Third World Class Capacity: The Austerity Upgrades

1. Cooling-wise I believe I have a 2 linked solutions

   1) an on train system for emergency/peak lopping use when trains are in deep level sections, which has the ‘hot’ element dealt with on surface running sections, and can deliver cooling and humidity reduction (making a warm condition bearable by removing the ‘tropical’ element)

   2) a package of measures which do not require large excavations below ground, and use the existing escalator shafts to move the extracted heat (and water vapour) to the surface, where heat pumps convert low grade heat at high volume to high grade heat at low volume for heating/power generation, and discharge the warm water, potentially using London’s ‘hidden’ rivers (Westbourne, Fleet etc) and the Thames as heat reservoirs which can be tapped into for the substantial energy they can store for a 1-2 degree temperature increment.

   Would love to work with resources to demonstrate this 1) could be relatively quick to test 2) might require scaled down demonstration project

2. Just to note that the article doesn’t discuss use of the Tooting Broadway turnback on the south end of the Northern Line. Turning back there would make a difference to train availability, but ensuring the train was empty would be a challenge. ie. I don’t think a turnback there would work in practice, but it probably should be mentioned for completeness.

   Another point to note is the potential that tube journey demand may have peaked. That would affect the need for more capacity in the first place.

3. We seem to have acquired a new station on the Northern Line: “East Finchley Central”…

4. Is auto-reverse feasible/safe with “traditional” LU stock with no gangways? Can’t see unions being happy with the requirement to use the emergency doors whilst the train is in motion. Stepping back, of course, is feasible if staffed sufficiently- it effectively means having a driver not on a break at a station, not driving, at all times.

5. AL__S

   Who said anything about the driver being on board?

6. Given the impact of HS2 on the Northern Line, I wonder if some sly political maneuvering could get the extra trains funded from the HS2 budget, it’d be a drop in the ocean compared to the overall cost of the project!

7. @PoP “introducing auto-reverse so that a driver can be changing ends by walking through the train as it is automatically driven into the turnback siding”

   It’s quite hard to walk through the train if you’re not onboard…

8. I think what PoP meant is the driver walking to the departure end on the other platform to ready the train for departure.

9. Oops yes.

   I have reworded that section to allow for a third possibility. I had overlooked the issue of auto-reverse with the driver on board in older tube stocks.

10. I found a little typo

    “And thus the NLU1 programme early was finished early and within budget.”

    [Cheers, fixed! LBM]

11. If it were possible, as part of the above mentioned process, to also speed up the Northern Line in the “country” bits, you might be able to compensate the (nominal randomly arriving) passenger at High Barnet:

    current 19tph = 1.6 minutes average wait time for departure
    proposed 14tph – 2.1 minutes average wait time for departure

    If you could cut 30 seconds from the journey time for the 8.5km between High Barnet and East Finchley the nominal High Barnett passenger wouldn’t be nominal any worse off. That’s 13 minutes down to 12.5 minutes. That’s 39.2km/h up to 40.8km/h which sound not unreasonable.

12. I was assuming an unattended auto-reverse.
    Failing that, if stepping back is in place and auto-reverse is not plausible:
    1. Train arrives in down platform as normal, doors open, passengers disembark
    2. Second driver boards London-end cab
    3. Original driver drives train into reversing siding
    4. When train halts in reversing siding, control passes to new driver
    5. New driver drives into up platform, stops, doors open, etc.
    6. Original driver disembarks and walks to London end of down platform to wait for next reversing train: possibly enough time for a cuppa and a wee?

    This would allow trains to reverse more-or-less instantly, although a UTO auto-reverse would save one stepped-back driver per location.

13. Usually, when an ATO train is departing a platform, the driver is watching the CCTV to ensure that nothing untoward occurs at th platform/train interface. When entering a platform, the driver is observing the platform through the windscreen. Unattended auto-reverse would lack both of these safeguards. The easiest way around this would be to have a driver in each cab for the reversal manoeuvre.

14. Turning trains at Tooting Broadway always seemed to take an eternity and often caused blocking back to Tooting Bec and beyond even with the lower level of service in operation when it was last done regularly.

    On a wider note I see turning back short using reversing sidings to be an inherent risk to the timetable because of the need to check every car for passengers and the time this takes. I believe that these checks are no longer done at Kennington when trains are going round the loop.

    Aside from Tooting Broadway, turning back via a siding was done regularly at Archway, Marble Arch, Liverpool St, and Victoria among others. Not sure if it still happens at Rayners Lane and Willesden Green but otherwise it was largely abandoned as it caused too much delay. I really can’t see how that is going to be any different at West Hampstead.

15. @PoP ‘Prior to this, the replacement siding at West Hampstead was not really ideal for daily use’
    Did you mean to refer to the former turnback siding or have I completely misunderstood?

    [ My clumsiness. I should have either stated ‘the location of …’ or not have included the word ‘replacement’. ‘replacement’ now removed from text. PoP]

16. Post 2022, and the split, would it perhaps be viable to have the Battersea – Northern Terminus supplied with a new fleet from the NT4L programme, freeing up an excess of trains that could move to the Morden via Bank to Northern terminus line, and (with relevant refit) to the Jubilee?

17. Fred:
    If the reversing siding is in the middle, with a reasonable approach-speed through the points ( A detail often overlooked ) then turning back should not be a problem. What’s slowed things down in the past is 5 mph or even 10, through those turn-off(s) to the central reverse siding(s)
    Best of all, of course, is a central platform for reversers:
    Golders Green & Loughton & White City immediately come to mind.
    Incidentally – East Finchley, rather than Finchley Central for a turnback on the High Barnet/Mill Hill E branch ??

18. Jamesup,

    A thought that intrigues me. The way the Deep Tube Programme is going, it is going to be the late 2030s by the time it fulfils its planned commitment. If there is the money available and sufficient demand then why not?

    I am presuming that a variant of NtfL would be needed that would be compatible with the existing Northern line signalling. If it were possible and you could do this by 2038 then you are talking about 15 extra years with a shortage of trains on the Northern line compared to the aborted WCC plan . Because the extra trains have now not been bought, the wastage brought about by scrapping trains earlier than necessary will be either minimised on non-existent. This should make the financial case for doing something like this better. So may be some good will come out of the decision not to buy the extra trains – just we will have to wait a long time for the benefits.

    Another thought I had was that you retrofit some 3-car double-ended 1973 stock Piccadilly units as soon as they become available and use them for a Mill Hill East – Finchley Central (or even East Finchley) shuttle. This would free off stock for the rest of the line. Stabling should not be an issue because existing trains will be stabled on the Battersea branch which will free off some stabling space.

19. Briantist,

    You are assuming an even interval 19tph to High Barnet in the peaks. In fact, because it is really 24tph with 5tph taken out for the Mill Hill East Branch, it is not such an even interval. I would argue that 14tph with an even interval would almost as good as the current service as far as mean waiting time goes.

    Where the people from High Barnet and the next three stations to central London would really lose out is that around half of them will need to change trains as (probably) all trains from High Barnet would use the same central London section in the scenario I portrayed. This would have to be offset against the fact that around half the people get guaranteed direct train. I would argue this is all for the greater good for the greatest number of people.

    Similarly, I would argue an even-interval 14tph service to Battersea would be better than the currently-planned-for 16tph. There might be a commitment to 16tph in return for funding so there may be an issue there if people cannot be persuaded 14tph is actually better.

    On the Edgware branch things would not be as good with a reduction from 24tph to 14tph. The northern end stations are not that busy compared to some further south but I had overlooked existing and future housing development in the area which make make any reduction in service less acceptable.

20. Fred,

    Trains reverse now at Willesden Green where there is a similar layout to West Hampstead. This appear to be done a number of times every hour without a problem. So why would West Hampstead be significantly different?

21. @Pop

    Thanks for your reply. I have just looked at the figures using a little Excel and I have to agree with you about the real-world gaps between services.

    So you might need to take out more than the 10+5+5+5+10 seconds, but perhaps not that much more?

    So to “compensate” for the fewer trains, the average velocity of the trains would need to be increased as far south as possible. It might be possible, following the logic in the main article to achieve this using 5-second timing, shorter dwell times and better acceleration.

    Would it be a bad assumption that the cost of “beefing up of power supplies” is a lower cost on the viaducts north of East Finchley and Golders Green rather than underground?

    I’m also not sure what the top speed of a Northern Line train is and how near it reached on the two northern sections. It might be that the limit isn’t the power or the timetable, but the actual trains..

22. Is there now any need to search terminating LU trains for passengers before they reverse in a siding? I understand that reasons were to avoid (a) passengers attempting to alight while the train was in the siding and (b) the driver being attacked when walking through the train. If the driver does not need to walk through the train, because it is working automatically or there is a driver in the other cab, that reason falls away. These days passengers are more likely to be aware that a train is terminating, because of the number and quality of visual and audible announcements, so being accidentally carried into a siding should happen less often. Attempted alighting in a siding almost certainly happened because passengers did not know how long they would be there. There could be an announcement and display, to an empty train it is to be hoped, saying that it would be returning to the platform in N minutes, to provide reassurance that anyone on board would not be there long.

23. Might some additional running time be squeezed out by introducing a skip/stop service pattern on the branches in the peak? Possibly only in the up direction if passenger flow in the central London stations would otherwise become a problem.

24. HM
    NO – except, perhaps on part of the Picc between Acton Town & Northfields, which isn’t really worth it! Or re-instating the Met fasts between Moor Park & Finchley Rd, stopping only at Harrow (Hill) & maybe Wembley Park ….
    If you look at it, you will find that, with the intensity of service now used, it doesn’t work.
    LT & their predecessors tried this in the inter-war years, & gave it up as a bad job

25. @Henning Makholm

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t skip-stopping generally considered speeding up journey times at the expense of capacity?

    The consensus seems to be that the only reason the underground (and rapid transit systems in general) can achieve such high frequencies is because all trains have exactly the same stopping pattern – so skip-stopping could be counter-productive.

26. Re the earlier comment about terminating trains at Kennington.
    I have never had a problem travelling around the reversing loop (to see how the step plate junctions are progressing). No one checks the cars. In fact, when you leave Kennington, there is an announcement advising that the train is reversing and will arrive back at Kennington in a few minutes.

    My understanding is that this is the only instance where it is allowed for a passenger to remain in a train that is reversing.

27. Quite. The paradox about skip-stopping on a normal twin track line is the following two constraints:

    Trains no closer than about 8 minutes apart, so a skipping train does not catch up with the one in front.

    Trains no less frequent than every 7 minutes, so that passengers at a skipped station do not have to wait more than 14 minutes.

28. @Pedant – I can see a justification for removing equipment from 95ts to run on the Pic, but I can’t see a justification for adding it to 73ts for them to run on the Northern. Assuming they are in any structural condition in about ten years to allow them to keep running! Why limit yourself to 3car trains even, if the intention is to replace services but involves inter-working between the Finchleys. If that is the scenario then why not keep a fleet of 10×6 car trains and use them to replace service to MHE and bolster services to High Barnet, from Highgate Depot, in exchange for the 95TS to be concentrated south of East Finchley with only a few direct services north thereof.

    I’m not convinced separation at Camden is logical, in the passengers best interest, or even works out when costs and benefits are monetised. One would have thought with advanced computerisation, automation, and sophistication of control and regulating systems that meshing trains over a such a series of junctions without or with minimal delay would be easier than ever before.

29. A few initial thoughts focusing on the Northern Line:

    1. NLU2 was the result of some optioneering originally with 8 scenarios all of which proved to expensive for TfL so a 9th cheaper option was developed which became NLU2.

    2. The 9 Options required between 17 and 42 extra trains. with a minimum of 28 extra required for separation of the Bank and Charing Cross Branches.

    3. Southern never achieved 100% it was 96% and this is regarded as a benchmark for the absolute sensible maximum with efficient utilisation of maintenance facilities.

    4. One of the reasons for lower utilisation of Northern line trains is due to the comparative lack of maintenance facilities requiring optimization of the use of maintenance facilities rather than maximization of the number of trains in peak service, work at Morden and / or Highgate to increase facilities is required to increase availability of trains.

    5. The proposed dwell time was a reduction to a maximum of 40s with a 10s recovery margin, this needs a 5s rather than 15s timetable

    6. A limited number of track work changes were required to lift line speeds and hence acceleration and deceleration.

    7. Most of Old Street – Morden has composite conductor rail already, so the other sections will need it.

    8. Power supply upgrades – most apparently revolved around increasing the voltage from 630V (= +420 & -210) to 750/850V in similar way to LU schemes (actual / planned) on other lines.

    9. The ’95 Stock requires modifications especially to the braking to reach its maximum performance as it only need to meet the performance specification of the ’59 Stock from introduction till NLU.

