Bakerloo Line extension to Watford Junction.

[Busaholic]

I would expect TfL to put zero effort into freeing up paths into London Bridge, at least until there is a chance of it going orange again!

3tph Bromley North direct to CX?

 

[JamesRowden]

BLE will not go further than Lewisham, and the reasons are obvious:-
they don't want already packed trains entering the central area.

A good design for the extension would leave options open to take the line down the Hayes line in the future, but it is not going to happen with this extension.

The Lewisham connection will relieve pressure on southeastern services. It will also mean passengers from Lewisham and New Cross can get into Charing Cross on trains that arrive empty instead of already full, which is pretty nice.

Extending the Bakerloo Line only to Lewisham might produce a case for cutting the peak level of service between Lewisham and London Bridge to allow other Southeastern routes to also get a capacity boost.

 

[Busaholic]

Extending the Bakerloo Line only to Lewisham might produce a case for cutting the peak level of service between Lewisham and London Bridge to allow other Southeastern routes to also get a capacity boost.

I thought that diversion to Victoria was not possible for any more services for pathing reasons, or are you suggesting cutting the frequency of Bexleyheath and Sidcup line trains? AFAIK nothing can be terminated at Lewisham from further out except in emergency.

 

[JamesRowden]

I thought that diversion to Victoria was not possible for any more services for pathing reasons, or are you suggesting cutting the frequency of Bexleyheath and Sidcup line trains? AFAIK nothing can be terminated at Lewisham from further out except in emergency.

There's presently a 10tph peak metro service via Bexleyheath but only a 6tph peak metro service on the Hayes and Grove Park routes.

Other options include:

• One of the 3tph worth of services which presently run via Charlton and Lewisham could be rerouted to run via Deptford.
• The number of Hayes services running via Lewisham could be cut from 3tph to 2tph with 4tph rather than 3tph running via the quicker route to London Bridge.
• More services could run non-stop through Lewisham.

 

[LU_timetabler]

Yes relief of Lewisham means more trains can skip the stop,it also means more seats empty or more space to stand as not so many people for Lewisham. Whether it actually allows an increase in paths into London I'm not so sure, I suspect not as those limits are imposed by the choked throat of Canon Street and Charing Cross, otherwise known as London Bridge!!

 

[JamesRowden]

Yes relief of Lewisham means more trains can skip the stop,it also means more seats empty or more space to stand as not so many people for Lewisham. Whether it actually allows an increase in paths into London I'm not so sure, I suspect not as those limits are imposed by the choked throat of Canon Street and Charing Cross, otherwise known as London Bridge!!

Which is why extending the Bakerloo Line to Hayes rather than just to Lewisham might be value for money compared to trying to add more capacity via London Bridge once line capacity is fully utilised.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

How much pressure would an extension to Lewisham take off the DLR?

 

[glbotu]

How much pressure would an extension to Lewisham take off the DLR?

I'd suggest little. There are 2tph to Victoria, 6tph to Charing Cross (and Waterloo East) and 8tph to Cannon Street from Lewisham. The Bakerloo will take people from Lewisham to Waterloo and Charing Cross, which means the fastest line to the city will still be main line to Cannon Street. The DLR is really there for getting people to Canary Wharf and Stratford. If anything, pressure will increase, because people from the Old Kent Road area will probably get on the Bakerloo and hence Lewisham to make their way to Canary Wharf and Stratford.

 

[Busaholic]

How much pressure would an extension to Lewisham take off the DLR?

There could be an outcry if more SouthEastern services skipped Lewisham in the peak from all the people working at Canary Wharf living in Chislehurst, New Beckenham or wherever.

 

[Busaholic]

If anything, pressure will increase, because people from the Old Kent Road area will probably get on the Bakerloo and hence Lewisham to make their way to Canary Wharf and Stratford.

I agree - it may take some of those people (especially those living to the east of the Old Kent Road) off the Jubilee, though, which would be a bonus. I guess the fare zones will be a factor too.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There could be an outcry if more SouthEastern services skipped Lewisham in the peak from all the people working at Canary Wharf living in Chislehurst, New Beckenham or wherever.

