Could/Should all the Sub-Surface lines merge into one line eventually?

[NorthKent1989]

All the Sub-Surface lines now share more or less the same stock:
Met Line S8 and D/C/H&C lines S7, differences between them being train lengths and type of seating.

I recall there was some talk a few years ago of sending some Met line trains to Barking/Upminster from the Met Main line itself but could only be done with re-signalling.

Interestingly in the 1930s-1940s, the tube map does show all the Sub-Surface lines (including the East London line at this point) under the one banner of tge
Metropolitan-District line in which on the map the line was coloured District Green
Only the services remained firmly separate and you couldn't get a train from
New Cross to Aylesbury nor could you go from Hounslow West to Upminster.

Could the Sub Surface lines be more interchangeable in the future?

 

[321over360]

Met trains could do Amersham to Upminster however this would require additional S7 stocks (S8 stock being too long for all platforms east of Liverpool Street) and these S7 would need to be laid out like the S8s due to the lengthy route involved

Saying that the Metropolitan line has run to Barking already in the past before it became the Hammersmith & City Line

However only issue with Subsurface line at present is that District Line drivers are not signed from Aldgate East to Edgware Road via Kings Cross St Pancras which they should be as can then improve service options during Engineering Works between Tower Hill & South Kensington as a District can then run from Upminster to Richmond via Liverpool Street & Edgware Road if say track works are being done between say Tower Hill and Embankment thus having a direct through service. I mean during some weekend engineering works Circle Line trains run Barking to Edgware Road via Victoria

 

[rebmcr]

Issue with Subsurface line at present is that District Line drivers are not signed from Aldgate East to Edgware Road via Kings Cross St Pancras which they should be as can then improve service options during Engineering Works between Tower Hill & South Kensington as a District can then run from Upminster to Richmond via Liverpool Street & Edgware Road

There are no spare paths on the north circle, you would have to also terminate the Metropolitans at Baker Street. Cutting off an otherwise-unaffected service to use its paths for only alternate destinations (at this point) would not be a good idea.

 

[tranzitjim]

I would object to putting all sub-surface routes under the one brand/name, other than the current set up of calling them sub-surface routes.

The current system of four distinct routes, with distinct colours on maps, provides a vital customer service function, in that it helps the customers understand how and where respective common train services do in fact operate.

I would prefer a re-structure of the sub-surface routes, including the following,

--Rename District Line, as Charles Line
--Rename Hammersmith & City line as Diana Line

-- Introduce two new ones. Charles Loop and Diana Loop. They would service the eastern side/end of Charles Line and Diana Line respectively, and loop around the circle line. Charles Loop shall be clockwise only, Diana Loop shall be anti-clockwise only.

 

[telstarbox]

Er no.

 

[Deerfold]

I would prefer a re-structure of the sub-surface routes, including the following,

--Rename District Line, as Charles Line
--Rename Hammersmith & City line as Diana Line

-- Introduce two new ones. Charles Loop and Diana Loop. They would service the eastern side/end of Charles Line and Diana Line respectively, and loop around the circle line. Charles Loop shall be clockwise only, Diana Loop shall be anti-clockwise only.

Why would you want to do that?

 

[rebmcr]

Why would you want to do that?

It's a reference to the original method of operation — the Metropolitan Railway and the District Railway ran competing clockwise and anticlockwise services.

Two ticket offices at every station, and they would happily send you the long way round rather than direct your business to their counterpart.

 

[greatkingrat]

I would prefer a re-structure of the sub-surface routes, including the following,

--Rename District Line, as Charles Line
--Rename Hammersmith & City line as Diana Line

-- Introduce two new ones. Charles Loop and Diana Loop. They would service the eastern side/end of Charles Line and Diana Line respectively, and loop around the circle line. Charles Loop shall be clockwise only, Diana Loop shall be anti-clockwise only.

Does the Metropolitan become the Camilla Line in this plan?

 

[NorthKent1989]

Erm we don't need more lines named after Royalty thanks.

I do think the Circle and Hammersmith & City lines should now merge, especially since both lines don't really have a large amount of track unique to their respective lines, maybe the Hammersmith & Circle line? That has a nice ring to it.