    10. The current state of power supplies in many areas limits regeneration and hence deceleration rates (if you want to avoid pumping more heat into the tunnels)

30. Northern separation thoughts:

    High Barnet – Bank – Morden @ 36 tph would require 99 units* in peak service hence a very sensible solution would be to allocate all the existing ’95 stock there and buy some additional NTfL units [55** in peak service required for 36tph Edgware – Charing Cross – Battersea sooner rather than later (after Piccadilly and Bakerloo but before W&C and Central) ]

    * of 106 so 93.4%
    **probably 59 required in total

31. Ben: “… would be easier than ever before”

    Well yes, regulation is certainly easier with clever computers. But being easier is not the same thing as being perfect. And how do we know that without trying it? Clever computers again, with clever modelling.

    Mind you, the question still stands as to whether the undoubted increase in capacity produced by the split is “worth it”. Those who have studied the matter at length seem to believe that it is.

32. One of the limitations to reducing journey times is the affect that increased acceleration and approach speeds has on wind velocities at stations. Without significant investment in draught relief measures some stations would be afflicted with unsafe wind tunnel effects if an over ambitious timetable were to be introduced.

33. For those from High Barnet travelling to the Bank branch, 14 tph post separation would compare with 12 tph now (I think from memory the 5 tph starting from Mill Hill during the peak all go via Charing Cross). Catching a Charing Cross train and rushing across at Camden would merely get you to the platform in time for the following High Barnet train to Bank (trains from High Barnet to Charing X always pass Camden at roughly the same time as trains from Edgware to Bank and vice versa – to make the interleaving of the services work – so you could never get to the platform at Camden in time for the train from Edgware to Bank), so you wouldn’t bother trying.

    For those from High Barnet travelling to the Charing Cross branch, the downside is being forced to change at Camden. But this is a consequence of the split, not of the reduction in frequency to High Barnet. 14tph with a change would compare with 7tph now direct and (I think) 5 tph now with a change at Camden.

    So although there would undoubtedly be a furore about any reduction in frequency north of East Finchley, in reality I don’t think there would be any significant losers from this cause in isolation. Those travelling from High Barnet to the Bank branch would fail to gain an increase in frequency – but that is a failure to gain not a loss. Those travelling from High Barnet to the Charing Cross branch would lose direct services as a consequence of the split, not as a result of the thinned service. They would fail to gain an increase in effective frequency (with a change) that they might have seen as partial compensation for the forced change, but again that is a failure to gain not a loss.

34. Maybe this has been done to death elsewhere, but why do TfL have a “line in the sand” where TL services on the tube map are concerned?

35. A few initial thoughts focusing on the Jubilee Line:

    1. 7 Extra trains would allow either 34.3tph or 36tph (with West Hampstead) depending on whether auto turnback was not allowed (34.3) or allowed (36). Without autoturnback 36tph would require an extra 14 trains.

    2. Based on 1. this suggests that if stock was the only limiting factor (it isn’t and in a good way!) that the current 30tph then auto turnback and some West Hampstead turnback then 32.5tph is achievable with the current stock with removing some of the other bottleneck issues getting to about 33tph (with no wriggle room) which was one of the project aims as base case. (33tph base 36 tph ideal).

    3. As it looks like 33tph should be possible with no extra stock but higher risk of achieving aims, it maybe isn’t surprising that there has been a reassessment, may be the key change has been accepting auto turnback as a given thus weakening the case for extra stock.

36. Alternatives for the Jubilee that were not part of the JLU2:

    Once you opt for no new stock, alternative upgrades not part of JLU2/JNAT to increase stock availability or solve other problems by stock upgrades suddenly make more sense and it is also worth looking also worth looking at how the Central re-tractioning came about (increasing reliability and life extension now (and the BCR and lowish overall cost)).

    Hence a fairly cheap solution to improve train performance might be to replace the GTO traction inverters (which were based on the unreliable GEC-Alstom 465/2 Networker ones where there are know issues with reliability (30+% higher failure rate than IGBT units), regeneration and regeneration efficiency). The total cost would probably come in at around £20-25m including contingency for the Jubilee fleet. There would also be useful gains on reducing heat generation etc.

37. The Finchley turnback could be made much more efficient by converting East Finchley into a Golders Green platform layout. It may throttle access to the depot, but all the trains will be out when the turnback track is most in use. As the 4-track system is a leftover from the Northern Heights scheme, such a conversion would be more optimal use of space and resources.

    On train speeds, unless things have improved recently, I think the state/ride quality of the track must be a limiting factor on the outer sections. I often feel that the train could go faster, but am glad it doesn’t due to the jolting. I may be wrong, because they allow the Brighton mainline trains go much faster than the lower centre of gravity tube trains over some shockingly poor track.

38. NickBxn: East Finchley. This has been discussed before. Access from the southwestmost track (which emerges from the tunnel) to any platform except the southwestmost one would be impossible without an expensive major rebuild (of the station, the bridge over the road, or the tunnel mouth, or probably all three). Similarly with access to the northeastmost, tunnel-entering track. This is why there is a plan to convert the existing reversing siding (currently reachable only from the middle platforms) to reachable from all platforms. Suboptimal operationally, yes, but kinda affordable.

39. ngh,

    Thanks for comments. I made minor modifications to the article in the light of your statements on composite rail and Southern stock availability.

    On the issue of power supply, you mention upgrading the voltage for the Northern but don’t mention it for the Jubilee. Going to 750V seems to be long-term London Underground policy so this would make some kind of sense. SSR is 750V except where it conflicts with the Piccadilly line and the Jubliee line. DTP is planned for 750V.

    So, would there be a benefit in upgrading the Jubilee line to 750V? Can the trains cope? Is it easy to upgrade the substations? It seems to me it might make sense between Finchley Road and Stanmore if it means that the Metropolitan line could go to 750V as well.

40. Pincincerator,

    It is not so much that Thameslink on a Tube Map has been done to death, more that none of the comments ever really added anything than personal opinion – usually based on aesthetics.

    The issue seems to be getting more serious with high level letters from those involved in Thameslink (and others) to the DfT wanting to know why it is not included. I believe Crossrail got involved as the interchange at Farringdon would be seen to be less effective if the interchange opportunities were less obvious.

    The latest suggestion I have heard is that TfL are resisting because they fear ‘abstraction of revenue’. You couldn’t make this up.

41. As a general comment, I think that the issues raised by many of the comments highlight how complex any proposed improvement on the Northern line is. That is why I find the line so fascinating.

    I can’t say I am any wiser as to whether 28tph is possible let alone desirable given the downsides. It seems additional possibilities and other problematic issues raised seem to be of equal measure.

42. @PoP

    RE abstraction of revenue from having Thameslink on the tube map… Seriously? That must be pretty marginal though, if it were back e.g. West Hampstead/Finsbury Park to London Bridge/Elephant. Wouldn’t it only apply to people who arrive at e.g London Bridge looking to travel further, and don’t already have a travelcard or cross-London valid ticket and need to buy a single on the Northern line but decide instead to buy a single ticket on Thameslink instead? There can’t be many of them!

    Possibly quite a big question but how is revenue currently split from things like national rail tickets with cross-London travel included?

43. Ben 6 November 2017 at 22:20

    ” One would have thought with advanced computerisation, automation, and sophistication of control and regulating systems that meshing trains over a such a series of junctions without or with minimal delay would be easier than ever before.”

    Perhaps you mean less difficult than ever before.

44. @herned – the short answer (how much time do you have?) is that for products which are valid across both TfL and national rail operators, the income is split by a formula reflecting where the ticket is sold and who sells it. Within the NR operators,the pot is then further split out according to a survey-based formula. Where, however, a non-TfL operator sells a product valid only on NR, the revenue goes to whichever TOC “owns” that flow. If a TOC sells a product valid only on that TOC, then it keeps the money. There are somw twiddles to all that, and no doubt others will expand further…

45. Power
    The cost of ‘beefing up’ power supplies will depend largely on how much work needs to be done to the grid in order to feed the upgraded power supply. The corollary of this is that to a reasonable approximation all of the electricity that goes in ends up as heat. This is free and easy to get rid of on North London viaducts but can be trickier in central section tunnels…

    Increasing the voltage is an easy win, reducing I²R losses and corresponding heat, and is if ngh’s hunch is correct that there could be a traction package upgrade for the Jubilee on the cards, that would be a good time to do any necessary work to the trains to enable it.

    I’ve pondered the possibility of putting a small capacitor pack on board the trains, maybe sized at one-third to one-half the energy needed to get a train up to running speed in the central section: this could be used to smooth out the amount of current pulled from the DC rails when accelerating and what is put back when braking, easing the load slightly on the supply.

46. @Graham H 11:17

    There is an emerging revenue sharing issue also with Crossrail 1 aka EL. Effectively a number of intra-Zone 1 stations will become main line stations for RER-type services. Think of “London Tottenham Court Road” and “London Bond Street”, for example. Also in due course with Crossrail 2. And for easier cross-London main line to main line transfers without going through ticket barriers? (E.g. GWR to Anglia).

    It is mildly mind-boggling how the basic maths of traffic volumes will mutate between national rail services, RfL services and LUL services, let alone how revenues are then attributed. This is not helped by the current variable quality assessments of rail/tube, rail/rail, tube/tube and DLR/tube, etc, etc passenger interchange flows. RODS (is it Rail or Rolling Origin & Destination Survey?) is an imperfect science, for example, although a clever use of accessible data, and nicely ahead of national rail’s abilities which tend to rely on the historically erroneous ORR annualised ticket-based sales data.

    Mind you, all this is nothing new. The Standing Joint Committee for the London Passenger Transport revenue pool in the 1930s had to get to the 6th decimal point in order to find a notional agreement for revenue sharing between the LPTB and the Big Four in those, er, more revenue-integrated days, when the Underground was being extended onto suburban main line tracks (including the Northern Heights).

47. @Jonathan Roberts. Just so! I must admit I hadn’t reflected on the full horrors of revenue allocation with the EL opening – Now you come to mention “London TCR”, I can imagine, now you prompt it, all sorts of fun and games such as what happens with London All Stations tickets and – for long distance east west journeys such as you mention – the well known break of journey/multiple-leg ticket problem. What fun..

    It’s a small miracle that these problems haven’t led DfT to demand CrossRail/LU barriers everywhere.

48. @JR

    RODS Rolling Origin-Destination Survey

49. Before any split happens at Camden Town the NB and SB platform pairs need to have flat interchange. At the moment going south requires climbing then descending, which is a very good reason to just await the next direct service no matter how long away.

    On the TL side of things, with the Govia – Southern – TL split now announced maybe there is again scope for TfL to try for the TL services again? Revenue wouldn’t be ‘abstracted’ then.

    NickBxn – the layout at East Finchley predates the Northern Heights scheme! iirc the issue is that the inner pair of lines formerly to Highgate High Level are raised above the now-tube lines to Highgate Low Level.

50. Alison: some misunderstanding here. East Finchley Station was rebuilt as part of the so-called Northern Heights scheme, being extended to the four platforms which it still has. The tracks are all on the same level through the station and over the adjacent road bridge, though within feet of the south-east of the bridge the two outer tracks do indeed dive steeply down to enter the nearby tunnels (so there is no space for crossovers south-east of the station).

    Many modern references to the Northern Heights scheme stress the parts which were not actually built. But a significant fraction of the scheme was built and is in use today.

51. Yes, after pressing post I realised that whilst the original (LNER?) lines were there they might have had the outer lines in the same place / there at all. I’ve always been sad that given how much of the upper line to Finsbury Park had been brought up to underground standards it was never opened – especially as it would have relieved pressure on a Camden Town rebuild and provided a better route through to the east. It’s a while since I last visited the station though but I was sure that the lines were already vertically separated at the platform ends, so I stand corrected.

52. @Alison
    Approx 75% of all required works were undertaken by 31/8/1939 to enable Underground services onto the lines via Finsbury Park and Highgate High Level. LMSR electric trains (already tripcock-fitted) could also have shared tracks if the Canonbury curve had been four-railed! (That was a 1934 option.)

    Oh well, guess nowadays about £1-2bn and say at least 10 years, to allow Thameslink reversers from the South to access East Finchley and reverse there (sorry about the Parkland Walk), to relieve the Northern capacity issues.

    Or £20m? to save £10m per new train? within a couple of years to get a better Northern service (possibly auto-reversing) from the outside tracks into a central reversing siding north of East Finchley.

    Choice seems quite clear there.

53. In the interests of having some more data to work with, earlier today I recorded three Northern Line trains during the start of the rush hour using GPS. From the recorded (every second) observations I discovered that:

    High Barnet to East Finchley, at 16:55 for 13m55s: speed average 38.7km/h max 83.9 km/h (23.31m/s)
    East Finchley to High Barnet, at 16:38 for 15m13s: speed average 34.0km/h, max 83.4 km/h
    Edgware to Golders Green: speed average 33.0km/h, max 80.9 km/h

    Northern Line trains in the open sections accelerate at +0.56 m/s² for up to 41.6s and decelerate at 0.386m/s² for up to 60.3s.

    I learnt that the trains do an awful lot of dwelling and that there is a speed restriction (25-30km/h) on the tight curve at Finchley Central. The northbound trains also slow down to 15k/m outside High Barnet for some reason, adding a minute to the journey.

