Splitting the Northern line

[Fazaar1889]

It's been put forward many times to split the northern line due to some confusion on the line but it has been retorted that this will be complex. Why is that?

 

[Mzzzs]

Well, Camden station I think is the biggest problem with splitting the branches. It just hasn't got the capacity needed for line interchanges. I was at Camden last week and the station need a capacity increase urgently it took me over 10 min to leave the station.

Then you have to split the trains will they have enough for each line?
All the signage.
Time table rewrite would be needed.
Passenger Impacts would be high Splitting the northern line could potentially disrupt the travel patterns of passengers who are accustomed to using the line as a single route.

 

[Dstock7080]

this tread provides useful insight and could be re-opened:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/camden-town-and-northern-line-separation.209720/

 

[Basil Jet]

"Splitting" the line could mean changing the timetable, or it could mean telling the public that the Eastern Line run from Edgware/Barnet/Mill Hill via Bank to Morden and the Western Line runs from Edgware/Barnet/Mill Hill via Charing Cross to Battersea and Morden, and leaving the timetable exactly as it is now. One of the coloured lines from Kennington to Morden would have to be dashed due to the limited service. It would be a lot less confusing for tourists, and the signage at Kennington and Euston would become a lot simpler. Every line diagram on every LU train and half of the platforms would have to change, but they will have to do that anyway when the Overground gets repackaged.

 

[Chris M]

"Splitting" the line could mean changing the timetable, or it could mean telling the public that the Eastern Line run from Edgware/Barnet/Mill Hill via Bank to Morden and the Western Line runs from Edgware/Barnet/Mill Hill via Charing Cross to Battersea and Morden, and leaving the timetable exactly as it is now.

Splitting means one line running Edgware-Battersea via Charing Cross and the other running High Barnet/Mill Hill East to Morden. Currently trains from both zone 1 branches run to both northern branches, typically alternating, so that at Camden you have something like 1. Morden-High Barnet via Bank. 2. Battersea/Kennington Edgware via Charing Cross, 3. Morden to Edgware via Bank, 4. Battersea/Kennington to High Barnet via Charing Cross. with occasional trains to/from Morden via Charing Cross. Splitting the line cannot be done without a complete timetable re-write. While this would be time-consuming to produce it would be doable today from a stock and crew perspective. The reason a split can't be done today is Camden Town, it was stated during the consultation about the rebuilding plans that the station expansion was necessary before splitting the line could even be considered, but a split is not inevitable even if the station is expanded.

 

[Mikey C]

Also the main reason to split the Northern Line is that you can then increase frequency on the 2 new separate lines you create.

Except that there are no extra trains to up the frequency, so until new trains are ordered, which won't now be until when the 1995 stock is replaced, what would be the point?

 

[paul332]

The points would also be the point. Each of the multiple sets of points in the Camden Town layout is switched after every train, resulting in enormous wear and tear and maintenance bills, the most intense on the network. My understanding is that each set is manually checked and attended to if necessary every day.

Splitting the lines would remove this switching and associated cost. But at the cost of inconvenience for half the passengers. And as others have commented, impractical and dangerous with the current station layout.

 

[Nym]

The points would also be the point. Each of the multiple sets of points in the Camden Town layout is switched after every train, resulting in enormous wear and tear and maintenance bills, the most intense on the network. My understanding is that each set is manually checked and attended to if necessary every day.

Splitting the lines would remove this switching and associated cost. But at the cost of inconvenience for half the passengers. And as others have commented, impractical and dangerous with the current station layout.

Not much more often than the points at any high frequency terminus like Brixton or Walthamstow Central.

 

[nw1]

Surely the problem would be that each northern terminus would lose the through service to either the western or the eastern branch.

I'd have thought that this disadvantage would outweigh any possible advantages.

 

[cle]

Surely the problem would be that each northern terminus would lose the through service to either the western or the eastern branch.

I'd have thought that this disadvantage would outweigh any possible advantages.

So it’d be the same as most metro lines then, and at much better frequency.

It’s the same as the silly argument that every Southern Region place needs both Victoria and LB, or Charing Cross and Cannon St - because they’ve historically had choices.

Rip the band-aid, as it were - most lines don’t have that choice, standardise and up frequency and predictability.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Surely the problem would be that each northern terminus would lose the through service to either the western or the eastern branch.

I'd have thought that this disadvantage would outweigh any possible advantages.

I don't think it's a massive issue. Crossrail was massively hyped up as a connected railway from Berkshire to Essex and no trains run from Reading to Shenfield (something I thought was appalling at first then realised it's not a big deal to change) You have to change to get from Waterloo to St Pancras, people manage that, and I'd have thought that far more of an important connection than something like Totteridge & Whetstone to Borough.

