sorted out) and to accommodate new step-plate junctions and so on. The Bakerloo has hardly been touched in any respect; the running tunnels are so close together that any re-boring and even tunnel enlargement would tend to foul the adjacent tunnel without massive work to shift the tunnels apart somehow; and the clearances between train and tunnel wall remain in parts as tight as some 6.5-8cm. And that’s not taking into account what’s outside the present tunnel linings ready to spoil the idea of any enlargement.
@Malcolm @Walthamstow Writer @jamesup @Long Branch Mike @Rational Plan@Anomnibus @ngh
Thanks for all the details re tunnel re-boring. I think there is only one additional point that might be made: that the distance between the centre of the two existing tunnel bores on the Bakerloo line might be two small to actually dig out the tunnels that much bigger.
@Ian J – “But if you really wanted the platforms that badly, why wouldn’t you just divert the Overground trains through Primrose Hill,” – Et puis?
@timbeau – LST -maybe but again, as with WIT, the timings may not fit.
The Bakerloo tunnels have been expanded once, when the platforms were lengthened. The extensions have a slightly larger diameter than the original platform tunnels, as they do on the Central.
@Rational Plan, et al:
My post was a response to a request for details about my awesome new Tunnel Reboring Machine, wot I made up just for a post. I wasn’t serious about using it on the Bakerloo next week; I was just illustrating that, while reboring is unlikely to be desirable for the near, or even medium term, it may be feasible from a purely engineering perspective. It’s certainly very expensive, for all the reasons Rational Plan has pointed out, and then some—not the least of which is how you drag such a machine through an old station to the next section of tunnel!
(For myself, I agree with Jamesup’s suggestions for the Bakerloo.)
Nevertheless, there may come a time when London reaches “Peak Tunnel”. This isn’t about mere cost either: water doesn’t care about ride quality and journey times, but people certainly do. Crossrail 1 has already had to contend with a lot of obstacles, and the disruption and cramped sites on the surface do not bode well for the option of building more than one such project at the same time. It’s going to be at least 20 years before we see Crossrail 3 come off the drawing board, yet I’d argue this should have been under construction today. London’s infrastructure planning will clearly remain reactive, not proactive, for generations yet. That’s not a good thing.
Proactive planning means deliberately providing oversupply of capacity, so you can then close a tatty old piece of infrastructure and perform necessary remedial work on it to bring it up to modern requirements. (E.g. extending all the station platforms, widening others, and, yes, even potentially re-boring the tunnels.) By the time all that work is done, the demand will be building up for the upgraded infrastructure, which will ideally have been done in conjunction with suitable redevelopment and regeneration projects up above.
This is exactly what London’s infrastructure lacks: breathing space. London is firefighting and playing a constant game of catch-up. The increased density of skyscrapers that are appearing on London’s skyline will require increased capacity of its transit systems. Given the heritage status of some of the London Underground’s infrastructure, this is never going to be either easy or cheap, but we do need to consider the ramifications of massive buildings like the Shard on the local infrastructure. That building alone adds demand for 10000 people onto the surrounding roads, bus networks, Tube, and railways. Add on all those tall buildings in the City and elsewhere, and it’s clear that the existing Tube infrastructure just isn’t going to cope. We need more tunnels. We need more efficient use of the roads.
The entire “2050” plan discussed recently is clearly all reaction to existing problems, with little evidence of any attempt to avoid future problems. Witness the dearth of projects for the major housing developments planned in the east and south-east of London. Half-baked doesn’t even begin to describe this.
*
Sorry, this turned into a bit of a rant.
@The Future’s Bright, The Future’s Orange
“The Bakerloo tunnels have been expanded once, when the platforms were lengthened. The extensions have a slightly larger diameter than the original platform tunnels, as they do on the Central”
I’ve been looking at the usually flawless
http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/bakerloo.html and I can’t see when this happened. Where should the platform lengthening go in this chronicle?
Thanks
Melvyn
As for Bakerloo Line given its low usage… Err, If you got on @ Oxford Circus, heading sarf, as I often do, you would not be saying that!
And the section N as far as Paddington is fairly heavily-used too! Though I suspect that CR1 will bring a lot of relief to that section, at least.
On the not-so-slow 08:46 LM Euston-Crewe – only £25.75 return on the day so not knocking it!
Glad to report, given Network Rail’s slight propensities, that the 4th rail is in position all the way to Harrow & Wealdstone.
Better still, it is in position though minus most of its upside-down enamel chamber pots, from Wealdstone to just south of Bushey platforms and again at Watford Junction. (The latter might save a bean or two on the Croxley Link costs.)
So the electrification costs of putting the Bakerloo back to Watford might be OK. It would be more down to train availability and whether train stops at signals needed to be re-inserted – and whether there is any business case (not convinced).
@The Future’s Bright &c. – I prefer to say that it was the Bakerloo *platforms* which were were extended between 1939 and 1945 (29 May to be precise when first in service) to take seven-car instead of six-car trains but it is sufficient to add that it was the *station* tunnels that were lengthened, rather than the running tunnels expanded.
Source: “Sixty Years of the Bakerloo”, published by London Transport in 1966 (and purchased in 1967).
Re Graham Feakins 20 March 2015 at 06:41
The comment was about regnerative braking both on the bakerloo and in general (due to the link with the DC lines) with the “general” covered in brackets. National Rail stock like Siemen’s Desiro and Bombardier’s Electrostar family regeneration being a software setting the hardware capability being built in, old stock types would need hardware modification.
Agreed on most of the rest, carbon brush and bearing changes and less frequent rewinds could keep them going virtually ad-infinitum.
The current generation of software and electronics controlling the AC traction motors is likely to be much kinder to the motors than some later DC or early AC control gear which should help improve reliability. (i.e. the sudden on/off as seen on the central line stock is not very kind mechanically)
@Briantist -By remarkable coincidence I answered your query before I read it without even accessing the internet! I used what is called a book (or booklet) in this case.
GF
That collection of “Sixty yeas of the…” booklets are very useful – I too have a set. The contrast & difference in ifnormation between them & the current series of historical booklets is most interesting too.
@ngh – “The current generation of software and electronics controlling the AC traction motors is likely to be much kinder to the motors than some later DC or early AC control gear which should help improve reliability” – but what about external forces such as the track, vibration &c.? Is that sort of thing likely to be kind to those electronics and software bits over time? There’s a reason why traditional traction engineers often referred to the ‘sturdy’ DC motors and kit. Just a question.
A timely reminder as to why the Piccadilly might be being prioritised over the Bakerloo for new
shockstock and capacity enhancement (and also the potential for Hayerloo extension.)http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/fascinating-animated-video-shows-500000-tube-journeys-in-just-two-minutes-10120140.html
Fascinating – some things we would expect – the wide fluctuations in the use of the Drain, and the low usage at both ends of the Bakerloo.
Some surprises too, such as the very low use of the Richmond branch, relatively low of he H&C west of Paddington, and the huge difference, for most of the day, between City and CX traffic north of Kennington, very much greater on the latter branch – suggesting the proposed split would be very unpopular.
@timbeau – and however did we manage without the Jubilee?
BTW also enjoyed the “Elephant survives attack by 14 lions” video in the adjacent column – reminded me of some of the exchanges here… No names, of course.
@ngh
An interesting video. It is interesting that it direct seem to bunch people into trains.
For example in the pink line from Hammersmith there are 12 tph, not a smooth flow as the animation had…
It’s almost completely different, but Network Rail recently posted a video of reboring a tunnel from single track to double track:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w591AQh7DT8
@Timbeau, as someone who lives south of Kennignton, I can assure you it will be.
More Charing Cross trains need to head to Morden, especially at weekends and late nights to borrow a New York phrase. As you can imagine, all saturday the north and southbound CX branch platforms at Kennington are packed with people heading to Morden. I can’t see how a split to Battersea, which will create its own traffic, plus the demands of passengers south of Kennington will help with Northern Line overcrowding. CR2 will bring some release, but Leicester Square, Waterloo and Charing Cross which generate plenty of traffic themselves will still be left in the cold.