I agree. I'd also point out that when the Bakerloo line gets to Lewisham, Lewisham will become a far more important interchange than at present. That will increase the demand for more services to stop there, not - as some posters are suggesting - fewer. If I was working at the DfT or Network Rail and had responsibility for long term planning, I'd be seriously thinking about what can be done to increase capacity at Lewisham for when people start wanting to change to the Bakerloo line there. (A tough problem to solve, although I suspect you could go a fair way by routing more services to eliminate conflicts there: Most trains from Blackheath via St Johns and most trains from Hither Green/Ladywell avoiding St Johns, for example).

 

[LU_timetabler]

I agree. I'd also point out that when the Bakerloo line gets to Lewisham, Lewisham will become a far more important interchange than at present. That will increase the demand for more services to stop there, not - as some posters are suggesting - fewer. If I was working at the DfT or Network Rail and had responsibility for long term planning, I'd be seriously thinking about what can be done to increase capacity at Lewisham for when people start wanting to change to the Bakerloo line there. (A tough problem to solve, although I suspect you could go a fair way by routing more services to eliminate conflicts there: Most trains from Blackheath via St Johns and most trains from Hither Green/Ladywell avoiding St Johns, for example).

Well that won't soon be possible. All Cannon Street trains will have to go via St Johns and stop at New Cross, all Charing X trains will have to use the passing lines for these stations, due to the new Bemondsey dive-under and Thameslink tracks in the middle. I'm quite sure the Bexleyheath line passengers would be most upset to have all their services routed into Cannon Street. As would the Sidcup line passengers to be told no services to Lewisham and everything via the passing lines at New Cross. Peak times there are already a large number of Sidcup line services that leave London Bridge (ex Charing X) with first stop Hither Green.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Well that won't soon be possible. All Cannon Street trains will have to go via St Johns and stop at New Cross, all Charing X trains will have to use the passing lines for these stations, due to the new Bemondsey dive-under and Thameslink tracks in the middle. I'm quite sure the Bexleyheath line passengers would be most upset to have all their services routed into Cannon Street.

I don't think it'd be such an issue. Remember that by then, London Bridge will have long since fully re-opened, so changing there will be very easy. While it's true that some people might object to all their trains going to the same destination, if the result is that they can get a more frequent/more reliable service, with easy interchange to other London termini, there's a good case for arguing that's a better outcome. Right now Bexleyheath has a somewhat irregular service - and trains to any given terminus are infrequent. If that was replaced by - for example - a train every 7-8 minutes to Cannon Street, with an easy opportunity to change at Lewisham for Victoria or the Bakerloo line, and at London Bridge for Thameslink or Waterloo or Charing Cross (also reachable by changing at Lewisham) - would anyone really have good grounds for complaining?

As would the Sidcup line passengers to be told no services to Lewisham and everything via the passing lines at New Cross. Peak times there are already a large number of Sidcup line services that leave London Bridge (ex Charing X) with first stop Hither Green.

I'm not sure where you get 'no services to Lewisham' from. What I'm suggesting is that most trains through Blackheath run via St. John's to Cannon Street, and most trains from Ladywell or Hither Green (including the Sidcup line) run through Lewisham to Charing Cross (via the St.Johns-avoiding line. The Tanners Hill flydown if I remember the name correctly (?), plus a few to Victoria) - since this would largely eliminate the conflicts that are currently so restricting capacity at Lewisham.

(It's possible though that one weakness in my suggestion might be: Would increasing capacity at Lewisham just mean you run into no more capacity at the London termini?)

 

[Busaholic]

Well that won't soon be possible. All Cannon Street trains will have to go via St Johns and stop at New Cross, all Charing X trains will have to use the passing lines for these stations, due to the new Bemondsey dive-under and Thameslink tracks in the middle. I'm quite sure the Bexleyheath line passengers would be most upset to have all their services routed into Cannon Street. As would the Sidcup line passengers to be told no services to Lewisham and everything via the passing lines at New Cross. Peak times there are already a large number of Sidcup line services that leave London Bridge (ex Charing X) with first stop Hither Green.