    The data is graphed here Northern Line train speed data

54. Just caught up with the article and comments. As soon as I read the reference to “Thameslink on the tube map” the term “revenue loss” flashed through my brain and lo and behold it appears in PoP’s later post. I am not the least bit surprised that that is the reason being given. TfL cannot afford to have anything happen that dilutes its assumptions about people using its rail services and especially Crossrail. I absolutely take the point that making the interchange opportunities at Farringdon clear may well help boost usage I can all too easily imagine the other arguments that would come into play about not wanting to tempt people off the Northern, Picc and Jubilee lines.

    I understand there has been a “working group” (and probably higher level meetings) on Crossrail ticketing and revenue matters for several years. I certainly saw early stuff back in 2012. It’s something I’d loved to have worked on because it is such an enormous minefield and full of lots of lovely complicated problems. Still we are getting nearer the point where the full glory of the “solution” (whatever it is) will become apparent. I suspect the financial pressures in TfL and with the TOCs have made life vastly more difficult over the last year or so as people battle to tie down agreements or even interim arrangements until travel patterns stabilise.

55. In terms of the possible permutations around service levels and frequencies I think the one critical factor has been missed – politics. I know we don’t do “politics” here in great detail but given the nature of parliamentary constituencies that cover North London, who is the Assembly member for Barnet and Camden and where the Mayor resides you can see that both the Jubilee and Northern lines are political minefields for TfL. While not disputing the busy nature of the Morden branch you’d have to be pretty stupid to not improve the service where the Mayor lives – cynical of me, yes, but you don’t land the Mayor with a problem on his doorstep. Therefore no great shock that work continues to ensure a boost to train frequencies there.

    As for North London I could compose the Mayor’s Questions that Mr Dismore will no doubt be firing off to the Mayor to ensure that people in Edgware, Finchley and Barnet do not suffer reduced services. I am sure he will be equally vociferous about the Jubilee Line and also Thameslink if it becomes necessary.

    There are also plenty of marginal constituencies in that swathe of middle to outer North London to ensure that any perceived worsening of commuter services quickly becomes a headline. Remember the disaster that was “getting rid of the number 13 bus”? Quite easy to foresee a tube version of said controversy if some poor choices are made about where trains run and how often.

56. In amongst all this striving and stretching of resources and asset availability has anyone considered what happens if something goes badly wrong with the fleet or some other asset? More intensive train services and “harder” braking can result in track damage. Working trains harder and for longer places additional stresses on components and sub systems. As Ngh points out the maintenance arrangements on the Northern are not exactly optimal. I trust someone has properly assessed that the system can actually run year in, year out at these higher levels and that there is still some flex in the fleet and other assets to cope with unexpected failures or obsolescence? Similarly I assume the inspection / maintenance regimes will be changed / enhanced as necessary to properly cover the additional risk.

    And note I’m not just picking on these two lines. Precisely the same thought has occurred to me in respect of the Victoria Line where I’ve seen worn out seats, bubbling floor covering (after only 6 or 7 yrs service!), loud track noise and other things on recent rides on the line. Not crises but indicative of either poor initial design / manufacture or additional stress from more intensive services / reduced engineering hours.

57. Walthamstow Writer 01:23

    I entirely agree with you about the politics thing. We do do politics in as far as it is a factor to take into account. We don’t take sides.

    That is why I hope the article is presented as ‘this is what, to the best of our knowledge, is what is technically possible’ rather than ‘this is what should be done’.

    On the subject of wear and tear on the Victoria line, I don’t think there is much excuse for the trains not to be in good condition. They have the luxury of 47 of them and they only need 41 in service at most. And that is for one of the peaks – for the other one, inexplicably, they survive with just 40. So plenty of opportunity for taking a train out of service for longer period than would be possible on just about any other line in order to remedy any failings.

    Logically, once you have the assets you might as well make use of them. Due to the cancelled signalling upgrade of the 1990s, the Northern line is only now using their trains to provide the level of service that was originally intended. So you could look at it differently and argue that actually they have had 20 years of underuse.

58. Re Briantist,

    Always good to have some data!

    The old timetable pre NLU/resignalling was based around the maximum performance of the 1959 Stock at 0.90ms^-2, the 1995 stock are however capable of 1.24ms^-2 (albeit some limitations on braking at the moment. Hence the acceleration /deceleration isn’t any where near the limit (I also wouldn’t expect it to be above ground where rail conditionals are worse). The 9 axis motion sensors on most modern smart phones/tables with the right software are now very good at cumulative distance measurement (I did a quick experiment in the Mont Blanc Tunnel a few months ago to verify) so I’ll have a go at grabbing some in tunnel acceleration curves on the Northern on the way to the Royal Oak (LR drinks) tomorrow.

59. Re PoP @0926,

    On the issue of power supply, you mention upgrading the voltage for the Northern but don’t mention it for the Jubilee. Going to 750V seems to be long-term London Underground policy so this would make some kind of sense. SSR is 750V except where it conflicts with the Piccadilly line and the Jubliee line. DTP is planned for 750V.

    So, would there be a benefit in upgrading the Jubilee line to 750V? Can the trains cope? Is it easy to upgrade the substations? It seems to me it might make sense between Finchley Road and Stanmore if it means that the Metropolitan line could go to 750V as well.”

    750V is an explicit requirement of the higher tph Northern Upgrade Options but the same wasn’t said for the Jubilee (which as you point out will probably happen anyway in place due to the Met links.)
    The voltage change shouldn’t cause any issues for the power electronics on either Northern (IGBT) or Jubilee (GTO). The Central line retractioning (DC to 3 phase AC) will certainly help with raising the voltage there though.

    TfL have announced they are looking to cut 1,400 jobs* in LU especially engineering so ti looks like accusation of financial pressures especially fares freeze and DfT grant elimination appear to have more substance in the last 24 hours!
    *see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41903419

60. NGH
    TfL have announced they are looking to cut 1,400 jobs* in LU especially engineering
    That will come back to bite them, quite quickly. Do people never learn from their mistakes? Because that could be a quite-quick return to the 1980’s in terms of reliability & safety, how nice.
    [ To quote from the BBC piece:
    During Mayor Sadiq Khan’s election campaign he called Transport for London “flabby”.
    He said it could cope with a fares freeze that in effect reduced its income and engineering functions could be merged to save money.
    Those policies are now coming home to roost and TfL is now having to make efficiencies.
    Quite. ]

61. @WW — “Remember the disaster that was “getting rid of the number 13 bus”?”

    Nope?

62. Henning Makholm, Greg Tingley & especially Malcom:

    SKIP-STOP-SERVICE

    The “constrains” mentioned above doesn´t seem to apply in the real world.
    In NYC the J/Z combination is running with 10 minutes intervall on each line, giving a combined intervall at no more then 5 minutes.
    On SEPTA:s Market-Frankford Line the traffic is even denser, with A & B trains running at 8 minutes intervall each, giving a combined intervall of only 4 minutes.

    I have no idea if this could be applied to the outer sections of the Northern Line, I just want to point out what is done on other systems.

63. @TKO: Those intervals are still much lower than what we’re talking about on the Northern line, every five minutes is only 12tph… Even every 4 minutes is still only 15 tph…

64. This would probably not be popular among the residents, and it might look like a “crayonista” idea, but:

    How about transfering West Hampstead – Stanmore to another line, and terminate all Jubilee Line at West Hampstead, atleast during peak hours when the maximum numer of trains is required in the core section?

    Too bad that the A stock were scrapped, otherwise it could had been running the overground section of the Stanmore line without much (if any) infrastructure change required..

    Is there any other old underground stock that might be possible to activate for this section?

    As an interim measure the residents affected might be a bit calmed by knowing they will get more TPH when it’s time to replace the existing Jubilee Line stock. Anyway they would still be better of than the situation for those living among for example the Gobiln.

65. P.S.

    Hot take:
    How about transfering the Stanmore branch to Chiltern? I.E. technically connecting it so the Stanmore trains can terminate at Marylebone?

    (I know, there might be capacity issues at Marylebone, but on the other hand, with Crossrail taking over the slow trains on Great Western, there would be spare capacity at Paddington which could be used by some Chiltern trains).

    It would almost certain require some kind of flyover. There seems to be space for example at Kilburn where there is residue left from an old platform between the westbound Metropolitan line and eastbound Chiltern line.

    Or, more simple to achieve, the Metropolitan Line could take over the Stanmore branch and Chiltern/Marylebone could take over some of todays Metropolitan Line branches. That would only require a set of points that connect Metropolitan to todays Jubilee line west of West Hampstead. It could actually reduce the number of conflicting movements over flat junctions at Harrow on the Hill and westwards, although that wouldn’t matter much.

    Btw if the Watford Metropolitan branch is handled over to Chiltern, then the problem of the proposed Croxley Rail Link being a TFL line outside of TFL land would go away and that might make it slightly easier to negotiate whatever agreements needed to make the the Croxley Rail Link go ahead.

66. @MIAM
    1. Single revering siding at West Hampstead isn’t going to reverse 30+ tph
    2. Met to Stanmore would require rebuilding of platforms to a different height, running both Met and Jubliee is won’t be possible as it won’t have a grandfathered derogation to use compromise platform heights.
    3. There isn’t any space at Marylebone for Chiltern to add any new peak services: the total capacity of the double-track section between Marylebone and Neasden appears to be about 20tph. Due to single track sections and freight on the New North Line [South Ruislip-Old Oak Common], it isn’t possible to divert enough trains to Paddington to free up more than 1 or 2tph of slots.
    4. Even if you redoubled the NNL, a flat junction with the Great Western relief lines West of the Crossrail down t’hole split would add more possibilities for performance pollution: Chiltern have worked hard to maintain a pretty good reputation for reliability and punctuality and it is the more-or-less self-contained nature of its network that makes this possible. Similarly, Crossrail would not want to mix with yet another operator on ‘their’ tracks.

    We’re looking at how to optimise stuff to save maybe £20m of trains on the Jubliee: interventions that cost more than that and lead to upset passengers are never going to fly.

67. “reducing the dwell time at stations is not realistic”, is this really true? what if pinch points were concentrated on, with aims of better dispersion of passengers across platforms, more limits on access to busy platforms, passenger education etc?

68. Delay between stop/start and door open/close is 1-2 seconds more on the Jubilee than the newer stock on Victoria and SSR stock. Is that due to sensors or software? If that could be redressed, I estimate you could save at least 150 seconds per round trip, which releases another train.

69. Re IG,

    They are concentrating on the pinch points, the biggest being Bank with very big rebuild.
    And the plan was to try to reduce dwell times to 40s max.

70. @SH(LR): Headways of 4 minutes between trains happen to be very close the 14 tph the article imagines between Edgware and Golders Green, for example.

    The existing signaling ought comfortably to support that half of those 14 tph call at Burnt Oak and Hendon Central, and the other half call at Colindale and Brent Cross, such that every train skips two stations (in each direction). If each skipped station halt gains 30 seconds, that’s a total savings of 28 train-minutes per hour, or almost half a train!

71. HM
    … & if you want to go from Burnt Oak to Brent Cross?

72. MiaM,

    Where to begin?

    I think you are suffering from a number of misapprehensions.

    I don’t think you have grasped how far West Hampstead to Stanmore is. Try looking at this map to see the Jubilee line properly represented as regards distances. It must be more than a third of the entire line. Even Wembley Park to Stanmore is a considerable distance and far further than you might think looking at a tube map – which I presume is the basis for your research.

    You will have achieved something thought impossible by most – a situation where the Jubilee line has far too many trains that will sit idly in sidings or be scrapped.

    2. The Jubilee line has been expensively resignalled a few years ago. It does not have conventional signals. The only way any plan that reallocates part of the Jubilee line can work is by downgrading the signalling to lights on posts or utilising the stock that can work with it. The only stock available is Jubilee and Northern line stock – the very stock that is in short supply.

    3. The ‘A’ stock was absolutely clapped out.

    4. Like many, I suspect you still think of Marylebone as a quiet backwater and not a real London terminus. A train leaves Marylebone in the evening peak every three minutes and I suspect the signalling prevents a more frequent service. This is some limited scope for longer trains but that is about it.

    5. Once the Elizabeth line fully opens, the approaches to Paddington will be absolutely full.

73. IG,

    I should have expanded. Dwell time is already microscopically examined and I don’t think there is a magic dwell time tree that you can shake to find a few extra seconds.

    As ngh sort of implies, in practice it is only certain stations where an improvement will make a difference. As a trivial example, you could probably improve the dwell time at Pimlico northbound but it wouldn’t achieve anything because. on departure, a train would be waiting to for Victoria platform to become free.

74. Apologies for a belated update from the Transport Committee meeting yesterday.
    You can see it here and the items starts at around 1 hour 44 minutes in.

    Reason for cancellation of trains

    We were told that the trigger for this, which set alarm bells off, was an unexpected 2% drop in revenue from the tube this summer. This might not sound a lot but the consequence is hundreds of millions of pounds during the five year budgetary period.