The CX branch is also much quicker to traverse Central London than the Bank, and could lead to some relief on the Victoria if more people stayed onto Euston/TCR than changing at Stockwell.
@Graham Feakins Source: “Sixty Years of the Bakerloo”, published by London Transport in 1966 (and purchased in 1967).
I wonder if there’ll be a sequal “Sixty Years of the 1972 Stock” come 2032?
GH/timbeau
and however did we manage without the Jubilee?
If you think that’s bad, consider the Victoria!
Which had to be fought for tooth & nail & was severe;y descoped, to scrape it past the Treasury in construction … & we are still stuck with those penny-pinchings now:
The narrow & congested & only 2 escalator exit/entrance @ Highbury ….
The layout & platforms at Blackhorse Rd, because a joint station was initially refused ….
The similar exit at Walthamstow ( note* ) ….
The only-now-being-rebuilt access etc at Victoria …
note*)
ORR have told me that they are requiring mitigation measures for the new, extremely narrow exit from the tube to the main station there. And we just hope that those measures will be enough, & no-one gets crushed.
@Greg – and of course the biggest Vic line underscoping of all (it is now apparent) was the use of tube gauge for the running tunnels.
But I doubt if the now “obvious” alternative was even considered. Hindsight is a wonderful thing!
Malcolm,
Actually it was. It was looked at in quite considerable detail – especially as one future option was to go via Fulham to Wimbledon and take over the District Line (subsequently revived in the Chelsea-Hackney proposal).
There were considerable problems with a larger gauge. The interchange with the Bakerloo at Oxford Circus would not have been possible. At King’s Cross space was tight so the Victoria Line would have had to have gone much deeper. Given the genuine likely traffic forecasts at the time and the technology available to dig tunnels it does seem a reasonable decision to have made. We all know, as you say, hindsight is a wonderful thing but the current increase in London’s population could not have been predicted at a time when the policy and trend was to move people out of London. Apart from anything else, the cold war meant growth of major cities that could be obliterated with one bomb was discouraged.
Having ruled out main line gauge, further consideration was then given to a 14 foot tunnel which would have retained many of the advantages of main line gauge but avoided the need to reroute it in places. Most unfortunately this was rejected, primarily apparently, because the trains wouldn’t be able to get to Acton Works for their major overhaul. Whilst others regret the loss of Acton Works I wish it had happened sooner so the Victoria Line may have ended up with larger tunnels.
I also feel one or two of Greg’s other cost cutting criticisms are a tad unfair. Victoria Underground station coped surprisingly well for many years with the Victoria Line. What really took it over the edge was a combination of the success of the Brixton extension and the huge development of offices at Victoria to the north of the station meaning that in the morning Victoria was very much a destination as well as an interchange for those arriving at the main line station.
In the case of the popularity of the Brixton extension this was never expected. All the plans involved some trains terminating at Victoria rather than going on to Brixton as it was thought that the remaining trains would be more than enough to satisfy demand.
In the case of the new office buildings at Victoria that too was not really something that in the 1950s and 1960s could have reasonably been predicted. If I recall correctly, initially the three escalators at Victoria in the morning ran 2 down and 1 up and that coped fine. It only with the booming exiting traffic that they have had to change it to 2 up and 1 down – that and the limited platform capacity due to the trains from Brixton arriving full. In any case the new offices really needed a new northern exit at Victoria and this was almost certainly not even considered as an option at the time of planning – and why should it have been?
The thing that I think the Victoria Line suffered from was no crossover from platform 4 at Seven Sisters to the southbound tunnel. This would not have cost very much if done at the time of construction and would have been very useful. I covered this in The Secret Life of Seven Sisters. But in fact from April 2016 this will become irrelevant as during the day all trains will continue to Walthamstow Central.
@Malcolm: the WWII line planned and built as the deep level shelters was going to be standard gauge. http://tubedreams.london/morrisons-half-built-deep-level-express-line/
@Margret et al.
Isn’t the idea of the split being able to run more frequent trains, thereby increasing capacity that way?
@ PoP – Being very generous the Vic Line coped for about 12-15 years and then places like Victoria became “hell holes” and have simply worsened since then. My memory may be defective but weren’t LU looking to relieve Victoria’s overcrowding in the early 1980s and it became critical when the unexpected patronage growth up to 1988 happened? There are far too many Thames News clips on Youtube now that feature woeful news from the 80s and 90s about government funding cut backs, collapsing reliability, chronic overcrowding and delayed projects. Some of what seems to be happening these days is horribly reminiscent of those dire times even accepting that a lot of good stuff has been done and some clever financial engineering by TfL has tried to offset the worst cuts.
We’re clearly in a different environment these days but a 12 year timescale before a line becomes seriously overcrowded is not really acceptable is it even in “gentler” times for patronage growth? I know you can quote me loads of recent examples of overloaded new lines but the Vic Line really is lumbered with severe capacity issues at stations only partly worsened by the upgraded train service.
To crawl back “on topic” you have to hope that the mistakes of the Vic Line era are not repeated on the Bakerloo Line when it is upgraded and possibly extended. There are a lot of parallels with the Vic Line’s history especially the likely effect of an extension to inner / outer South London.
Walthamstow Writer,
The problems with Victoria station (Victoria Line) really started with the way the line was built – the original line then the extension. From very limited early memory, the original Victoria Line station, terminating at Victoria, coped quite well but I suspect the platforms and the ticket hall were never built to take into account of any future extension. When the extension opened it initially coped well with that too. I have used it on an off since it opened and from my experience it has never been unable to cope with the crowds, assuming people could get on a train. In my opinion, the problems came about, when, as previously stated, the extension to Brixton was a lot more popular than anyone had predicted. This led to the issue of the overcrowding of the northbound platform at Victoria (and people not being able to get on the train) and therefore the problem of people backing up on the escalators leading to a) only a single down escalator being in use to deliberately limit numbers going down to the platform and b) crowd control measures initiated at the Victoria Line ticket hall.
Anyone who in their wildest dreams really thinks that the Victoria Station Upgrade is going to solve these problems is going to be in for a shock I think. The trains can’t cope. Making the station bigger won’t solve that.
There are good reasons for making the station bigger with a separate northern entrance. This will reduce congestion on the platforms as there will now be exits at either end. The other main reason is that a lot of people nowadays want the north side of the station and so it makes a lot of sense – and shortens their door to door journey time by quite a few minutes – to have a northern entrance. You will also get mobility impaired access and will be able to evacuate the station much faster if necessary. And when the station does get overcrowded you at least have two ticket halls to hold people before resorting to closing the station entrances.
I am resigned to the fact that, apart from a slight respite in 2016 when the tph goes up from 34 to 36, the situation will only get worse as far as time from Victoria Mainline Station to actually boarding a northbound Victoria Line train is concerned. Neither the opening of the northern entrance nor the enhancement of the south entrance will change that.
@Pop thanks for that fascinating snippet of Vic-line planning history. Can you recommend any books covering its planning? I would like to upgrade my library.
PoP
As a frequent user of the Vic,I would agree with what you have said and would add that a Northern entrance/exit to the platforms at Victoria would be a great help.
In my experience,whilst it is true that there is a real shortfall of capacity on trains arriving due to heavy loading from further South,this is mightily exacerbated by the fact that a large number of heavily-used stations on the Vic have their entrances at the South end of the platforms (Brixton,Victoria,King’s X,Highbury,Fins Pk there may be more) and a lot of people using the line every day (ie they will know where the entrances are).
This leads to extreme crowding at he South end of the NB platform at Victoria,backing up into the circulating area and the foot of the escalator bank,as people are loth to walk further along the platform (guilty as charged,as I’m usually on my way to H&I) as they know they will have to retrace their steps at their destination.
This leads to the Southern 3 or 4 cars being rammed even when there are seats free in the front car.
