Bakerloo Line extension to Watford Junction.

[Dstock7080]

At the moment would a Bakerloo Line 1972 stock train be able to continue to Watford Junction (or has it ever happened recently)? Is the fourth rail still actually working?

Most of the route from Harrow to Watford the negative rail is in place but not supported on insulators, simply resting on the sleepers, so would not be in contact with the train.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

At the moment would a Bakerloo Line 1972 stock train be able to continue to Watford Junction (or has it ever happened recently)? Is the fourth rail still actually working?

There was an operational slam-dunk at Harrow + W onthe DC one evening pre 1992 when the turnback was blocked , and another Bakerloo turned up.

Therefore gridlock - so my mate who was an Operational manager made a quick call and spoke to the veteran LUL driver who was happy to go ECS to Watford Junction (it being daylight and he had signed the route way back) - so he set off and got back , causing numerous arcs and so on. He took it nice and gently so no permenant damage seemed to have been done to to train or track - though I suspect the Line Controller may have wondered where set xxx had got to.....

 

[Nym]

Why not just use the trailing crossover from Platform 1?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Why not just use the trailing crossover from Platform 1?

Obvious comment - not possible apparently. Done that move myself a good number of times. Presumably (and I will ask him when I see him)- not enough time or effort to clip up and hand signal that afternoon ....a good story thogh and believable ....

 

[Nym]

Hmmm, that move is fully signalled now, have seen it used a fair few times in passenger service, my mind is sketchy as to when the resignaling was done though.

 

[D365]

I believe the plan was to run the bakerloo to watford junction and use the overground rolling stock elsewhere.

Which I imagine won't be as much a priority once the Class 710s come into service.

 

[causton]

Hmmm, that move is fully signalled now, have seen it used a fair few times in passenger service, my mind is sketchy as to when the resignaling was done though.

Indeed, the signs at Harrow and Wealdstone say on Platform 1 that occasionally southbound Bakerloo trains will depart from that platform, so must have been some time ago!

 

[BelleIsle]

Is there any need for extra trains on the DC lines or would the Bakerloo effectively replace the Overground as someone suggested was the previous plan? If so then there would be no capacity problem at Watford Junction and only platform height conflicts would be Watford High Street with the Met, and south of Harrow or wherever the Overground terminated.

Providing a Bakerloo line service and diverting the Overground onto the North London Line would potentially allow the removal of the DC service from Euston and free up capacity during the reconstruction. This would require either the re-opening of the Primrose Hill line to passengers, or closure of Kilburn High Road (near Kilburn Park on the Bakerloo) and South Hampstead (near Swiss Cottage on the Jubilee).

Many years ago I was told by someone who should know that this was the plan. Bakerloo to Watford and some service off the North London via Primrose Hill to take care of the stations south of Queens Park. It was always assumed that these would terminate at Willesden Junction. The reason was simple - the quote was "we don't do radial". i.e. TfL saw themselves as operating cross London and orbital services but nothing that ended up at one of the terminii. Of course, in recent years that position has changed so who knows what they want to do.

 

[swt class 450]

I think if Bakerloo Line trains replaced London Overground trains to Watford Junction it could definitely really help with capacity. At the moment these trains get very overcrowded in the peak hours on the entire route between London Euston and Watford Junction. Even off peak the trains are often standing room only. With the Bakerloo Line an every 10 minutes in each direction frequency could be used and the trains would be 7 coaches instead of 5 coaches.

 

[Clip]

I think if Bakerloo Line trains replaced London Overground trains to Watford Junction it could definitely really help with capacity. At the moment these trains get very overcrowded in the peak hours on the entire route between London Euston and Watford Junction. Even off peak the trains are often standing room only. With the Bakerloo Line an every 10 minutes in each direction frequency could be used and the trains would be 7 coaches instead of 5 coaches.

But people on here always state that folks prefer a direct service into London so why should others be forced to change on the underground with no services directly into Euston?

You will also find that those who work in the city would not want a longer journey time to their place of work just to increase alleged capacity

 

[Trog]

Most of the route from Harrow to Watford the negative rail is in place but not supported on insulators, simply resting on the sleepers, so would not be in contact with the train.

