Bakerloo Line extension to Watford Junction.

Discussion in 'London Underground' started by swt class 450, 8 Dec 2016.

  1. Bletchleyite

    Bletchleyite Veteran Member

    Messages:
    44,034
    Joined:
    20 Oct 2014
    Location:
    Up and down the south WCML (mostly)

    That would be good for operational convenience but any suggestion of it brings outrage - the service as it is is extremely popular.
     
  2. swt_passenger

    swt_passenger Veteran Member

    Messages:
    21,158
    Joined:
    7 Apr 2010
    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: 9 Jul 2017
  3. edwin_m

    edwin_m Veteran Member

    Messages:
    16,596
    Joined:
    21 Apr 2013
    Location:
    Nottingham
    Correct.
     
  4. edwin_m

    edwin_m Veteran Member

    Messages:
    16,596
    Joined:
    21 Apr 2013
    Location:
    Nottingham
    Do you mean popular as in well used, or just as in bringing a lot of outrage if anyone proposes changing it?
     
  5. swt_passenger

    swt_passenger Veteran Member

    Messages:
    21,158
    Joined:
    7 Apr 2010
    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?
     
  6. Busaholic

    Busaholic Established Member

    Messages:
    8,433
    Joined:
    7 Jun 2014
    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.
     
  7. edwin_m

    edwin_m Veteran Member

    Messages:
    16,596
    Joined:
    21 Apr 2013
    Location:
    Nottingham
    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.
     
  8. Mikey C

    Mikey C Established Member

    Messages:
    2,892
    Joined:
    11 Feb 2013
    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.
     
  9. AM9

    AM9 Established Member

    Messages:
    7,382
    Joined:
    13 May 2014
    Location:
    St Albans
    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: 10 Jul 2017
  10. swt_passenger

    swt_passenger Veteran Member

    Messages:
    21,158
    Joined:
    7 Apr 2010
    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...
     
  11. edwin_m

    edwin_m Veteran Member

    Messages:
    16,596
    Joined:
    21 Apr 2013
    Location:
    Nottingham
    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.
     
  12. Mikey C

    Mikey C Established Member

    Messages:
    2,892
    Joined:
    11 Feb 2013
    A lot of people do get out at Euston though, it's within walking distance of a lot of shops, offices and Universities.
     
  13. AM9

    AM9 Established Member

    Messages:
    7,382
    Joined:
    13 May 2014
    Location:
    St Albans
    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.
     
  14. HXX

    HXX Member

    Messages:
    14
    Joined:
    28 Dec 2015
    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.
     
  15. LU_timetabler

    LU_timetabler Member

    Messages:
    112
    Joined:
    5 Feb 2017
    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.
     
  16. simple simon

    simple simon Member

    Messages:
    506
    Joined:
    13 Feb 2011
    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: 23 Jul 2017
  17. jopsuk

    jopsuk Veteran Member

    Messages:
    12,099
    Joined:
    13 May 2008
    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
     
  18. LU_timetabler

    LU_timetabler Member

    Messages:
    112
    Joined:
    5 Feb 2017
    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.
     
  19. jopsuk

    jopsuk Veteran Member

    Messages:
    12,099
    Joined:
    13 May 2008
    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)
     
  20. LU_timetabler

    LU_timetabler Member

    Messages:
    112
    Joined:
    5 Feb 2017
    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.
     
  21. edwin_m

    edwin_m Veteran Member

    Messages:
    16,596
    Joined:
    21 Apr 2013
    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.
     
  22. rebmcr

    rebmcr Established Member

    Messages:
    2,915
    Joined:
    15 Nov 2011
    Location:
    Cambridge
    Could LO not interwork with the NLL and leave Euston alone?
     
  23. MCR247

    MCR247 Established Member

    Messages:
    9,082
    Joined:
    7 Nov 2008
    Paths on the NLL say no I would imagine
     
  24. Mag_seven

    Mag_seven Established Member

    Messages:
    5,352
    Joined:
    1 Sep 2014
    Location:
    here to eternity
    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.
     
  25. Clip

    Clip On Moderation

    Messages:
    10,477
    Joined:
    28 Jun 2010
    But people still want to go to Euston though
     
  26. trc666

    trc666 Member

    Messages:
    231
    Joined:
    6 Jul 2005
    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.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: 25 Aug 2017
  27. Bletchleyite

    Bletchleyite Veteran Member

    Messages:
    44,034
    Joined:
    20 Oct 2014
    Location:
    Up and down the south WCML (mostly)
    They did this for a while (turning left at Primrose Hill, though I forget where to in the end) when some work was being done a while ago, and passengers slated it. They actually want Euston on proper sized trains.
     
  28. trc666

    trc666 Member

    Messages:
    231
    Joined:
    6 Jul 2005
    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.
     
  29. rebmcr

    rebmcr Established Member

    Messages:
    2,915
    Joined:
    15 Nov 2011
    Location:
    Cambridge
    I didn't realise it was still passenger-rated! Is that during planned engineering or during disruption? I'd quite like to sample it next time.
     
  30. MCR247

    MCR247 Established Member

    Messages:
    9,082
    Joined:
    7 Nov 2008
    Planned engineering work
     

Share This Page