Splitting the Northern line

[Lewisham2221]

Forgive me if this is a silly question, with an obvious answer or one that has been answered before; but what is the reason for the emphasis on interchange being at Camden Town, what with it's issues regarding passenger capacity, rather than Euston and/or Kennington?

 

[brewer85]

Forgive me if this is a silly question, with an obvious answer or one that has been answered before; but what is the reason for the emphasis on interchange being at Camden Town, what with it's issues regarding passenger capacity, rather than Euston and/or Kennington?

Kennington is no use to passengers from the north who want to switch branches (e.g. passengers originating from the Edgware side going to The City, or from the High Barnet side going to the West End, and all the equivalent reverse journeys).

Switching branches at Euston is a longer walk than it is at Camden Town, and it's an already busy mainline station. Charing Cross branch is only acccessible by stairs (no escalators) and only from the extreme end of the platforms; it would merely end up horribly crowded with contraflows of passengers unable to get past each other, just like Bank used to. I don't believe Euston could cope with the extra interchange traffic, any more than Camden Town could in its current configuration.

 

[Tetchytyke]

but what is the reason for the emphasis on interchange being at Camden Town, what with it's issues regarding passenger capacity, rather than Euston and/or Kennington?

The issue is interchange between the Edgware and High Barnet branches to the Bank and Charing Cross branches. Euston is a difficult interchange between the branches, it’s a long walk and realistically nobody is going to interchange there. IIRC there isn’t step-free or escalator access to the Charing Cross branch platforms either. At Camden Town it’s a cross-platform interchange, but because of the station design the passageways are insufficient to cope.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Kennington is no use to passengers from the north who want to switch branches (e.g. passengers originating from the Edgware side going to The City, or from the High Barnet side going to the West End, and all the equivalent reverse journeys).

Switching branches at Euston is a longer walk than it is at Camden Town, and it's an already busy mainline station. Charing Cross branch is only acccessible by stairs (no escalators) and only from the extreme end of the platforms; it would merely end up horribly crowded with contraflows of passengers unable to get past each other, just like Bank used to. I don't believe Euston could cope with the extra interchange traffic, any more than Camden Town could in its current configuration.

The issue is interchange between the Edgware and High Barnet branches to the Bank and Charing Cross branches. Euston is a difficult interchange between the branches, it’s a long walk and realistically nobody is going to interchange there. IIRC there isn’t step-free or escalator access to the Charing Cross branch platforms either. At Camden Town it’s a cross-platform interchange, but because of the station design the passageways are insufficient to cope.

Thanks. I sort of assumed something like that was probably the case, but aren't massively familiar with the Northern line

 

[Daniel]

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!

Only one line controller rostered. I imagine if the line were split it would need another - thinking back to Cobourg Street where both the Northern and Victoria were staffed by the same control room, both had their own line controllers, information assistants, etc.

It would depend (regarding SM) on the level of segregation I imagine. If the line were operated as one but with two distinct services advertised - say, where drivers were trained on both and able therefore to be diverted - then it would make sense to have one SM. However, if they were fully segregated with no cross-line working, then I imagine they'd need an SM each

 

[ThameslinkUser]

Thanks, Daniel.

 

[alf]

What is the argument for splitting the Northern into two?

The disadvantages of splitting have been outlined in some of the 30 or so posts above. They are considerable.
For example splitting would make travelling in wheelchairs impossible for some journeys & it would force people who never had to change before to change & waste time.
So what is the upside? Nothing.

Surely we just need very good managers to run the Northern line as they had in the 1950s.

In the 50’s the peak frequencies were 12% better than now despite today’s automatic train operation & 1950’s unreliable doors that required fitters permanently stationed Camden Town & Kennington to oil & free the doors.

And London Transport ran express trains in the 1950’s on the Edgware branch that cut the present journey time from Edgware to Bank & Leicester Square by 5 mins & 4 mins compared with now.
See the Vintage poster advertising the express tube times in Keat’s House, Keats Grove, Hampstead.

The two branch Northern line was a paragon of operation until
the top brass took & kept their eyes off the ball at the very end of the 20th century till now. Something went wrong with management.

 

[Chris M]

It would depend (regarding SM) on the level of segregation I imagine. If the line were operated as one but with two distinct services advertised - say, where drivers were trained on both and able therefore to be diverted - then it would make sense to have one SM. However, if they were fully segregated with no cross-line working, then I imagine they'd need an SM each

Two lines operated as a single unit for internal purposes (e.g. a single stock and crew pool) but advertised as separate to the public is how the Circle and Hammersmith & City lines operate, so the precedent is there.

 

[Daniel]

Two lines operated as a single unit for internal purposes (e.g. a single stock and crew pool) but advertised as separate to the public is how the Circle and Hammersmith & City lines operate, so the precedent is there.

Indeed, it's one possibility.

However:

Shared trains, drivers, controller, SM, but different route: Circle / Hammersmith & City
Shared controller, SM, but different trains, drivers, route: Circle / Metropolitan
Shared trains, different drivers, controller, SM, route: District / Circle & Hammersmith

So the precedent is there no matter which way it goes.