    Unfortunately, to make things worse, early indications are that the drop in revenue is off-peak. It was noted this was around 3% less than the 5% it was believed the TOCs were experiencing. In response to an Assembly Member who criticised the TfL fares freeze, it was suggested that fares freeze may well have had limited impact as higher fares may have led to further drop in demand for leisure traffic. In any case the fares freeze was budgeted for but the loss in revenue was not.

    Train bidders

    These were Alstom (who you would expect to bid) and CAF. So, twice as many bidders I was expecting.

    Lack of official announcement

    It was explained that once it was decided not to go ahead, it was felt that this had to be communicated to the rolling stock tenders straightaway as they had people ready to swing into action should they get the order. Also, they needed to keep on good terms as there was the future contract coming up for Deep Tube Programme trains and they wanted both manufacturers to continue with the bidding process.

    They also informed various internal staff who needed to be stood down.

    Unfortunately the news was leaked before TfL and the deputy mayor for transport had time to follow proper procedures (including informing the Transport Committee in advance of public knowledge – something that seemed to upset them).

    Where the project goes from here?

    No surprises to say, the plan is to proceed pretty much as we have suggested.

    Indications are it will still be called World Capacity Programme. A figure of £600 million saving by cancelling it was mentioned but another figure was £123 million still allocated to the project. I don’t know if that means a real saving of £477 million or not.

    It is early days so details not finalised as to what exactly is ‘in’ and ‘out’. Northern line interim upgrade now given a date of September 2019 – not April. So getting close to a full five year delay on this.

    Aim is to have 28tph on Bank central section. When an Assembly Member talked of 28tph on both central branches he was not contradicted or corrected. It was agreed that some of the options required trains terminating short of final destination.

    There is no current agreement with Alstom, who maintain Northern line trains, to have more trains in service.

    The reports of job cuts for 1,400 engineering staff led to the comment that ‘this is not a figure we recognise’ .

75. Thanks PoP for report. 2% drop in demand matches 2% growth in previous year, so back to 2015/16 levels, not predicted steep growth. And which way will coming year demand go? Urgency for line upgrades has diminished for time being!

76. Except that if it is only an off-peak drop, it doesn’t help relieve the peak – which was the problem. We really need a couple of years of data to see if this is a blip or something more than that. There is probably still peak-hour latent demand that ought to be sorted out if it can be done at a reasonable price.

    The biggest issue by far is replacing the Piccadilly line stock as soon as realistically possible and in a way that is fit for the future. This will be the case regardless of whether passenger numbers are rising or falling.

77. @Graham H
    I imagine the “London Terminals” problem will be resolved in the same way as on Thameslink, where they are not valid (from either direction) at or via Farringdon. So if you want to travel to Farringdon, Tottenham Court Road or Bond Street on Crossrail you will need a ticket to Zone 1, and if you want to travel right through the middle and out the other side, a “via London+” ticket will be issued .

    @Alison
    “scope for TfL to try for the TL services again?
    I doubt it, neither DfT nor TfL would be very keen on TfL being responsible for services to Brighton or Peterborough. Possibly some of the Southern Inners, (and just possibly the St Helier loop services)?

    Alison et al –
    Highgate Low Level, and the tunnels from there to East Finchley, were built as part of the Northern Heights scheme – previously the tube line terminated at what is now known as Archway station (but was then called Highgate, just to confuse people).

    John Kellett
    ” “getting rid of the number 13 bus””
    A route rationalisation in NW London last year. I forget the details, but as I recall route 13 was duplicated over its entire length by other routes, mainly but not exclusively the 82 (itself a renumbered section of the old No 2B). TfL went ahead anyway, but renumbered route 82 (on its existing route) as 13.

    @Moosealot
    ” Met to Stanmore running both Met and Jubliee won’t be possible as it won’t have a grandfathered derogation to use compromise platform heights.”

    The Met did run to Stanmore between 1930 and 1938. But would the grandfather still stand up after eighty years?

    @greg
    “& if you want to go from Burnt Oak to Brent Cross?” (if different trains skip-stop them)
    Take the bus? Double back? West Ealing to Hanwell will have exactly that problem with the proposed Crossrail timetable.

78. timbeau,

    On the last point.

    Yes, but the difference is that people might reasonably want to go from Burnt Oak to Brent Cross. Greg chose his example well as it is a reasonable journey to want to make. Burnt Oak station is surprisingly busy (4.5m passenger journeys p.a.) and likely to increase with more housing and Brett Cross has a major shopping centre.

    We yet don’t know what the final Elizabeth line timetable will be. I would imagine every effort would be made to avoid the skip-stopping but sometimes needs must. Given the current low passenger numbers at both Hanwell and West Ealing I suspect the number travelling between the two will be very few indeed.

79. @timbeau – Possibly, although with some EL trains continuing to run from “EL” stations to LST “upstairs” but with upstairs and downstairs separated by a barrier, I’m not sure how this will play out.

    @PoP – the 607 continues to provide a high frequency service between Hanwell and West Ealing, even if, alas, no longer worked by F1s.

80. @Graham H et al

    Can commentators please use Elizabeth Line, or better yet Crossrail 1, instead of EL. The two letter version is easily mistaken for East London (Line).

    On a similar note, we want to keep the comments as readable as possible to a non-rail audience, so use of station codes (LST for Liverpool Street) is strongly discouraged. (*)

    LBM

    (*) (added by Malcolm: If you wish to avoid repetition in the same post, it is OK to write “Liverpool Street (LST)” the first time you mention it and “LST” for closely following re-mentions.)

81. @PoP: I read with interest the point about the 2% drop in revenue from the tube this summer.

    Are the any reasons or even speculation on the cause? Fewer tourists? The weather? Brexit…?

82. Reynolds 953,

    No indication given but talk of optional leisure journeys. They still need to crunch the numbers to be sure of what is happening where.

    Interestingly, an earlier TfL assessment of Brexit suggested that off-peak travel in the central zone would go up as the exchange rate would encourage tourists. Of course, it is possible that, but for Brexit, it would have been even worse – to the same level as the TOCs. I think that is as far as I can go on the subject of Brexit.

83. I stopped many of my tube off-peak journeys in Z1 after they hiked the off-peak cap from £8 to £12. With the Hopper bus fare I can stop even more.

84. @Graham H
    “Crossrail trains continuing to run from “Crossrail” stations to Liverpool St “upstairs” but with upstairs and downstairs separated by a barrier, I’m not sure how this will play out.”

    Presumably using an OSI – people arriving upstairs can go through the barriers to downstairs, but whether arriving downstairs by train, or on foot from upstairs, their London terminal tickets will not be valid if they try to travel further west.

    They might work at Paddington though – as I discovered serendipitously, all “London terminals” tickets are currently programmed to operate the ticket gates at all “London terminal” stations, whether there is a valid route from the out-of-town terminus or not. My SWT-issued season ticket works at Baker Street!

    @HM/PoP/Greg
    ”
    half of those 14 tph call at Burnt Oak and Hendon Central, and the other half call at Colindale and Brent Cross, such that every train skips two stations (in each direction).
    HM
    … & if you want to go from Burnt Oak to Brent Cross?
    Yes, but the difference is that people might reasonably want to go from Burnt Oak to Brent Cross. ”

    Bus to Colindale, then tube non-stop to Brent Cross. Or double back via Edgware or Golders Green. Not ideal, but possible.

    Essentially HM is suggesting operating the service as if there are two separate routes between Golders Green and Edgware, each with two intermediate stations. It could even be shown on the map thus. (Something like this….) –‘-,-‘- The fact that both routes actually use the same tracks is an operational detail the public needn’t bother with.

    Not that I think skip stopping is necessarily a good idea, but that’s how it could be done

85. Timbeau at 11:08: Your remark about grandfather rights after 80 years was perhaps not a serious suggestion. But just in case anyone is thinking of pursuing the issue, it seems that in general they are quite a perishable good. You only need to stop using them for (it seems) 5 minutes (or more seriously, a week) and they keel over and expire. (With the possible exception of closures for floods and stuff like that, clearly signalled as temporary).

86. @:TIMBEAU

    There are separate ticket barrier “zones” at Liverpool Street. They can detect inter-TfL Services from greater Anglia already.

    You can take TfL Rail from Stratford (say) and change to the H&C to (sat) Barbican and be charge a single journey Z2/3-Z1. Or you can come in on TfL Rail and go out on the Overground to somewhere, again it’s one journey.

    Actually, you can use Greater Anglia services from Liverpool Street to Stratford and be charged “as if” you used TfL Rail.

    You can use any gateline at Liverpool Street underground, not just the ones inside the station.

    So, the Elizabeth Line trains arriving “upstairs” (and not going via Whitechapel either) will remain the same as TfL Rail.

87. timbeau: As was pointed out when this was discussed before, if a ticket gate happens for any reason to let someone through when it should not have done (reasons include the gate being left open or any programming error or software limitation) that does not entitle anyone to make that journey on that ticket. And various kinds of on-train inspections and other measures have always existed, and still will in the gleaming Elizabeth line future.

88. Graham H – indeed, or Q1s.

89. The recent growth in passenger numbers began in 2010/11 with 4%, and 5% in 2011/12 and 12/13. This was followed by three years of 3% growth, and only 2% in 2016/17. The 12 months to period October 2017 has seen a 2% contraction, so the period of steep growth is a few years back now. (Source: LU Performance data almanac)

90. The premise of my skip/stop Gedankenexperiment was that we want to maximize the number of journeys into central London that can be achieved in the peak given the available infrastructure and rolling stock, at the cost of everything else.

    Local journeys between the skip-stop stations would indeed be inconvenienced quite a bit by the doubling back. This would be somewhat mitigated by the fact that outside the peaks there would be enough trains to run everything as stoppers – though at the further cost of a yet more confusing timetable for passengers to navigate.

    There’s also an argument that thinning out service at intermediate stations to 7 tph would approach the pain threshold for passengers, even if the trains that do call have more space in them, by virtue of having skipped other stations.

    There would be more gain for less pain by implementing a skip/stop pattern for some station pairs on the 32 tph section south of Kennington. This would require trains on the line between, say, South Wimbledon and Colliers Wood to run at alternating 80/145 second intervals. I don’t know for sure whether the CBTC system allows two trains at full speed 80 seconds after each other, but it doesn’t sound impossible in principle, as those two trains would not need to stop at the same platform next.

91. @ Graham H – there is zero to worry about ticket gates coping with Crossrail travel across Z1. If, as timbeau suggests, the existing Z1 add-on concept is carried across then there are no great issues that I can think. Mag stripe tickets, if properly issued, can have the required coding set (heck I did the base data for it back in the 80s!). Oyster and contactless can cope even better given far more data can be handled by cards and central systems.

    There is another option which is that the Z1 add on *fare* is scrapped as part of a rationalisation / simplification process to remove anomalies and ease the use of both Thameslink and Crossrail for cross London travel. Clearly that has to be financed and also signed off by the DfT and who knows if someone has actually been brave and clever enough to allow for that in relet / to be let franchises in the London area. Clearly TfL would want some revenue compensation for that given non London area TOCs can issue tickets across London and a charge is included in the through fare. Such a move would be brave but it is a very saleable and positive ticketing development to coincide with a revolution in main line cross London travel.

92. @ H Makholm – I can’t think of anything more guaranteed to have tube commuters in a rage than them standing on platforms in the morning while 50% or more of the service whizzes (or more likely crawls) through a platform without stopping. The furore would be enormous and it would be politically suicidal for TfL and the Mayor to do it. There may be an elegant logic behind your proposal but unless you convince a lot of people of the merits you won’t get it accepted and I really doubt you could convince enough people. If it was to work in reverse so people had to wait longer on Z1 platforms for a train home to a specified stn then this could cause station management issues at some locations in Zone 1. The Charing Cross branch is not exactly renowned for having wide platforms at any of its stations and nor do some Bank branch stations. People generally expect the Tube to be “simple” to use with one or two honourable exceptions like the Picc and Met.

    Being a lucky beneficiary of the Vic Line upgrade I no longer really have to care about frequencies, journey times or train destinations because it’s always frequent, it nearly always runs end to end and it’s pretty reliable. It takes the stress away. People don’t run down escalators any more at my local Vic Line stns – there’s no need. I am sure people on the Northern Line would like their service to remain as simple as it is now (allowing for the complex branch pattern).

93. On trimming dwell times on the Northern, there is a LOT of waiting around for the doors to open. I could quip ‘enough time to put the kettle on…’ but actually, I have got into the habit of staying in my seat, because when the train stops, there really is sufficient time to stop reading the paper, put one’s glasses and paper away in a bag, get up, and walk over to the doors before they open. I’ve never gone as far as timing it, but I give closer to 4 seconds than 3 – so about 1,5 minutes between Morden and High Barnet via Bank. Not a great deal, but consider 3 minutes on a return trip and it starts to impact on line trains per hour capacity. Presumably it’s just a software setting matter, but I’m curious it has not been addressed.