The neggie rail is also up to 100 years old, knackered and there are several large gaps, the whole lot would need replacing with new before four rail trains could run under their own power.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If they introduce the bakerloo line to watford at the same time as cutting back the London Overground service the platforms could be reduced in height to match the Bakerloo Lines train size.

The platforms are already a lower than normal height, if you wanted to make them tube standard the obvious way to do it is by raising the track. The potential down side of this is what it would cost to lower the track again if you wanted to start using mainline stock again.

 

[Tetchytyke]

At the moment these trains get very overcrowded in the peak hours on the entire route between London Euston and Watford Junction.

Nah, the trains, even in the peak, are empty by the time you get past Headstone Lane and Hatch End. And a 5-car 378 is near enough the same length as a 7-car 72 stock train.

 

[matt_world2004]

Which I imagine won't be as much a priority once the Class 710s come into service.

I imagine the orders for the 710 will be reflective of any changes they plan with the bakerloo line

 

[tranzitjim]

Is Watford Junction where the Metropolitan line are being extended to?

It would be great, to have super-interchanges where you have the maximum quantity of routes operating to, or operating via. This helps make public transport more viable for many, as you need only change once, being at that interchange.

For that reason, I support the idea of extending the Bakerloo line to Watford Junction, and if possible retain the Overground services there too.

 

[edwin_m]

I imagine the orders for the 710 will be reflective of any changes they plan with the bakerloo line

The 710s have already been ordered, and as there is no current plan to extend the Bakerloo line then the continuation of the existing Overground service will have been assumed when deciding how many to order. However should they no longer be needed on the Watford line there should be no difficulty finding somewhere else to operate them, considering the amount of passenger growth there has been on Overground.

 

[swt_passenger]

I imagine the orders for the 710 will be reflective of any changes they plan with the bakerloo line

Also, they clearly intend to replace 5 car 378s running at 3tph with 4 car 710s at 4tph.

That must surely indicate that TfL believe that even 5 car trains are not actually required in the short term; with the Watford DC being run by a shared pool of stock with the West Anglia fleet, rather than shared with the NLL, WLL, ELL?

 

[swt class 450]

Nah, the trains, even in the peak, are empty by the time you get past Headstone Lane and Hatch End. And a 5-car 378 is near enough the same length as a 7-car 72 stock train.

In the peak hours i have actually seen the trains full and standing all the way to Watford Junction. The usage of this line seems to have increased a lot recently.

 

[D365]

That must surely indicate that TfL believe that even 5 car trains are not actually required in the short term; with the Watford DC being run by a shared pool of stock with the West Anglia fleet, rather than shared with the NLL, WLL, ELL?

The Class 710s will actually be pooled into two fleets. The fourteen dual-voltage units for Goblin and Watford DC (with longitudinal seating) will be based at Willesden, with the remaining 31 AC-only (mixed seating layout) being based at Ilford.

 

[LeeLivery]

I think if Bakerloo Line trains replaced London Overground trains to Watford Junction it could definitely really help with capacity. At the moment these trains get very overcrowded in the peak hours on the entire route between London Euston and Watford Junction. Even off peak the trains are often standing room only. With the Bakerloo Line an every 10 minutes in each direction frequency could be used and the trains would be 7 coaches instead of 5 coaches.

Sorry but I just can't see this happening. This "tube is always best" nonsense idea many North Londoners have is silly.

The Bakerloo going Watford Junction instead of London Overground will cause more problems than it solves.

A) Is the cost really worth it when half of the Bakerloo line trains are empty after Willesden anyway outside peaks?
B) Wheelchair users can't use the tube stock along the DC because of platform heights, while over people with disabilities, the elderly and pram users struggle.
C) Do people along the DC really want to loose their direct connection to London Euston to get a Bakerloo line service most of them already have and the others just have to cross platform interchange at Queens Park?
D) Will capacity really be increased as much as suggested? Even after the extension to Lewisham, how many trains will actually go beyond Stonebridge?
E) Where is the space to build another deport for the trains needed for Lewisham, let alone Watford?
F) Where is the capacity on the North London Line to divert DC trains?

Surly it will just be more sensible to upgrade the DC, curtail the Bakerloo at Queens Park and run LO at 6tph (12tph at peaks) in 8 car formations. Give a proper suburban service with everyone able to use the service.

