Could London Overground's Euston-Watford Junction services gain level boarding?

[jimjams]

My local station (Headstone Lane) has been closed for the last few weeks to allow the old wooden sleepers (laid back in the 1950's I believe) to be replaced with concrete ones.

While they are carrying out this work I was hoping that they could at the same time lower that the track through this station so that the carriage entrances are level with the platform.

At the moment it is about a foot lower than the carriage doors, not easy for the elderly folk (like my self with dodgy knees) and people with wheel chairs, buggies and bikes.

I have no idea what this would have added to the cost but as they are lifting the old track to replace the sleepers, dropping the track through the station at the same time would have been relatively simple I would have thought and a once in a 100 years opportunity!

 

[ChiefPlanner]

A relative easy solution would be some "Harrington Humps" where needed - as at St Albans Abbey. (and elsewhere)

 

[Bletchleyite]

The difficulty with this line is that the platform height has to be a hybrid between the low floor Bakerloo Line trains (step down) and the high floor Overground ones (step up). Though this obviously only applies as far as Harrow.

It would be an option to get a custom build from Stadler with a floor height at Bakerloo Line unit height and then lower the platforms/raise the trackbed accordingly, but I guess such a small order would be expensive. I can't see anything else working due to the need not to clout Bakerloo trains or be dangerously high for them?

The other option is to remove the Overground service entirely and run the Bakerloo to Watford, but the Overground service is quite popular, so when this is mentioned it tends to go badly. Or to terminate the Bakerloo at Queen's Park and increase the Overground service, but this may be a pathing issue at Euston.

 

[cactustwirly]

The difficulty with this line is that the platform height has to be a hybrid between the low floor Bakerloo Line trains (step down) and the high floor Overground ones (step up). Though this obviously only applies as far as Harrow.

It would be an option to get a custom build from Stadler with a floor height at Bakerloo Line unit height and then lower the platforms/raise the trackbed accordingly, but I guess such a small order would be expensive. I can't see anything else working due to the need not to clout Bakerloo trains or be dangerously high for them?

The other option is to remove the Overground service entirely and run the Bakerloo to Watford, but the Overground service is quite popular, so when this is mentioned it tends to go badly. Or to terminate the Bakerloo at Queen's Park and increase the Overground service, but this may be a pathing issue at Euston.

The line already has new trains.

The 72ts is very clapped out and increasing their usage without a funded replacement is very unwise

 

[MarkyT]

I suggest when Bakerloo line stock is replaced eventually, sufficient extra units might be ordered to take over the DCs throughout, including running into Euston in place of the existing trains, which could be transferred elsewhere. As all platforms currently used are dedicated to DC services, they might all be lowered to tube floor height for level boarding, including Watford Junction and High Street, now there's little likelihood of a Metropolitan extension. Longer term, as part of the mooted splitting of the Northern Line, a new link tunnel might be constructed in the Primrose Hill area to connect the new fully segregated line into the Northern's Edgware branch. That would remove DC line trains entirely from the Euston main line terminus and its immediate approaches, while still serving it underground.

 

[Thirteen]

I would imagine once there is a clear timeline for stock replacement on the Bakerloo, they'll likely do improvement to have level boarding for the section that is shared with the Overground

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would imagine once there is a clear timeline for stock replacement on the Bakerloo, they'll likely do improvement to have level boarding for the section that is shared with the Overground

It's not possible, the floor height of the stock is about a foot and a half different. The platform heights are a compromise.

Only way you could do it is to reduce the floor height of the LO stock and drop the platforms. You can't make Bakerloo stock higher floor, you'd bang your head.

 

[cle]

You had me until this last part. Where is the plan of DC Watford services becoming the Northern line?


I suggest when Bakerloo line stock is replaced eventually, sufficient extra units might be ordered to take over the DCs throughout, including running into Euston in place of the existing trains, which could be transferred elsewhere. As all platforms currently used are dedicated to DC services, they might all be lowered to tube floor height for level boarding, including Watford Junction and High Street, now there's little likelihood of a Metropolitan extension. Longer term, as part of the mooted splitting of the Northern Line, a new link tunnel might be constructed in the Primrose Hill area to connect the new fully segregated line into the Northern's Edgware branch. That would remove DC line trains entirely from the Euston main line terminus and its immediate approaches, while still serving it underground.

 

[greatkingrat]

If you have gone to the trouble of separating the Northern Line branches in the first place, why on earth would you then add a third branch and mess it all up again?

 

[RobShipway]

It's not possible, the floor height of the stock is about a foot and a half different. The platform heights are a compromise.

Only way you could do it is to reduce the floor height of the LO stock and drop the platforms. You can't make Bakerloo stock higher floor, you'd bang your head.

I know that it depends on how the new underground doors open, but could you not have a raised floor in the section of the new underground stock that are for the disabled, that could potentially be lowered when at Underground stations?

 

[MarkyT]

If you have gone to the trouble of separating the Northern Line branches in the first place, why on earth would you then add a third branch and mess it all up again?