 

[W-on-Sea]

Saying that the Metropolitan line has run to Barking already in the past before it became the Hammersmith & City Line

Although the main tube map did not distinguish the H&C from the Met (and signs at stations mostly just referred to the Metropolitan Line), they were in practice separate, and used different types of trains (latterly A stock on the Met, C stock on the H&C) and didn't interwork.

The maps on the C stock referred to the line as "METROPOLITAN LINE: Hammersmith & City Section" (just as the East London Line was sometimes referred to on maps and signs as the METROPOLITAN LINE: East London Section for a time).

 

[philthetube]

Assuming that this suggestion involves drivers operating all routes there would be huge amounts of training to be done.

 

[Busaholic]

I would object to putting all sub-surface routes under the one brand/name, other than the current set up of calling them sub-surface routes.

The current system of four distinct routes, with distinct colours on maps, provides a vital customer service function, in that it helps the customers understand how and where respective common train services do in fact operate.

I would prefer a re-structure of the sub-surface routes, including the following,

--Rename District Line, as Charles Line
--Rename Hammersmith & City line as Diana Line

-- Introduce two new ones. Charles Loop and Diana Loop. They would service the eastern side/end of Charles Line and Diana Line respectively, and loop around the circle line. Charles Loop shall be clockwise only, Diana Loop shall be anti-clockwise only.

A loopy idea.

 

[rebmcr]

Erm we don't need more lines named after Royalty thanks.

I do think the Circle and Hammersmith & City lines should now merge, especially since both lines don't really have a large amount of track unique to their respective lines, maybe the Hammersmith & Circle line? That has a nice ring to it.

That's what I would choose, yeah.

 

[LU_timetabler]

The H&C and Circle are under one operation so far as drivers and timetable go, so certainly not a stretch to combine them, just would add confusion to tourists. The H&C/Circle brings some of its rolling stock in from Upminster, Neasden and Ealing Common depots every day. But due to driver knowledge these trains have to be driven the host line's driver until the train reaches a crew relief point for Circle/H&C. In other words the Ealing Common trains run in service as if District trains and aren't given to H&C driver until Edgware Rd. They are however carrying their H&C train number on the way there. Similarly the trains from H&C trains from Upminster run with a District driver in service until Barking, where an H&C driver takes over. BUT the Neasden train is run out of service up and down the Met, even though it has a Met driver on it from Baker Street onwards, if not earlier, because the platforms are not marked up for S7 stock. The S stocks make this possible, in the days of A/C/D stocks you would have needed a driver trained on the stock plus a pilot driver familiar with the line. However it is route knowledge that is a point of issue for the ability to offer an effective combined service during Engineering Works.
The loop suggestion isn't too crazy I wondered about something similar myself. Though I'm not so sure about renaming the lines as described.
My idea was Wimbledon trains all go towards Tower Hill, anti-clockwise circle, through Edgware Road and back down to Wimbledon after High Street Ken. The Ealing and Richmond trains do the opposite joining the circle clockwise and proceed to Earl's Court and back to their origin after Gloucester Rd. All the trains coming in from Upminster/Barking split 50/50 into clockwise and anti-clockwise and return to where they came from when they get back round to Tower Hill / Liverpool Street. The problem then is you would have no or very few paths for Met and trains off Hammersmith would have to reverse at Edgware Road. The problem being neither Met nor Hammersmith branches have access to the circle from the other direction. And it is that geographical issue, or missing link tracks that means the looping idea does not really work.

 

[jopsuk]

Rather than "merge into one", I'd go for something different:
1. Disentangle from the Tube Lines. District to Uxbridge, no platform sharing with the Picadilly
2. Seriously investigate how much work required to bring the parts of the District that were served by D-Stock up to 8 car operation
3. Full level boarding throughout (I think S-stock and 378s might have the same floor height?)
4. Create new lines! Or, rather, define the Wimbledon services as a separate line.

5. Total wibble edition: grade separate the junctions.

6. Ultimate wibble edition: 4 track the circle.

 

[321over360]

There are no spare paths on the north circle, you would have to also terminate the Metropolitans at Baker Street. Cutting off an otherwise-unaffected service to use its paths for only alternate destinations (at this point) would not be a good idea.