Slugabed,
I will return the compliment and agree with all you say. I am lucky and usually am on my way to Marylebone, changing at Oxford Circus so I don’t mind being at the front. My tactic is to ignore any train until I have got to the north end of the platform. Sometimes I do this by using the southbound platform for most of the way if a train hasn’t just arrived or is arriving – one can always dart back to the northbound platform at the earliest opportunity if one suddenly appears. The carriages at the front are not full in the sense that you are less squashed than at the back. You also stand a good chance of being able to get on the first train that arrives but that is not guaranteed.
A lot of effort was put into trying to locate station entrances to platforms in order to ensure an even spread along the train. Clearly, from your account, this wasn’t 100% successful.
Malcolm,
A lot of this information I got out of The Story of The Victoria Line. My edition is the first one which cost 5/-. Although a very small book it is packed with facts and I haven’t found better. As usual, Mike Horne’s book, The Victoria Line is pretty good too but does not focus so much on the reasoning behind decisions made about building it.
The rest is personal observation and reading the papers behind the inquiry for the Transport and Works Act Order for the station upgrade.
Pop says “Most unfortunately this [14 foot tunnels] was rejected, primarily apparently, because the trains wouldn’t be able to get to Acton Works for their major overhaul.”
Odd, because of the cross-platform interchange with the [then] Northern City line at Highbury and Islington. On the face of it, a link would have been cheap and easy to build there, and using BR metals for such purposes was then quite normal.
@Briantist
“the WWII line planned and built as the deep level shelters was going to be standard gauge. ”
Didn’t know that before!
How much would it have cost to join them up into an express tube? How much would it cost now?
@timbeau – I fear that some of them are now used for purposes which might cost rather a lot to displace. If I told you, i would have to kill you, of course…
@PoP – I assume Victoria coped prior to 71 because the passenger loading was spread across two terminating platforms and was obviously lower.
I agree with you about the new ticket hall and escalators at Victoria not really fixing very much. Obviously the volume of people will be spread around and I expect LU will repeat its Kings Cross trick of sending people round as long a route as they can devise to try to spread out the flow of people. I’d not be shocked to see the existing 3 escalators set to exit only on an almost permanent basis with people forced to use the new escalators and walkways to enter. I’ve sat and looked at the plans several times and I’m not overly impressed really – it’ll deliver some improvements obviously but it doesn’t fix the fundamental issue of platform capacity. I’m also concerned about the Victoria to District / Circle links which don’t appear to be improved very much and there is no change on the SSR platforms either. Given how prone they were to overloading a few years ago when I used them I am surprised something isn’t being done. The peak crowding situation must be much worse now although longer Circle Line trains will have helped a little bit. How long before another £800m has to be spent at Victoria to “fix” the SSR platforms and ticket hall? And then £1bn to do something at Victoria Line platform level? I guess CR2 must be expected to be the saviour that will stop these further changes being needed.
Malcolm,
But the Northern City Line then terminated at Drayton Park where the depot was. So how would a link have helped?
@PoP There was a connection alongside Drayton Park station to the main line – I remember seeing it. Of course my memory could be wrong (or misdated), but if it is, then how did the northern city line trains escape to Acton, or engineering trains get onto the northern city? I don’t think there ever was a connection at Moorgate.
On further reflection, what I remember seeing may have been the track to the depot. But the rest of my existence proof still stands! The link (if it existed) could have been from the depot, or from the north end of the station.
Malcolm,
You may well be right but I can only quote from page 27-28 of The Story of the Victoria Line that I previously mentioned.
The 14ft. 6in. tube was abandoned because it would have cost more to build than a 12-ft tunnel (on the squaring principle) and because there would have been no means of getting the stock to the Acton overhaul works.
… and if it didn’t exist, it could easily have been built, given the works going on at the time.
According to a certain website, “Carriages were brought to [the Northern City line] through a connection into a freight yard near Drayton Park station, where a small depot was built to service trains“, though I accept that, even if this was true at one time, the connection could have been removed.
OK then. And there is the logical point that, in order for the stock-moving business to be used as a reason not to build bigger tunnels, it doesn’t really matter if it’s true or not – what would matter was that it was believed (by the decision makers) to be true. Sorry for provoking the digression.
@WW – I seem to remember the link between Vic mainline and the SSR concourse, and the platforms themselves, being pretty crowded even in the early 80’s when I was doing Vic – South Ken. Probably not by today’s “standards” though.
@Malcolm – In Northern City Line days and up to 1970, stock transfer was by battery locomotive traction between Drayton Park and Highgate Depot by way of the Northern Heights railway via Stroud Green and Crouch End; thereafter, the stock transfer was between Drayton Park and Neasden via King’s Cross.
Thanks Graham. So there was a connection from Drayton Park depot, which could have been used by any Victoria line trains which might have got onto the Northern City via the non-existent, but easily imagined, crossover at H & I. But this apparently did not trouble whoever decided not to build the Victoria line to 14 foot 6 diameter. Probably because of the other reasons referred to above!
P.S. A few views of the transfer via King’s Cross here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/12a_kingmoor_klickr/sets/72157627626515984/
@timbeau 20/03 16.14
There is clearly some statistical error where branches are concerned, in reality the Richmond branch is heavily loaded in the peaks in both directions and Richmond trains are always busier than Ealing Broadway trains. Likewise the projected demand split between City and West End branches on the Northern line is probably not accurate. The model must make assumptions about the routes passengers take from station to station and where they change lines where there is a choice of alternative routes and Oyster data would not pick this up.
The Wimbledon branch is also much busier than the model would suggest.
EverGreenAdam,
Pleased you stated this. The light use of the Richmond branch was inconsistent with my experience on rare trips on it. It was also inconsistent with a known plan to remove the Ealing Broadway branch from the District in specifically in order to provide more trains to Richmond (and Wimbledon).
@ EvergreenAdam – having read up a little bit more about that animation of tube journeys we need to remember it’s only 500k jnys over a day. Assuming it’s a weekday that’s still quite an underestimate. The data is also from 2009 so not up to date and Oyster take up would have been much lower then as it hadn’t been extended to NR services at that point. Therefore the myriad of journeys on magnetically encoded seasons would not be reflected. I suspect route based pricing and those trips are also not reflected in the data. Freedom Card data may also not be included but that’s a guess. It’s a nice idea but an updated version with a higher volume of journeys on more recent data would be very interesting – especially if it captured the Overground.
@ Graham F – thanks for the link to those photos of the stock transfer. Fascinating – I had no idea that ever happened. I’d love to have used the old widened lines tunnels through Kings Cross. Shots of class 31s and carriages were amazing enough but 38 stock on transfer – incredible. Looking at the photo album I wonder if the people snapping the “last steam train on LT” ever imagined there’d be a repeat 42 years later.
@ Mike P – long time since I did the Victoria shuffle in the rush hour but even at 0730 there were queues for the transfer escalators back on to the Vic platforms. There would also be a slow crawl up the stairs. A gap in the District Line service would result in 2 person deep queues on the e/b and worse on the w/b. It was many, many times worse between 0830 and 0900 with the area jammed and it being hard to get on to the platforms never mind a train. It must be far worse than that these days.
@WW – I wish I’d had my camera when I was invited on one of the turns Highgate to Drayton Park, courtesy a mate at Golders Green depot! From memory, stock transfers took place monthly but maybe more frequently. The ’38 tube stock was in 3-car units on the Northern City.
@WW – This DD page has more information on the via King’s Cross transfers:
http://districtdavesforum.co.uk/thread/12166/page/2/northern-city-stock-transfers
See esp. the timetable images.
