Bakerloo Line Extension

[Mayowthorpe]

Back the Bakerloo line extension from Lewisham through to Hayes via Lower Sydenham.

https://www.backthebakerloo.org.uk

[Tim Lund]

Just signed

[alywin]

Sorry, I don't see that this has anything to do with the extension beyond Lewisham?

And even if it does, I have very major reservations about losing the Hayes line. It's quite long enough as it is - and getting longer - without diverting round any more of SE London than is absolutely necessary.

[KEVD]

Have signed. Would be very good to get it.

[SydenhamOwl]

Is there anything new on this? Haven't they been saying this for years and years?

[Mayowthorpe]

Sorry, I don't see that this has anything to do with the extension beyond Lewisham?

And even if it does, I have very major reservations about losing the Hayes line. It's quite long enough as it is - and getting longer - without diverting round any more of SE London than is absolutely necessary.

You wont lose the Hayes line. The tube will run on the same tracks (making the extension easier than other options), and be more frequent. I am unsure where it would be diverted?

[Mayowthorpe]

Is there anything new on this? Haven't they been saying this for years and years?

Yes, but it takes time to plan, consult and fund. Phase 1 is approved, and construction will start in due course Phase 2 is the proposed extension to Catford, Sydenham and Hayes.

[Mayowthorpe]

Sorry, I don't see that this has anything to do with the extension beyond Lewisham?

See "Phase 2". Scroll down the page a bit.

[Willy]

You wont lose the Hayes line. The tube will run on the same tracks (making the extension easier than other options), and be more frequent. I am unsure where it would be diverted?

The Hayes line is already at full capacity so adding some Bakerloo trains means losing some of the current services. There's talk of dropping the Cannon Street trains so all those users would be pushed onto the Charing Cross trains which are already pretty busy. Obviously some of those people would then use the Bakerloo trains but it's a pretty bad deal for the Cannon Street users for not a lot of gain.

[Tim Lund]

You wont lose the Hayes line. The tube will run on the same tracks (making the extension easier than other options), and be more frequent. I am unsure where it would be diverted?

The Hayes line is already at full capacity so adding some Bakerloo trains means losing some of the current services. There's talk of dropping the Cannon Street trains so all those users would be pushed onto the Charing Cross trains which are already pretty busy. Obviously some of those people would then use the Bakerloo trains but it's a pretty bad deal for the Cannon Street users for not a lot of gain.

This does feel a bit like the opposition to the London Overground coming to Sydenham because it meant we lost direct services to Charing Cross

[alywin]

You wont lose the Hayes line. The tube will run on the same tracks (making the extension easier than other options), and be more frequent. I am unsure where it would be diverted?

Sorry, I'm not clear on this (and the proposal is stunningly unclear, from what I can see). Are you suggesting that tube and rail should *share* the tracks down to Hayes? What is to happen at Hayes? I thought the station only had two bay platforms, though I could be wrong.

[stuart]

I thought the station only had two bay platforms, though I could be wrong.

A 2 bay station can easily sustain 8 trains/hour - double the current service. The blockage is a shortage of terminus platforms at the other end in central London. Running through Bakerloo trains neatly solves that issue. It would also offer more connectivity.

Stuart

[JGD]

Sorry, I'm not clear on this (and the proposal is stunningly unclear, from what I can see). Are you suggesting that tube and rail should *share* the tracks down to Hayes? What is to happen at Hayes? I thought the station only had two bay platforms, though I could be wrong.

Track share is common practice on many routes all over London and where the destinations can be very different, the introduction of new destinations often leads to a re-distribution of passengers as they elect to change their route.

However, I am not sure how many bay platforms Hayes has is key. The plan I think is to run the proposed extended service only as far as Lower Sydenham. I have seen no details whatsoever, but it may be the case that they will terminate the trains at Lower Sydenham on the down platform, run the empty train a little further beyond the station then switch tracks to place the train on the up line and reverse the service. There may of course be other stabling arrangements further south on the route that can be brought into use.

[stuart]

Track share is common practice on many routes all over London and where the destinations can be very different, the introduction of new destinations often leads to a re-distribution of passengers as they elect to change their route.

Track sharing on the Overground is common as they share the same power systems (third rail/catenary). I can't immediately thing of any shared Underground lines. How do they get over the problem of combining 3 and 4 rail power distribution?