Platform heights is another reason why the Bakerloo beyond to Hayes will probably not happen either. They can't suddenly exclude wheelchair users on the line and it would cost too much to alter. It'll just end up like the Jubilee Thamesmead extension.

 

[LeeLivery]

Very interesting. Too many years since Lewisham was my home (two of them, in fact, at different times) and very near my school too. I really don't believe the intention to terminate at Lewisham has been thought through, though, in the rush to get the extension started from the Elephant, but the refusal to commit to a route, or routes, beyond Lewisham. Dumping so many passengers in Lewisham in the evening peak whose final destination is not within walking distance of the station is not a good idea. Unlike Brixton or Walthamstow Central, for instance, there is not a great bus service, in fact there are far fewer buses than when I left the area in 1988, which is not true of too many parts of London. I also repeat that I think the chances of flooding are not negligible. There may not have been the major flood that occurred in 1968, but I kept a lot of furniture in storage in a facility you could see from the platforms of Lewisham Station for a few years after 1988 and they were ruined in a flood in the early 1990s that received little media attention. My old family house in Bromley was also badly affected by a flood from the River Ravensbourne, normally a stream that ran along the end of the back garden, and this is one of the rivers that meet in Lewisham only yards from the station.

P.S. The Blackheath Society is probably as influential as the Hampstead Society, so that's a non-runner.

The only places in South London which has as many buses in SE London is Bromley and Peckham-Cambelwell-Elephant-New Cross. By the time the Bakerloo reaches Lewisham the buses will be reviewed and TfL will review the buses for the Bakerloo opening. However with many of the commuters working in the city (therefore still using Southeastern) the impact of the Bakerloo may not be on the same level as Brixton. As for the river, that's being altered as part of the Lewisham gateway regeneration developments.

 

[rebmcr]

Platform heights is another reason why the Bakerloo beyond to Hayes will probably not happen either. They can't suddenly exclude wheelchair users on the line and it would cost too much to alter.

By the time that happens, NTfL will be the rolling stock, and when they redo the trackwork for the 4th rail, they can efficiently raise the rail height to provide level boarding.

 

[Busaholic]

Sorry but I just can't see this happening. This "tube is always best" nonsense idea many North Londoners have is silly.

The Bakerloo going Watford Junction instead of London Overground will cause more problems than it solves.

A) Is the cost really worth it when half of the Bakerloo line trains are empty after Willesden anyway outside peaks?
B) Wheelchair users can't use the tube stock along the DC because of platform heights, while over people with disabilities, the elderly and pram users struggle.
C) Do people along the DC really want to loose their direct connection to London Euston to get a Bakerloo line service most of them already have and the others just have to cross platform interchange at Queens Park?
D) Will capacity really be increased as much as suggested? Even after the extension to Lewisham, how many trains will actually go beyond Stonebridge?
E) Where is the space to build another deport for the trains needed for Lewisham, let alone Watford?
F) Where is the capacity on the North London Line to divert DC trains?

Surly it will just be more sensible to upgrade the DC, curtail the Bakerloo at Queens Park and run LO at 6tph (12tph at peaks) in 8 car formations. Give a proper suburban service with everyone able to use the service.

Platform heights is another reason why the Bakerloo beyond to Hayes will probably not happen either. They can't suddenly exclude wheelchair users on the line and it would cost too much to alter. It'll just end up like the Jubilee Thamesmead extension.

You may not agree with my posting, but I won't be churlish because I think you're spot-on with this.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Indeed, the signs at Harrow and Wealdstone say on Platform 1 that occasionally southbound Bakerloo trains will depart from that platform, so must have been some time ago!

The move was possible even when through services ran to Watford J

 

[LU_timetabler]

Reversing from Platform 1 at Harrow & Wealdstone is performed at least once a day. The problem with the move is the driver needs time to shut down one end of the train, walk to the opposite end of the train, and set up that end, before departing. That's a minimum 5 minutes, then there's the time to reach the crossover to the southbound line, then re-set the points to let the next northbound into the platform. Therefore you need at least 8 minutes between trains!

LU trains running to Watford Jcn would need more rolling stock on the Bakerloo, there aren't any more '72 stocks.... and so nothing can or will happen on that front until New Tube for London stock arrives in the mid 2020's or later.