@ Malcolm 21 March 2015 at 22:13 The first trains to run on the Victoria Line were standard stock from Drayton Park depot on the trial tunnel section north of Finsbury Park, the current southbound which connected into the Northern City southbound terminus platform. Consideration was given to using the spare trains for the Brixton extension to run the Northern City line by this link. The track was removed with cutting back to Drayton Park but the tunnel remains and was used to remove redundant rails etc in the line upgrade. In the last few years of NCL operation the tube trains were transferred by a surface stock route to and from Neasden for maintenance. The NCL tunnels were 4.9m but London’s latest tube line to Battersea is being built to 6m diameter with new tunnelling machines per the latest TfL press release.
Malcom & G F:
Indeed there was a very steeply-graded connection, out of the depot on to the GNR
The classic LT history by J G Bruce:
“The Big Tube” March 1976 ISBN: 0 85329 071 7
Has a picture of stock on said incline.
Also, regarding the GN&C’s shunting loco… This loco was used to transfer rolling stock & supplies into & out of the depot at Drayton Pk, which, because it had no road access, made it necessary for all heavy material to be delivered by rail..
Also, try THIS: http://maps.nls.uk/view/102345843#zoom=6&lat=1667&lon=6425&layers=BT
From the invaluable National Library Scotland archives, too …
WW
Watching an “N-2” starting a double rake of quad-arts out of the hotel curve was, err, interesting. I only actually travelled the lines with diesel haulage, more’s the pity.
Walthamstow Writer,
How long before another £800m has to be spent at Victoria to “fix” the SSR platforms and ticket hall?
Sorry, overlooked this point. The Victoria Station Upgrade project was only ever intended to address the Victoria Line issue and not that of the SSR. Subsequently there has been board approval to do some cosmetic work on the SSR side to give the station a unified appearance and avoid it looking left in a mess due to the need to interfere with the SSR site to lay cables etc.
At one stage on TfL’s hit list was an upgrade to the SSR side “to finish the job”. If I recall correctly the price at the time was around £130m. The intention, or at least hope, was it would be done as part of a development upgrade in order to pay for it. I don’t know the current position but I suspect this will now all get subsumed into Crossrail 2.
@Pedantic of Purley
“How long before another £800m has to be spent at Victoria to “fix” the SSR platforms and ticket hall?…Sorry, overlooked this point. ”
If my memory is right, there was some fixes to the SSR at Victoria about .. 15 years ago. They created better stairs between the Victoria Line and the SSR and the SSR platforms were stripped bare and re-tilled.
The old stairs between the tube and sub service lines were the things of nogthtmare, but I recall being disappointed they didn’t install escallators to make a better exit for the Victoria.
@Malcolm: wouldn’t the obvious place for a link between the Victoria Line and the Big Railway for servicing purposes have been at Northumberland Park? Then a scenic tour of the not-yet-Overground to get to Acton.
What is the Bakerloo train in the cover photo doing at Kilburn High road?
@Mark Allan – if you care to look back on this thread about a week ago,you’ll see quite an extensive discussion about Bakerloo trains at KHR.
@Ian J
Yes, I suppose it would. So realistically, the issue of getting the trains in/out should not have been a factor in the tunnel-diameter decision. But apparently it was.
All a bit academic now, as what we have is a tube-sized Victoria line, whether we like it or not. Plans are better made for the real future, I suppose, rather than a hypothetical past.
Malcolm,
The quote from the book was perhaps wrong but maybe “easily transferred to Acton works under its own power” would have conveyed more accurately the correct sentiment. It was asking for trouble to state it was not possible.
In recent times it wouldn’t have been thought of as unreasonable to use a low loader and go by road. And of course in the early days carriages were put on a road vehicle and delivered by horse power – I think this was how Bakerloo carriages were originally delivered.
“The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.”
Agreed that fashions change about how best to move rail vehicles. But I’ve drifted way off topic here for long enough, though I did enjoy the Kings Cross pictures. It was my rather thoughtless suggestion about wider tunnels “probably” not being even considered for the Victoria line which did it; quite what that had to do, anyway, with de-rusting the Bakerloo fleet is another matter, perhaps best left to settle unclarified under the quiet rain of time blossoms softly falling.
Apparently Sir Peter Hendy has said that the Bakerloo extension could be running by 2030:
http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/8151
@Anonymous – “could” not “will”. Technically, you could have it extended much faster than that, but I’ll leave you to guess why not…
@Ian J The original trains arrived by Northumberland Park connection before Finsbury Park was completed.
Re upgrade of SSR platforms at Victoria surely this would be done as part of an oversite redevelopment of the buildings next to the bus station ?
Which begs the question as to who owns these buildings a moot point given press release from TFL regarding seeking partners to develop TFL properties and land bank see –
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2015/march/tfl-receives-huge-response-in-search-for-property-partners
Given the major redevelopment underway opposite Victoria Station by land securities ( anyone know if this development will be linked into new Northern Ticket Hall like at Canary Wharf or new privately funded subway at King Cross ? ) . Development of these buildings together with bus station are a logical next step.
The above press release seems to show how TFL have learned from Crossrail project how development of buildings above stations makes it easier and even cheaper to upgrade stations despite local desrupion during building works .
Addendum – It was only after testing above link I found this press release comes with a TFL video about what is planned and it seems TFLS are trying to emulate the way Hong Kong. works in developing land assets to fund transport upgrades instead of just selling off redundant land and letting others take the profits of new development !
@melvyn -interesting; TfL’s problem is that it doesn’t have the statutory powers to acquire land for development purposes.This means that they are limited to airspace over operational property, or have to rely on the ability of their commercial partners to assemble land by negotiation. I seem to recall that MTR didn’t have the same limitation.
@ Melvyn – I think we need to be a little bit careful about the HK comparison. The obligations placed on MTR by the HK government about property development are very different to those which TfL have. MTR has a clear role to develop the land that the government gives it as part of extending or building new lines. MTR also has a long established track record as a developer and landlord and it has a direct incentive to get property development right as it delivers extra patronage but also significant revenues from rents as well as travel. While there is some very expensive property in HK the authorities have a long standing excellent reputation in the provision of social housing so there is not the stupid divide that we have lumbered ourselves with in this country and in London, in particular.
I am a little more jaded about TfL’s venture into “commercialisation”. We have been here before when LT was poised to launch a PPP for property development but it was killed off at the very last minute. I never did find out why. The current environment is different because of the daft state of the property market, the restrictions on councils building housing and the fact that City Hall is trying to turn TfL into a replacement for the axed London Development Agency. We also have some MPs trying to kill off the latest TfL bill in Parliament to prevent TfL being given powers so it is able to undertake some forms of development. I believe this is linked to the debacle over the demolition of Earls Court (partly on TfL Land) and the view that the development is effectively “cleansing” the area of poorer people who currently have access to social housing. There were also questions about TfL’s governance process / impartiality when it is a party to a joint venture to redevelop Earls Court. I offer no comment on the specifics here as I haven’t followed it in detail.
I accept my argument is straying somewhat but there is a legitimate question to be asked about TfL’s role, what it should be concentrating on and whether the constrained funding environment is pushing TfL in directions that it should not really be going in. I don’t hugely object to over station developments provided that TfL get a really excellent deal and vastly better station as a result. The key, though, is for TfL to be able to be as commercially ruthless as the property developers will be. I wonder if it will be allowed to hold out for a good deal or whether there will be “back door” pressure through City Hall to just get deals signed regardless of how good they are. There is a poor track record of public sector dealings with the private sector and we can’t have a repeat when the consequence may be that the transport facility is poorly designed and incapable of future expansion or there is simply very poor value for money from the deal.
There is a different element of the debate which is whether TfL should be flogging off every square inch of spare land, selling off houses it owns and converting “spare” space in stations for commercial use. There is £100m+ price tag to decommission and convert ticket offices for other, undefined, uses (this cost was in a TfL Board paper recently). I would like to see a proper debate about all of this but I fear it is all too late unless the MPs manage to be re-elected and kill off the TfL Bill in the next parliament. I understand the Bill’s next reading might be in June. If we get a change of political control in May 2016 then the policy may change anyway but that’s 14 months away. A Google search for the TfL Bill brought up a transcript from a recent Opposed Bills Committee – be warned it is long and involved!
