Bakerloo Line Extension

[Pally]

What is an "Alantacist Neocon"?

[Likelife]

The Bakerloo is the museum of the Underground. It has the oldest fleet in service (1973), with no plans to replace before 2030. The frequency is only 20 trains per hour, probably could reach 24 at best. For any extension, the signalling for the entire line would need to totally be replaced, costing 10s of millions + before any extension can open to Lewisham, let alone Hayes. TfL have had to defer the more important Picadilly line resignalling as they have no money for that. There's also a real problem with depot space. An extension all the way to Hayes will need a new depot south of Elephant & Castle - there's no unused space to do it along the Hayes line unless you call playing fields unused.

Anyway, I thought I'd try to clear a few things up.

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.

TfL have no funding whatsoever for the extension. Unless private developers provide money or a Crossrail style levy is added to taxation, not a spade will be touching the ground any time soon. TfL has form for planning extensions, even getting them approved and them not being built (Metropolitan line to Watford Junction).

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.

The actual Hayes Line isn't full to capacity, the problem is that Ladywell - Central London is rather full. Cannon Street trains are currently planned to be diverted into London Victoria via Peckham Rye in a few years. Instead of diverting, Victoria trains, in addition, would've been better. Nothing is set in stone, and we'll know more once the new franchise is announced this year (the DfT has had a few issues there...).

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.

The proposal is to run trains to Hayes and Beckenham Junction via the spur limited used from New Beckenham. The Victoria line has only 2 platforms at Brixton with 36 trains per hour, however, trains come in at full speed as the track goes well beyond the platform, making this doable there. For Hayes it would be probably a more modest 24 trains per hour max.

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

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.

London Overground and TfL Rail are officially National Rail services, TfL just refuses to brand them as such. It's why it's privatised and you can buy a direct ticket from say Hoxton to Edinburgh Waverley, but you can't from an Underground only station like Bermondsey to Edinburgh.

Funnily enough, London Overground shares track with the Bakerloo line between Queen's Park and Harrow & Wealdstone. It also does with the District Line between Gunnersbury and Richmond. South Western also share track between East Putney & Wimbledon but it's only used once a day. In those instances the track is owned by Network Rail and I believe London Underground 4th rail 660V DC is used but, National Rail trains only use the 3rd rail. Track sharing does happen between Harrow-on-the-Hill & Amersham, however, Chiltern Railways trains are all diesel so the power systems are irrelevant.

The main problem with the Bakerloo line is that it's "tube stock", while the District & Metropolitan lines are "Sub Surface stock". Meaning the Bakerloo trains are smaller and have lower floors. If you take the Bakerloo line from Queen's Park to Harrow & Wealdstone you'll see all the platforms are much higher than the train floor as the platforms were built for National Rail services with higher floors, resulting in a big step down to the train. It would never be legal in this day and age to create the same situation due to 'elf and safety but also accessibility laws. This isn't a problem for the District & Met lines as they were essentially built as suburban railways with big trains, with even the District line going out to Southend once upon a time. This is the major financial hurdle for Phase 2, as either the Hayes line platforms would have to be rebuilt lower or, the tracks will have to be raised. Both cost eye-watering amounts.

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

Their concerns are also my concerns. It sounds all well and good, but one of the major reasons the Victoria line has never been extended beyond Brixton is due to the concerns of overloading. The Victoria is the most frequent Metro line on earth, yet it can't handle more passengers from extensions - Brixton is only zone 2. The same thing could happen with the Bakerloo at Lewisham, especially considering the re-developments there, at Old Kent Road and Elephant. Adding all the Hayes line passengers could cause real problems. To make it worse, Bakerloo line trains are 7 cars while Victoria line trains are 8, there's no luxury of lengthening trains there.

As for Overground to Bromley North, there's not really any capacity over Lewisham Junction allow this. It would also cause conflicting "paths" at the junction north of Grove Park with the fast trains from Kent. The slow lines are on the left of the fast lines while, the Bromley North line is on the rights. The only option would be to build an expensive flyover. However, the biggest problem is, any attempt to add more passengers to the East London Line "core" (Surrey Quays - Highbury & I) will never be approved due to overcrowding.


Sorry if it goes on and on, but it really isn't easy as many seem to think it is and that's without empathising TfL's dire finances and the current anti-London political sentiment at the moment with investment by people around the country.

[JRW]

Wow. Thank you so much, Likelife, for your very clear account of issues relating to the Bakerloo extension; it's given me loads to think about.

[Tim Lund]

Lifelike - I am impressed. As I wrote, "rail planning is something I tend to leave to others, because it is so technical". I'm not sure if it was always thus, but these days we are becoming ever more aware of the problem of every Tom, Dick or Henrietta thinking they are an expert, but I risk digressing here ...

