We take a look at the financial situation on the Underground in general and consider whether closing the Bakerloo line merits serious consideration.
One of the more dramatic effects of Covid19 in London has been the reduced level of patronage on the Tube and its consequent effect on revenue. Coupling that with a rocky relationship between Sadiq Khan, the current London Mayor, and the government gives the impression that the future of the London Underground looks bleak. It has come to the point where Sadiq Khan has set off alarm bells by talking of closing a tube line 'permanently'.
We never had it so good
We have been fortunate for most of the 21st century in that investment in the Tube has been substantial. Indeed, until three or four years ago one had the impression it was on a continuous path of improvement, increased frequency and steady growth of ridership.
This isn't to say that there weren't problems. Most notably, no clear strategy for replacing all of the old rolling stock and many technical challenges in running more trains over the same track. It was also true that large sums of money were being spent annually on capital investment. True, no new London Underground lines were being built, but it was recognised that the priority needed to be to upgrade the current system. Besides, Crossrail would be better than a new conventional Tube line. And the money put into Crossrail – even the originally planned budgeted amount – showed a huge amount of confidence in investing in London's transport infrastructure.
But we probably have had it so bad before
For the younger members of society, the current financial crisis might seem to be a unique event triggered by a once-in-a-generation pandemic. A slightly older generation, however may well remember how truly grim the London Underground was in the 1980s and early 1990s. It was starved of investment, which led to unreliable services and uninviting, unloved stations. The money that was forthcoming was really either a direct result of the King's Cross fire in 1987, which was a transformational moment for the Tube, or a fear of a future tragedy such as the rebuilding of Angel station to eliminate the danger of the crowded narrow island platform.
Another sign of decay and lack of expenditure on the Underground in the 1990s was the 'temporary' closure of Mornington Crescent and Regent's Park stations. The lifts were life-expired and there was no money available to replace them. Around the same time, the cost of replacing the lifts at Aldwych also led the the permanent removal of passenger services on the Aldwych branch. As is often the case on any railway these days, it is when significant capital expenditure is required that the question of closure becomes a serious issue.
Less publicly known, in the early 1990s the Conservative government attempted to renege on a promise to provide £700 million a year for five years to improve the neglected track on London Underground. By then however, contracts had been let and most of the £700 million would have been spent on compensation payments to contractors. On discovering this, the government reluctantly reinstated at least some of the promised money for that year.
The Aldwych branch as well as the Epping to Ongar service on the Central line did permanently close. But many people would argue that, in fact, these closures were well overdue anyway and weren't really down to a lack of investment. Passenger numbers were extremely low and falling, and there was no likelihood of them ever rising again. Even if the money was available, there were probably better things to spend it on. So despite these exceptional closures, the emphasis was really about cutting back the services, and occasionally station open hours, without really withdrawing services entirely.
Far more worrying from this period was the closure of the East London Line in 1995 to sort out the water ingress problem and build platforms at the Canada Water station which was being built as part of the Jubilee line extension. A listing order from English Heritage made the day before planned temporary closure, and the consequent increase in costs, meant that serious consideration was given to abandoning the Thames Tunnel between Rotherhithe and Wapping entirely, as well as closing the rest of the line. Of particular concern was that once the pumps stopped and nature was allowed to take its course, it was seen as next to impossible to consider re-opening the line in future. Of course, that did not happen, and today the East London line is a critical part of London Overground, but in all probability most people don't appreciate how near that came to becoming a reality.
And it happened from the start
If we go further back in time, it seems that it is only in the period from the formation of the London Passenger Transport Board in 1933 until World War Two that the Underground can be said to have received sufficient funding. This sometimes gets referred to as the golden age of public transport, and can certainly be considered the golden age of the Tube. Perhaps we will come to refer to the period from 2000 to around 2015 as the silver age.
Outside the 'golden age' and 'silver age', the story of the Tube, like many main line railways, is a story of a company (or companies) struggling to stay afloat.
The first deep level tube was the City & South London Railway. This appeared to be successful and always expanding. But the success was illusory. The line was planned as a technological showcase rather than a serious railway. Why else would it omit building a station at London Bridge? Its expansion southwards was not a measure of its success but a consequence of people moving outwards from the centre of London, leaving the City & South London Railway constantly having to extend southwards to recapture the traffic they were losing.
Later came the Waterloo & City line, built by the London & South West Railway. This was not built to make a profit as such, but as a necessary loss-leader to ensure that its parent captured the lucrative commuter market into the City.
After that came various new Underground lines (including the Bakerloo) which were in dire financial straights and rescued by the somewhat financially-dodgy Charles Tyson Yerkes.
The late 1930s saw various schemes started, but war intervened. For some, completion was delayed by the war then, afterwards, by a combination of a lack of finance and lack of steel. One scheme, the Northern Heights Railway, was abandoned altogether despite much of the infrastructure having already been built.
So what is the future of The Tube?
This is of course impossible to answer, and we are normally averse to crayoning. But in the current context it is a question we should consider seriously and we already have a few pointers.