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/privbill/201415/tfl130115.htm
Also – http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2014-15/transportforlondonhl.html
Oh and I don’t believe there is any subway link from the new Victoria developments to the tube station. People will use pedestrian crossings from the existing station or walk from the new northern ticket hall for those buildings being built on Bressenden Place.
@Walthamstow Writer:
I think the Hong Kong model is a very good one. It can cause friction if it goes too far, but forcing TfL to operate with both (financing) hands tied behind their backs was never a good plan.
One could argue that, while many of the early railway companies did poorly financially, investors often made their money back—and then some—through related property speculation. I see no reason why these aspects shouldn’t be unified, perhaps by rolling TfL’s duties into a holistic “Infrastructure & Development for London” unit.
We’ve seen how a unified approach can work with the London Docklands Development Corporation, which did an excellent job given their remit. Why not do the same thing on a London-wide scale?
Granted, this would mean stepping on a lot of London Boroughs’ toes, but they’ve singularly failed to do a decent job so far. Going with unified development bodies—not just for London—would allow a single policy to be applied. It could also encourage a more integrated approach to infrastructure planning, combining services, utilities, and both mass transit and roads in general. No longer would we have the seemingly arbitrary between TfL-controlled roads and local council ones, for example.
Getting a grip on road works would also be a big step forward in ensuring bus services operate more consistently.
Even proper businesses have learned the benefits of partnerships and cooperation; it’s about damned time governments at all levels grew up and understood the advantages of a less confrontational approach too.
Of course, none of the above is likely to happen before the heat-death of the universe, but one can dream.
@ Melvyn – The freehold of the block between Victoria bus station and Victoria Street is owned by London Underground Ltd – see the TfL Property Asset Register. So maybe we’ll see a redeveloped SSR station funded by redevelopment of the site as you suggest.
WW
TfL Board papers you say?
They seem (to me at least) amazingly difficult to find, even once you have got to the “corporate” section of their web-site.
I mention this because I’ve seen a comment (On DG’s blog) that TfL are now saying June/July for the Hackney/Hackney interconnection, but I can’t find the link referred to.
Save us the effort (I’m lazy) who/which party is opposing the TfL bill & why, or is it just grandstanding?
@ Anomnibus – For me the fundamental question is “what are you trying to achieve?”. Is it just to rake in as much cash as possible because your budget has been slashed? Is it to become a pseudo commercial organisation whose future is inextricably tied to partnering the private sector because the Mayor thinks this is a good idea? Is it to work for the overall good of Londoners and to deliver an optimal mix of commercial and socially focused development opportunities which give a wider range of opportunities for new businesses, social housing etc? I can’t tell you for certain what policy direction is being followed and that concerns me greatly because it runs all sorts of risks. I’d also pose the question about when the poor old fare and taxpayer was asked for their views / agreement on the apparent change of policy.
We’ve done the “local democracy” thing before. I don’t believe in emasculating local people by putting in overarching development organisations and letting them ride rough shod over local councils and their residents. I also don’t believe in the permanent privatisation of public space / land. I know it’s a damned shame for the rich and powerful developers to have to pay attention to those silly little residents whose homes might get demolished or swamped by their mega development but how would they like having their homes affected by something they couldn’t complain about or oppose? They wouldn’t like it. The “be all and end all” of public policy is not about economic and developmental efficiency. There are other entirely legitimate objectives.
Oh and on the subject of road works it’s fair to say a decent proportion of those are entirely in TfL’s control because their projects are causing the works. That hasn’t stopped the bus service falling to pieces day after day in bits of Central London nor many routes having temporary timetables, diversions, curtailments etc. It isn’t all down to the utilities or boroughs turning up announced and digging holes for fun. Part of the problem is that there is simply too much work to be done and it’s being pushed through almost regardless of the consequences.
Anyway time to shut up. You won’t agree and we’re veering a long way away from the Bakerloo Line’s fleet issues.
@Walthamstow Writer:
I see your points, and I agree that there are often—always?—compromises to be made, regardless of the policies chosen, but that’s why we have layers of government. There’s no reason why you couldn’t set up a “Greater London Infrastructure Development Corporation” (GLIDC) that has an in-built time-bomb, like the BBC’s Charter, that forces government to make a decision on whether it should continue. Even the LDDC had a finite lifespan. (I’ve personally never understood why people get attached to such artificial constructs as corporations and businesses. Everything has its season.)
However, as you imply yourself, London is struggling even to catch up with where it should be by now. In this particular situation, the advantages of a GLIDC-type corporation could be the difference between actually catching up, or falling ever further behind. But when its job is done, and London finally has its Crossrail 6, there’s nothing to stop us winding it up and switching to a different system.
We shouldn’t be wedded to a particular system or methodology.
I recall a small exhibition a few years ago about TfL’s plans for Victoria District & Circle Station and Bus Station. This involved turning the bus station through 90 degrees and opening up the area to create a greater feeling of space around the front of Victoria Station. Obviously nothing happened and, with the developments north of that, could not.
@ Greg
TfL Board and Panel papers etc. can easily be found here.
THC
@ Greg – I linked to the Parliament website twice which should allow you to see who is opposing the bill and why. Surely you can follow links on from there?
I provided the comment on the DG’s site. I said what document it was in (2015/16 TfL Budget) and a simple Google search on that term brings the document up straight away. It’s not hard you know. I’m surprised you need to check – it was a clear enough statement and it said July not “June / July”!
I don’t like to teach you to suck eggs but the reason why I can find stuff easily is because I have a series of Favourites set up in my browser that link to the relevant bits of TfL’s website. I’ll grant you one or two bits of the website are a tad obscure but most is relatively straightforward even with the mobile / tablet friendly navigation they employ.
The delay of SSR re-signalling completion from 2018 to 2022 announced today (see LR’s SSR article) finds another missing piece missing from the public view of the jigsaw on the need to life extend the existing ’72 stock on the Bakerloo.
The relevant timeline quote from TfL PR for the Bakerloo is:
[I assume the listing order of lines is effectively by size of rolling stock required and not a different stock replacement order!]
As TfL aren’t assuming any changes in budget for the SSR work this presumably pushes work on the next 4 lines back a little.
Hopefully the mods will permit this aside: a perfect example of what central planning does to an important capital city is Paris. There they decided that anything inside the Peripherique should essentially be a museum (after building Tour Montparnasse that is) inhabited principally by the rich, with the plebs and immigrants restricted to the housing estates on the outskirts, with no serious metro connections to the heart of the city. They then built La Defense to provide room for some business activity, but most companies looking to live in shiny skyscrapers have had to make do with rather shoddy townhouses. Meanwhile, this kind of social engineering has led to worse levels of racial segregation than in South Africa at the height of the apartheid era, with all the associated social tensions. But – of course – they have 5 lines of the RER compared to an under-construction Crossrail and Thameslink, so they must be doing something right…
WW
BUT 2015/16 budget was NOT visible on TfL’s main site – I looked & tried search too … errr …..
I can remember real, actual core store, so [unusual act snipped. LBM] teaching is not required either….
OK, let’s give it a whirl ….
I have, just now, paused & put: “20115/16 TfL Budget” into TfL’s OWN SEARCH ENGINE on the page indicated by THC.
And the reply: “No results found”
One would expect,looking for TfL matters that a seach inside their own site would be more productive than a general “google” wouldn’t you ??
OK I have now found it by looking inside the page THC provided, but … TfL’s own internal search didn’t find a paper headed:
Board
Date: 26 March 2015
Item 8 : TfL Budget 2015/16
Not impressed, somehow.
Yet, in said board paper, there is the dubiously-worded statement: A new pedestrian interchange between Hackney Central and Hackney Downs stations will be built in 2015, linking the existing Overground and West Anglia networks. The latter will become part of London Overground from May 2015 onwards.
Make of that, what you will.