Why wouldnt it be a good idea, you could just suspend the Circle Line for the duration of the works and have the H&C running as a shuttle service from Hammersmith to Edgware Road to allow District services to run right across London, District services tend to be busier from East London to London than H&C

 

[Dstock7080]

3. Full level boarding throughout (I think S-stock and 378s might have the same floor height?)

S Stock are around 4-5 inches lower at doorsill level than 378s

 

[LU_timetabler]

Why wouldnt it be a good idea, you could just suspend the Circle Line for the duration of the works and have the H&C running as a shuttle service from Hammersmith to Edgware Road to allow District services to run right across London, District services tend to be busier from East London to London than H&C

It's the driver knowledge AND train numbering issue - the unions get uppity, for want of a better way to put it. But yes I agree, in an ideal world if there's engineering works on the south side of the circle there's no real reason now we have S stock not to run districts in from their western branches up to Edgware Road and then across the northern circle and out towards Upminster. It would severely limit the Met though. With driver knowledge as it is you would need to change to H&C driver at Edgware Rd and then back to a District driver at Barking. It rather depends exactly where the engineering works are, but I agree there are / have been occasions where this would possibly be a more elegant solution.
The other way to improve things would be more reversal capacity at Edgware Road. For instance the situation for a closure which takes out the northern part of the Circle at King's Cross, means Circles and Hammersmith's are reversing at Edgware Rd, so District can't, so all Districts not going through Tower Hill are turning at High Street Ken. Met's are all turning at Baker Street. The Circle will run Moorgate to Edgware Rd via Tower Hill and back.

Now what they could have done is Barking to Moorgate shuttle, cancel Circle and let District run up to Edgware Rd as normal. Who is to say which is better? Somehow someone makes a decision, and you can bet that someone else will what it the other way.

Overall, the normal running scenario (Assuming no track re-design) gets the best out of what is there, but does not allow for easy get-around options when engineering works occur in certain places.

 

[whhistle]

No.

It annoys me the Northern Line has two significant branches but still called the same line.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Erm we don't need more lines named after Royalty thanks.

I do think the Circle and Hammersmith & City lines should now merge, especially since both lines don't really have a large amount of track unique to their respective lines, maybe the Hammersmith & Circle line? That has a nice ring to it.

...yep Fleet Line and Crossrail are fine

 

[Mutant Lemming]

It's the driver knowledge AND train numbering issue - the unions get uppity, for want of a better way to put it. .

I thought Trains Transformation intended to train crews for all SSL routes ?

 

[Busaholic]

...yep Fleet Line and Crossrail are fine

And the Victoria?

 

[Tetchytyke]

If we're naming lines after minor nobility, I'd suggest naming one after Lady Balfour.

I always thought the Candida Line had a certain ring to it.

 

[LiftFan]

And the Victoria?

You mean the Viking?

 

[LU_timetabler]

No.

It annoys me the Northern Line has two significant branches but still called the same line.

Well luckily for you, the Northern is being split at some point within the next 10 years.

 

[Mikey C]

Well luckily for you, the Northern is being split at some point within the next 10 years.

Probably into the Charles and Camilla lines

 

[tranzitjim]

Two of my points

#1, the renaming. We need short names for the lines, and the Hammersmith and city is rather long. I would love that to be given a shorter name.


#2, The two loop ideas. The idea is to give all subsurface customers, direct access to all sub-surface stations in the city area.

The aim is to keep the existing lines as is, with these circles going in the direction so as they would be heading outbound on the same platforms.

Such as, a Hammersmith bound loop service would use the same platforms as the Hammersmith line services. Hence, one will be clockwise only, the other shall be anti-clockwise only.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Two of my points

#1, the renaming. We need short names for the lines, and the Hammersmith and city is rather long. I would love that to be given a shorter name.

.

What about calling it the Bath Taps line ?

 

[NorthKent1989]

Probably into the Charles and Camilla lines

Oh god that could become a thing I would be horrified, the Camilla line lol

When the Northern does split im sure one of the lines will retain custody of the Northern label, while I think the Morden branch should revert to
City & South London line and the West End branch could become the Hampstead line

 

[NorthKent1989]

I kinda see in the next 15-20 years the Met line merging with the Aylesbury line, or The Amersham branch forming a part of some future Crossrail line, a big underground shake up could occur.