Railway infrastructure once closed is generally quite difficult to re-open, and this must apply especially to the Tube network. An exception is when infrastructure is kept in a state of readiness for re-opening (such as happened in 2020 with the Waterloo & City line) but that means maintenance expenditure for which there is no corresponding revenue.
As Aldwych and Ongar have shown, in the past it has taken a lot to justify permanent closure of a Tube line or part of a Tube line. It is difficult to see that happening anywhere nowadays where there is not an alternative service.
Politically, closures are also hard to do, but there is a rich history of lack of investment and a general 'make do and mend' policy, until such time as there is the political will to invest once again in transport.
The 1980s saw an uptick in public transport use which wasn't really predicted. It didn't initially lead to much investment because it was thought at the time to be a blip. So, a bit like share prices, the Underground's long term ridership trend has always been increasing, even though events can lead to short term losses or reductions in numbers.
One consequence of the increase in passenger numbers since the 1980s was a reduction in 'short workings'. Today, very few trains terminate at Tower Hill (District line service), or at Golders Green or Colindale (Northern line). Metropolitan trains from the north terminating at Baker Street is the exception nowadays but it used to apply to all off-peak services. Tooting Broadway short workings have not been timetabled for decades, although admittedly this was partly down to a safety issue with the turnback tunnel.
Reducing services at the outer ends of Tube lines
The deep tube lines tend to be fairly busy and, apart from the Bakerloo, there are currently no serious contenders for closure. Although one could query how important it is for the Central line to serve Ealing Broadway once Crossrail is open.
There could be reductions in off-peak service frequency at the outer reaches of some lines, which would reverse improvements made towards the end of the 20th century. However, it has often been shown that such savings are actually quite small, and you don't need that many people on the train for it to cover its marginal costs. There is also the fear of the vicious circle where a cut in frequency leads to a cut in passenger numbers, which leads to a further cut in frequency.
A further problem with cutting back the service frequency at the outer end of tube lines is that often to save money in this way you need to invest money in creating or upgrading turnback facilities. In this respect the Jubilee line, with its recent reconstruction of the West Hampstead turnback and other turnbacks at both Willesden Green and Wembley Park, is already pretty much optimised when it comes to track layout. And the current timetable already takes advantage of the multiple turnback locations. This is good, but means that there really is no further opportunity for cost savings there, unless the core service through the centre of London is reduced.
In contrast to the Jubilee line, the Northern line doesn't really have turnback facilities at suitable places to provide a decent service and make operational savings. It has a turnback facility at Colindale but this is only two stops from the end of the line, and terminating some services there would only provide minimal cost savings. There have long been plans for a turnback at East Finchley, which was originally considered to optimise use of the available rolling stock. But here's the rub: To save operating expenditure you often need capital expenditure and that is something TfL don't have the money for. Otherwise they wouldn't be in a position of needing to cut services to begin with.
One can see just how difficult it can be to make savings in this way by looking at how British Rail struggled to get investment to automate level crossings, despite a potential rate of return that would have left businessmen salivating.
Is closing the Bakerloo line a serious proposition?
From the outset we have to remember that nothing more has been threatened than 'closure of a Tube line or part of a Tube line'. The Bakerloo line has not been officially mentioned, but it is generally assumed that is the line to which closure is most likely to happen. It is also the case that none of the copious financial documents issued by TfL, as they consider financial options available, have considered the closure of a Tube line.
We also need to remember that either the Circle or the Hammersmith & City could be 'closed' as the lines are almost totally replicated by other services. However these have relatively new rolling stock, are fairly busy, and their closure would lead to very little infrastructure savings. It also wouldn't lead to any more savings in staff costs than could be achieved by just reducing the service on both the lines.
Of course, there could be reductions in off-peak service frequency at the outer reaches of some lines. But, as we have already pointed out, the saving is actually quite small and you don't need that many people on the train for it to cover its marginal costs.
Is partial closure of the Bakerloo line a serious proposition?
The problem with attempting to fully or part close any Tube line is obvious from even the briefest glance at a Tube map: everything is interlinked and interdependent, and that makes any major opportunities for closure very limited.
An obvious contender for closure is the Bakerloo line north of Queen's Park. This could be served entirely by London Overground, who already share the track with the Bakerloo line and are not currently fully utilising their fleet. So savings by London Underground would be partially offset by an increase in costs to London Overground. There would be savings in track access costs but this would be reduce Network Rail's revenue. So if the government were funding the Underground, they would in reality be transferring internal costs from one area of the Department for Transport's expenditure to another.
A bigger problem is that the main depot for the Bakerloo line is at Stonebridge Park, which is north of Queen's Park. Without that depot, there would be only the 11 sidings at London Road depot near Lambeth North and four sidings in the train shed just north of Queen's Park. This would probably not be enough to run any kind of sensible service, and would not provide the necessary maintenance facilities for major examinations of the trains which take place on a regular basis.
One could argue for closure north of Stonebridge Park so that the line still had a depot, but this would only result in reducing the service to five stations and saving a 10 minute journey time (so 20 minutes out and back) on the four trains per hour that go all the way to Harrow & Wealdstone. The only likely infrastructure saving would be a minimal one in not having to maintain the 'fourth rail' that is only used by Underground trains. Even that saving may be one that saves money for Network Rail with none of the saving being seen by TfL.