@Greg
“One would expect, looking for TfL matters, that a search inside their own site would be more productive than a general “google” wouldn’t you ??”
On previous experience of using TfL’s website, no I wouldn’t.
General point here.
The best way to search a website is to go to Google and type in
Site:tfl.gov.uk
And the search will list results that match the domain entered. You can, for example use
Site:London reconnections.com trams crossriver
To find things about cross river trams on this site.
@ Greg – You clearly still have not looked at the page detail in the budget document that lists the milestones, rather than general commentary, that I provided on the DG comments. Never mind – I’ve given up trying to help.
I never, ever search for anything on the TfL website because its own search function does not work. I search using Google or else I know where on the TfL website the info is. I will agree with you that having an inoperative search function on an important website is completely stupid and unacceptable. However the borked search function has been like that for many months and one view is that no one seems to care enough to get it fixed. A more charitable view would be that someone is trying to fix it but the task is many times more complex than originally envisaged. Either way round it would be helpful if someone “fessed up” and told the poor old public that the function doesn’t work and pointed them at alternative search engines that do work. Having to “confess” would have the additional benefit of creating some external pressure to get the problem fixed!
@Walthamstow Writer (and other interested parties):
Simple websites usually have basic, static HTML files that don’t change. These are just documents sitting in a folder on a computer and they are trivial for search engines to riffle through and index. The entire World Wide Web used to work like this.
For more complex websites, such as this one and TfLs, databases are used instead. Every time you open a page, you’re actually viewing a dynamically generated page created by some program code extracting content from the database and merging it into a template document filled with code that deals with formatting, layout, and interactions. (Such a system is known as a ‘Content Management System’, or ‘CMS’ for short. WordPress is a well-known example.)
A CMS makes it much easier to maintain such sites, but indexing the site for searching can involve some heavy-duty fettling and programming gymnastics so that search engines can be tricked into “seeing” the site as a bunch of static HTML pages. It is possible to build site-wide search engines into such content management systems, but it’s not easy to get right.
@ Anomnibus – thanks for the background info. Even accepting the complications that exist I am surprised that TfL have not managed to get an operative search function.
To go back a few posts about the TfL Bill that has been “talked out” in Parliament there is an article in the Guardian about it. Looks like I may have been a little harsh in my views about TfL’s position although my concern about the principle remains.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2015/mar/24/transport-for-london-bill-falls-but-wider-public-land-issue-remains
@WW & Greg – I have some sympathy. For example, following THC’s link, I can reach this: Board, Committee and Panel Meetings to be held in public: 1 February – 31 March 2015:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/public-notice.pdf
but try clicking on the link within for “Papers will be available
five clear working days before the meeting, on the TfL website:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/how-we-aregoverned
Unquote.
“Sorry, that page cannot be found” – so where are the papers for the Board meeting for 26th March, apart from anything else? We’ll learn little about the Bakerloo Line or anything else from TfL at this rate.
WW
I never, ever search for anything on the TfL website because its own search function does not work. I search using Google or else I know where on the TfL website the info is.
Point taken – I won’t make THAT mistake again.
And, no, I didn’t look at the details, because you had already saved us the effort.
“The Boss” suggested that the TfL internal search is deliberately borked to slow down people trying to find things out … being a professional Tax Accountant gives her a very cynical view, sometimes ….
Switching to the “Grauniad” article, I sympathise with your change of opinion, but, looking at the article itself, the writer has missed a trick or two:
Depressing it may be, but one way to mitigate the costs of austerity is to sell someone a bit of your very expensive London real estate.
Err, what’s wrong with LEASING your real-estate?
After all, that’s how some people manage to maintain themseleves in reasonable style … like Grosvenor Estates & the Crown Estates to pick the most obvious.
Yes, you get more money up-front on a sale, but leasing is an income-stream, isn’t it?
GF
Precisely!
@ Graham F – this is the link I use for Board Papers.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/board-papers
You must then click on the “+” symbol beside the relevant meeting date to see the papers.
For other meetings you need to go to “Publications and Reports” at the bottom of the home page and then use the “Category” drop down menu and use the “Committee and Panel meetings” filter to narrow down the list to meetings only. You then select the meeting you want and then have to do the “click +” move for the relevant meeting date. You can’t, unfortunately, set a webpage link for each panel or committee meeting list – that’s rather annoying if you need to visit frequently.
Uh-oh. Is the 73 stock on the Piccadilly line as bad off as the 72 stock is?
The coincidence of dates is misleading. The 1972 stock was the last of a design which went back to 1967 (or possibly even 1960). The 1973 was the first of a basic design which, with some changes, continued to be built until 1983.
Of course, by the end of a production run any teething problems that beset the pioneers should have been addressed.
The June issue of Modern Railways ( which is a London Special) includes an item from Roger Ford on work needed on Bakerloo Trains to deal with corrosion and it seems that it will take until 2021 to deal with all the trains with a total cost of £ 45 million plus £1.5 million for repairs at Stonebridge Park . The work would be done at the old Acton depot.
Perhaps TFL should consider whether Bakerloo Line should be cut back to Queens Park and Overground service expanded maybe even using redundant D78 trains until new trains arrive be they Overground or Underground .
@Melvyn – or perhaps they shouldn’t. Your proposal does nothing to reduce the cost of remedying the corrosion and meanwhile,you still have to have something to run the service to Queens Park (or Stonebridge Park,in fact).
@Melvyn – You may not have noticed that all 450 cars of D78 stock have been sold to Vivarail. Wikipedia tells us that 75 six car trains were manufactured. Vivarail have bought 150 driving cars and 300 trailers. In both cases this works out at 450. So there appear to be no spares.
@Graham / Ray / Melvyn
Melvyn’s suggestion was, I understand, to cut back the service so that fewer 1972 stock trains were needed, allowing the refurbishment to proceed faster or the worst ones to be withdrawn altogether.
Ray – the numbers are askew. There were only ever 150 D stock trailers, not 300.
Each six car train of D stock has only two trailer cars. The middle two cars of the train are motored, but usually non-driving (i.e they have no cab). Twenty half-units are double-ended, so the totals are:
Driving Motor 170 (of which 40 can run as “middle” cars). Numbered 70xx, 71xx, 75xx
Non-driving motor 130 (80xx, 81xx)
Trailer 150 (170xx, 171xx, 175xx)
@Timbeau – yes, I know what Melvyn’s suggestion was. Now think of the business case. Savings – fewer Bakerloo trains to be refurbed, Spend – buy some additional stock for LOROL (presumably about 6 extra units needed to cover the number of bakerloo trains north of QP at any one time, but twice that number if constant reversing at QP from the north is permitted throughout the day on a regular basis). The capex would be substantial – £35-70m accordingly – and all up front at that. You’d have to make enormous savings on the (discounted because spread over a long time) cost of refurbs. Do you think that the cost of refurbing 6 Bakerloo trains would come close to that number?
@ Melvyn / timbeau
I don’t know where I got the the Vivarail figures from that I quoted.
Rail Issue 771 Pg.60 states that Vivarail has bought 156 Driving motor Cars and 70 Trailers.
This leaves 14 DMC’s, 80 Trailers and all 130 Non-DMC’s. So TFL could have up to 7 trains of either three or six cars to use.
Graham H
I read what Melvyn is saying as implying that there would be no new trains at all; the worst of the 72ts would be withdrawn, with the Bakerloo shortened to compensate. Additional service as a replacement would be provided on the DC by redundant D78 stock, until such time as when the Bakerloo’s stock is replaced, when the D78s on the DC would be replaced as well. Savings – not refurbishing as many 72ts carriages, costs – converting the D78s to third rail and a different unit formation.
@Ben – No, I understood Melvyn’s proposal very well. At the best possible construction on his views the business case would be to buy about 72 D78 refurbed cars now to save the cost of refurbing about 36 72ts* at some time in the future. Just to state these numbers shows how the business case would collapse – for it to stack up, not only would the D78 refurbs have to be about half the costs of the 72ts refurbs but actually, because of the power of discounting, substantially less than half … I simply don’t believe it.