I reckon it'd be High Barnet with Charing Cross and Edgware with Bank, as this is how the service is operated during morning peaks. Catching a train for Euston at Waterloo in the morning, all are bound for High Barnet or Mill Hill.

A good opportunity to rename the Bank branch as the "Southern line," considering it is indeed the most southerly line on the network, yet not the most northerly, although going from Northern to Southern might be a little confusing. Army sludgey green for the colour perhaps The Charing Cross branch can stay as it is I guess.

 

[Dstock7080]

I reckon it'd be High Barnet with Charing Cross and Edgware with Bank, as this is how the service is operated during morning peaks. Catching a train for Euston at Waterloo in the morning, all are bound for High Barnet or Mill Hill.

As said in the other thread, the split will be Edgware-Battersea via Charing Cross as there would then be a main depot on each line

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

As said in the other thread, the split will be Edgware-Battersea via Charing Cross as there would then be a main depot on each line

That was confirmed was it? I suppose it makes sense to have one big depot for each.

 

[NorthKent1989]

So it’d be the same as most metro lines then, and at much better frequency.

It’s the same as the silly argument that every Southern Region place needs both Victoria and LB, or Charing Cross and Cannon St - because they’ve historically had choices.

Rip the band-aid, as it were - most lines don’t have that choice, standardise and up frequency and predictability.

Difference being is that on the South Eastern network in particular London Bridge mainline station is that the interchange there isn’t what it was hyped up to be with regular overcrowding and passengers waiting on the concourse because the platforms are too overcrowded, you now have signage that separates CST, Thameslink, CHX and Southern passengers apart, which again was never the plan.

The passengers in this regard were right, seeing the disruption SE has had since December.

The Northern line split probably will never happen, much like the Bakerloo line being re-extended to Watford by 2026

 

[Mikey C]

And as I've said on another page, the whole point of splitting the Northern Line would be to increase frequency, and there aren't the extra trains to do that, so it would be pointless at the momenyt. Indeed meeting the current timetable with the 95s seems to be a struggle at the moment...

Difference being is that on the South Eastern network in particular London Bridge mainline station is that the interchange there isn’t what it was hyped up to be with regular overcrowding and passengers waiting on the concourse because the platforms are too overcrowded, you now have signage that separates CST, Thameslink, CHX and Southern passengers apart, which again was never the plan.

The passengers in this regard were right, seeing the disruption SE has had since December.

The Northern line split probably will never happen, much like the Bakerloo line being re-extended to Watford by 2026

Similarly get rid of the through trains to both CST and CHX, but don't increase the frequency of trains to compensate, indeed reduce the frequency...

 

[NorthKent1989]

Similarly get rid of the through trains to both CST and CHX, but don't increase the frequency of trains to compensate, indeed reduce the frequency...

Exactly, reduce the choice in terminals and reduce the service is never a good idea.

most lines don’t have that choice, standardise and up frequency and predictability.

This simply isn’t true, many areas in London have choices in routes, Stratford now has three routes to the West End, with the Central, Jubilee and Elizabeth lines, in Harrow, the ‘Hill’ station has the Metropolitan and Chiltern routes, and the Wealdstone’ station has the Overground and Bakerloo lines.

 

[rebmcr]

This simply isn’t true, many areas in London have choices in routes, Stratford now has three routes to the West End, with the Central, Jubilee and Elizabeth lines, in Harrow, the ‘Hill’ station has the Metropolitan and Chiltern routes, and the Wealdstone’ station has the Overground and Bakerloo lines.

I think their point is, that someone boarding a train at Stanmore, who wishes to travel to Morden, must change. Therefore, requiring someone boarding a train at Edgware to also change in order to reach Morden is not an unusual burden.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I think their point is, that someone boarding a train at Stanmore, who wishes to travel to Morden, must change. Therefore, requiring someone boarding a train at Edgware to also change in order to reach Morden is not an unusual burden.

Maybe, but Stanmore and Morden are on different line’s already, there’s a big difference between that scenario and traveling between Edgware and Morden.

 

[rebmcr]

Maybe, but Stanmore and Morden are on different line’s already, there’s a big difference between that scenario and traveling between Edgware and Morden.

Yes, this is more like being unable to go from Ealing Broadway to Edgware Road without changing, which are on the same line but don't enjoy a direct service.

