Bakerloo Line Extension

[John H]

I rather think the extension of the Bakerloo Line is Phase 4 and a bit Stuart. (See my earlier post about Phases)

It is intended to deflect attention from the dismal performance of the railway.

[alywin]

And boy, has the Hayes line been dismal this week. Just my misfortune that I had to attempt to travel Londonwards on it 3 times in the first 3 days this week

[John H]

And boy, has the Hayes line been dismal this week. Just my misfortune that I had to attempt to travel Londonwards on it 3 times in the first 3 days this week

On any of the rail services in SE London it is necessary to plan for at least two trains to fail to turn up. Therefore you need to set off at least half an hour earlier than you should expect to.

[Likelife]

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

Sorry I've been away...

Signalling is a nightmare for Crossrail, having 4 different signaling systems for one route was pure stupidity from the outset. For the Bakerloo, I'm not sure how old the current track is. More rails are designed to last 40 years I believe, so it really depends. If the track is going to be ripped up anyway it'd probably be cheaper than having to retrofit the 4th rail. The signalling on the Hayes line would probably be replaced to match the Bakerloo, again rather expensive.

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

The ELL can definitely handle 18 trains per hour. I'm not 100% what the limit is, but I wouldn't expect it to be more than 20 unless they could get trains to continue beyond Highbury & Islington on to the North London Line. That won't happen. I'm glad for the extra 2 trains planned, however, knowing the knock-on-effects of delays, I'm skeptical whether the reliability can be decent. It's already a struggle to keep things on time. In the evening peak especially, the reliability of the Overground from West Croydon is dismal, while Southern seems to be ok.

Platforms lengths for Canada Water, Rotherhithe and Wapping are big issues for train lengthening. Whilst other platforms seem to be able to be lengthened to one extra car max, the three mentioned can't be lengthened. If the trains where longer, but two cars of doors where locked, you increase "dwell times", (the time a train waits at a station) as too many people are using too little numbers of doors. This reduces overall track capacity.

Another problem is the actual trains themselves were designed to be up to 5 cars sets max. I.e, whilst they can be coupled to another train to make 10 cars, the actual trains themselves can't be any longer than 5 cars. I believe the same goes for the entire Bombardier Electrostar design platform (the modern Southern & Southeastern trains are the same). The only way to get around that would be to order new trains - money TfL don't have. Overground have ordered new trains on the Bombardier Aventra design for other Overground routes, but they've been thwarted by never ending problems and are now very late. The Gospel Oak to Barking route is the second current PR nightmare for TfL.

And boy, has the Hayes line been dismal this week. Just my misfortune that I had to attempt to travel Londonwards on it 3 times in the first 3 days this week

I hear the annoyance daily with it.

The former "Southern Region" (Southern, Southeastern and South Western networks) is fragile. Something goes wrong in Lewisham and it can have an effect all the way in Hastings. The electrification system is cheap, things are old, the network is one of the busiest in the world and the Dept of Transport is incompetent beyond belief.

[JRW]

Can I just say that my earlier point about the New Cross Gate interchange onto the Bakerloo line was correct? It is planned as a station alongside platform 1 of the existing station, with direct access between them.

[JayB]

Yes there are weekly and indeed daily cancellations-and huge delays on this line and what is the incentive to improve it when as soon as people complain other people come on here to say how "fantastic" they find the "more reliable"service- until of course they too have at last to use it regularly and then it is such a very different story. Thanks for sharing the technicalities, it was very informative but i do not see that this is the main problem. I think the real problem is lack of political will and gross under investment in a shut off part of the capital- other areas of the country and indeed London for example have had third rail removed , new turn arounds installed, new signals, bridges widened and from network rail's own mouth-London trains which are more frequent and travel faster. Bring on the tube!

[stuart]

The Gospel Oak to Barking route is the second current PR nightmare for TfL.

Wow - I found out what you were referring to here: http://www.barking-gospeloak.org.uk/doc ... elease.pdf
And an earlier summary/prediction: https://www.citymetric.com/transport/lo ... ngham-4375

A right nightmare and a blame game no one can win. Nicking three of our Overground trains to hold the fort is a desperate attempt to retain any sort of service. With three less trains available that must make our own services more fragile. Still how lucky we are to have (mostly) a train every 5 minutes at Syd when all they can hope for an half hourly and sometimes hourly. Oh and forget weekends.

Plus improving and increasing our own services appears to be dependent on Bombardier sorting and delivering the new 710 class to the GOBLIN line and displacing some of our own class 378 from the Watford line to south of the river. Like Crossrail, it will happen but nobody knows when.

Stuart

[John H]

Can I just say that my earlier point about the New Cross Gate interchange onto the Bakerloo line was correct? It is planned as a station alongside platform 1 of the existing station, with direct access between them.

Interesting... On the satellite picture below... perhaps you can identify which expensive properties would be incorporated and where the railway line will run. Last I heard there were three vague alternatives under consideration.

This proposal is phase 99.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4752931 ... a=!3m1!1e3

[JRW]

All the information is available online from TFL. The station is placed diagonally across the car park

[stuart]

All the information is available online from TFL. The station is placed diagonally across the car park

Their latest public words (12/09/18) were:

The site of the proposed station at New Cross Gate continues to be evaluated. Work continues on the design of the station, looking at ways it can be delivered effectively while minimising any local impact wherever possible. The new station will be carefully planned to manage customer flow to provide an easy and efficient interchange with London Overground and National Rail services.

To manage the impact on local roads in this area, plans are being considered to move any excavated spoil, created during construction of the tunnel and station, by rail.