* Why 72 plays 36 or thereabouts? At any one time, there are about 6 Bakerloo train sets running north of QP, but to keep the new build/purchase to that number, the acquisitions would have to shuttle exclusively between Harrow and QP; now whilst it’s possible to turn a Bakerloo from the north at QP, that’s not a regular thing (still less at KHR -see the picture) and doing it on a regular frequent basis, is unlikely to be possible, so you will “lose” a further six sets travelling to Euston just to turn – an unwanted extra cost, providing unnecessary capacity and shipping a lot of fresh air on the way. Furthermore, even if you could turn 6tph from the north regularly, the effect of Melvyn’s proposal would be to shorten the 72ts refurb programme, so the savings would accrue only at the end – again, the effect of discounting would be that those costs would have a significantly lower NPC, whereas the refurb costs of the D78 are incurred immediately and therefore undergo little discounting if any .
Since my earlier suggestion re using D78s I have remembered that the recently awarded TSGN franchise includes replacement of the Class,313 trains that run from Moorgate with new trains .
So if Class 313 trains become spare while this work is underway ( which is likely given timescale ) then they would be perfect for Watford DC line given Class 313s used to be used on the route and even suitable to work into Euston ( if paths available ) while their dual voltage ability would allow them to run into Euston in AC mode giving flexibly re platform use something that may arise if station work for HS2 begins during this timescale.
The beauty is no need to order new trains and Class 313s get a golden sunset ….
The re-opening of Acton works is because it was felt there was insufficient space at Bakerloo depots to do this work but if Acton is reopened then perhaps a similar option on Piccadilly Line trains might be worth looking at ?
@Melvyn – and what is the cost of refurbing these 313s so that they last another decade or so? The point remains that whatever the stock you suggest, it’s not a free good and its costs will have to be less than the (discounted) costs saved by dropping the back end of the Bakerloo refurb programme…
[You also need to address the issue of whether you can turn the service from the north at QP frequently and regularly. If you can’t, then you have at least 6 sets conveying fresh air unnecessarily to Euston just for the purpose of turning, with all the extra costs that implies].
@Melvyn: many 313s are already having a golden sunset in God’s great waiting room, AKA the South Coast. Maybe some more spare parts would be welcome there as they hit the far side of the bathtub?
Your plan does rest on the assumption that the 313s (built not much later and with all the corrosion protection and quality assurance that gave British industry in the 1970s a global reputation) are less corroded than the Bakerloo stock. Bakerloo corrosion is now a known unknown, 313 corrosion is an unknown unknown.
@Ian J- and not just less corroded but less than half as badly corroded (because of the need to – in all probability – twice as many sets as the bakerloo sets to be released.
@ Graham H the work on Bakerloo Line trains is scheduled to be complete by 2021 so Class 313 would only be needed for a few years not a decade or two and given program on Bakerloo trains is for only 1 train at a time to be done then one is only talking of a couple of 2×3 car class 313s at most .
I am not talking of dropping any part of Bakerloo refurbishment plan but simply making up for lost train or even allowing work to be undertaken on more than one train at a time thus reducing timescale of project and providing cover for a train found to be in far worse condition thus needing longer to fix and thus delaying programme !
There will be plenty of class 313 and indeed similar 315 ( AC only) trains going spare for those on the south coast . Something that shows there may still be many more years left in these PEP Stock trains on lesser demands of branch lines ?
@Melvyn – let me explain again. Your proposal is to truncate the Bakerloo at QP so that a shuttle can operate between there and Harrow. That requires a certain number of 313s to be in the shuttle circuit – probably about 6 – and if, as seems highly likely then you will require enough to be in motion as far as Euston – probably 12, therefore. So, we can see that you need 12 sets to (as you claim) ” simply making up for lost train or even allowing work to be undertaken on more than one train at a time thus reducing timescale of project and providing cover for a train found to be in far worse condition thus needing longer to fix and thus delaying programme !” As you now describe it, there is no saving to the Bakerloo refurb programme (indeed speeding it up will increase its NPC). So, you have all the cost of acquiring 12 313s, which you now require to run until 2021 (and given that they will then be 45 years old makes some sort of 313 refurb inevitable) plus all the mileage related costs of moving the extra fresh air to Euston and back.
Put very simply, your proposal rests on X being less than Y, where X is the cost of acquiring, refurbing and operating the 313s and Y is some sort of saving from the Bakerloo refurb programme. You don’t say what that saving is. As currently described, the farepayer and the taxpayer are better off setting fire to the bank notes rather than buy some unwanted 313s.
I suggest it is time to wind up this “cutting short at Queens Park” discussion. There seems to be no meeting of minds, and little prospect of agreement. Readers will by now have decided whether they believe Melvyn or Graham, and their minds are unlikely to change if the same, or similar, arguments get expressed yet again. (No blame is meant for anyone; this is just one of those things).
Really got a bit irritated/bored by about page 2. 72 stock was built, was 67 and 73 stock better? They were all built by the same company and the 73 stock seems to have been referb’d ok… 67 stock was withdrawn because it couldn’t do the new signalling, intensity of service ? Am I wrong?
Despite being built by the same company and having the then-fashionable wrap-round windscreens, 73 stock has little in common with the 67/72 stocks. As I understand it, the original plan had been to build a common fleet to replace the 1938 stock on the Northern and Bakerloo, but when the Heathrow extension was approved it was decided to divert most of the order there, using a new design with airport traffic in mind, and divert the 1959 stock to the Northern. The 1972 stock was the rump of the original plan, needed because the Northern Line fleet is numerically larger than the Piccadilly’s, and the 1973 stock was not suitable for the Northern Line.
A small recent change to the 1972 stock trains is new destination blinds: luminescent yellow with a lower case letters in a single line of text, one destination appears as Harrow & W’stone.
@Greg (on another thread)
” What happens though, if the Bakerloo stock falls down in a big pile, with the repairs/patching, desperate maintenance struggles failing, so that a tube line, effectively ceases to run??””
It’s happened before – most famously on the Central Line when the 1992 stock started jetissoning traction motors. The solution then was to close the line until an (expensive) fix was done.
Earlier in the Central’s history, when the new extensions opened after several years’ delay and the Standard Stock earmarked to run them demonstrated what happens to rolling stock if it is stored in the open for the duration, the fix was, in the short term, to divert deliveries of trains intended for another line and in the medium term an urgent order for more trains to that design – the 1962 stock).
If the Bakerloo fleet suddenly became unusable, in the short term, they would have to close the line – nearly all Bakerloo stations are served by other lines or are very close to another station, but you might need to augment bus routes 6 and 36. If possible beg steal or borrow rolling stock from elsewhere (six-car 1992 stock formations might do the job if they can be persuaded to run on the Bakerloo’s signalling system. 2009 stock with a car removed or locked out of use might also work? Not sure if the throwover of the longer cars precludes the use of 1973 or 1995 stock.
A rush order for new trains to an existing design (2009? 1996?) would be necessary if a fix is not possible. Remember the time/quality/price conundrum (you can’t have all three, and can often have only one)
@timbeau
Likely my very (very) limited railway knowledge will come to the fore here, but if a quick fix was needed then I’d imagine the 1995 stock would be the best candidate. Currently duplicates are already being planned for the Battersea extension of the Northern line and I’d imagine that order could be augmented in the event of the 1972 trains becoming dangerously unservicable and be delivered to a quicker standard than waiting for NTfL. The traction package I gather is still in current design thoughts as opposed to the obselete 1996 version, it has proved to be rugged stock on the NL and once the NL fleet (or half if the lines are segregated)is retired there would be parts available to keep them running for years.
However, I can’t imagine 2009 stock would be suitable as it has a wider diameter than Bakerloo trains now, and I can’t see Bakerloo users effectively being given another hand-me-down design and being happy about it. I would also suspect that some of the Bakerloo bends would have to be cut into for any stock to be able to pass it.
