Bakerloo Line extension to Watford Junction.

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
54,938
Location
Up and down the south WCML (mostly)
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.

That would be good for operational convenience but any suggestion of it brings outrage - the service as it is is extremely popular.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
22,775
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.
That isn't the suggestion, I think the earlier poster is just saying that the stretch from Queens Park to Watford Junction should be purely Bakerloo operated. It isn't actually proposing any new tunnels or routes.
 
Last edited:

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
22,775
It's a bit of a historic oddball isn't it.

I wonder why it never just become a 'pure' Bakerloo route. There are comparisons that can be made with the Central Line takeover of mainline routes out of Liverpool St, in that case there were vestigial freight services but the passenger service was all transferred to LU. Wonder why the joint operation of the Bakerloo/DC has always been kept going. Can it really just be about the two intermediate station calls?
 

Busaholic

Established Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
9,487
It's a bit of a historic oddball isn't it.

I wonder why it never just become a 'pure' Bakerloo route. There are comparisons that can be made with the Central Line takeover of mainline routes out of Liverpool St, in that case there were vestigial freight services but the passenger service was all transferred to LU. Wonder why the joint operation of the Bakerloo/DC has always been kept going. Can it really just be about the two intermediate station calls?
I wonder if it's a case of neither operator really wanting ownership. I was someone who actually used Primrose Hill Station for work reasons in the 1970s, and remember how both its closure and the cessation of Broad Street services seemed to produce a singular lack of tears amongst the then BR management: on the other hand did LU want the hassle of responsibility for those extra stations when they were in the throes of converting the Stanmore branch of the Bakerloo to be part of the Jubilee? I suspect some sort of 'fudge' was reached then, in the 1970s, and it essentially prevails today.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
18,820
Location
Nottingham
It's a bit of a historic oddball isn't it.

I wonder why it never just become a 'pure' Bakerloo route. There are comparisons that can be made with the Central Line takeover of mainline routes out of Liverpool St, in that case there were vestigial freight services but the passenger service was all transferred to LU. Wonder why the joint operation of the Bakerloo/DC has always been kept going. Can it really just be about the two intermediate station calls?
Historic oddball sounds like an explanation for that too. Because the LNWR and whoever was running the Bakerloo agreed on a joint running arrangement everyone got used to it, hence the outcries mentioned above if anyone proposes putting an end to it. The difference may be that the Central still runs to Liverpool Street, the H&C to Paddington and the Northern to Kings Cross and Moorgate, so after LT takeover passengers still had a through train to their original terminus as well as a choice of extra destinations. The Bakerloo doesn't run to Euston.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
3,509
Historic oddball sounds like an explanation for that too. Because the LNWR and whoever was running the Bakerloo agreed on a joint running arrangement everyone got used to it, hence the outcries mentioned above if anyone proposes putting an end to it. The difference may be that the Central still runs to Liverpool Street, the H&C to Paddington and the Northern to Kings Cross and Moorgate, so after LT takeover passengers still had a through train to their original terminus as well as a choice of extra destinations. The Bakerloo doesn't run to Euston.
Yes, many people will want to go to Euston, and it wouldn't be pretty inconvenient without the Overground trains. From north of Wembley Central you could change to the London Midland trains, but that's an unappealing prospect (for both sets of users), while from the Bakerloo line, there's the poor connection at Paddington due to the Bakerloo Line connecting to the "wrong" Circle Line station.
 

AM9

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
8,491
Location
St Albans
Yes, many people will want to go to Euston, and it wouldn't be pretty inconvenient without the Overground trains. From north of Wembley Central you could change to the London Midland trains, but that's an unappealing prospect (for both sets of users), while from the Bakerloo line, there's the poor connection at Paddington due to the Bakerloo Line connecting to the "wrong" Circle Line station.
Just looking at the number of passengers going to a London terminal doesn't really tell the whole picture, especially when considering metro services. In the case of Euston, there are nearly 21m exits or entries per year. A great deal of those are for inter-city journeys and outer suburban commuting. As the LO services don't have direct railside interchange with the tube or SSL, all those travelling onwards to the City, West End or even the South Bank areas are included in them, so the loss of a direct LO service might be not so serious as it seems.
For those who would travel on the Bakerloo, within 2 years the facility to change at Paddington onto Crossrail will give them faster and in some ways, better access to much of the West End and the City than the current Northern/Victoria lines do. Similarly, when the HS2 station opens up at OOC, there may be a fairly easy interchange with Crossrail there (Euston Square isn't exactly convenient now).
 