Someone from Railfuture did get back to me, and wrote, referring first to the possibility of an Overground extension to Bromley North:

This does highlight the all-too-common challenge of keeping websites up-to-date! I suspect that New Cross-Bromley North kite was flown when the winds were more favourable eg TfL actually had any ‘spare’ money, and TfL faced the prospect of taking over South Eastern Metro. How things change, sometimes in quite short timescales!

We remain sceptical of any sufficient benefits to be generated by taking the BakerLew line extension further, set against potential downsides, and anyway it’s ages before it happens even to Lewisham and it all has to be seen in a wider context of long-term network planning [just look at the history and current trouble CR2 is having]. For our Current London and South East campaigns which you’ve kindly drawn others’ attention to you’ll have noticed our Thameslink-2 proposition.

I claim a bit more understanding of economics, which means I pick up on this

Unless private developers provide money or a Crossrail style levy is added to taxation

But for our politics, I might start speculating if this could happen. When I travel on services out to Bromley such as through Lower Sydenham, they scream out to me "development opportunity". It's great that some money has been found for Beckenham Place Park, but we need a vision for the whole area.

Of course, it's not going to happen

[Tim Lund]

What is an "Alantacist Neocon"?

I can guess, but as long as Sparticus doesn't flinch, or sneer at efforts to fight Internationalism in One Country, I'll be happy!

[stuart]

Also thanks to Likelife. Most informative forum post this year would get my vote.

I'm also guessing that installing the extra power rail would cause a year or more's disruption to the Hayes service which, with few alternatives, make it a no-no. Also unless phase 2 is part of phase 1 the new Bakerloo stock would not be equipped for signalling along this track and later sorting this as well as track power changes would be chaotically expensive (as CR1 is finding out to our cost).

Bakerloo to Hayes (or just Lower Sydenham) has been relegated to pipe dream in my book.

Stuart

[Likelife]

Wow. Thank you so much, Likelife, for your very clear account of issues relating to the Bakerloo extension; it's given me loads to think about.

No problem.

Lifelike - I am impressed. As I wrote, "rail planning is something I tend to leave to others, because it is so technical". I'm not sure if it was always thus, but these days we are becoming ever more aware of the problem of every Tom, Dick or Henrietta thinking they are an expert, but I risk digressing here ...

Someone from Railfuture did get back to me, and wrote, referring first to the possibility of an Overground extension to Bromley North:

This does highlight the all-too-common challenge of keeping websites up-to-date! I suspect that New Cross-Bromley North kite was flown when the winds were more favourable eg TfL actually had any ‘spare’ money, and TfL faced the prospect of taking over South Eastern Metro. How things change, sometimes in quite short timescales!

We remain sceptical of any sufficient benefits to be generated by taking the BakerLew line extension further, set against potential downsides, and anyway it’s ages before it happens even to Lewisham and it all has to be seen in a wider context of long-term network planning [just look at the history and current trouble CR2 is having]. For our Current London and South East campaigns which you’ve kindly drawn others’ attention to you’ll have noticed our Thameslink-2 proposition.

I claim a bit more understanding of economics, which means I pick up on this

Unless private developers provide money or a Crossrail style levy is added to taxation

But for our politics, I might start speculating if this could happen. When I travel on services out to Bromley such as through Lower Sydenham, they scream out to me "development opportunity". It's great that some money has been found for Beckenham Place Park, but we need a vision for the whole area.

Of course, it's not going to happen

There are people who know much more than me! Everything on rails is far more technical than meets the eye.

The project is a long way off and I am surprised at the level of support from Lewisham Council for the Bakerloo - from all the posters around, to even a 45k job in the town hall, considering the funding issue and not forgetting Bromley Council is firmly against it going to Hayes. The extension also has to wait in line after a few tube line upgrades, the very prestigious Crossrail 2 and other upgrades around the country.

There is a real belief that Crossrail 2 isn't happening anywhere near the hoped timescale, with Crossrail 1's delays making it worse. It's a shame considering how large the RER system is in Paris; Thameslink, Crossrail 1 and 2 together would transform London's transport (I do wish, like Paris, it was all branded as one network). Thameslink 2 is interesting, I remember it being proposed a while back.

I also doubt we'll ever see a huge vision, but one can hope. Right now, there are a few cheap transport improvements I'd like to see for the area that would just make life easier - better Sunday timetables for the Hayes & Penge East lines, Thameslink serving Sydenham (preferably 24hr), and a direct bus from Sydenham High Street to Bromley.

[stuart]

Right now, there are a few cheap transport improvements I'd like to see for the area that would just make life easier - better Sunday timetables for the Hayes & Penge East lines, Thameslink serving Sydenham (preferably 24hr), and a direct bus from Sydenham High Street to Bromley.