94. @WW – thank you for the clear explanation. Somehow,I can’t see your second option – highly desirable though it is, being a runner any time soon, with its implication of readjusting the financial settlements all round. The players have form in this area…

    It wasn’t, however,so much the question of the gating coping with a break in journey at either Liverpool Street or Paddington, but about the revenue attribution. The gates won’t “know” whether you have arrived on an Anglia train or an LU train at Liverpool Street upstairs ready to continue your onward journey by LU,even though the fares would presumably have been different. I suppose you could limit intra-barrier movement upstairs and allow an OSI only from those platforms and at those times that when the LU upstairs service operated.

95. For the avoidance of doubt, there is the Single Fare Finder

    https://tfl.gov.uk/fares-and-payments/fares/single-fare-finder

    This shows, for example, that Maryland (Z3 but TfLRail) to Barbican (Zone 1) is £3.30 £2.80 (off peak)

    But Norbury (Z3) to Barbican is £5.10/£4.10 or £4.90/£4.10 via the underground Elephant & Castle

96. @Malcolm
    ” if a ticket gate happens for any reason to let someone through when it should not have done (reasons include the gate being left open or any programming error or software limitation) that does not entitle anyone to make that journey on that ticket. ”

    Indeed so – it is a software limitation, and should really be addressed. I only discovered the bug when I absentmindedly put my point-to-point season ticket in a gate instead of using my Oyster. Had to get the staff to let me out again so I could touch in properly (or I’d have been charged a maximum fare when I touched out at my destination).

    I think the barrier lines will only be an issue for people changing to Crossrail from other NR lines – as I understand it all Crossrail stations will be part of the zonal system anyway. It will be people from Southend or Chelmsford changing to Crossrail at Stratford, for example, who may get charged a different fare from those changing at Liverpool Street.

97. @timbeau – it’s your last sentence that spells out the problem, especially if people (horror!) use split ticketing…

98. Concerning the 2% drop in off peak use, will the growth in use of Ubers have been a factor? I can’t see many people going to work by Uber, but for off peak and especially evening journeys, I can see how they’d be an attractive option to the tube…

99. Mikey C
    VERY unlikely …
    Please think about the actual numbers …
    how many people is 2% of off peak tube users per day?
    [ Can anyone readily supply this number, for an actual calculation? ]
    And how many people are usually passengers insdie a Uber cab? ( 2 )
    Then work out the number of cars required to shift that many people.
    NOT going to work

100. @ Graham H – Not sure we have a *new* revenue attribution issue. Liv St – Stratford has been on the LU scale and interavailable for decades. Therefore issues around splitting revenue between operators – and we’ve had umpteen TOC variants since the late 90s – must have been sorted to an acceptable extent. You can’t make OSIs time dependent because TfL fares have always applied on the Southend lines out of Liv St as far as Stratford and obviously now do on West Anglia / TfL Rail. For many years there was no great issue as the main line wasn’t gated but a full OSI will have been in place once it was. I’ve tried to cast my mind back as to whether we programmed Liv St as an OSI to deal with the Stratford via BR (NR) issue and can’t remember. I recall we did do it at Baker St (for Marylebone) and there were so many LU single tickets discarded on the floor that the staff pleaded for it to be taken out!! They just passed people manually if people wanted to go to Marylebone on the surface.

     Also worth noting that TfL bung Abellio an annual sum for the use of the “Shenfield / West Anglia” PAYG fare scale on the route via Tot Hale / Waltham Cross. I’d also argue that to some extent the shift in ticket media from paper tickets to Oyster / bank cards will have improved journey tracking information. Now OK it doesn’t tell you precisely what train(s) someone uses on any journey but until we install ticket gates at every door on every train we’re never going to know that and I’d argue no one *needs* to know.

     I take your point about the difficulty of my second ticketing scenario. Obviously there may well be a bun fight but GTR’s revenue risk is a DfT matter and SWR and SET have been or will be retendered. If someone had some foresight then removal of the add on come December 2018 could have been / be a factor in bid options rather than a negotiated bunfight later. Obviously that still leaves a few operators but some are already on the TfL farescale within Greater London, others are TfL operations and Inter City TOCs may not be huge players in revenue terms for add on tickets (I’m guessing on this latter point). Like you I doubt it will happen for financial reasons but sometimes it’s nice to ponder other possibilities.

101. @ Timbeau – it was known when we put in the Underground Ticketing System that the system of recognising “London Terminals” at gates using magnetic tickets was somewhat limited. It was an inevitable compromise because at that time even getting BR remotely interested in magnetic ticketing and the data on the stripe was a struggle. IIRC LT actually funded the work on BR’s ticket office machine (APTIS) and their later vending machines (can’t remember the acronym) to make them encode magnetically to LT’s specification. Even though the TOCs now use their part of the stripe more actively than before I can’t imagine there is any business case to change the system functionality now. This is largely because fewer mag stripe tickets are being sold these days and also because the TOCs would put out an enormous “begging bowl” demanding TfL fund any changes to their equipment. There’s just no money either for such a scheme. Just to maintain some balance here it’s clear TfL did the same to the DfT when the latter wanted ITSO card recognition on the TfL revenue system. Nothing comes for free.

102. @ Mikey C / Greg – I don’t have any numbers to throw at the debate but while browsing some TfL board papers (as I do) I have found the following which supports what PoP reported from the Transport Committee meeting.

     This was from a Finance Cttee meeting where they reviewed the period 5 Finance Report.

     4.7 Members discussed the report. Challenges in the shortfall in passenger revenue, year on year, continued and this was reflected in the decline in both bus and Tube passenger revenues. This was consistent with a wider trend in the decline in discretionary journeys across London and the South East, due to a range of macro-economic factors. Commercial income had also decreased due to the decline in consumer spending and the resulting fall in advertising.

     4.8 Members noted that TfL cash balances were stable and Crossrail cash balances had increased due to the repayment of a loan previously advanced to Network Rail.

     4.9 It was agreed that staff would submit supplementary detailed commercial financial information on the Finance Reports to future meetings, on Part 2 of the agenda.

     Note the triple whammy there – it is in line with a general dampening down in London and the South East, it is to do with the economy and people reducing discretionary spend and also that commercial revenues are also being hit. Given commercial revenues are supposed the “great saviour” of the income side of the equation alongside ongoing increases in patronage and revenue then this is bad news. As and when commuting revenues start falling then we really will be in bad news territory.

     For me the most telling aspect is in para 4.9 – the Cttee members want much more detailed and regular financial info but it will be kept confidential and discussed in private. Now you can say that’s just being prudent but to me it also says they are concerned about the future.

     In terms of Uber then the bigger impact has been on the bus network and night buses especially. We are now seeing very substantial cuts to Night Bus frequencies – the Night Tube is the official reason but I doubt that it is the *sole* reason. If you have less discretionary spending then people don’t go out, eat out, go to the theatre etc. Some of that spills over into fewer night bus trips. Group travel can also be somewhat cheaper with Uber or similar and in many cases it may be available faster than waiting for a night bus and is also door to door. We can’t really ignore those factors which may well outweigh the pure financial comparison.

103. @WW
     However, elsewhere, Uber has reported a big drop in hirings from central London on Friday and Saturday nights with a commensurate increase in suburban hirings for last mile trips from tube stations served by Night Tube. That would suggest, if true, that the official reason for cuts in night bus usage might well be true.

104. It is now painfully obvious that cuts being made to TfL’s budget are going to land LU behind the growth in London. A return to the 80s is what I dread the most, and yet it seems to be that is where we are heading. Just at the time when excellent improvement projects on Northern and Jubilee and extensions to Met and Bakerloo and building Crossrail 2 are all in the pipeline, someone decides to make it all stop. London’s population growth will happen whether you put the trains transport in or not. But as it becomes more and more insufficient for what is required business considering where to locate itself will go elsewhere. Unfortunately when it comes to transport investment learning from the past seems to be something that no one is very good at. It is strange though – I thought one of the best ways to stimulate growth and to keep economies going was to invest money in transport rather than starve it of funds.

105. The planned order for 27 trains was already based on the most efficient service provision, including short workings on branches and auto-reversal in sidings. It could not allow for recently experienced reliability improvements for the existing fleets. A table in the current issue of Underground News shows that Jubilee line trains are travelling 44% further between failures compare with two years back. On the Northern line the improvement is 28%, which takes them 27% further than the Jubilee, and makes them more reliable than all but the recently delivered fleets.

106. To be clear

     The planned upgrade relied on short workings for the enhanced service but I don’t think it was proposed to reduce the frequency at the extremities i.e. no station would have a less frequent service than today – or, if so, then only marginally so.

     As far as I am aware, proposals for auto-reverse only applied to the Jubilee line. If they do also apply to the Northern line then I would have thought that they were far less critical.

107. Just as I thought it might be helpful to understand the World Class Capacity issue, I have modified the current tube map to show the line frequencies for the whole network.

     Tube map showing train off-peak frequencies

     It’s showing off-peak frequencies, so doesn’t take into account how small a tram or DLR train might be.

     It looks helpful, I think.

108. @ Quinlet – clearly the Night Tube is a factor at weekends. *However* we are seeing cuts to Night Bus routes that run well away from the night tube network *and* we have also seen substantial cuts (50% or so) on some weekday night bus routes where there is no night tube service. Now either people have lost their jobs, businesses have folded or people are buying cars / getting lifts / using Uber on those weekday nights / early mornings. We have also seen no extension of weekend night buses to improve that “last mile” coverage in areas where it might be beneficial. I can understand why “single cause” explanations are simpler PR messages to get across but they don’t represent the whole picture (IMO).

109. Regarding the high (or very high) percentage utilisation of train fleets, you always have to be prepared for losing trains from service due to a collision or other incident. History tells us that this indeed does happen from time to time, most commonly within depots, where the downside is that you likely lose two trains from service. It also seems nowadays to take not only an inordinate time to repair what appears straightforward damage, indeed sometimes years, but even a long while to just reform one good train out of the two damaged ones.

     The last thing you want is to have to reduce the service while all this is going on.

     Regarding turning trains short, and particularly on the Jubilee, I am in a way pleased that the proposed plan for extra Jubilee Central London capacity by trains turning at North Greenwich has fallen through. Trains turning there are a confounded nuisance for those travelling further east, on what must be one of the busiest of all lines through to its final station, at Stratford. The number of North Greenwich terminators has increased anyway in recent times, and at Canary Wharf it can then be impossible in the pm peak for many, if any, to board the next Stratford service which comes in already fully packed. The advice given in North Greenwich terminators that you should change at Canary Wharf for points at the eastern end is a nonsense when you find there are already substantial queues at each doorway at Canary Wharf which you have to join the back of and let maybe a couple of Stratfords go before you can get in a train again.

110. Don’t forget that crossrail will take a large number of Canary Wharf and Stratford passengers from the Jubilee. This may make turning short at North Greenwich more viable.

111. @Taz, Reynolds 953, PoP

     Concerning the 2% fall in tube revenue:
     I previously posted that London employment growth has only come in at 1.0% in the year to June 2017, whereas the trend has been for at least 2.5% growth in recent years. The employment trends appear to match the trends in TfL revenue growth figures Taz gives in his/her post at 9 November 2017 at 19:44.

     Since we are talking about a fall in TfL revenue and not just a slowdown in growth, as well as a concentration of the fall in the off-peak period, the above is clearly not a full explanation.

     UK inflation, as measured by the CPI, has outstripped earnings growth in recent years. Households are generally becoming more indebted and there is evidence of reduced household expenditure. This is national data. If it is reflected in the London area, one would expect a reduction in optional expenditure, such as leisure travel.

     I don’t follow the tourism visitor or expenditure statistics in detail but I understand that – again at a national level – they have been very positive, due to the fall in the pound.

     I won’t say much about Brexit at this point, other than to note that anyone who thinks that Brexit will have a positive effect on TfL revenues should not be in a position of responsibility.

112. 2% drop in revenue could be down to wage growth below inflation. This will effect the lowest paid more than others.

     Latest estimates show that average weekly earnings for employees in Great Britain in real terms (that is, adjusted for price inflation) fell by 0.4% including bonuses, and fell by 0.5% excluding bonuses, compared with a year earlier.
     (This is based on CPI, fans of the RPI subtract another 1%)

     //notayesmanseconomics.wordpress.com/2017/11/15/what-does-the-bank-of-england-think-about-uk-wage-growth-prospects/

113. answer=42 15 November 2017 at 09:13

     @Taz, Reynolds 953, PoP

     ” If it is reflected in the London area, one would expect a reduction in optional expenditure, such as leisure travel.”

     What proportion of that “leisure travel” is paid for separately, rather than additional journeys on Season Tickets or Travelcards?

114. If the reduction in off-peak demand is sufficient enough to reduce service frequencies, this would imply additional out-of-service time for a small number of trains.

     Is it possible that (some of) those trains can be reallocated to peak-time service (and hence an increase in peak-time frequency)?

     Obviously many (most?) of the trains in service during off-peak are also in service during peak times at one or both ends of the off-peak. Such trains couldn’t possibly be included in the above. But maybe this doesn’t apply to all units?

