Bakerloo Line Extension to Lewisham

[ijmad]

If the Bakerloo does take over the Hayes/Beckenham Junction branch then won't the frequency increase be needed to make up for the fact that there will no longer be direct services to London Bridge/Cannon Street but also it it is a frequent Underground service will it attract more people to use it?

Yeah, a good point actually.

I'm not 100% but most Hayes branch trains seem to be 8 car or 10 car electrostars or networkers. I'd guess about 480 to 600 seats?

Obviously higher capacity than a 7 car tube train - current Bakerloo trains have 252 seats but an all transverse arrangement like the Jubilee has just 234. The NTfL with more door space per side might have even less. So I suppose you might need to double the frequency if you don't want to upset a lot of people, although it depends on how full these trains actually are before Lewisham / St Johns. Never been down there so I have no idea myself!

Anyway, that might require 16tph and you could then reasonably terminate the rest at New Cross Gate and Lewisham I suppose.

 

[VT 390]

Yeah, a good point actually.

I'm not 100% but most Hayes branch trains seem to be 8 car or 10 car electrostars or networkers. I'd guess about 480 to 600 seats?

Obviously higher capacity than a 7 car tube train - current Bakerloo trains have 252 seats but an all transverse arrangement like the Jubilee has just 234. The NTfL with more door space per side might have even less. So I suppose you might need to double the frequency if you don't want to upset a lot of people, although it depends on how full these trains actually are before Lewisham / St Johns. Never been down there so I have no idea myself!

I have only used the line a few times but they have mostly been well loaded by around Catford Bridge and sometimes all the seats are taken before Lewisham , I would think peak times they would be full and standing though I have never used the line at this time.
Someone who uses the line more frequently may be able to give more details though.

 

[bionic]

Hayes has 4tph off peak at the moment and from Lower Sydenham south the ten cars mostly cart fresh air. In the peaks though it's a different kettle of fish with punters standing by West Wickham in some instances. My understanding is most regular users of the line at the Hayes end don't want the Bakerloo and would like things to stay as they are.

 

[ijmad]

Hayes has 4tph off peak at the moment and from Lower Sydenham south the ten cars mostly cart fresh air. In the peaks though it's a different kettle of fish with punters standing by West Wickham in some instances. My understanding is most regular users of the line at the Hayes end don't want the Bakerloo and would like things to stay as they are.

Indeed, but the 'greater good' of overall capacity improvement in the Southeast may prevail. Perhaps some gentle nudging about capacity uplift and passengers experiencing NTfL will change opinion over time. It's not like we'll see the Hayes extension this side of 2030 anyway.

 

[bionic]

Indeed, but the 'greater good' of overall capacity improvement in the Southeast may prevail. Perhaps some gentle nudging about capacity uplift and passengers experiencing NTfL will change opinion over time. It's not like we'll see the Hayes extension this side of 2030 anyway.

Yeah totally agree. It's all about freeing up capacity at Lewisham and Parks Bridge, as well as nearer town. I think those considerations should outweigh the preferences of Hayes line commuters.

That line has pretty low line speeds anyway so the only real slowing down of journeys would be london side of Lewisham when its stopping at all those OKR stations. Ladywell to Waterloo/CHX would be much quicker by Southeastern rather than the Bakerloo and it's that the Hayes types don't want.

 

[ijmad]

That line has pretty low line speeds anyway so the only real slowing down of journeys would be london side of Lewisham when its stopping at all those OKR stations. Ladywell to Waterloo/CHX would be much quicker by Southeastern rather than the Bakerloo and it's that the Hayes types don't want.

Yes, I suspect an extension would include a full relaying of track and renewal of infrastructure that would improve line speed considerably so a journey from Hayes to Charing Cross may well be 'competitive' via Bakerloo. As you say it's the customers in Ladywell who would be the biggest losers.