Maybe not now, but one day
Although we have initially dismissed the idea of the Bakerloo line closing, there is a consideration for the future which could tip the scales.
It is well-known that the Bakerloo line trains are already very old. Even the Isle of Wight operates newer ex-Underground trains – and theirs are fully refurbished and could be mistaken for new trains. The Bakerloo line operates using 1972 stock trains introduced into service between 1972 and 1974. So the trains are already nearly 50 years old. Furthermore, these trains were based on the 1967 stock which was used on the Victoria line and was withdrawn over ten years ago. So, superficially, it wouldn't be unreasonable to regard them as already five years into borrowed time.
If there is a saving grace regarding Bakerloo line trains, it is that they are believed to be structurally sound after extensive work on them in 2015-2017.
The current Bakerloo line trains are the last of an 'old technology' era and feel very dated. Because the technology is simpler they could, in theory, be maintained indefinitely. However, the Bakerloo line, in contrast to the Victoria line, has tight curves and is a harsh environment to operate in. The fear is that one day the trains will require more tender loving care than is available to give to them. With TfL's budget so restricted, despite any optimistic words said, they really do not want to incur the capital cost of replacing these trains until they absolutely have to.
Unfortunately, there is no sign of any funding being available in future to replace the trains. We then get back to the issue that it is generally a expensive item of capital expenditure that leads to closure of the line. Once Crossrail is open, which will suppress demand on the Bakerloo even further, one could envisage a situation where the service on the Bakerloo line gets reduced, not because of reduced usage but simply because the trains cannot be maintained to provide the service. In case anyone thinks this is fanciful, this is exactly what happened on the Isle of Wight before the 'new' trains arrived. On some days there wasn't a single serviceable train that could be run.
If there were enforced train service reductions on the Bakerloo line because of unserviceable trains, there would probably be a reduction in demand. There then must become a point when either it is unsafe to operate the line due to the unpredictable service available, or that the cost of keeping the line open is disproportionate when considering the number of passengers still using it.
The Bakerloo line is currently lightly used and at almost every station there is a good alternative station. The main exceptions are Warwick Avenue and Maida Vale. Shutting the line might not be popular but may become unavoidable. It would also save capital expenditure, running, and some maintenance costs. Current indications are that the government wants TfL to be completely self-funding by 2025. Even if the money were forthcoming, there would be no chance of new Bakerloo trains before 2028 when the new trains for the Piccadilly line would have been delivered.
Maybe something salvaged out of a closure
If there is a real possibility of the Mayor (current or future) being forced (or choosing) to close the Bakerloo line, then there is the possibility of a silver lining. The Bakerloo line is due for an upgrade and upgrades are very difficult to carry out when trying to run a train service at the same time. We have already mentioned the East London line closing for years for a major upgrade. In fact, this has happened twice and the long term lasting impact has been to attract users to the improved line rather than cause passenger levels to go down. Similarly, the Waterloo & City had a five month closure for upgrading. And even the Isle of Wight had a prolonged closure (not all of it intended) in order to upgrade the island's railway.
It can be seen as a bad thing or an opportunity, but so much needs to be sorted out with the Bakerloo line. Most obvious is that it needs new trains and new signalling. There is also the desire to extend it southwards. Less obvious is that it probably needs a new control centre, the power supply could do with upgrading to allow for regenerative braking, and the voltage could be increased to 750V to reduce power losses and the consequent generation of heat. It would be wonderful if the tight curves could be tackled, as was done on the Northern line Bank branch in the 1990s. The only way all this could realistically be done is if the line were closed to enable the work to take place.
The long term future might be brighter
Recessions do not last for ever and neither do pandemics. Patterns of work, shopping and peak times of travel demand may change, but it is almost impossible to imagine the centre of London not being a busy place in future. It would be madness to talk of new Tube lines or new Crossrail lines if one didn't utilise the lines one already have. So things might look bad today, and the Bakerloo line may possibly have a long period of closure one day, but it is hard to imagine it closed forever. It's much easier to imagine that one day it will finally get its long-overdue line modernisation, including its new trains.
Setting the sights lower
Investing in railways, as with most other major projects, is generally a story of grand plans that get whittled down as aspiration clashes with economic reality. Given that it would be tragic if the Bakerloo line tunnels became an abandoned asset, there really needs to be some focus on sorting out what we already have and leaving schemes like the Bakerloo Line Extension and Crossrail 2 for more prosperous times in the future. It is clear that the Bakerloo line cannot go on forever as it is. We are moving towards a time, maybe five years away, maybe ten but unlikely to be much more than that, when serious consideration may have to be given to closing the Bakerloo line for an extended duration. At least until such time as it can be brought up to the necessary standards to operate as an Underground railway again.
Please avoid crayoning or erasing of lines in the comments. The focus of this article is on the impact of any closure, not the impact of closing a particular line or segment.
London Reconnections is entirely supported by its community. If you like what we write and what we share, then please consider joining our Patreon. Every little helps!