To be honest though if the 72ts gets effectively rebuilt then it seems strange to bother deploying NTfL so soon afterwards – the only problem would be spares but there will be a whole fleet’s worth of ’73 parts once the Pic gets its upgrades – the ‘my broom has been working for 20 years; it’s only had 5 handles and 3 brush heads’ comes to mind and evidently TfL deems it possible otherwise they would have little choice other than to bring the line to the front of the queue.
” ‘my broom has been working for 20 years; it’s only had 5 handles and 3 brush heads’ ”
The “Trigger’s broom” paradox (from “Only Fools and Horses”) or, for those with more classical cultural references, Theseus’ Ship.
There is an even more strange paradox if you keep all the original components as you replace them one by one, and put them back together again so you now have an exact copy of the original. But which one is the “original”?
Surely the one of replacement parts would be considered the replica whereas the newly formed car of original parts would be effectively reconstructed and therefore still the original?
If the 72ts is refurbished to nearly new train standard then it should be considered as that, especially if ATO is fitted there is no reason why the trains could not stay in service for the long term. 3 new brushes and 5 new handles indeed!
@bakerludicrous
“Surely the one of replacement parts would be considered the replica whereas the newly formed car of original parts would be effectively reconstructed and therefore still the original? ”
But how many parts have to be changed before the original becomes the replica? And until you reassemble those original parts, where is the original?
This sort of thing was of course commonplace in steam days, with locomotives being “rebuilt” with new boilers, frames, and cylinders, in order to count as operational expenditure rather than capital expenditure. (The LMS Royal Scots were an example, with little of the original remaining from the rebuild except the wheels and the cab sheeting).
One could argue that the class 455 design dates from the steam age, although the bodywork, underframes and traction equipment have all been upgraded twice.
– Frames and traction equipment replaced in 1916 when converted to electric traction (3SUB)
– bodywork mounted on lengthened frames in the 1930s with upgraded traction equipment
– bodywork replaced on existing frames and traction equipment in the 1940s (4SUB/4EPB)
– traction equipment reused in new monocoque bodies in 1980s (class 455)
– traction equipment replaced by new ac asynchronous motors (ongoing)
Likewise the Bournemouth 4REPs , which were converted from hauled stock by adding traction equipment, which lives on under the class 442s.
So the driverless trains will have a driver. Will there also be a dog in the cab to bite the driver if he/she attempts to touch anything. This is an entirely frivolous point, of course, but it reminds me of a joke pertaining to ‘flying by wire’.
The ‘New train for London’ does not fill me with confidence given that the ‘New bus for London’ has been plagued with teething problems and was a flawed design from the beginning.
The answer to “which one is the original?” depends on who is asking, and why. There are elaborate rules on how much of a vehicle you can replace if keeping the registration number, and over what period. For the purpose of selling something as an “original whatever”, it is up to the buyer and the market how much change is permissible. For purposes of Guinness Records, it is up to Mr Guinness, who probably applies different rules to different kinds of object.
For many other purposes, such as casual conversation, it probably doesn’t matter much: the original is the one which anyone says it is.
“But how many parts have to be changed before the original becomes the replica? And until you reassemble those original parts, where is the original?”
Ah, so this is the wiggle room engineers used to upgrade equipment in the early railway days. Well surely, an enhancement would make it an original in its own right?
The limitation, of course, to doing this kind of process to the Bakerloo fleet is most glaringly that it puts any extension plan effectively out of the question unless a mixed fleet is used as there would not be enough trains to provide a good service, which also makes UTO impossible in the future as PEDs would not work.
Secondly I’d imagine the cars would have to be extensively rewired in order to operate with ATO signalling. If TfL plan to keep the ts in long term service I think it may run to a large bill. But it would be equally uneconomical to overhaul the trains only to withdraw them 10 years afterwards.
If TfL were definitely going for the Bakerlewisham scheme I would be ordering my 1995 stock now. But I doubt it will ever get done; the line is a victim of its own potential – it will always be considered due to the growth space it has but will always be at the back of the queue because it’s the least intensively used. The 1972ts will probably reach its second end of life before it is replaced. It may well reach 65.
Perhaps one concession would be (assuming XR2 is deemed too expensive) the construction of the original Fleet Line route between Charing Cross-Fenchurch St. The route would be shorter distance, less intensive and would suit the ’72 stock well if they were replaced mid life on the normal Bakerloo line. This “Fleet Line” would be segregated from the Jubilee Line and would cannibalise its former platforms at Ch X. The line was intended to be a Vic style interchange network so would have a similar impact but would be cheaper than XR2 (trains supplied, some platforms already made, very little construction needed, escalators reinstated at Charing X ), with the provision for the old Phase 3 to Lewisham, but that may be problematic – it was to cannibalise the ELL Thames Tunnel route to the South I believe and in the intervening 40 years it has become a rather major line.
No one in their right mind would seek to provide Unattended operation on the 1972 tube stock. Yes, it’s true that the mk2’s were wired for ATO, but it was the original Victoria Line ATO which was obsolete (industry had moved on) more or less by the time it had been delivered).
Assume that the cunning plan is to co-ordinate the upgrade with the extension in such a way that if the extension falls, the upgrade doesn’t!
That honestly depends on what you’re going for. If you just want to keep the trains limping at low cost until NTfL is here (what worries me is a) the immense pressure the production line will be on to produce so many trains, and b) if there’s faults then it is amplified.)
However, if the trains are to be given an extra heavy overhaul then most of the wiring will be ripped out anyway, it would probably be easier to consider them nearly new. If this were to be done as opposed to welding the floor so it doesn’t fall in and then the line will likely be the last to receive NTfL or whatever comes after that.
Or of course I need to go and take my medication!
timbeau,
Way off topic but …
There is an even more strange paradox if you keep all the original components as you replace them one by one, and put them back together again so you now have an exact copy of the original. But which one is the “original”?
There is no paradox. You are trying to apply terms to things which are meaningless in this context. It is the equivalent of describing the duck-billed platypus as a strange create because it does not fit into existing taxonomy – devised before the duck-billed platypus was known about in the northern hemisphere. The problem is not in the objects. The problem is in the language not being sufficiently all-encompassing to describe the objects because you are using words and phases like “original” and “exact copy”. Use words like mish-mash or invent a new word to describe something with some or all of the parts replaced and there isn’t a problem.
The wiring is not the weak link on the 1972 stock. In any event most of the spare (ATO) wires for ATO were used in various modifications over the years. It is the mechanical condition of the bodies and chassis that have been the concern which takes us straight back to PoP’s original article, and indeed the work thay TfL commissioned on 2013, thag led to the Board paper that was the basis of the article. I didn’t mention bogies specifically as they have been comprehesively “Trigger’s broom-ed” over the last 30 years.
As to production line capacity, any self respecting train factory is capable of making one tube train a week for each of several customers. Often bottlenecks come at other places, such as transport, depot capacity and staff training.
@Bakerludicrous and others – You may find it helpful to look into the museum sector’s approach to terminology (especially in relation to industrial heritage artifacts) – distinguishing between conservation (maintenance of the kit that exists) and restoration (replacement of what doesn’t now work with a similar piece of kit) to replication of the original, perhaps incorporating any surviving parts, to give a general idea of what the thing looked like and felt like to use. [The latest TMS bulletin has a very useful summary of the arguments in relation to tram restoration]. None of this is, except in terms of terminology, relevant to the Bakerloo, whose passengers are really only concerned with the result – does my train work, rather than how much of it is old and what that type of rebuild should it be called? BTW it’s worth drawing attention to Victorian accounting practices which scored a locomotive as a rebuild if only the original wheel centres had been re-used (if it was necessary to fool the shareholders…
From TfL’s Twitter: inside view of the first train. It says all trains will be fully refurbished by the end of this year.
Is anything being done with the compressors? 3438 was ear splitting today and 3458 not much better.