The other problem with running LU mixed with LO is that LO trains are faster than LU trains, so a mixed service all the way to Watford may not be practicable, so it would have to be all LO or all LU. The other restriction is that north of H&W there is a 4 minute headway, which is fine until you remember the Met extension!!

No extra platforms needed at Watford Jcn. - there's 4. 2 platforms is plenty to turn a 5 minute service. Proof: Elephant & Castle turns a 3 minute service with 2 platforms.

What would work far better is to properly inter-schedule the London Midland services with the existing LO services, so that overcrowding on the LO is reduced, though this may then cause overcrowding on London Midland. The Met extension may give some relief.

I have to say travelling myself daily from Carpenders Park as I do, I use LO south to QPK and switch to Bakerloo to Embankment for my final destination of St James's Park. But travelling home I route via Embnakment to Euston, hopefully for a London Midland express to either H&W or Bushey and then LO. Why do I do this? I like to have a seat!! Not necessarily the fastest route in either case, but much higher chances of a seat in peak periods.

The big problems with overcrowding are between Willesden Jcn and as far as Wembley Central, maybe more London Midland trains need to stop there. I've been on peak LO northbound services which were standing room only as far as my own station, that's far too far. The LO service really needs to ramp up in the peaks and it doesn't. Fixing that and re-timing LO and London Midland to give better interchange times at H&W and Bushey would probably even out the overcrowding to 1 or 2 stops.

As correctly pointed out, anything that increases the number of trains required on the Bakerloo line is going to cause a stabling problem. South extension, north extension or increase in frequency in the peak, all need more trains, and there's nowhere to put them!!

Elephant's sidings are not usable due to Health & Safety restrictions, that is the current has to be turned off before the driver can exit the cab, precluding their use. One train is already stabled in Elephant's platforms overnight, ditto for Queen's Park. That's not for convenience, there really is nowhere else to put them!! So whatever extension is planned / goes ahead, needs to include more stabling space, as obviously extensions need more trains.

 

[Busaholic]

As correctly pointed out, anything that increases the number of trains required on the Bakerloo line is going to cause a stabling problem. South extension, north extension or increase in frequency in the peak, all need more trains, and there's nowhere to put them!!

Elephant's sidings are not usable due to Health & Safety restrictions, that is the current has to be turned off before the driver can exit the cab, precluding their use. One train is already stabled in Elephant's platforms overnight, ditto for Queen's Park. That's not for convenience, there really is nowhere else to put them!! So whatever extension is planned / goes ahead, needs to include more stabling space, as obviously extensions need more trains.

It almost beggars belief that the stabling question i.e. provision of a new depot is nowhere nearer solution when a southward extension has been on the cards for fifty years or more (never mind the Watford question). I'm afraid it's an indictment of London Underground management, the Mayoral system of local government in London and, of course, the usually fraught relationship between national government and that local government, starting in the Thatcher days and extending through Gordon Brown's pie-in-the-sky PPP 'initiatives' and mutual hatred between the latter and Ken Livingstone. Poor old Bob Kiley, brought in to clear up the mess, could only impotently turn to drink and an early death. Boris was only interested in his developer chums in Battersea, so that ( unnecessary in comparison) scheme got LU time and monetary backing. Rant over.

Time to thank you, belatedly, for an interesting and informative post. I'd just like to ask a couple of questions. I take it the Elephant sidings issue is not a new one : is it one soluble by pouring in vast sums of money, or not at all because of space constraints? Secondly, and I realise you may not know the answer or, if you do, be able to reveal it, but will no serious work on a southwards extension be able to be done until depot space is found (i.e. created from something else) somewhere in the Lewisham area?

The Bakerloo has always been my favourite tube line, maybe because it was the only one I never worked on back in the day, so have only ever experienced it as a passenger.

 

[LU_timetabler]

The Elephant sidings could be fixed and brought into regular use with a massive investment in "re-jigging" the "juice". The ruling was a H&SE one and has been in for a few years (not sure exactly how many), that said there's never been an accident, it was just felt the driver walkway was too narrow next to "juiced-up" tracks! If the sidings had an individual cut-off power button that the train operator could turn off and on from end of the platform and the end of the train in the cab, in the siding. And if the sidings were on a separate circuit to the platforms, then they could be effectively used.