Last edited:

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
22,775
Yes, many people will want to go to Euston, and it wouldn't be pretty inconvenient without the Overground trains...
My double negative alarm is going off. I think I know what you attempted to get acrosss though...

It always seems to me the DC route into Euston is one of the least important in the overall scheme of things, but at the same time no-one is likely to ever abandon two stations in the modern climate, that is more about re-openings than closures...
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
18,820
Location
Nottingham
Yes, many people will want to go to Euston, and it wouldn't be pretty inconvenient without the Overground trains. From north of Wembley Central you could change to the London Midland trains, but that's an unappealing prospect (for both sets of users), while from the Bakerloo line, there's the poor connection at Paddington due to the Bakerloo Line connecting to the "wrong" Circle Line station.
Connecting to Euston from the Bakerloo would be easier at Baker Street or perhaps Oxford Circus. And Paddington is getting an underground walkway from the Bakerloo to Crossrail which should open up various other destinations.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
3,509
Just looking at the number of passengers going to a London terminal doesn't really tell the whole picture, especially when considering metro services. In the case of Euston, there are nearly 21m exits or entries per year. A great deal of those are for inter-city journeys and outer suburban commuting. As the LO services don't have direct railside interchange with the tube or SSL, all those travelling onwards to the City, West End or even the South Bank areas are included in them, so the loss of a direct LO service might be not so serious as it seems.
For those who would travel on the Bakerloo, within 2 years the facility to change at Paddington onto Crossrail will give them faster and in some ways, better access to much of the West End and the City than the current Northern/Victoria lines do. Similarly, when the HS2 station opens up at OOC, there may be a fairly easy interchange with Crossrail there (Euston Square isn't exactly convenient now).
A lot of people do get out at Euston though, it's within walking distance of a lot of shops, offices and Universities.
 

AM9

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
8,491
Location
St Albans
A lot of people do get out at Euston though, it's within walking distance of a lot of shops, offices and Universities.
Well they have to get out at Euston because it's the end of the line, but if they had to use the Bakerloo, I doubt that those who didn't travel further would be that significant (in London traffic levels) compared with the total using alternative routes from Bakerloo Line stations.
 

HXX

Member
Joined
28 Dec 2015
Messages
14
I commute from Queens Park into central London on the Bakerloo and I can't imagine how much more overcrowded it would be in the morning without the Overground taking some of the pressure off. Besides it's a faster option to the Euston area for those who need it.
 

LU_timetabler

Member
Joined
5 Feb 2017
Messages
118
I live on the Watford DC line (i.e. north of Harrow & Wealdstone) and not at a station also served by London Midland. Since I travel into central London for work everyday I can tell you that the following is the actual way things are:
1. HS2 will not cause the London Overground Euston service to be stopped or amended.
2. In rush hour approximately half or more of the passengers on a LO train arriving at Queen's Park southbound cross platform onto the Bakerloo.
3. The off-peak and peak services on the line north of Queen's Park in the evening are the same and actually need boosting in the peak, since it is standing room only if you try to board an Overground at Harrow & Wealdstone, as late as 6.30p.m. (Hint: Think about what time it actually started out from Euston)
For me personally when travelling to work in the morning it is better to change at QUP, since I can gurantee a seat on an empty Bakerloo train off the reversing tracks, rather than going to EUS and fighting my way into the Underground and onto a train. Yet in the evening it is better to go to through EUS, because then I will actually be able to get a seat on the Overground service. Also if I wanted to travel north to say Manchester I actually need to go into EUS, possibly with a suitcase and I don't particularly wish to be forced to make the awkward change at Harrow. Also as the current timetable stands VERY few trains are timed to stop at Harrow to afford good interchange with the Overground service in either direction.
There are enhancements planned to the Overground service in the next few years. (keeping the daytime service into the late evening until close of traffic and increasing 3tph to 4tph) But neither of these enhancements provides an increased peak service!
Ideal solution would be for Bakerloo to extend to Watford Junction in the peaks only. The problem is that this can't even be considered until new rolling stock (New Tube for London) is delivered to the line - which is quite a long way off!! There just aren't enough trains of the current Bakerloo stock to provide any service increase.
It will be interesting to see how the 4tph Overground increase in service and how the arrival of the Met extension to Watford Junction (Croxley Link) affect the overall patronage and peak overcrowding on the line. Either way do not expect the Overground's service to Euston to go any time soon.
 

simple simon

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
569
Location
Suburban London
Restoring Bakerloo trains to Watford Junction sounds good to me. However, maintaining the joint operations with the mainline trains should not be sacrificed in the process.