AFAIR the current design limit for the Overground is 18 trains/hr through the central section. Is that true? If so, there is capacity to add another two services from, say, Crystal Palace which would be a grat benefit in the peak - on the presumption that Crossrail will both encourage more users and, hopefully, cause a significant switch from the awful Canada Water escalator bottleneck to Whitechapel.

Is 6 carriages ever going to be an option? Most stations can take them and most people are able to workround the front/rear carriage doors not opening at the others.

Stuart

[JRW]

Sydenham will already be connected to the Bakerloo from Sydenham, with one change at New Cross Gate. It will probably be quicker than the Lower Sydenham route anyway.

[John H]

Sydenham will already be connected to the Bakerloo from Sydenham, with one change at New Cross Gate. It will probably be quicker than the Lower Sydenham route anyway.

Only if a tidy fortune is spent either on tunnelling or alternatively buying up expensive commercial and residential properties.

The map I saw showed no link.

[JRW]

https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/image ... -large.jpg

Dont know how to insert photos here, too complicated. But New Cross Gate is one stop before Lewisham, on the leg they are talking about quite definitely.

[John H]

https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/image ... -large.jpg

Dont know how to insert photos here, too complicated. But New Cross Gate is one stop before Lewisham, on the leg they are talking about quite definitely.

The proposal is for the route to pass to the North of New Cross Gate. Therefore, while shown on this schematic as "New Cross Gate" it will not link with the existing New Cross Station. Then again... there are three alternative proposed routes. None of which would create a link with the East London Line.

[stuart]

On the other hand John if you use Journey Planner now to go from the Brighton mainline to the Lewisham line it will favour taking the short walk between New Cross Gate and New Cross rather than interchanging at Surrey Quays. So a few minutes between the Overground and the Underground at New Cross Gate is likely to be no great shakes. Blimey changing from the Jube to the Victoria or Piccadilly at Green Park feels like a walk to the wild side and that is supposedly the same station.

People usually find a way to optimse their journey down to the point of where they stand on the platform. Well apart from my partner who accuses me of being obsessive about it ... so the Bakerloo at or around NCG is likely to be a great benefit to those using Sydenham Station.

Stuart

[John H]

On the other hand John if you use Journey Planner now to go from the Brighton mainline to the Lewisham line it will favour taking the short walk between New Cross Gate and New Cross rather than interchanging at Surrey Quays. So a few minutes between the Overground and the Underground at New Cross Gate is likely to be no great shakes. Blimey changing from the Jube to the Victoria or Piccadilly at Green Park feels like a walk to the wild side and that is supposedly the same station.

People usually find a way to optimse their journey down to the point of where they stand on the platform. Well apart from my partner who accuses me of being obsessive about it ... so the Bakerloo at or around NCG is likely to be a great benefit to those using Sydenham Station.

Stuart

Hmmm. This is London. The next tube stop is beyond the edge of the planet. Unless they are contained within a single building they do not change... Look at Shadwell... Little used link because it is a hundred yards on the street... Mind you... it is not a pleasant place to walk, day or night.

[JRW]

Thanks for the clarification; when I saw New Cross Gate, I thought they meant the existing station. Personally, I would definitely be up for walking between stations, but unfortunately that affects the price of the journey. If they could think up a solution for pricing, it would allow a lot more flexibility and capacity on the network. Maybe a limited window for tapping out at one station and tapping in.at.the.other station?

[John H]

As usual it is a phase 3 proposition.

In the public sector (and given I worked for years in the public sector delivering such projects) there are always three phases.

Phase ONE delivers what the officers want.

Phase TWO delivers what the elected representatives want.

Phase THREE delivers what the public want.

It is rare for anything to progress beyond Phase ONE. It is exceedingly rare for anything to progress beyond Phase TWO.

Yes. You've guessed it. The money runs out!

Meanwhile, in my experience, the quickest way from Brighton to Lewisham is to travel into London Bridge and get a train back out from there.

[Tim Lund]

I guess what the officers want is always the most modest because they're the only ones who look at the budget for any project

[John H]

I guess what the officers want is always the most modest because they're the only ones who look at the budget for any project

How generous of you... and misguided.

[stuart]

Coincidentally this week's Newsshopper contains an advert from Sainsbury's calling a community consultation on their New Cross Gate redevelopment which, it says, "will not disrupt TfL's aspirations to extend the Bakerloo Line to New Cross Gate"

It refers you to the project website at http://nxgproject.mountanvil.com/about which has very little information but does contain this little gem:

"This mixed-use scheme, currently being referred to as ‘New Cross Gate’, will transform this overlooked site into a new urban quarter at the very heart of Whitechapel"

Does that mean NCG will get the District Line too?

Stuart

[Tim Lund]

"This mixed-use scheme, currently being referred to as ‘New Cross Gate’, will transform this overlooked site into a new urban quarter at the very heart of Whitechapel"

I think that's just marketing, like referring to Sydenham as Penge borders