Don't know about the rest of the queries, but I should imagine that the Hayes proposal beyond Lewisham was put forward because someone thinks there is space along that line for either sidings or a depot.

 

[edwin_m]

Is the old depot site at Croxley still available, accessed via the Met Line connection assuming that ever happens?

 

[bramling]

The Elephant sidings could be fixed and brought into regular use with a massive investment in "re-jigging" the "juice". The ruling was a H&SE one and has been in for a few years (not sure exactly how many), that said there's never been an accident, it was just felt the driver walkway was too narrow next to "juiced-up" tracks! If the sidings had an individual cut-off power button that the train operator could turn off and on from end of the platform and the end of the train in the cab, in the siding. And if the sidings were on a separate circuit to the platforms, then they could be effectively used.

I think it's been in force for a couple of years. Reading between the lines, there was an occasion on the Northern Line when a party of people joined a train in Kennington siding. This was done in the time-honoured way of stopping a northbound train at the points, jumping down and then back up again onto the train in the siding. There was no incident, and everyone on site was more-than happy. However, somehow the unions got involved, a complaint was made to the ORR, and some kind of directive came in that traction current should be discharged when entering a siding *if there is no dedicated walkway provided*.

Naturally this didn't apply at Elephant & Castle because that location does have a walkway. However again unions jumped on the issue and it wasn't long before Elephant & Castle sidings couldn't be accessed without juice going off. To be fair, part of the problem seems to be that the condition of the Elephant & Castle walkway had deteriorated to the extent that hazards were present.

From my personal view, having safely walked into quite a few tunnel sidings without a walkway under just torchlight, with juice live, I don't really see what the fuss is about.

Sounds like the way to go is "rejugging the juice", as you put it.

 

[LU_timetabler]

Is the old depot site at Croxley still available, accessed via the Met Line connection assuming that ever happens?

No, depot was demolished (in the 90s I think) some time after the Croxley branch closed. Depot was closed in 1985. The only reason Bakerloo ran to Watford from the mid-60's onwards was to use that depot. Basically the Bakerloo Watford service became 4 trains into London early in the morning peak and 4 trains out at the end of the evening peak. Simply to use the Croxley Green depot. When the Bakerloo still ran the Stanmore branch the timetable was set up so that trains returned to/from their own branch all day, except for 4 trains that had to come off the Watford branch and stable at Neasden between peaks. That was why, when Stanmore branch went off to form the Jubilee line and Croxley branch, along with Croxley Green depot was threatened with closure, LU had to build Stonebridge Park depot.

New Met extension on part of the Croxley line, is expected to include a new Met depot between Moor Park and Croxley, as well as using the old Watford Met station for stabling trains overnight. Obviously more Met trains needed nowadays because a) Met extension; b) higher service level possible with the 4LM, modernising the signalling on all the sub-surface LU lines.

 

[Busaholic]

The Elephant sidings could be fixed and brought into regular use with a massive investment in "re-jigging" the "juice". The ruling was a H&SE one and has been in for a few years (not sure exactly how many), that said there's never been an accident, it was just felt the driver walkway was too narrow next to "juiced-up" tracks! If the sidings had an individual cut-off power button that the train operator could turn off and on from end of the platform and the end of the train in the cab, in the siding. And if the sidings were on a separate circuit to the platforms, then they could be effectively used.

Don't know about the rest of the queries, but I should imagine that the Hayes proposal beyond Lewisham was put forward because someone thinks there is space along that line for either sidings or a depot.

Thanks for responding. Just one further question - what capacity has Elephant sidings?

You're probably partly right about Hayes. I spent too many hours in my youth travelling from Catford Bridge on that line in order to hide in a bush on Hayes Common during cross-country that I'd willingly travel it again for pleasure, but there certainly used to be an area near Lower Sydenham that looked like it had been derelict for years, but it may be an IKEA now for all I know. The other reason for Hayes I felt was that you could offer a much improved service without impinging on other lines. Oh, and when I lived in Beckenham and was working for LT, a lot of middle management in that organisation both on bus and underground side lived there (one two doors down from David Bowie).