115. @DJL
     Nice idea, but…

     Most of the costs of increasing capacity are capital costs (infrastructure upgrades, rolling stock). The marginal operational costs of maintaining a nearly-but-not-quite-as-good-as-peak off-peak service against a much reduced one are really limited to mileage-related servicing and renewals, electricity, and drivers’ salaries. Of these, the last is the only one likely to produce immediate noticeable savings, and given LU’s history of industrial relations they are likely to think hard before handing P45s out. Especially if they think that the reduction in demand is likely to be temporary and that they would then have to rehire said drivers in a couple of years’ time.

     Against those possible savings are possible losses of off-peak revenue as the reduced frequency puts people off traveling or changes their mode. I wonder if the benefit : cost ratio [BCR]’s tiwn, the disbenefit : savings ratio [DSR – you saw it here first] will become an accepted metric?

     Current policy at LU appears to be to assume a given number of trains out for heavy maintenance (i.e. that cannot be completed between the peaks or overnight) and contingency, and everything else is used for peak operations: see comments upthread and on the previous article (IIRC from ngh) about effectively reducing the contingency by improving reliability and thus freeing up an extra train or two for the peak timetable. Reducing the service by a handful of trains during the daytime off-peak is likely to be sufficient to fill a depot’s capacity for light maintenance that can be completed in the intra-peak.

116. @Moosealot
     Yeah my question was more about the maintenance and reliability side of things, rather than any cost basis.

     It’s the “heavy maintenance” vs intra-peak bit that’s the key though. If the maintenance schedule is such that you require x trains to be out of service for a time period longer than the gaps between peaks then there is exactly 0 chance of increasing the available peak-time trains simply by removing them from off-peak duties.

     I figured this was the likely answer, but it’s still a question that’s worth asking.

     As for handing out P45s. You could conceive that you might keep the same number of drivers on the payroll even if you need less of them on duty at the same time, especially if the dip is believed to be short-term.
     Yes you lose a cost saving, but you also lose the pain of recruitment & training at a later stage.
     Of course you might potentially introduce other problems down the line (such as unions getting used to the idea of reduced hours / increased rest time)

117. @Alan Griffiths
     Only TfL can maybe answer your question. All I am trying to do is explain the reasons for the fall in TfL revenue. And I don’t need the answer to your question for this purpose.

     @Kit Green
     Yes, the new national employment and wages data came out today. The trend is consistent with what I had written. Your comment about the lowest paid is correct.

118. @ Alan G – I haven’t seen any figures for peak / off peak split by ticket type. However we do know that season ticket sales have been falling for the TOCs in SE England. I can’t see Travelcard being immune from that trend. Furthermore the pricing and technology options have pushed part of the market away from period tickets to PAYG / one day caps and 7 day caps (for Contactless). The bus hopper ticket has also undermined the viability of the Bus and Tram season ticket and will undermine it further when the “unlimited rides in 1 hour” facility happens in 2018. Chuck in on top of all of that an ongoing campaign by TfL to push people away from Oyster (cost saving) and on to Contactless then you have another impetus that is affecting season ticket use / revenue. The final nail in the coffin is that Travelcards are outside the scope of the fares freeze as they are jointly priced with the TOCs. If you do not use TOC services why would you keep buying Travelcards whose prices rise when the cost of using TfL services is falling in real terms?

     I suspect this is going to be one of those “unintended consequences” that hits home by 2020 and lands the next Mayor with some tough choices about the TfL ticket range and its pricing.

     I keep an eye on the periodic modal usage numbers and LU is clearly struggling and what growth there is is very modest on trams, DLR, Overground and TfL Rail. Clearly the latter two are affected by engineering works on a regular basis so the numbers are not wholly stable but the trend has clearly flattened. The P7 numbers have just been updated today – LU pass jnys are 1.8m down on the same period last year and 6.6m down between P2 and P7 this year (I’ve ignored period 1 because of the timing of Easter this year relative to the previous year). DLR and trams are static and LO has modest growth of 700k extra jnys year on year. Buses are static too which suggests that so far they’re “bouncing along on the bottom” rather than seeing more patronage decline. No sign of growth though.

119. My apologies – the 700k number for Overground is incorrect for year on year. It is 600k if you ignore Period 1. The 700k number refers to the jump between P6 and P7 this year and is fairly typical as P7 is the first post Summer Holiday period when we see a return to normal commuting levels as (working) parents are back at work and kids are back at school.

120. “introducing auto-reverse so that a driver can be changing ends by walking through the train as it is automatically driven into the turnback siding”

     It is not safe for anyone to be walking through the connecting doors between carriages when the train is moving, at least with the stock currently used on the Jubilee line.

     This may change in the distant future if 96 Stock is replaced by trains with a walk-through design like S Stock.

121. “The marginal operational costs of maintaining a nearly-but-not-quite-as-good-as-peak off-peak service against a much reduced one are really limited to mileage-related servicing and renewals, electricity, and drivers’ salaries.”

     This may be true where you own everything. However, a range of modern contractual relationships for both asset provision and maintenance have moved on to a basis where the lessor, rolling stock owner, or maintainer, is charging the separate operator by the car mile, regardless of any marginal costing element.

122. Mr Beckton 15 November 2017 at 02:18,

     Back to your comment about terminating trains at North Greenwich.

     I would be surprised if the number has increased. If it has then I am pretty sure that as a proportion of all trains it has remained the same.

     I didn’t mention this because the article was long enough already but I believe that it is not a case of wanting to terminate there but more a case of the limited capacity at Stratford forces trains to be terminated at North Greenwich. I suspect that because there are 3 platforms at Stratford it works best if they fill the platforms in sequence and then have a train terminating short when there is a conflict between incoming and outgoing train – so one in four trains terminates short at North Greenwich. This appears to be the case at all times except for the Night Tube.

     Before anyone asks, the reason that capacity is limited is because the trains have to approach Stratford slowly as there are buffers train arrestors at the end of the platform instead of a decent overrun (as at Walthamstow Central and Brixton).

     In the evening, at least, there is a slight benefit. It prevents crowds building up at a deep-level Underground station (Canary Wharf). It might lead to crowding at Stratford or even Canning Town but these are surface stations that should be able to handle large numbers of waiting passengers if necessary.

     So, if the frequency goes up from 30tph to 32tph then more trains will terminate at North Greenwich (8tph instead of 7.5tph) but it will also be true that more trains will go to Stratford (24tph instead of 22.5tph).

123. @PoP – “the reason that capacity is limited is because the trains have to approach Stratford slowly as there are buffers (train arrestors) at the end of the platform” – Would that still have to apply if the trains were ATO operated? After all, it was the enquiry on the Moorgate crash that eventually triggered the slow approach requirement but that was with driver operation and assumed that some future driver would not bring the train to a controlled stop.

124. Hitting buffers hard enough to cause death or serious injury is very rare, with either human or automated driving. There may not be enough cases to know for sure that the frequency is significantly lower in the automated case.

125. Graham Feakins,

     I believe a speed restriction into dead-end terminals still applies in ATO. After all, conceivably, the train could be driven in protected manual. In any case, the biggest danger is probably wet rails and ATO still isn’t perfect when it comes to that.

     Having said all that, the approach speed was raised at High Barnet when ATO was introduced. Apparently, a bit disconcerting for the drivers until they got used to it.

126. Pedantic of Purley 16 November 2017 at 00:29

     “Before anyone asks, the reason that capacity is limited is because the trains have to approach Stratford slowly as there are buffers train arrestors at the end of the platform instead of a decent overrun (as at Walthamstow Central and Brixton).”

     I observe that:
     1) its a long walk from the western concourse along empty stretches of platforms 13, 14 & 15 to Jubilee trains
     2) trains enter the platforms at much the same speed as at other Jubilee stations, or that’s the way it feels.

127. Alan Griffiths,

     Maybe it is the same, or nearly the same, as other above-ground stations. I can’t really believe it because I would have thought it would be restricted by the pointwork unless it manages to get a straight run in – which can only be true for one platform.

     I suspect, it is not the same as at deep-level stations. It is hard to tell from the outside if there are platform edge doors but from inside the deceleration on entering an underground station on the Jubilee line seems quite harsh – a real contrast to Stratford (and I concede some other above-ground stations on the line).

128. Speaking from experience on the front of Jubilee trains, the approach to outdoor stations generally involves hitting the start of the platform at 27mph, then decelerating steadily to a stop. There are a few exceptions, these include Stratford where a slower speed is required to negotiate the point work in front of the platforms. The underground platforms see the train hit the start of the platform at 37mph, irrespective of whether there are PEDs (it just feels faster when there are PEDs).

     On the Northern, trains hit underground platforms at 34mph, which given the shorter platforms than the Jubilee is pretty comparable. However, surface platforms are hit at 20mph, and the trains then crawls along the platform.

129. Draft of the TfL Business Plan 2018/19 to 2022/23 shows forecast passenger growth revised in light of recent experience. The current 2017/18 financial year expects a 3% drop on the previous year. Although the plan states “we anticipate an increase in Tube passengers of five per cent over this five-year plan”, annual forecast demand only exceeds that of 2016/17 in the final 2022/23 year (see page 34).

     The claim remains that “we are temporarily pausing our plans to buy more trains for the Jubilee and Northern lines” due to other capacity upgrades and Elizabeth line opening (see page 32) although there is no revised date shown by 2022/23, when such plans would be outdated. However, on page 23 we find “we will also make better use of our existing assets to run faster and more frequent services. On the Jubilee and Northern lines, we will bring in faster and more frequent services by making better use of technology and modernising how we work”.

130. I suspect TfL have made the right decision here.

     The busiest section of the Jubilee line is it’s eastern end. Mainly between Waterloo and Canary Wharf or so. The opening of the Elizabeth line should significantly temper congestion on this section, reducing the case for more trains – many passengers for Canary Wharf, Stratford, and some of the DLR connections

     The Northern line part of JNAT was always pitched as a “nice to have” add-on to the Jubilee line order, so if the case for the Jubilee is gone then there isn’t an economic case for new Northern line trains right now either.

131. Saw in Tramways & Urban Transit magazine that they are also arguing that re-opening of Thameslink services through London Bridge will reduce westbound transfers onto the Jubilee Line from the East London overground at Surrey Quays.

132. Phil,

     I can’t quite see why.

133. Renaissance77

     A fair point that I think most people would agree on. But I will reiterate an earlier point that building Crossrail was not exactly an unknown that has suddenly come to light. So if, as you say, the case wasn’t there then it wasn’t really there from the outset.

     On the Northern line, it may also be a fair point but I think, for once, London Underground got lucky and there is more mileage kilometreage out of optimising the signalling system and increasing the number of trains in service than thought possible a few years ago when the rolling stock order was proposed.

     They are still going to have to face up to the problem one day that they want far more stock on the Northern line than they have space for stabling. If the economic situation had been better it would have been good to make a decent start on increasing stabling capacity on the line.

134. Re Phil,

     they are also arguing that re-opening of Thameslink services through London Bridge will reduce westbound transfers onto the Jubilee Line from the East London overground at Surrey Quays.

     Surely Canada Water???

     I suspect they mean completion of London Bridge works rather than just TL pre se.

     There are 3 separate cases:
     a) via New Cross Gate

     Only if Southern run more Metro services into London Bridge and as TfL (London Overground) seem intent on using up any available paths on the slows to add capacity with their short trains instead of lengthening them and certain platforms on their network this probably wont’ happen to any great extent.

     b) New Cross

     Probably no change on the New Cross Branch as New Cross local users can get on an empty train

     c) SLL

     Probably some genuine transfer with the current appalling Southern SLL which should improve to 4tph off peak / 6tph peak so there might be some transfer to London Bridge interchange but them most Pax tend to go East not West at Canada Water.

     My BS-ometer is detecting a large midden on this one.

     As one of the original JLE team recently said to me about ELL platform length “Canada Water was bit of an oops wasn’t it”

135. @NGH

     Yes, I meant Canada Water, sorry.

136. Cancellation of planned new trains for the Jubilee and Northern lines will leave the longest period between new LU train deliveries since delays caused by the introduction of the PPP setup. Before then new LU trains arrived almost every year. [Reference: Underground News, Rolling Stock Deliveries, issue Jan 2016].

137. What is left of the World Class Capacity Programme after cancellation of plans for additional trains is revealed in the Programmes and Investment Committee papers for 3 July 2018. . On the Jubilee line up to 32 trains per hour will operate between West Hampstead and North Greenwich in peak periods by the end of 2021. However, the Northern line has to accommodate the Battersea extension within its existing train fleet, and may only offer an additional peak journey from Morden via Bank from early 2020, shown as a minimum aspiration. This leaves most branches at 24tph, which is the starting point on the Piccadilly line upgrade!

138. Taz,

     What is worse, we were promised 32tph Morden to Kennington as part of phase 1. This got put back to phase 2. Then the bulk of phase 2 got cancelled but both the TfL board and London Assembly Transport Committee were assured that the 32tph would be implemented and not be delayed as a result of cancelling most of phase 2.