 

[30120]

Splitting would not be good for disabled people, elderly people and pram pushers. Difficult for suitcase wheelers heading to Waterloo. Because of the way that the stations were built partly on top of each other to be entirely under the road, there has to be steps. I worked as a guard on the northern in the 1980's. When things went wrong, then Coburg street would send trains down either Bank or Charring Cross, whichever was working and put excess trains in the depots to keep the service working. The same for the northern branches, one would be working but the other closed. This gave a lot of flexibility, you could usually serve the central stations. If you split the lines, then without flexibility, the whole line shuts.
OK you could run a few more trains per hour, but it won't work unless a lot of money is thrown at Camden Town, and that is money that TFL doesn't have.

It's not broken, so don't try and fix it.

 

[Chris M]

Splitting would not be good for disabled people, elderly people and pram pushers. Difficult for suitcase wheelers heading to Waterloo. Because of the way that the stations were built partly on top of each other to be entirely under the road, there has to be steps.

The rebuilt Camden Town would have full step-free access between all platforms and the surface, and this is another reason why any split cannot happen until after the station is remodelled.

 

[30120]

The only thing that can be done at Camden Town in the short term is to demolish the Midland bank at the south end of the station and fit gate lines in its place. There is dangerous over crowding at weekends. The gate lines are too close to the top of the escalators.

 

[dosxuk]

Because of the way that the stations were built partly on top of each other to be entirely under the road, there has to be steps.

For cross platform interchange between lines there wouldn't need to be steps involved as the platforms for each direction are at virtually the same level - it just needs new corridors directly linking the platforms constructing. Only changing direction north-south or vice-versa will involve a change of level.

 

[Daniel]

When things went wrong, then Coburg street would send trains down either Bank or Charring Cross, whichever was working and put excess trains in the depots to keep the service working. The same for the northern branches, one would be working but the other closed. This gave a lot of flexibility, you could usually serve the central stations. If you split the lines, then without flexibility, the whole line shuts.

Whilst the step-free issue can be resolved with remodelling at Kennington and more specifically Camden Town, this is a really important point.

Whilst I'm sure Service Control staff on every line tell people that theirs is the hardest to manage, the Northern have the issue where there is always something to keep moving. If the Victoria Line has a wheel-stop incident in the city for example, there is little they can do to work around it. However, on the Northern, you can always divert somewhere. Even if there is an issue at Camden Town affecting both branches, there are enough crew depots and reversing points that shuttle services can be implemented - EDG-GGN, HBT/MHE-EFN, EUS-MDN, CHX-BPS etc etc - there is always somewhere to send trains, and it is very rare to have a whole line suspension where the SCC team sit there, look at the screens and say "Welp, we're not moving anything until this gets fixed then are we?"

...unless the signalling system goes bang, obvs.

 

[ThameslinkUser]

How would a split affect the SelTrac SMC?

 

[Daniel]

How would a split affect the SelTrac SMC?

I suppose it would depend on whether control of the 'new' line were to be transferred to a different SCC. If so, then control would need to be removed from the current SMC, the software re-programmed to remove those diversionary routes, etc.

If it were to be in the same SCC, it would be largely no different, just a new timetable loaded to reflect no booked services crossing the 'two' lines.

 

[ThameslinkUser]

If it were to be in the same SCC, it would be largely no different

Forgive my ignorance, does the Northern already have two rostered controllers at any one time, or is this something that would have to be explored and implemented should a line split be forthcoming before the replacement of the current system? And, whilst it is obviously a hypothetical at present, would you expect one SM to be covering the two lines, similar to C/W&C and C&H/Met?

It's the one SCC I'm yet to visit so I'm keenly interested in understanding it further!

 

[Tetchytyke]

The lines are already split northbound in the morning peak, it really isn’t a massive issue to split the lines. In general the High Barnet branch is the busier of the two, so frequencies can differ with a split too.

The only reason why it can’t happen is Camden Town, which couldn’t cope with the interchange traffic. I can’t see Camden Town improving in the short term given TfL’s money problems.

 

[cle]

The lines are already split northbound in the morning peak, it really isn’t a massive issue to split the lines. In general the High Barnet branch is the busier of the two, so frequencies can differ with a split too.

The only reason why it can’t happen is Camden Town, which couldn’t cope with the interchange traffic. I can’t see Camden Town improving in the short term given TfL’s money problems.

That works then - as Bank needs to be at least 30 for the south end. The Edgware-Battersea route could comfortably be 20-24tph until ever extended to CJ / somewhere.

The Vic at Stockwell does much more of the West End heavy lifting, than Kennington, remember.

 

[Tetchytyke]

That works then - as Bank needs to be at least 30 for the south end.

Yep, that’s why they do it northbound in the morning peak, where not many are travelling north of Euston so Camden Town can cope. The problem is it can’t cope the rest of the time. A shame, as it’d be better for the whole line if it could.