The City would be reachable by changing to the Northern at E&C (new platforms for high capacity step free interchange) or to the W&C at Waterloo which may see a 50% capacity uplift by 2030 according to plans.

 

[VT 390]

Yes, I suspect an extension would include a full relaying of track and renewal of infrastructure that would improve line speed considerably. Plus passengers still get to go to Charing Cross on the Bakerloo, while the City would be reachable by changing to the Northern at E&C (new platforms for high capacity step free interchange) or to the W&C at Waterloo which may see a 50% capacity uplift by 2030 according to plans.

You would also be able to change at Lewisham for Cannon Street and at Lewisham and New Cross Gate for London Bridge.

 

[ijmad]

You would also be able to change at Lewisham for Cannon Street and at Lewisham and New Cross Gate for London Bridge.

I'd like to think that if NXG became a more strategic interchange thanks to the Bakerloo, the powers that be might be inclined to stop some Thameslinks there too.

 

[Ianno87]

Yeah totally agree. It's all about freeing up capacity at Lewisham and Parks Bridge, as well as nearer town. I think those considerations should outweigh the preferences of Hayes line commuters.

That line has pretty low line speeds anyway so the only real slowing down of journeys would be london side of Lewisham when its stopping at all those OKR stations. Ladywell to Waterloo/CHX would be much quicker by Southeastern rather than the Bakerloo and it's that the Hayes types don't want.

I do wonder how much just simply taking the Bakerloo to Lewisham and no further will free up capacity in simply abstracting demand from Lewisham that currently gets on Southeastern services. I reckon that might make a fair dent in itself.

You'd also get some demand from the likes of Blackheath, Hither Green, Catford etc bussing to Lewisham to pick up the Bakerloo (where it starts empty) freeing up a little more.

The risk of going all the way to Hayes is trains being too full at the Old Kent Rd stations, defeating the purpose of attrracting redevelopment/housing growth in these areas.

 

[Class 466]

Dead against the extension to Hayes, the last thing we need is a further reduction in diversionary routes during disruption/engineering works. The Hastings services have gone to Charing X that way for a number of weekends this year, and more to follow next year. Route knowledge via Redhill hangs on by a thread, losing this too, would just result in the HGS line being cut back at Orp/Ton when there’s disruption/engineering works. Hardly good for passengers. It’s a Mainline railway, and should stay that way.

 

[Mojo]

Hayes has 4tph off peak at the moment and from Lower Sydenham south the ten cars mostly cart fresh air. In the peaks though it's a different kettle of fish with punters standing by West Wickham in some instances. My understanding is most regular users of the line at the Hayes end don't want the Bakerloo and would like things to stay as they are.

The 2014 business case assumes during am peak hours 15tph to Hayes and 6tph to Beckenham Jcn. 6tph of the core 27tph would start at Catford Bridge.

 

[Ianno87]

The 2014 business case assumes during am peak hours 15tph to Hayes and 6tph to Beckenham Jcn. 6tph of the core 27tph would start at Catford Bridge.

That's a heck of a lot of fresh air to Hayes off-peak... Doesn't strike me a "value for money"

 

[Mojo]

Yes, I suspect an extension would include a full relaying of track and renewal of infrastructure that would improve line speed considerably so a journey from Hayes to Charing Cross may well be 'competitive' via Bakerloo. As you say it's the customers in Ladywell who would be the biggest losers.

The consultation document published this month appears to suggest pretty favourable journey times for pretty much every destination, except London Bridge.

It’s looking like it would take 33 Min to Waterloo (versus 36 Min to Waterloo (East) on Southeastern, and 35 Min to Charing + (versus 40 Min at present), and obviously customers going to the West End would potentially save even more as there would be no need to walk or change onto LU.

 

[Class 466]

That's a heck of a lot of fresh air to Hayes off-peak... Doesn't strike me a "value for money"

Especially as pretty much the entire off peak weekday service is 4 cars with room to spare. Then again the outer reaches of the Central line spend a lot of time empty. I just don’t see how they’ve got the capacity for all those extra passengers on an already overcrowded tube line.