     Now we are told this will only be 31tph. Although to give us a crumb of comfort it is said to be ‘at least’ 31tph. It will be interesting to see if it is exactly 31tph which is strange figure, or maybe, every 115 seconds which would give roughly 31.3tph. The trouble is that every 115 seconds means moving to a timetable in 5 second graduations which we currently only have on the Victoria line.

     It also makes you wonder how much real value is going to be got out of Bank Station Upgrade as far as increasing capacity is concerned if you are only going to put 1tph extra through the station – and that appears to be only in the morning and only in one direction.

     On top of that, we can now see that any service on the Northern Line Extension to Battersea is going to come at the expense of the rest of the line since it is pretty clear that, if the extension had not have been built, we would have more trains for the rest of he Northern line.

     Combining the two projects (Bank and Northern Line extension) roughly £1.5billion* has been spent on station capacity improvements and extending the line without providing a single penny to increase the capacity of the line measured in terms of trains in service.

     * I know £1 billion should be recouped from developers but that is irrelevant. A huge sum in investment has been made without ensuring that the necessary trains have been ordered to maximise benefits from those investments.

139. PoP
     I think you may be missing the point.
     You are correct in complaining about the lack of service-improvement on the N line, but …
     Bank station has desperately needed the now-in-progress rebuild for at least 20 years. It’s dangerously overcrowded on the N line platforms & the corridors are not much better. I try to avoid it, if I possibly can & the completion of the rebuild can’t come soon enough.
     ( We just need the promised new trains as well …. )

140. Greg Tingey,

     Not at all. I was very careful with my wording. Not only did I emphasise I was only talking about the issue with regard to capacity improvements, I was very careful not to suggest that the development was unnecessary.

     My whole point was that £500m will be spent at Bank but it won’t be used to best effect because there is no corresponding uplift in train frequency (or only a marginal one) . In other words the holistic approach has failed again.

     I had really hoped I had made my point absolutely clear but obviously not.

141. Taz, Greg et al,

     A further issue is that the Morden Branch (and the Charing Cross central section) needs to run at maximum capacity during the Bank station closure in 2020. Yet, it seems, we won’t now have the 32tph that was promised as part of the case made for the Transport and Works Act Order.

     Possibly worse still, the upgrade to 31tph is proposed for ‘early 2020’. It was early in 2019 then later in 2019. Given that any project with the word ‘Bank’ in it has a habit of slipping (the main station upgrade has already slipped from finishing in 2021 to 2022) I worry that the upgrade will end up not being done until after the closure.

142. “the Morden Branch (and the Charing Cross central section) needs to run at maximum capacity during the Bank station closure in 2020”
     That shouldn’t be a problem: the existing fleet should be adequate for that, given that nothing will be running on the City branch.

     “any project with the word ‘Bank’ in it has a habit of slipping”
     The Bloomberg/Walbrook entrance being a case in point

143. @PoP
     My guess is that they are planning on running a 32tph timetable but cannot be sure that they will have enough stock to fill all 32 slots between Kennington and Morden. The infrastructure is in place to terminate trains at Golders Green or Finchley Central which should allow for a more intense service further South using the same stock, rather like the Jubilee has managed by reintroducing the West Hampstead turnback. There’s also probably a desire to allow for recovery from delays caused by dwell times at Bank (pre-rebuild).

     Aside: when rereading the Bank upgrade series of articles, I found the introduction to part 1. So, for the amusement of all…

     Regular readers will be aware that 2018 should be a significant year for public transport in London, with the completion of the Thameslink programme and the opening of the core section of Crossrail from Paddington to Abbey Wood. It is also easy to forget the Victoria Station Upgrade, which is also due to be completed in 2018.

144. @MOOSEALOT Trains already terminate short at Golders Green (for example), I don’t see how they can terminate many more there without adversely affecting stations north of there, areas like Colindale are being covered in new flats for example, which will require more capacity not less.

     If nothing else, this makes the plan to permanently split the Northern Line pointless at the moment, as there won’t be the extra trains available to increase the frequency anyway.

     The 95 and 96 stock are decent trains, but as they are pushed harder I wonder if reliability will start to suffer. The 96s in particular, with their Networker era traction control

145. @ PoP – Still not to worry about not buying those trains because “WE SAVED £600M” (from the paper going to next week’s meeting) so that’s alright then. I completely take your point about a lot of this is beginning to look a tiny bit suboptimal. It’s also quite concerning that pledges made to official inquiries to gain planning consents are looking a bit frayed at the edges.

     And too right that the word “Bank” seems to be a curse. I see the Bloomberg ticket hall project completion has slipped to December this year. By my reckoning that’s nearly 10 months late and it’s not the only project in trouble. There seem to be real issues about lift installation and commissioning resources (Victoria) plus getting stations snagged and finished to an appropriate standard (too many to list). I wonder whether this is related to labour and skill shortages.

     @ Moosealot – quite correct about Colindale. The station rebuild has been approved and it seems Barnet Council are moving soon to new offices nearby. Planned changes to the local bus network have also been approved for introduction in September 2018. I can’t see why LU would wish to worsen the train service at Colindate in the light of growing (and future potential) demand.

146. @Mikey C
     “If nothing else, this makes the plan to permanently split the Northern Line pointless at the moment, as there won’t be the extra trains available to increase the frequency anyway.”

     I have been thinking for some time now that the proposed split of the Northern line won’t happen until well into the 2030s as it would only make sense if it was done at the same time as ordering a bunch of new trains (for the reason you stated). However, the only way this could be justified would be if the 95 stock was starting to get worn out and due for replacement. A possible timeline could be:

     – Northern line is split into Edgware – Battersea and High Barnet – Morden lines

     – New trains are introduced on the Edgware – Battersea line while the High Barnet – Morden line uses the 95 stock in best condition

     – In conjunction with these first 2 steps, both lines are upgraded to allow 36tph once sufficient trains become available

     – 95 stock soldiers on for a few more years until the money becomes available to replace them completely

147. Walthamstow Writer,

     I know. I know. But if you have saved £600m then surely it makes some sense to sweeten the bitter pill? I agree, reluctantly, that cancelling the train order was probably the right decision but I was expecting something a bit better with what we still have. On District Dave’s forum they are continually going on about how the TBTC train control system could be better on the Northern line so there is definitely room for improvement.

     We don’t know why they are talking about 31tph not 32tph though the assumption is a lack of trains. Until we see details of the proposals it is hard to know if there is more that can be done. For example, the track upgrade at East Finchley suggest better turnback options but we don’t know this. Nor do we know to what extent it is planned to use it if it is the case.

     You mention labour and skill shortages and I do wonder if that (within or outside TfL) is a possible cause of the Northern line upgrade not only being less of an upgrade than promised but also later than promised.

     I know money is tight but there seems to me something faintly absurd about planning for a £24billion+ new line which amongst other things is designed to relieve overcrowding at the southern end of the Northern line yet TfL can’t even manage to get 32tph out of this critical part of the Northern line which already exists. To echo Taz’s sentiment, for the latest upgrade of the Victoria line they started at 33tph.

148. @WW “I see the Bloomberg ticket hall project completion has slipped to December this year. By my reckoning that’s nearly 10 months late ”

     Three years late……..https://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/new-walbrook-entrance-bank/

149. It seems to me that the next chance for the Northern to receive extra trains is if it gets preference over the Central line, whose upgrade is not planned to commence until 2025. The current Central line trains are to receive new motors and computers, commencing next year, to improve reliability. If this results in a step-change in their performance, there could be pressure to extend their life for a further ten years. The Battersea project originally included five extra trains, to have been part of the Piccadilly build, before all their delays and the idea of a special build for the Jubilee Upgrade 2. A Northern line split was not required for 30tph.

150. @ANON E. MOUSE
     The other suggestion was for surplus 95 stock (after one of the split lines got new stock) to also be used to strengthen the Jubilee Line. This wouldn’t be a straight transfer (6 car vs 7 car) but at least the cars would be the right length for the platform doors.

     But this can’t happen until all the NTfL have been delivered which is the mid 2030s anyway.

151. Once upon a time, all tube stock could run on the entire tube network. Even the Victoria ’67 stock was augmented with 1972 Mk 1 cars.

152. @PoP
     Is there any progress on the East Finchley turnback dilemma?

153. Nameless 10:48,

     True if you mean genuine ‘tube’ stock as opposed to sub-surface. It was partly to enable trains to work on different lines and also as it was regarded as essential that they could get to Acton overhaul works.

     The Victoria line changed things as the tunnels were built slightly larger so it was thought more important to maximise useable space than remain compatible. With incompatible signalling systems and a lot of the signalling equipment now train based it seemed much less important.

     But the pendulum is swinging the other way again. Subsurface stock can njow physically run anywhere over the subsurface network (the wide ‘A’ stock was restricted before) and the Deep Tube Programme will see more lines being compatible – although length will still be an issue if wanting to work stock on a different line in passenger service.

     Nameless 10:51,

     No idea. TfL haven’t given any details.

154. @nameless
     “Once upon a time, all tube stock could run on the entire tube network. ”

     Could, and did.
     “Standard” stock, 1938 stock and 1959/62 stock ran on all four lines of the Deep Tube network as it existed until 1967. However, you need to stretch a point for the Central Line, as 1938 stock only ran (as trailers, with 1960 stock) on the Ongar and Woodford shuttles). The 1935 stock also ran on those shuttles.

     1967/72 stock ran on all lines except the Piccadilly (those Central Line shuttles again), but including both the Victoria and Jubilee.

155. A stock is about 25mm wider than S stock. Where couldn’t A stock go?

156. @Toby, it varied over the years they were in existence, but two areas which seem to have been limited by profile were the south side of the Circle, and the Hammersmith branch.
     The BR tracks of the Richmond and Wimbledon branches were also banned. This might have been because of electrical matters though?

157. @ Timbeau
     The 1935/38 stock was known first as the ‘High speed tube train’ within LPTB, and was originally intended for fleet use on the Central Line. Indeed initial thoughts were for third-rail capability as that is what the Central London Line had then.

     Of course, tube stock shoe heights needed to be adjusted to fit on what became the non-standard Central Line fourth (outer) rail, as it was and is at a different height to the other tubes because of some tunnel segments precluding ‘normal’ height.

158. Toby,

     An ‘A’ stock from the East London line was once routed back to Neasden via the south side of the Circle line when it shouldn’t have been. That necessitated repairs to the platform edges at Victoria (and presumably the train).

159. @PoP

     Re not buying new trains and lack of joined-up thinking etc. I do agree, however the benefits of the new infrastructure at Bank won’t be lost, and also the cost of the new trains is reasonably low so circumstances (economic and especially political) mean it could quite easily be put back in a year or two. I would imagine it could be a vote-winner for the 2020 mayoral election for a start. And there is the possibility the next Prime Minister will be the member for Islington North which wouldn’t hurt it’s prospects

160. Herned,

     If you can’t afford the trains intended for use now then you won’t be able to afford them later with even less potential useful life in them. And you can’t just go back to the bidders and say ‘You know that bid of a few years ago – we’d like to buy a few now’.

     It will be interesting to see what happens about HS2. If it gets built around 2026 (but bound to be late so lets say 2028) there might be a case, as others have suggested, for extending the order for the Deep Tube for a few Northern line trains (and associated depot capacity enhancement works) that might sneak in in advance of the Central line replacement stock.

     They might even be able to leverage some finance out of the government if the trains are needed to support their project and avoid embarrassing headlines about how Euston can’t cope with dispersing HS2 passengers.

     What I find more puzzling is why they seem reluctant to spend more on the TBTC signalling on the Northern line as I feel sure there is more that can be done there at relatively low cost. I do wonder if they are waiting to see how signalling of the extension to Battersea will go with the more modern kit that will be used for that.

161. Re PoP,

     As I said previously when the article was fresh – My thinking is that fewer units are required to get the frequencies up to the desired levels than originally planned as of margins were added everywhere, hence with a smaller order that costs less, the decision could be made later in time.

     There is also plenty of other low hanging fruit that can be done to increase stock utilisation levels (depot enhancement works)

     TBTC – Agreed, presumably the focus on signalling / TBTC at the moment is on getting the Piccadilly line contract sorted so there isn’t a repeat of the SSR contract saga along with dealing with all the SSR resignalling issues on the ground. If you have limited bandwidth* don’t take on more than you can cope with! Hence push back agreeing anything more on the northern.

     *Given the TfL re-org and down sizing isn’t going that well by any account!

162. Considering the fall in ridership & revenue with speculation about Uber & cycling, there have been media stories about London’s declining population, falling house prices, inward migration. Margate is gentrifying as hipster London-on-Sea.

     Retail is shrinking and gig work more common. Could be predicting travel for next 20 years will not be a projection of the last two decades.