Greenwich line passengers were told they'd have to like it or lump it! No point in mentioning once again how the opportunity was wasted with the London Bridge/Bermondsey shenanigans to retain more SE flexibility.

 

[LU_timetabler]

Route flexibility is the enemy of reliable services and maximum running capacity.

It is a real problem for an interweaving network like SouthEastern.

Train services are better when trains are kept on exclusive routes. That once a train is assigned to a particular route it stays on that route for the whole day. In this way problems on one part of a network don't spread elsewhere.

SouthEastern network's problem is that north of London Bridge there is a section of only 1 up and 1 down to Waterloo East. That's the capacity constraint and unless you actually find a way to remove some trains on that section of track, nothing else changes in terms of total tph achievable, whatever destination and route to get there they may take. That's why giving the Hayes line to LU would make a difference. They aren't doing it, so extending the Bakerloo to Lewisham simply increases seating capacity on existing Lewisham services from other stations to London.

 

[Busaholic]

Route flexibility is the enemy of reliable services and maximum running capacity.

It is a real problem for an interweaving network like SouthEastern.

Train services are better when trains are kept on exclusive routes. That once a train is assigned to a particular route it stays on that route for the whole day. In this way problems on one part of a network don't spread elsewhere.

SouthEastern network's problem is that north of London Bridge there is a section of only 1 up and 1 down to Waterloo East. That's the capacity constraint and unless you actually find a way to remove some trains on that section of track, nothing else changes in terms of total tph achievable, whatever destination and route to get there they may take. That's why giving the Hayes line to LU would make a difference. They aren't doing it, so extending the Bakerloo to Lewisham simply increases seating capacity on existing Lewisham services from other stations to London.

This is all undeniably true, unfortunately. What should have happened, of course, to make Thameslink 2000 actually relevant for at least perhaps the first three or four decades of the 21st Century was for a few billion more pounds to have been invested, principally on the section north of London Bridge and. if necessary, as it almost certainly would be, on tunnelling so that the ridiculous single line pinchpoint could be eliminated. If that meant not all Charing Cross trains served Waterloo East, so be it.

 

[Ianno87]

This is all undeniably true, unfortunately. What should have happened, of course, to make Thameslink 2000 actually relevant for at least perhaps the first three or four decades of the 21st Century was for a few billion more pounds to have been invested, principally on the section north of London Bridge and. if necessary, as it almost certainly would be, on tunnelling so that the ridiculous single line pinchpoint could be eliminated. If that meant not all Charing Cross trains served Waterloo East, so be it.

I don't get your point - the Thameslink Programme *is* eliminating the former single line constraint at Metropolitan Junction.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I don't get your point - the Thameslink Programme *is* eliminating the former single line constraint at Metropolitan Junction.

I think he means four tracking the core?

 

[LU_timetabler]

Not for southeastern trains, only for separate Thames link paths. It allows more Thames link through London Bridge but does not fix southeastern pinch point. Southeastern still only has a pair of tracks between London Bridge and Waterloo east. Yes charing cross trains will have 4 tracks at London Bridge, but they had that before.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Not for southeastern trains, only for separate Thames link paths. It allows more Thames link through London Bridge but does not fix southeastern pinch point. Southeastern still only has a pair of tracks between London Bridge and Waterloo east. Yes charing cross trains will have 4 tracks at London Bridge, but they had that before.

Is it really that much of a pinch point though? As far as I'm aware there will also only be two Charing Cross tracks heading East out of London Bridge. I'd have thought one track each way, if it was modern signalling, ought to easily be able to take a train every few minutes, given that there are no stations along the two-track sections.

I'm guessing the real restrictions are going to be from conflicts at the two non-grade-separated junctions: Where the two tracks become four east of Waterloo, and at Tanners Hill. And possibly also where the track splits for Ladywell, assuming any Hayes trains will continue to use that route and avoid Lewisham (I don't know what the timetable will be once the London Bridge works are complete).

 

[swt_passenger]

Is it really that much of a pinch point though? As far as I'm aware there will also only be two Charing Cross tracks heading East out of London Bridge. I'd have thought one track each way, if it was modern signalling, ought to easily be able to take a train every few minutes, given that there are no stations along the two-track sections.