 

[Mojo]

Especially as pretty much the entire off peak weekday service is 4 cars with room to spare. Then again the outer reaches of the Central line spend a lot of time empty. I just don’t see how they’ve got the capacity for all those extra passengers on an already overcrowded tube line.

Firstly, the Bakerloo line isn’t overcrowded; during the AM peak it is the has the lowest number of customers boarding out of all full length lines, all day it is also the second quietest full length line (ie. not the Waterloo & City).

Secondly, it is considered suitable for extension because it is fairly unique in that it terminates at one edge of central London and thus because of its fairly low customer numbers, would be able to accommodate extra loadings without leaving customers further up the line being unable to board.

 

[ijmad]

The NTfL with more door space per side might have even less.

Quoting myself but it seems a 10 carriage NTfL train (which is the same length as a 7 carriage 1972ts) would have 248 seats according to this document.

 

[edwin_m]

The main reason for going to Hayes would seem to be those extra paths in the peak that are freed up for other suburban routes. The greater frequency and choice of through destinations ought to attract more off-peak passengers too. It seems that even with the extension the Bakerloo will have fewer trains per hour than the other deep tube lines, and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be upgraded to a similar frequency if the extra capacity was needed for Hayes passengers.

 

[ijmad]

I wonder why the consultation docs maps show Catford station (which is Thameslink) when it is obviously Catford Bridge that would be taken over. They are very close to one another but physically separate stations. Perhaps the works for the extension would link them properly in to one complex with some new passenger interchange routes that don't require walking down a short road, hence why it'd all be renamed to "Catford".

 

[Mojo]

I wonder why the consultation docs maps show Catford station (which is Thameslink) when it is obviously Catford Bridge that would be taken over. They are very close to one another but physically separate stations. Perhaps the works for the extension would link them properly in to one complex with some new passenger interchange routes that don't require walking down a short road, hence why it'd all be renamed to "Catford".

Which documents are you looking at?

All the route maps on the Summary reports as well as the fact sheets show "Catford Bridge." It is only figure 4 which shows alternative route options that shows Catford.

 

[ijmad]

Which documents are you looking at?

All the route maps on the Summary reports as well as the fact sheets show "Catford Bridge." It is only figure 4 which shows alternative route options that shows Catford.

Perhaps I'm misremembering. A lot of the text says "via Catford". I see the current diagrams on the consultation, at least, show Catford Bridge.

I'm wondering if TfL haven't considered an interchange between the Bakerloo Line and the LBSCR line that crosses over Old Kent Road and carries the Clapham Junction branch of the Overground, as well as direct trains to London Bridge and Caterham / Beckenham Junction. I suppose creating interchange with Beckenham Junction services might be seen as a bit pointless because the Bakerloo Line itself will have service there, but customers on the corridor out through East Dulwich, North Dulwich and Tulse Hill etc might appreciate it, although Bakerloo Line customers will already have trains to London Bridge from NXG. I'm guessing it's just a question of expense vs ROI and duplicating other interchanges too much.

Also just noticed, Hayes would become the most southerly tube station on the network, it's considerably further south than Morden

 

[rebmcr]

Perhaps I'm misremembering. A lot of the text says "via Catford". I see the current diagrams on the consultation, at least, show Catford Bridge.

Catford is of course the name of the settlement, not just the station.

 

[VT 390]

Dead against the extension to Hayes, the last thing we need is a further reduction in diversionary routes during disruption/engineering works. The Hastings services have gone to Charing X that way for a number of weekends this year, and more to follow next year. Route knowledge via Redhill hangs on by a thread, losing this too, would just result in the HGS line being cut back at Orp/Ton when there’s disruption/engineering works. Hardly good for passengers. It’s a Mainline railway, and should stay that way.