     HS2 construction start is delayed, the new date for the award of the notice to proceed is March, four months after the original deadline of November. HS2 civils contractors have been given an extra eight months to adapt their designs to meet target costs

163. @PoP
     HS2 – try 2030 or 2031, those are the latest industry-savvy hints about a combined Phase 1+2A opening date, if it remains affordable. Don’t even guess about Phase 2B (with its read across to Crossrail 2)…

164. HS2 – try 2030 or 2031

     Two thoughts:
     1) Why does anyone bother with infrastructure schemes when most of those involved will be dead (or dribbling shells) by the time the constantly revised projects comes to fruition?

     2) Do the huge timescales deliberately allow current politicians and senior civil servants to avoid any criticism of their part during their lifetimes?

     How did the Victorians ever get anything done? (OK that’s three.)

165. @Kit Green

     Why did landowners plant oak trees which would not mature for 100 years? As an investment – even if the crop can’t be harvested until you’re dead and gone, the land is worth more with a growing crop than without. (Think of “Net present value” – an unripe crop is worth more than an empty field)

     Long-term infrastructure projects can bring short-term benefits, not only in terms of employment but in attracting investment in the area concerned. See for example the recent rises in house prices and other investment in the areas to be served by Crossrail.

     NOT building something can also result in businesses not moving in, or moving away to somewhere which is building, long before the infrastructure project itself is completed.

     Brunel never saw the completion of his Saltash Bridge, but the fact it was being built boosted the share value of the GWR because investors could understand the benefits it would bring to their company when it was completed.

     And even if the politicians and project promoters will be long gone by the time the project is completed, they may have younger relatives who will benefit from it. Certainly they will have young voters.

166. @ PoP – at a slight tangent to the Nothern Line issues I see that a senior TfL “media and PR” chap was quoted last week about Waterloo tube descending into underworkable chaos come the mid 2020s. This prediction seemed to be related to another push for CR2 which was quoted as being something “TfL could afford”. I’d like to know in what universe CR2 suddenly becomes affordable for TfL given it can’t currently afford to maintain roads or the bus network or apply mild improvements to the tube network. There’s no magic bullet on income post 2020 – fares are only assumed to rise by RPI and even that could be undone by political decisions. Even with levies on developers etc I don’t see how TfL can leverage additional borrowing or anything else. *If*, in a land of miracles, CR2 is given the go ahead I suspect that the Deep Tube Upgrade programme would struggle hugely to get beyond the Piccadilly Line given the huge funding demands such programmes place on TfL’s investment funding.

     @ Ngh – the TfL reorganisation is not going well. I am shocked [1] that you could say such a thing. 😉

     [1] not remotely shocked at all.

167. @ Timbeau – re Bank Bloomberg. My reference to 10 months slippage was over the last year or so. TfL can’t be held responsible for three years slippage given that I understand Bloomberg themselves had significant issues with the construction of their building. TfL were entirely reliant on that work reaching a satisfactory stage to allow their linking into Bank W&C level plus fit out to take place. Clearly there have been / are serious issues with the fit out stage.

168. @WW: CR2 can easily be paid for from the Brexit bonus! And we can all have a unicorn each…

     I’m not an economist, but at least I can add. It ain’t pretty…

169. Kit Green: “How did the Victorians ever get anything done?” As I understand it, by nobbling the land owners and doing everything quickly – or as quickly was possible in those days. I’m aware, for instance, that the Midland main line was originally intended to head North from St Albans along the line of the A5 through Dunstable, but the land owner said no and before any further negotiations took place they’d diverted to Luton instead.

     Dunstable has no railway.

170. @AlisonW
     Also the famous story about Captain Mark Hush, then general manager of the LNWR, who, when faced with local opposition to cutting down trees for a freight terminal, took his own axe, one evening, and just chopped them all down personally. Thus any debate became purely academic. Couldn’t do that these days (Phew!)

171. quinlet says “Couldn’t do that these days”.

     Maybe not exactly that, but it is amazing how often historic buildings (which the owner has been refused permission to knock down) mysteriously “go on fire”.

172. AlisonW 2 July 2018 at 21:07

     “the Midland main line was originally intended to head North”

     There was me thinking it headed south.

173. @Alan – in fact it heads more due north from St Albans than if it went via Dunstable.

     These objections were not uncommon. Kingston blocking the SWML, hence Surbiton’s existance. Land owners in the Misbourne Valley (there’s a reason HS2 takes it – more direct, and flatter to go via Denham and Wendover to get to Birmingham) blocking the Grand Union Canal, WCML and GCML, etc.

     Often the objectees proposed an alternative, or YIMBYs did, which made the whole ‘change of plan’ thing easier.

174. Si:

     I think you may have missed the point of Alan’s comment. The Midland main line was built to connect an already thriving railway to London. Yes, strange as it may seem in a London-centred time and on a London-centred site, it was possible at that time to treat London as an optional extra.

     However the line was built and promoted, it is of course possible (and usual, these days) to describe the chosen route starting from the London end. But a historically better way would be to discuss how the line was to reach St Albans, southish from Luton or south-eastish from Dunstable.

     A further complication is that the Midland Railway was already serving Bedford (on its previous, second approach to London (*)), so actually Luton may have been a better choice regardless of landowners’ wishes.

     (*) The first was via Northampton.

175. Dunstable had a station ten years before Luton
     LNWR Leighton Buzzard – Dunstable branch opened 1848
     GNR Welwyn – Luton – Dunstable branch opened 1858 (as did the Midland’s extension from Leicester to Hitchin via Bedford)
     Midland Railway London extension from Bedford via Luton opened 1868.

     The choice of route via Luton rather than Dunstable was probably because of terrain – the Chiltern ridge is at its narrowest north of Luton – this is why the M1 also goes that way.

     (cf Watford Gap – used by Watling Street, the Grand Union Canal, Telford’s Holyhead Road (A5), The London & Birmingham Railway (WCML), and the M1)

     I’ve never been convinced by the “NIMBYs kept the London & Southampton Railway out of Kingston” and “London & Birmingham Railway out of Northampton” arguments. Both railways were built in the 1830s, when steam traction was still too puny to cope with any serious gradients, so they were engineered to have very straight and level alignments, – heavy earthworks such as Tring and Woking cuttings were needed to avoid what, by the later Victorian era, would have been considered relatively gentle gradients so really hilly country was avoided wherever possible . Near Northampton the L&B reached its highest point where it crosses the main east/west watershed at Watford Gap, and wasn’t going to lose that hard-earned height by dropping down to the Nene Valley and back up again to serve Northampton. Likewise, the L&S took a route south of Wimbledon Village and Kingston town centre not specifically to avoid those places, but to avoid the high ground of Wimbledon Common and Coombe Hill that lies between them. It is also doubtful that a route beyond Kingston town centre to the west would have been possible that could have avoided Hampton Court Palace!

     Likewise, the London & Birmingham Railway would have needed some steep gradients to serve Northampton.

176. Alecs refers to “media stories about London’s declining population”.

     This is incorrect. The only stories I’ve seen have been about net internal migration. Yes, some recent figures show there are more people moving to other parts of the UK than are moving to London from other parts of the UK. But there are other factors that impact on total population – births and deaths and foreign migration.

     London’s total population is expected to continue to grow. According to the latest figures from the GLA, the current population of 8.9 million is expected to exceed 10 million by sometime between 2029 and 2032

177. Agree wholy with extrapolations based on past trends and pre-brexit activity.
     Recent TfL revenue losses suggested to me other factors at play than cycling and Uber.

     Several stories this year have described potential changes

     https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/uk-population-growth-at-lowest-in-a-decade-and-london-has-suffered-the-biggest-hit-a3874516.html

     http://lfpress.com/news/local-news/londons-slowing-population-growth-wake-up-call-for-city

178. @AlisonW: The precursor to the route the Midland built was the St Albans and Shefford railway, a joint LNWR-Midland proposal that would have followed the A5* from St Albans to Redbourn (so about halfway to Dunstable), but then veered towards Luton rather than Dunstable. Following the Ver valley would have been a logical consequence of the intended end-on connection to St Albans Abbey station.

     I thought I read somewhere that St Albans City station was originally proposed to be further east, but that local lobbying led to the noticeable reverse curves that bring the railway closer to the town centre – PIMBYism in action.

     *to be really pedantic, not the A5 at the time – either Mr Telford’s London to Holyhead road or Watling Street, depending on your preferred historical frame of reference – which shows that this has been a preferred transport route for a long time.

179. @timbeau: I’ve never been convinced by the “NIMBYs kept the … London & Birmingham Railway out of Northampton” arguments

     Local opinion seems to have varied between the townspeople, who were pro, and Northamptonshire landowners, who were anti, and whose views have an oddly familiar ring:

     there is already Conveyance for Travellers between London and Birmingham by numerous Coaches every day, at the Rate of ten Miles an Hour… no Necessity has been shown for accelerated Communication beyond what can be supplied by Means at present in Existence… the Persons whose Property and Comforts are to be sacrificed to these Objects, are some of them Noblemen and Gentlemen, upon whose Places of Residence large Capitals have been expended in Decoration and Convenience, which Capital will be newly annihilated; and others of them are respectable Yeomen, who dread the Injury that will be done to their respective Properties… it appears that the Expenses will be far greater than the Public are led to expect…

     The story about Northampton being opposed to the railway and then later begging to be served by it seems to originate with Samuel Smiles’ Lives of the Engineers. Smiles had his own agenda in pitching Robert Stephenson as a go-ahead engineer against ignorant opponents of change, but for the second edition he did at least go to the trouble of asking Stephenson, who explained that:

     It is true that the low level of Northampton presented a very great objection to the line approaching it nearer than it does but I had a strong leaning for that direction because it would have admitted of the line approaching the Kilsby ridge up the Althorp valley in a favourable manner. I was anxious to go in that direction for another reason viz that the line would have reached a point better calculated than Rugby for commanding the midland and northern counties.

     Relevance to the article? Robert Stephenson was already thinking one step ahead, beyond Birmingham and to the north. But if he had gone via Northampton, it might have made the gradients for trains from London to Birmingham worse and antagonised local landowners. Balancing the short term and the long term is really difficult in any project. Small decisions made at the beginning to avoid short term problems (eg. giving the go-ahead for the Battersea branch without including new trains in its budget) can come back to haunt you. But are they worth jeopardising the whole thing for?

180. @Aleks – please check what you write before posting – your second link refers, if you bother to read it, to London Ontario – not currently served by TfL…. [And the first link merely suggests that the rate of growth in London UK is slowing, not going in to reverse].

181. Ian J
     IIRC, in L T C Rolt’s magisterial biography of the Stephensons, he discounts the “opposition” to going through Northampton & states that the via-Kilsby route was the preferred one.
     [ Also, Smiles wasn’t above “making stuff up” to suit his politico-religious agenda – he was a brilliant propagandist more than an historian, I’m afraid. ]

182. @Malcolm

     Actually, I was responding to Alison’s comment about going North along the A5, and then mis-addressed it. Watling Street isn’t particularly ‘north’ from St Albans, especially compared to the MML’s actual route.

     @ Timbeau “this is why the M1 also goes that way.”

     Nope – the M1 goes that way because Herts wanted a St Albans bypass (which runs across the grain of the Chilterns) for the A5/A6 trunk roads that made a handy distribution/termination point north of London. As the St Albans bypass was going to have to happen whichever route the London-Birmingham Motorway took, then that option scored better than other options like the gentler route of Denham-Wendover gap-Aylesbury (especially as Bucks were against that routing, just like they were against every London-Birmingham scheme along that corridor from the Grand Union Canal to HS2) due to the two birds-one stone and local support.

183. The history of the choice of routes for roads, railways and canals is interesting, if somewhat off-topic. But please remember that many factors will typically have been taken into account, and even though some quite reputable historians do it, it is often misleading to make a simple claim that X was built where it was for one single reason. It can also lead to unprovable counter-claims. Far better to say that factor X must-have-been/was/could-have-been/probably-was AN important consideration.

184. @Greg T: Stephenson’s comments quoted by Smiles imply a more subtle point: that via Kilsby was probably the easier route for a London to Birmingham railway, but that Stephenson was tempted by the bigger strategic picture. So the interests of London and Birmingham shareholders might not have been the same as Stephenson’s own agenda, or the long term public interest (and in this case their interests won out). An example of the way any transport project involves messy haggling and compromise, and the inevitable NIMBYs can be used to tip the scales between one side and another.

185. Might it be relevant and bring us back onto something near the topic if I mention the chequered history of theJubilee line (nee Fleet line) and it’s originally planned terminus in Lewisham?

186. Ian J
     Maybe, but the important point from R Stephenson’s p.o.v. was to go through/by Rugby – an obvious junction-point for future expansion – as proved to be the case.

187. @Greg T: Except that Stephenson said that he thought going via Northampton could reach “a point better calculated than Rugby for commanding the midland and northern counties” – ie. the junction didn’t have to be at Rugby, which wasn’t inherently that important until the railway made it important – much as the Jubilee Line made Canada Water an important interchange.

188. Ian J
     Hmmm ….
     Rugby – Leicester (MR) closed before Northampton – Mkt Harborough (LNW) didn’t it?

Comments are closed.