Becasue the trouble is not the fact that one line in the centre splits at Camden it's that the two lines split, then their branches immediately recombine. Coordinating the paths through that is what reduces capacity and decreases reliability. Having a simple branch from one of the split lines is much easier to manage.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know that it depends on how the new underground doors open, but could you not have a raised floor in the section of the new underground stock that are for the disabled, that could potentially be lowered when at Underground stations?

Not unless you're a 10 year old or very short. The headroom in a Tube coach is only about 2 metres. Raising the floor would make it worse than upstairs on a bus. Not really practical, given that often carers need to wheel wheelchairs on.

It would be practical to order low floor stock for LO, by contrast, though it'd mean needing changes at Euston and raising the trackbed throughout.

TBH easiest way would just be to terminate the Bakerloo at Queen's Park, as then that'd be the only station where both call and it could be done by having dedicated platforms.

 

[edwin_m]

Longer term, as part of the mooted splitting of the Northern Line, a new link tunnel might be constructed in the Primrose Hill area to connect the new fully segregated line into the Northern's Edgware branch. That would remove DC line trains entirely from the Euston main line terminus and its immediate approaches, while still serving it underground.

Or just increase the service on the core Bakerloo line. If it ever gets extended at the other end it would probably need a better frequency on the central section anyway.

 

[Basil Jet]

Longer term, as part of the mooted splitting of the Northern Line, a new link tunnel might be constructed in the Primrose Hill area to connect the new fully segregated line into the Northern's Edgware branch. That would remove DC line trains entirely from the Euston main line terminus and its immediate approaches, while still serving it underground.

That would give the line two routes to the West End (Bakerloo and Charing Cross) and none to the City... it would be better to attach it to the Barnet - Bank line, but that looks a lot more expensive.

 

[cle]

If the Bakerloo and DC were further separated, you'd still need Stonebridge Park for the depot. There is no plan for a depot as part of Lewisham/Hayes. And yes, if frequency went up with the extension, that would be needed even more so.

So you might as well truncate at Stonebridge Park - because you want to serve Willesden Junction (rebuild into 4 islands and turn 6tph Bakerloo in middle roads there) - as Stonebridge has a conflict with the southbound so you don't want everything terminating there, nor is there demand. But Harlesden might indeed be an WLO interchange one day, so it's worth having higher service for the zone 3 stations. Plenty of housebuilding across that way and down to Park Royal /OOC also.

The shame in Stonebridge is that Wembley Central is the next stop, and would ideally be a much better place to end a more intensive inner service - especially with the recent activity there (new stadium complex, tons of housing / employment, leisure stuff like Boxpark) and its return to 'Northampton Line' status service, beyond 3am, as well as the Southern calls. So it's something of an interchange again, and post-HS2 plans see 4-5tph WCML calls, plus Southern.

DC trains at 4tph is probably enough though. Euston paths would be tough to increase, and that's a decent service for any London route. Harrow and Bushey have the other fast services too, and they're the busy stations.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Would it not be possible to extend platforms at the shared Bakerloo-Watford DC stations at a lower height, level with the Bakerloo 72TS stock, for 50 to 100m at each or one end? Perhaps a bit like an inverse Harrington Hump?

 

[jimjams]

The difficulty with this line is that the platform height has to be a hybrid between the low floor Bakerloo Line trains (step down) and the high floor Overground ones (step up). Though this obviously only applies as far as Harrow.

It would be an option to get a custom build from Stadler with a floor height at Bakerloo Line unit height and then lower the platforms/raise the trackbed accordingly, but I guess such a small order would be expensive. I can't see anything else working due to the need not to clout Bakerloo trains or be dangerously high for them?

The other option is to remove the Overground service entirely and run the Bakerloo to Watford, but the Overground service is quite popular, so when this is mentioned it tends to go badly. Or to terminate the Bakerloo at Queen's Park and increase the Overground service, but this may be a pathing issue at Euston.

Hi Bletcheyite.
I don't know if you have travelled on both the bakerloo trains and Overland but the comparison between them is like comparing a Rolls Royce and a Ford Fiesta, When I'm travelling on the Bakerloo from London I change to the Overland at Queens Park and visa versa because the ride is so much better.

 

[biggerisbetter]

Extend the Bakerloo Line south from Elephant and Castle to Hayes and Beckenham Junction with the Bakerloo taking over the Overground services north of Harrow and Wealdstone to provide an increased frequency and level boarding.

Resignalling to provide peak frequencies of something like 10tph Watford Junction to Lewisham, 10tph Harrow and Wealdstone to Beckenham Junction and 10tph Queens Park to Hayes.

Post HS2 introduce additional calls on current Avanti and West Midlands Trains (I would transfer the Euston WMT services along with Birmingham to Liverpool to Avanti or future West Coast operator too) services at Watford Junction, Harrow and Wealdstone, Wembley Central and on new platforms at Queens Park to compensate for the loss of the direct service into Euston for many of these stations.