For the amount of time that it is used as a diversion route (and only on part of the line) is that really an important reason not to extend the Bakerloo line there. Also there are many other routes around the country which do not have any/many diversion options and mostly cope fine.

 

[bionic]

Is there any reason why the Lewisham to Beckenham Junction section couldn't stay as Network Rail and still be used by SE trains on diversion? The north end of the Bakerloo is all NR anyway.

 

[Mojo]

Is there any reason why the Lewisham to Beckenham Junction section couldn't stay as Network Rail and still be used by SE trains on diversion? The north end of the Bakerloo is all NR anyway.

Network Rail offers a much lower standard of service than both LUL and its customers expect. The way they respond to incidents involving LU trains on Network Rail lines and the Wimbledon branch offers many challenges to maintain a reliable service through the central sections.

I would also have thought that running the proposed frequency of service would require existing signalling to be changed, and that the project would rather that be specified, priced and delivered internally rather than being subjected to the whims of an external organisation.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Dead against the extension to Hayes, the last thing we need is a further reduction in diversionary routes during disruption/engineering works. The Hastings services have gone to Charing X that way for a number of weekends this year, and more to follow next year. Route knowledge via Redhill hangs on by a thread, losing this too, would just result in the HGS line being cut back at Orp/Ton when there’s disruption/engineering works. Hardly good for passengers. It’s a Mainline railway, and should stay that way.

Can’t you just route them into Blackfriars via Catford?

 

[LUYMun]

The route in the consultation was not what I was intended, but it's fine enough. I was expecting it to travel via (at a brief context) Denmark Hill, East Dulwich, Honor Oak Park, Catford interchanges, Hither Green and Grove Park to Bromley North.

With the rerouting between Lambeth North and Elephant & Castle, could the current Bakerloo platforms be kept as turnarounds for short journeys (as with Queens Park and Stonebridge Park), or will it be demolished, or be preserved as heritage use?

 

[ijmad]

The route in the consultation was not what I was intended, but it's fine enough. I was expecting it to travel via (at a brief context) Denmark Hill, East Dulwich, Honor Oak Park, Catford interchanges, Hither Green and Grove Park to Bromley North.

While I am unsure this was ever on the cards or not, as a resident of Dulwich it has my full support - Victoria Line extension perhaps?

With the rerouting between Lambeth North and Elephant & Castle, could the current Bakerloo platforms be kept as turnarounds for short journeys (as with Queens Park and Stonebridge Park), or will it be demolished, or be preserved as heritage use?

Quote from the docs:

"... leaves a section of potentially redundant tunnel on the Bakerloo line, although we have not yet ascertained whether there may be a use for it to support operation of the Bakerloo line, or an alternative use."

So they don't know yet, however it seems unlikely they'd spend money to make the old platforms step free, and they'll want to be able to give the new station a tick when the extension opens.

Someone on the other forum suggested it'd be a suitable replacement for Aldwych for filming period drama (Aldwych's connection to the Piccadilly Line will be severed by the Holborn expansion works in the 2020s). It's a similar classic 'Yerkes' style.

 

[Nym]

It does seem their intent is to use London Road Depot to extract the TBMs then?

 

[bionic]

Is the current Elephant siding alignment pointing too far south to be used for the extension? The original Bakerloo sidings there pointed in a more easterly direction but have long since been sealed up.

 

[ijmad]

Is the current Elephant siding alignment pointing too far south to be used for the extension? The original Bakerloo sidings there pointed in a more easterly direction but have long since been sealed up.

Certainly the original plan showed they'd use the existing alignment, but it seems there are other strong reasons for the new Elephant and Castle station, not least of which is creating higher capacity step free interchange between the Bakerloo and Northern Lines, and potentially the Bakerloo Line and Thameslink. Reducing travel time with the new alignment will make the service even more attractive vs rail and create an even higher ROI for TfL.