Stuart

[alywin]

That doesn't sound easy to me, trying to thread turning trains round into the rail schedule without blocking up either the down or the up line at inappropriate moments. There must surely be a better option planned. In fact, it would make more sense, I'd have thought, to run a line down to New Beckenham, then you could turn the trains on the spur to Beckenham Junction which I don't think is used very much. In fact, perhaps that's what they'll do.

http://carto.metro.free.fr/cartes/metro ... r-sydenham

(takes someone French to product a rail map of UK stations, by the look of it!)

[Tim Lund]

That doesn't sound easy to me, trying to thread turning trains round into the rail schedule without blocking up either the down or the up line at inappropriate moments. There must surely be a better option planned. In fact, it would make more sense, I'd have thought, to run a line down to New Beckenham, then you could turn the trains on the spur to Beckenham Junction which I don't think is used very much. In fact, perhaps that's what they'll do.

http://carto.metro.free.fr/cartes/metro ... r-sydenham

(takes someone French to product a rail map of UK stations, by the look of it!)

That's a pretty cool looking map!

To your main point, none of this is easy. Arguing about rail planning is something I tend to leave to others, because it is so technical, and there other things I focus on. OTOH, I am a member of RailFuture, formerly known as the Railway Development Society, whose members, volunteers, but often with a lot of professional experience, will have an informed opinion on this sort of thing. So I just looked up what they had to say, and, in 2014 at least, they were not that keen on Bakerloo Line Extension beyond Lewisham. For some context, here's a current list of what they are lobbying for

Current London and South East campaigns

which I notice includes extending Overground services from New Cross to Bromley North. As a member, I'll email them, and see if they have any comment on this thread

[JGD]

The Met line and mainline share a portion of the route from Harrow and Wealdstone and the mix of power supplies seems to work quite well.
Having said that I am a survivor of the Great Kensal Rise train crash of the late nineteen eighties.
The mainline train I was travelling in ran into the back of and over the top of a Met line underground train.
The tv pics were very dramatic but luckily it was all relatively minor injuries. I was thrown forward in my carriage and took out my travelling companion who suffered a dislocated shoulder.

[parker]

You wont lose the Hayes line. The tube will run on the same tracks (making the extension easier than other options), and be more frequent. I am unsure where it would be diverted?

The Hayes line is already at full capacity so adding some Bakerloo trains means losing some of the current services. There's talk of dropping the Cannon Street trains so all those users would be pushed onto the Charing Cross trains which are already pretty busy. Obviously some of those people would then use the Bakerloo trains but it's a pretty bad deal for the Cannon Street users for not a lot of gain.

This does feel a bit like the opposition to the London Overground coming to Sydenham because it meant we lost direct services to Charing Cross

Yep, and a pain in the ass losing direct Charing X services has been ever since. Because we all wanted to go to Whitechapel or Highbury didn’t we...

[sparticus]

Yep, and a pain in the ass losing direct Charing X services has been ever since. Because we all wanted to go to Whitechapel

A matter of personal preference- I much prefer having direct trains to Whitechapel, Shoreditch and Highbury and don't miss the direct Charing Cross service at all.

But of course it's all hypothetical. If the Atlantacist neocons and imperial fantasists that are about to plunge us into years of social conflict and falling living standards have their way- which is looking increasingly likely- there won't be any money for anything like tube line extensions anyway.

[John H]

The Hayes line is already at full capacity so adding some Bakerloo trains means losing some of the current services. There's talk of dropping the Cannon Street trains so all those users would be pushed onto the Charing Cross trains which are already pretty busy. Obviously some of those people would then use the Bakerloo trains but it's a pretty bad deal for the Cannon Street users for not a lot of gain.

This does feel a bit like the opposition to the London Overground coming to Sydenham because it meant we lost direct services to Charing Cross

Yep, and a pain in the ass losing direct Charing X services has been ever since. Because we all wanted to go to Whitechapel or Highbury didn’t we...

How you deduce the Hayes line is at "full capacity" I do not know. Four trains an hours is nowhere near full capacity. 30 trains an hour might be. However the line south of Beckenham is very lightly used by passengers. An extension of the East London line as far as Beckenham... a little additional link to the line going through Birkbeck... a modification of the layout at Crystal Palace and the busiest parts of the two Sydenham lines might be provided with a more useful service. Yes I know some idiot has allowed a little housing estate to be built in the way! What a shame the other Crystal Palace station and its line to Nunhead is gone. We have, however, a generation of planners who believe that all that is man made is immovable.