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/b ... extension/

Stuart

[Hissing Syd]

Interesting, re the above, thanks for posting.

Surely, even if the Bakerloo Line doesn't come to Lower Sydenham, at some point the station moving down towards Sainsbury has to be a fairly strong/logical proposition? Its current location, just off a meandering, lonely, badly lit road (presumably as a result of what's grown up around it) seems plain crazy.

And does anyone know what became of the campaign to re-zone Lower Syd, and the other Lewisham stations that ought by rights to be zone 3? I see this petition is closed now... https://www.change.org/p/sadiq-khan-no- ... n-lewisham

[stuart]

Back to pipe-dreams.

Mine is NCG was accidentally destoyed and they rebuilt it without the centre platform but used the free'd up space to make a double platform northbound (like the current southbound) to seperate Overground and Southern traffic. The current Southern mainline stoppers from Oxted would use the new Southern platform with their existing metro services from Sydenham. This would allow more fast trains to go faster through the station. Indeed they would have the capacity to stop a few (perhaps the direct Norwood Junction to LBG trains) to make a great interchange for swopping to the Oveground to go east or the new Bakerloo for the West End together with current west bound Overground passengers making space at Canary Wharf for mainly eastbound passengers.

A real hub. But there's no money 'cos we spent it reducing fuel duty (in real terms) so we can burn more standing in queues longer. Oh, for a rational transport policy and people to vote for it.

Stuart

[John H]

All the information is available online from TFL. The station is placed diagonally across the car park

Their latest public words (12/09/18) were:

The site of the proposed station at New Cross Gate continues to be evaluated. Work continues on the design of the station, looking at ways it can be delivered effectively while minimising any local impact wherever possible. The new station will be carefully planned to manage customer flow to provide an easy and efficient interchange with London Overground and National Rail services.

To manage the impact on local roads in this area, plans are being considered to move any excavated spoil, created during construction of the tunnel and station, by rail.

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/b ... extension/

Stuart

i.e. blocking access to Sainsbury, TK Max and the various small businesses that lie behind... It ain't gonna happen... but thanks for reproducing the TFL lies.

[stuart]

i.e. blocking access to Sainsbury, TK Max and the various small businesses that lie behind... It ain't gonna happen... but thanks for reproducing the TFL lies.

It's not in the car park - it's under it John and not directly in the way. There will just be shafts to the surface. Remember Sainsbury's are planning to rebuild the whole site in a way that will not effect the Bakerloo proposal - so they say. That's the place I would go with my truth-o-meter. Check out their consultation exercise. Difficult to imagine with the store plus 1500 housing units in that space plus access to a station. But hey-ho what do we know?

Stuart

[John H]

i.e. blocking access to Sainsbury, TK Max and the various small businesses that lie behind... It ain't gonna happen... but thanks for reproducing the TFL lies.

It's not in the car park - it's under it John and not directly in the way. There will just be shafts to the surface. Remember Sainsbury's are planning to rebuild the whole site in a way that will not effect the Bakerloo proposal - so they say. That's the place I would go with my truth-o-meter. Check out their consultation exercise. Difficult to imagine with the store plus 1500 housing units in that space plus access to a station. But hey-ho what do we know?

Stuart

I am not convinced. If they are proposing an actual underground route the cost will be colossal. It ain't gonna happen. Then again... there are a couple of alternative proposals that would cost a fraction of the amount but deliver a less than useful extension. Think of committees and horses... camels.

[stuart]

I am not convinced. If they are proposing an actual underground route the cost will be colossal. It ain't gonna happen. Then again... there are a couple of alternative proposals that would cost a fraction of the amount but deliver a less than useful extension. Think of committees and horses... camels.

The line goes under the railway so its underground already and boring a tunnel means they don't have to clear a building line apart from finding occasional space for working shafts. Tunnelling is expensive but the Bakerloo stock has to fit the very small tunnels on the existing line. It's not the same magnitude as Crossrail.

But I agree there's no money now. And few of us think there is going to be much more before we meet the Grand Reeper and if there is - it will be sucked up by CR2. The Sainsbury re-development approvals or otherwise may tell us a lot and, perhaps, precipitate decisions. Probably in the wrong direction.

On the other hand the Northern Line extension to Battersea - a not too disimilar project in scale and location is going ahead quietly. Boring is complete. Opening in 2021

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_ ... _Battersea

Stuart

[JGD]

Transport for London (TfL)’s Bakerloo Line extension received a boost on Friday when it was announced that one potential barrier to development in New Cross Gate was abandoned by its developer.

Sainsbury's, A2Dominion and Mount Anvil had submitted a planning application to build a new superstore and 1,161 flats in towers reaching 33 storeys next to New Cross Gate station. On Friday, Sainsbury’s announced that uncertainty around TfL’s plans made progressing their project “unfeasible”

TfL is planning to extend the Bakerloo line from Elephant and Castle to Lewisham via Old Kent Road and New Cross Gate.

Earlier this year the developers had submitted a planning application and suggested another site in New Cross for the TfL extension instead.

Damien Egan said that that the Bakerloo Line Extension would be revolutionary for Lewisham, would cut journey times between Lewisham and central London with trains every two to three minutes and would mean the construction of a new London Underground station at New Cross Gate.

The preparation and submission of such an application in the voluminous detail that was evident must have required the commitment of significant resources and funding.

To have it withdrawn by the developers after such a commitment as unfeasible so quickly, is intriguing. And what did they mean by, "uncertainty around TfL’s plans".

It begs the question - Is there a quid-pro-quo arrangement in place.

https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/1826 ... -scrapped/

[GRP]

Almost certainly. Or they have reached an acceptable position on the compo.