There are three "Charing Cross" tracks between the station and just beyond the new dive under, with a number of crossovers and various reversible sections. AFAICS it does allow for additional capacity in the tidal flow direction, how it will actually be used I guess we'll find out in due course...

If nothing else trains will have plenty of space to queue...

 

[Busaholic]

I don't get your point - the Thameslink Programme *is* eliminating the former single line constraint at Metropolitan Junction.

An extra line to the south of London Bridge could have aided operations to a considerable extent, if signalled and connected sensibly, and particularly when problems occur, a conclusion I've come to from a lot of the knowledgeable comments I've read both on this forum and in 'Modern Railways' over the years. To this conclusion I'm adding my opinion that a lot more could (at considerable cost, no doubt) have been done to protect and improve Charing Cross services north of London Bridge without compromising Thameslink services. I am all too aware of the physical constraints on the viaducts and I am not someone who would countenance the destruction of the neighbourhood to achieve extra lines, so I'm almost certainly talking about a tunnelled section (probably very difficult to achieve, admittedly) and then the absolute priority of getting trains from London Bridge to Charing Cross, with Waterloo East a much lesser priority i.e. if a third or even half of CX trains didn't call at WE, so what? Change at LB/Jubilee Line etc, those passengers slightly inconvenienced, but they'd get used to it, all for the greater good. There's nothing else new going to be happening in this area railway-wise in the next 20 or 30 years, so an opportunity missed.

 

[Bald Rick]

An extra line to the south of London Bridge could have aided operations to a considerable extent, if signalled and connected sensibly, and particularly when problems occur, a conclusion I've come to from a lot of the knowledgeable comments I've read both on this forum and in 'Modern Railways' over the years. To this conclusion I'm adding my opinion that a lot more could (at considerable cost, no doubt) have been done to protect and improve Charing Cross services north of London Bridge without compromising Thameslink services. I am all too aware of the physical constraints on the viaducts and I am not someone who would countenance the destruction of the neighbourhood to achieve extra lines, so I'm almost certainly talking about a tunnelled section (probably very difficult to achieve, admittedly) and then the absolute priority of getting trains from London Bridge to Charing Cross, with Waterloo East a much lesser priority i.e. if a third or even half of CX trains didn't call at WE, so what? Change at LB/Jubilee Line etc, those passengers slightly inconvenienced, but they'd get used to it, all for the greater good. There's nothing else new going to be happening in this area railway-wise in the next 20 or 30 years, so an opportunity missed.

As has been explained several times on this forum and elsewhere, the short two track section between London Bridge and (now) Ewer Street Junction is not a constraint on SE services to Charing Cross. If it was to be made four tracks tomorrow, the number of additional SE trains that could be operated is 0.

The constraints are Charing Cross Platform capacity, the flat junctions south of New Cross (Tanners Hill, St Johns, Parks Bridge, Hither Green), and, getting back on topic, the mess that is Lewisham. If you sorted all that out first, then it might be worth thinking about additional tracks between London Bridge and Ewer Street Junction.

 

[Ianno87]

An extra line to the south of London Bridge could have aided operations to a considerable extent, if signalled and connected sensibly, and particularly when problems occur, a conclusion I've come to from a lot of the knowledgeable comments I've read both on this forum and in 'Modern Railways' over the years. To this conclusion I'm adding my opinion that a lot more could (at considerable cost, no doubt) have been done to protect and improve Charing Cross services north of London Bridge without compromising Thameslink services. I am all too aware of the physical constraints on the viaducts and I am not someone who would countenance the destruction of the neighbourhood to achieve extra lines, so I'm almost certainly talking about a tunnelled section (probably very difficult to achieve, admittedly) and then the absolute priority of getting trains from London Bridge to Charing Cross, with Waterloo East a much lesser priority i.e. if a third or even half of CX trains didn't call at WE, so what? Change at LB/Jubilee Line etc, those passengers slightly inconvenienced, but they'd get used to it, all for the greater good. There's nothing else new going to be happening in this area railway-wise in the next 20 or 30 years, so an opportunity missed.