As for increasing capacity on the LO service there is a third and even a fourth option.

No.3 would be to revisit the LNWR's original plans for a subterranean loop.

No.4 would be to send some trains via the North London Line again. This could either see trains diverted at Willesden Junction or via Primrose Hill. Both were done for many years! (Headcode 7 and headcode 2 on the class 501 trains).

Perhaps the trains could terminate at Highbury & Islington, rather than operate as a though service with the ELL. This would prevent delays on one service from affecting another service. I would shift the eastern end of platform 1 further east plus lengthen it westwards, so that it became long enough to accommodate two trains. At present the track through this platform ends at a buffer stop. I would also look to send these trains (in both directions) through platform 1 at Caledonian Road and Barnsbury. Perhaps non-stop. The idea being to reduce conflicting moves between eastbound trains (from Watford) heading for Highbury and westbound trains heading for Richmond / Clapham Junc.

The subterranean loop option could be expanded upon so that trains would perhaps travel south to Victoria... its not very far and by only serving existing intermediate stations the cost would be lower as there would not be a need a need to build new stations (only new platforms and platforms access tunnels.)

Simon
 
Last edited:

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,329
The crayon version of the North London Line idea:
Widen the alignment from Camden Road West Junction to Camden Road station
Restore the north pair of tracks at Camden Road
Reopen Maiden Lane station
Rebuild platforms at Caledonian Road & Barnesbury
Four tracks through the tunnel? Is there space?

Easy to do version: run the southern pair of tracks as dedicated for Watford DC to ELL

Harder: flyover/diveunder at Camden Road West Junction and Dalston, with tracks then paired by direction
 

LU_timetabler

Member
Joined
5 Feb 2017
Messages
118
Thanks for the funky routing ideas. There's a fundamental flaw with all of these..... it is called track capacity. Which basically means the signalling is a limiting factor. This is going to shock you but when the line was re-signalled in 1988 from the special high density 1930s signalling, which allowed 2 minute headways over the line, the headways were increased reflecting the line's operation at that time. We are now stuck with a situation where when LO goes to 4tph and you add in LU 6tph to Harrow and LU 3tph to Stonebridge Park you could only just about fit in one extra Stonebridge Park train and that's it!
Why so bad?
Detrainment time is cuplrit number 1, really need to build bay platforms to fix it. The second culprit is the requirement for 4min 30s between trains north of Wembley, and 3 minutes between trains north of Stonebridge Park.
So unless the signalling is upgraded to 2 or 2min 30s headways and you add in bay platforms for terminating at Stonebridge Park and Harrow & Wealdstone, you are limited to 14 trains per hour. This is the line's real capacity problem.
LO could run longer trains, as the platforms are all long enough for Bakerloo trains, that would help a bit.
There are huge numbers of people changing to/from NLL at Willesden Jcn, so I'm pretty sure a direct through routing would prove popular.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,329
A Bakerloo line 1972 stock train is 113.5m long. The current Overground Class 378 trains are 102m long- though the Class 710 will only be ~80m long (in a common pool with the GOBLIN fleet)
 

LU_timetabler

Member
Joined
5 Feb 2017
Messages
118
The future plans keep changing. All that is certain is that come finished southern extension and new tube train ordering time, they will need to be a bit more definite in order to acquire the correct number of trains. There is little doubt the decision will be affected by the completion (or not) of the Met extension to Watford Junction.

In its simplest terms a 15 minute service off-peak north of H&W is probably OK at the moment, but who knows in the future, but is inadequate in the rush-hour. The line needs a boosted peak service. Assuming there are no extra slots at Euston for LO to run a peak service, this means re-extending the Bakerloo. The problem is that at the moment every LU train is committed to operating the current peak service, there are no spare trains that could run a Watford service, and there's no way LU are going to decrease their service in central London, that would certainly be a big NO! That's why no change is possible until after new trains arrive, there aren't enough of the current ones.