 

[ThameslinkUser]

Don't forget shared drivers, SM, but different trains, controller, route: Central / Waterloo & City

 

[Gordon]

With the creation of a 'definitive' southern terminus - ie Battersea Power station - for the 'Charing Cross branch' of the northern line, is it time to rebrand the Northern line into two separate lines in order to remove some of the confusion at Euston and Camden Town?

Perhaps 'Northern City line' for the 'via Bank' route and 'West End line' for the Charing Cross branch.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Having both central routes going to and from both northern destinations is certainly more convenient than always having to change for certain journeys; I like it that way. I can of course see the attraction from an operating point of view of a split; though as has been said, Camden Town couldn't really cope with 50% of each train's passengers having to change there!

 

[MikeWh]

though as has been said, Camden Town couldn't really cope with 50% of each train's passengers having to change there!

And that is the major reason why nothing has yet been done. If it ever does get done then it opens the door to more frequent services on the Central sections as there would be no need to swap lines between Euston and Camden Town.

 

[Basil Jet]

You can rebrand it into two separate lines without changing the timetable or rebuilding anything. Give the two lines in the centre different names and different colours, and give the suburban branches bicoloured lines (like Uxbridge, Barking and Hammersmith "Met".). The trains would carry a map for both lines, and the drivers would sign both lines, like the Circle & Hammersmith. The benefit would be less confusion in the tourist area.

 

[Sweetjesus]

You can rebrand it into two separate lines without changing the timetable or rebuilding anything. Give the two lines in the centre different names and different colours, and give the suburban branches bicoloured lines (like Uxbridge, Barking and Hammersmith "Met".). The trains would carry a map for both lines, and the drivers would sign both lines, like the Circle & Hammersmith. The benefit would be less confusion in the tourist area.

This would be a good intermediate solution if they do eventually decide to segregate the line into two, as well as a bonus benefit of making it clearer that Charing Cross trains don't go beyond Kensington to Morden except during rush hour which can be indicated clearly as a dotted line on the tube map.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I hope it's not split, if anything more CHX trains need to run to Morden. There's clearly demand for it in the evenings and weekends judging from the amount of people changing trains.

 

[Jimini]

I hope it's not split, if anything more CHX trains need to run to Morden. There's clearly demand for it in the evenings and weekends judging from the amount of people changing trains.

In my experience in the morning peak the CHX services are a pain in the backside, and the following Bank service will be packed to the rafters (even more so than usual).

 

[rebmcr]

You can rebrand it into two separate lines without changing the timetable or rebuilding anything. Give the two lines in the centre different names and different colours, and give the suburban branches bicoloured lines (like Uxbridge, Barking and Hammersmith "Met".). The trains would carry a map for both lines, and the drivers would sign both lines, like the Circle & Hammersmith. The benefit would be less confusion in the tourist area.

That's a good idea, indeed it's not just 'like' the Circle and H&C, but exactly the same.

Perhaps 'Northern City line' for the 'via Bank' route

Northern City line was the name of services from Moorgate via Drayton Park, back when they were operated by LU. It's still common to refer to that line by that name, so it would be a poor decision to reassign it.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

In my experience in the morning peak the CHX services are a pain in the backside, and the following Bank service will be packed to the rafters (even more so than usual).

During the peak this is true, but less so off peak.

 

[Mr. SW]

With the creation of a 'definitive' southern terminus - ie Battersea Power station - for the 'Charing Cross branch' of the northern line, is it time to rebrand the Northern line into two separate lines in order to remove some of the confusion at Euston and Camden Town?

Perhaps 'Northern City line' for the 'via Bank' route and 'West End line' for the Charing Cross branch.

They'll probably revive the name "City and South London" for the Bank branch because it goes through the City and - er - South London. The West End branch will probably retain the name "Northern Line". If the London Overground gets the epithet "South London Line" then it'll be "Bank Line". The management of the Underchoob are not often renowned for their flights of imagination...

 

[Basil Jet]

They'll probably revive the name "City and South London" for the Bank branch because it goes through the City and - er - South London. The West End branch will probably retain the name "Northern Line". If the London Overground gets the epithet "South London Line" then it'll be "Bank Line". The management of the Underchoob are not often renowned for their flights of imagination...

I would go for Greathead Line (via Bank) and Yerkes Line (via Charing Cross). I hate multiword names like City & South London, Hammersmith & City, Waterloo & City. Having City in the name is especially redundant.. where would an underground railway be but in a city.

 

[MPW]

Having both central routes going to and from both northern destinations is certainly more convenient than always having to change for certain journeys; I like it that way. I can of course see the attraction from an operating point of view of a split; though as has been said, Camden Town couldn't really cope with 50% of each train's passengers having to change there!

Has anyone seen any modelling on passenger flows if the lines did split? I feel it would be significantly less than 50% of passengers interchanging because that assumes all destinations are adjacent to one of the two branches, rather than (for example) someone going to holborn and would be able to change to central line at either bank or tcr.