Your proposal is almost certainly completely unbuildable anyway (space to ramp down from viaducts at either end plus tunnel portals and sufficient intermediate ventilation shafts to support the service headway) - plus a billion plus of extra cost for no service benefit (as Bald Rick says)

Part of the point of the Thameslink Programme is also to reduce crowding on the Underground and at stations. You've just worsened both of those by not calling at Waterloo East by forcing extra people onto the Jubilee Line from London Bridge, *and* extra people into Charing Cross (which only just about copes as it is)

Suggest you spend a morning or evening peak stood on the bridge at Waterloo East to understand the number of people you're talking about - it's about sheer volume displaced, not just passengers 'getting used to it' for a non-existent 'greater good'.

 

[LU_timetabler]

The only real true fix is to do what Paris have done and that is to link your northern and southern capiltal termini together so that trains run through, a sort of Crossrail / Thameslink idea. Have Charing Cross trains run through to Euston and beyond in one continuous track, maybe to Watford Junction on the DC tracks.

The absoloute problem is Charing Cross isn't big enough, it needs more platforms. And flat junctions close into London, such as Lewisham need grade separation. IF and that's a very big IF every single southeastern train ran to time across all the junctions would the current timetable actually work anyway?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The only real true fix is to do what Paris have done and that is to link your northern and southern capiltal termini together so that trains run through, a sort of Crossrail / Thameslink idea. Have Charing Cross trains run through to Euston and beyond in one continuous track, maybe to Watford Junction on the DC tracks.

While I agree that it would improve capacity, it's very hard to see how that could possibly done around Charing Cross. You have an elevated line, an area densely packed with buildings, and already lots of underground lines to have to thread through once you get underground. There's also an issue that there aren't that many metro trains out from Euston anyway, so even with Euston-Watford frequency improvements, it's not clear that there'd be anywhere useful for most of the SouthEastern trains to go to once they get to Euston. I do however admire the way you've managed to bring the thread vaguely back on topic by talking about Watford Junction!

Going back off-topic again, I wonder if a more realistic approach to providing better frequencies on the Southeastern lines would be to do capacity improvements between Victoria and Lewisham, so you could run many more of the trains to Victoria instead (perhaps, all the Sidcup line ones and the Orpington via Lewisham ones, to avoid conflicting moves at Lewisham). A tunnel from Battersea to Bromley for the fast trains would both speed up those trains and release capacity for metro trains through Lewisham. Sorting out the very low linespeeds between Peckham Rye and Lewisham would probably also be important. I'm not sure what else you'd need to do to get enough capacity into Victoria?

Once the Bakerloo line runs to Lewisham, some people on SouthEastern metro services heading for the West End may prefer to change to the Bakerloo line at Lewisham in any case (especially given the very long walks involved in changing to the Bakerloo line at either Waterloo East or Charing Cross - which would be very likely to offset any slightly longer Lewisham-Charing Cross journey times on the Bakerloo line). That would reduce demand for metro services to Charing Cross in any case, giving another justification for routing more trains to Victoria.

 

[MikeWh]

IF and that's a very big IF every single southeastern train ran to time across all the junctions would the current timetable actually work anyway?

Yes. At least it did work on the odd day a few years ago when they moved heaven and earth to keep to time.

 

[DevonshireRail]

If the Bakerloo line was extended to Watford, would it complement or replace the existing London Overground services.

 

[edwin_m]

I've been saying for years that I see little point in running Overground between Queens Park and Euston, as both intermediate stations are a stone's throw from Underground stations. Getting rid of this would allow the DC lines to become totally Underground and the platforms could be lowered for level boarding (possibly excluding Watford High Street to make allowance for Croxley Link). It would also remove the shortest trains (and the inconvenient third rail) from Euston which will be under more capacity pressure during and after HS2 conversion. The tracks between Queens Park and Primrose Hill could become long loops for freight heading across London.

 

[DevonshireRail]

That sounds like a good idea. It would be good if the DC lines ran underground, maybe in cut and cover tunnels like the Met line. It would mean more space for development and freight rail. As far as I know, the only below ground stations on the DC lines are Watford High Street and the London Overground platforms at Euston.