The future service north of H&W would only really be needed by 3 stations - Headstone Lane, Hatch End and Carpenders Park. Bushey is also a London Midland stop, Watford High Street will also be covered by Met extension and Watford Jcn is covered by both. Without population projections for all of these it is difficult to guess the required service level 10-15 years into the future. The most likely solution will be LO terminates at Willesden Jcn and Bakerloo is re-extended to Watford Jcn (probably 6tph all day). Then you could have up to 6tph reversing H&W (unlikely to need that many - but possible). You then most likely have no need to run Stonebridge Park reversers other than stabling trains inter-peak. But a cheaper off-peak version could be 3 tph to Watford Jcn, 3 tph H&W and 3 tph Stonebridge Park. It will all depend on the travelling public's needs.

What will be seen as essential is getting enough trains to cover the southern extension and to ensure a 2.5 minute or better peak service south of Queen's Park. At the moment the peak service is 2.5 with the odd 3 minute gap because there are insufficient trains for better!

I'd love to see the Bakerloo get both north and south extensions and enough trains for a 2 minute (or maybe 1.5minute) peak, but I doubt it will happen because for reasons I've never understood the Bakerloo is like the forgotten middle child of LU. It gets the hand-me-downs from everyone else (the new young up starts that go better than it (Jub)). The neighbouring mature, older lines that go faster in the peaks (Met). Of course the southern extension may massively change its significance and passenger usage - let's hope so!

Also people often forget there's a peak flow into/out of Watford at the top end of the line as well.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
18,820
Location
Nottingham
I've seen quotes, probably on London Reconnections, that after the Northern Battersea extension the Bakerloo will be the only LU line with scope to carry more passengers in central London. This also means that it's the only like that could be extended, as there's no point in extending other lines if the core sections couldn't take the extra passengers.

The reason for this is probably that the H&C/Circle duplicate it between Paddington and Baker Street, and the Jubilee essentially duplicates it between Baker Street and Waterloo as does the Northern south of Charing Cross.
 

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,151
Location
Cambridge
The most likely solution will be LO terminates at Willesden Jcn and Bakerloo is re-extended to Watford Jcn (probably 6tph all day). Then you could have up to 6tph reversing H&W (unlikely to need that many - but possible).
Could LO not interwork with the NLL and leave Euston alone?
 

Mag_seven

Established Member
Associate Staff
General Discussion
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
6,551
Location
here to eternity
Could LO not interwork with the NLL and leave Euston alone?
If they could connect the East London line to the North London Line at Highbury then you could extend the services that terminate there to Watford and possibly re-open Primrose Hill station at the same time. Thus they could pull out of Euston altogether.
 

Clip

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,616
If they could connect the East London line to the North London Line at Highbury then you could extend the services that terminate there to Watford and possibly re-open Primrose Hill station at the same time. Thus they could pull out of Euston altogether.
But people still want to go to Euston though
 

trc666

Member
Joined
6 Jul 2005
Messages
232
Location
Islington
Could be possible I suppose, this is what my proposal would be -

Highbury & Islington:

Realign NLL so that it takes the northern pair of tracks from Westbourne Road Junction
ELL to take southern pair of tracks and continue 4 tracking as far as Camden Road.



Caledonian Road & Barnsbury:
Reopen platform 1 and add a fourth platform on the other side. Platform 2 would become eastbound ELL and 3 would become westbound NLL.

Camden Road:
Extend four tracking from Westbourne Road Junction as far as here, reconstruct platforms on the northern side of the station. Platforms 1 and 2 would be westbound / eastbound ELL while new platforms 3 and 4 would become westbound and eastbound NLL respectively. Possibility of additional pointwork to allow interworking (ie diverting NLL to Willesden Junction low level via Queen's Park during disruption and for freight / ECS to access the WCML) and reversals.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

trc666

Member
Joined
6 Jul 2005
Messages
232
Location
Islington
That was Stratford to Watford Junction I believe. Primrose Hill diversion happens now and again with NLL trains diverted to Queen's Park or Willesden Junction low level, calling additionally at South Hampstead, Kilburn High Road and Kensal Green as appropriate although on past occasions trains have run fast Camden Road to Queen's Park.
 

Top