 

[Basil Jet]

Extend the Bakerloo Line south from Elephant and Castle to Hayes and Beckenham Junction with the Bakerloo taking over the Overground services north of Harrow and Wealdstone to provide an increased frequency and level boarding.

Resignalling to provide peak frequencies of something like 10tph Watford Junction to Lewisham, 10tph Harrow and Wealdstone to Beckenham Junction and 10tph Queens Park to Hayes.

Usual Underground practice is to have match the longs at each end, so Watford - Hayes, Harrow - Beckenham, Queens Park to Lewisham is what I think they'd go for instead.

Post HS2 introduce additional calls on current Avanti and West Midlands Trains (I would transfer the Euston WMT services along with Birmingham to Liverpool to Avanti or future West Coast operator too) services at Watford Junction, Harrow and Wealdstone, Wembley Central and on new platforms at Queens Park to compensate for the loss of the direct service into Euston for many of these stations.

You don't say what would happen to South Hampstead etc.

 

[biggerisbetter]

Usual Underground practice is to have match the longs at each end, so Watford - Hayes, Harrow - Beckenham, Queens Park to Lewisham is what I think they'd go for instead.

You don't say what would happen to South Hampstead etc.

I would extend North London Line services to Queens Park via Chalk Farm and four-tracking Camden Road but realise that this is getting quite off topic and expensive infrastructure wise!

In short, I would provide level boarding by converting the Overground north of Queens Park to Bakerloo.

 

[Bald Rick]

I have no idea what this would have added to the cost but as they are lifting the old track to replace the sleepers, dropping the track through the station at the same time would have been relatively simple I would have thought and a once in a 100 years opportunity!

Leaving aside the well made point about the difference in floor heights of the Bakerloo and LO trains… it’s not relatively simple at all, unfortunately. Underneath the track it is likely there are all sorts of things - drains, sewers, cables, has/water mains, etc etc which would all have to be moved. Then there is the issue that dropping the track would undermine the foundations of the platforms, meaning they would need to be strengthened or even rebuilt. And finally there would be issues with other elements of infrastructure, eg signal sighting.

 

[cle]

In short, I would provide level boarding by converting the Overground north of Queens Park to Bakerloo.

You’d lose Stonebridge Park depot, that’s the main issue. QP is purely stabling and only for about 6 trains total.

The Hayes line doesn’t really have room for one either. London Road couldn’t handle it all, let along a higher frequency post-extension which is expected.

 

[py_megapixel]

What about having dual-height platforms (a bit like the city centre stops of Manchester Metrolink before they were rebuilt, but longer) and different stopping points for Bakerloo and Overground trains?

Or possibly even three-height platforms - mostly at the compromise height, but with a lower section for Bakerloo level boarding at the front of the platform and a higher section for Overground level boarding at the rear (or vice-versa). Stopping markers would be set up for Bakerloo trains to take up the low and compromise section, and Overground trains to take up the compromise and high section.

 

[zwk500]

What about having dual-height platforms (a bit like the city centre stops of Manchester Metrolink before they were rebuilt, but longer) and different stopping points for Bakerloo and Overground trains?

Or possibly even three-height platforms - mostly at the compromise height, but with a lower section for Bakerloo level boarding at the front of the platform and a higher section for Overground level boarding at the rear (or vice-versa). Stopping markers would be set up for Bakerloo trains to take up the low and compromise section, and Overground trains to take up the compromise and high section.

While it's a potential option you'd need to make sure you had totally different door positions or double the length of the platforms (similar to Rotherham). I think a battlements style platform would be ruled out on accessibility grounds anyway.

 

[LUYMun]

If the Bakerloo and DC were further separated, you'd still need Stonebridge Park for the depot. There is no plan for a depot as part of Lewisham/Hayes. And yes, if frequency went up with the extension, that would be needed even more so.

So you might as well truncate at Stonebridge Park - because you want to serve Willesden Junction (rebuild into 4 islands and turn 6tph Bakerloo in middle roads there) - as Stonebridge has a conflict with the southbound so you don't want everything terminating there, nor is there demand. But Harlesden might indeed be an WLO interchange one day, so it's worth having higher service for the zone 3 stations. Plenty of housebuilding across that way and down to Park Royal /OOC also.

The shame in Stonebridge is that Wembley Central is the next stop, and would ideally be a much better place to end a more intensive inner service - especially with the recent activity there (new stadium complex, tons of housing / employment, leisure stuff like Boxpark) and its return to 'Northampton Line' status service, beyond 3am, as well as the Southern calls. So it's something of an interchange again, and post-HS2 plans see 4-5tph WCML calls, plus Southern.

DC trains at 4tph is probably enough though. Euston paths would be tough to increase, and that's a decent service for any London route. Harrow and Bushey have the other fast services too, and they're the busy stations.

Or you could simply run trains ECS between Queens and Stonebridge. Plus, the middle Willesden platform could be extended and connected westwards so that a Watford-Willesden shuttle can be made up for the reduction in Bakerloo services.