EL must also help, if bank branch is busier in peak then I imagine people would prefer to change at tcr for Farringdon or moorgate/Liverpool Street than switching from charing x to bank branches at Camden. Of course also depends on final destination

 

[AlbertBeale]

Has anyone seen any modelling on passenger flows if the lines did split? I feel it would be significantly less than 50% of passengers interchanging because that assumes all destinations are adjacent to one of the two branches, rather than (for example) someone going to holborn and would be able to change to central line at either bank or tcr.

EL must also help, if bank branch is busier in peak then I imagine people would prefer to change at tcr for Farringdon or moorgate/Liverpool Street than switching from charing x to bank branches at Camden. Of course also depends on final destination

Point taken - but for northbound change at Camden Town this doesn't apply in the same way. And anyway, given the major congestion which is common just with people leaving and joining the tube at CT, it wouldn't need anything like 50% of travellers routinely needing to change there to make the situation impossible. So a complete split of the line isn't an option anyway until there's lots of money to rebuild CT station. Also, don't forget that if a complete split included full separation at the southern end too, that might not be ideal if there are different service needs on the two (one-and-a-bit?) southern branches.

Anyway, I personally think passenger convenience is best served with the current situation - heading north from the centre of town, you can wait (if needed) for a through journey, or you can opt to join the interchange scrum at CT if you want the possibility of saving a minute or two; and vice versa heading into town from the northern branches. Of course I do understand that some people prefer the "neatness" of all services being a simple point-to-point pattern, and I know that such a system can give a higher theoretical maximum frequency. But it's less interesting.....

 

[Sad Sprinter]

But it's less interesting.....

I couldn't agree more, part of train enthusiasm is how interesting a system is rather that its efficiency. The NYC subway for example, with all its routes, branches and overlapping lines is a nightmare for efficiency, but I wouldn't have it any other way

 

[MPW]

Point taken - but for northbound change at Camden Town this doesn't apply in the same way. And anyway, given the major congestion which is common just with people leaving and joining the tube at CT, it wouldn't need anything like 50% of travellers routinely needing to change there to make the situation impossible. So a complete split of the line isn't an option anyway until there's lots of money to rebuild CT station. Also, don't forget that if a complete split included full separation at the southern end too, that might not be ideal if there are different service needs on the two (one-and-a-bit?) southern branches.

Anyway, I personally think passenger convenience is best served with the current situation - heading north from the centre of town, you can wait (if needed) for a through journey, or you can opt to join the interchange scrum at CT if you want the possibility of saving a minute or two; and vice versa heading into town from the northern branches. Of course I do understand that some people prefer the "neatness" of all services being a simple point-to-point pattern, and I know that such a system can give a higher theoretical maximum frequency. But it's less interesting.....

I should clarify I do understand the need to remodel CT first so don't disagree on that point. Like you say capacity is an issue either way. I was just being nerdy and wondering what the passengers flows might actually look like. I like maps, maybe even more than I like trains

 

[rebmcr]

Of course I do understand that some people prefer the "neatness" of all services being a simple point-to-point pattern, and I know that such a system can give a higher theoretical maximum frequency.

Neither of those are the true driver behind the idea, which is reliability. (An honourable mention goes out to reduced maintenance costs too.)

 

[Mikey C]

Neither of those are the true driver behind the idea, which is reliability. (An honourable mention goes out to reduced maintenance costs too.)

But as I said on the previous page, the ultimate driver for this would be to increase frequency, and as the current trains are effectively maxed out, that won't happen until the fleet is replaced.

 

[H&I]

With the reduction in commuting associated with the increase in WFH, is there still a good business case for increasing frequencies on the Northern line, re-building Camden Town station, and splitting the Northern line?

 

[AlbertBeale]

But as I said on the previous page, the ultimate driver for this would be to increase frequency, and as the current trains are effectively maxed out, that won't happen until the fleet is replaced.

Well - clearly frequency and reliability are closely related.

I couldn't agree more, part of train enthusiasm is how interesting a system is rather that its efficiency. The NYC subway for example, with all its routes, branches and overlapping lines is a nightmare for efficiency, but I wouldn't have it any other way

I think my reason for looking for interesting systems goes back to my childhood. Rarely a few weeks went by without my being taken to visit my maternal grandparents and the relatives they lived with. Until we moved, when I was six-and-a-half, this trip entailed using the Piccadilly Line between Hammersmith and South Harrow. Even at that age, I was incredibly fascinated by what went on at Acton Town, with the two Underground lines both branching, and the complex (to me) track layout. Add in the South Acton one-carriage shuttle, and I was hooked.

 

[Taunton]

Neither of those are the true driver behind the idea, which is reliability.

Then splitting would fail. The current service is pretty much up to the maximum, which on an urban Metro is principally driven by station dwell and reoccupation times. You can rebuild Camden for wide, straight, cross-platform changing as much as you like, but if half the train has to get out and another half get in, peak period dwell times there would go out of the window.