London Overground extension

[Peter stanley]

EXTENSION OF LONDON OVERGROUND CRYSTAL PALACE TO CLAPHAM JCT.

I propose extension of London Overground (LO) services from Crystal Palace to Clapham Jct. (via Balham) where they could then continue over the West London line to Willesden Jct. This would form a sort of "outer circle" and would bring a further five stations onto the LO network, namely:- Gipsey Hill, W. Norwood, Streatham Hill, Balham and Wandsworth Common. The service would be 4tph in each direction.
The advantages:
By providing a direct service from the above stations to both the East London line (Whitechapel/Shoreditch) and the West London line (Shepherds Bush/Willesden) journey times would be considerably reduced.
Reduced congestion on platforms/walkways at Clapham Jct. as these passengers would no longer have to change for LO services.
Increased frequency of services between Clapham Jct. and Crystal Palace.

One problem is that the line between Balham and Clapham Jct. is busy - 16tph in each direction in peaks and the Westbound LO services would need to cross the down local line from Victoria twice:- at Balham Jct. and at Clapham Jct. (as they would need to enter plat. 16). The potential congestion could be alleviated somewhat by truncating the London Bridge - Victoria southern service so that it terminates at Crystal Palace; not ideal but would have the advantage of freeing up some platform space at Victoria. The Victoria - W. Croydon service via Crystal Palace would remain, so there would still be an overall increase in services on the Crystal Palace - Clapham Jct. section (6tph compared to 4tph at present).

Any comments on these ideas would be welcome.

Peter Stanley

 

[JonathanH]

EXTENSION OF LONDON OVERGROUND CRYSTAL PALACE TO CLAPHAM JCT.

I propose extension of London Overground (LO) services from Crystal Palace to Clapham Jct. (via Balham) where they could then continue over the West London line to Willesden Jct. This would form a sort of "outer circle" and would bring a further five stations onto the LO network, namely:- Gipsey Hill, W. Norwood, Streatham Hill, Balham and Wandsworth Common. The service would be 4tph in each direction.

Unfortunately this one doesn't really work - you propose removing a 10-car train into Victoria with a train constrained to be formed of 5-coaches that has to make an awkward connection at Clapham Junction into the West London Line platforms. I'm just not sure it is the best use of capacity (if the number of people using the trains through Balham gets back to the levels previously seen). London Overground doesn't have enough 378s to run this service in any case.

would have the advantage of freeing up some platform space at Victoria

What for? Do the operators struggle with platform space at the moment?

 

[Peter stanley]

Unfortunately this one doesn't really work - you propose removing a 10-car train into Victoria with a train constrained to be formed of 5-coaches that has to make an awkward connection at Clapham Junction into the West London Line platforms. I'm just not sure it is the best use of capacity (if the number of people using the trains through Balham gets back to the levels previously seen). London Overground doesn't have enough 378s to run this service in any case.


What for? Do the operators struggle with platform space at the moment?

My proposal was to replace two 10-car London Bridge/Victoria services with four 5-car London Overground services, so no reduction in capacity - in fact there would be a small increase as LO cars can hold more passengers than Southern cars owing to more standing room and less seating. It would also reduce congestion at Victoria where the tube station is often temporarily closed during morning peak owing to overcrowding on the platforms, because passengers for stations such as High St Kensington and Notting Hill Gate could travel direct to W.Brompton and change onto the District line thereby avoiding Victoria.

I agree more 378s would be needed - I estimate a further six units given a run time of 20 mins. Crystal Palace to Clapham Jct.

Victoria has sufficient capacity at present but freeing up platform space at Victoria may enable faster recovery from disruption (eg broken down trains, signal failures) which seems to happen fairly regularly.

If operators consider that the extra traffic over the Balham-Clapham Jct. section cannot be easily accommodated, then at least the LO could be extended from Crystal Palace to Streatham Hill where reversing facilities are available and of course, under this scenario the London bridge - Victoria service would remain.

 

[BJames]

My proposal was to replace two 10-car London Bridge/Victoria services with four 5-car London Overground services, so no reduction in capacity - in fact there would be a small increase as LO cars can hold more passengers than Southern cars owing to more standing room and less seating. It would also reduce congestion at Victoria where the tube station is often temporarily closed during morning peak owing to overcrowding on the platforms, because passengers for stations such as High St Kensington and Notting Hill Gate could travel direct to W.Brompton and change onto the District line thereby avoiding Victoria.

I agree more 378s would be needed - I estimate a further six units given a run time of 20 mins. Crystal Palace to Clapham Jct.

Victoria has sufficient capacity at present but freeing up platform space at Victoria may enable faster recovery from disruption (eg broken down trains, signal failures) which seems to happen fairly regularly.

I do kind of see where you're coming from but to me it seems a large price to pay for adding extra capacity at Victoria "just in case". Other London Termini e.g. Kings Cross and Liverpool Street are far more in need of extra capacity, and there are plans in place especially at Kings Cross to solve this. I've not really heard of serious capacity problems at Victoria. I agree that the underground station is usually quite busy but so are a lot of Zone 1 stations.

I know this is speculative but other considering e.g. Great Northern's Hertford/Welwyn route and the already in progress Barking Riverside extension, I can't see scope for this in the near future.

 

[Callum J]

If you're going to terminate the London Bridge-Victoria loop service early at Crystal Palace then Crystal Palace would be reduced to just two trains an hour to Victoria, which doesn't seem like enough. Unless you switch the Beckenham Junction-London Bridge via CP service to start/terminate at Victoria instead. You could then operate a Crystal Palace to Highbury & Islington Overground service via Gipsy Hill, West Norwood, Tulse Hill and onwards to Peckham Rye and the East London Line. Though this would reduce frequency at South Bermondsey to 2 an hour, which isn't great. It all sounds like too much hassle for not enough gain.

 

[sjoh]

There are actually vague aspirations to switch the Southern Beckenham Junction service to Victoria as mooted in TfL's "Metroisation" proposal published last March (2019) I believe.

 

[JonathanH]

There are actually vague aspirations to switch the Southern Beckenham Junction service to Victoria as mooted in TfL's "Metroisation" proposal published last March (2019) I believe.

That doesn't make it a good idea or likely to happen. The whole point of running London Bridge to Beckenham is to match eight coach trains to eight coach platforms. If you run those trains to Victoria, you run eight coach trains at Balham when you could be running ten coach trains. (Of course, this could be academic if future demand only requires four or five coach trains in the metro area in the future.)

 

[sjoh]

That doesn't make it a good idea or likely to happen. The whole point of running London Bridge to Beckenham is to match eight coach trains to eight coach platforms. If you run those trains to Victoria, you run eight coach trains at Balham when you could be running ten coach trains. (Of course, this could be academic if future demand only requires four or five coach trains in the metro area in the future.)

Didn't say it was. Just an observation.