Splitting the Northern line

[Sprigibax]

The Northern line is most likely going to be split sometime in the near future, once Camden Town station has been expanded.
Which branch would you keep as the Northern line, and which would you change? What would you like to see the new line called? What colour would it be? And are there any other tube lines that you think should be split?
Personally, I would keep the Bank branch as the Northern line and change the Charing Cross branch to the Pankhurst line, changing the colour to a dark, mustard yellow.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I just want CX trains to run through to Morden. At least give us a weekend and evening service.

If I had to chose, I’d keep the Bank branch black and call it City and South London and the CX branch the Hampstead Line.

 

[bramling]

The Northern line is most likely going to be split sometime in the near future, once Camden Town station has been expanded.

I wouldn’t place too much money on it happening in the near future, or for that matter at all. Sorting out Camden Town is pretty much on the back burner now. If there’s any money to spend on station works, Holborn is more likely to happen I’d say.

Which branch would you keep as the Northern line, and which would you change? What would you like to see the new line called? What colour would it be? And are there any other tube lines that you think should be split?
Personally, I would keep

I’d simply go with “City Line” for the Bank branch. The other half is more debatable, but if one is going to do things on the basis of history then “Hampstead Line” is the obvious one.

 

[AlbertBeale]

The Northern line is most likely going to be split sometime in the near future, once Camden Town station has been expanded.
Which branch would you keep as the Northern line, and which would you change? What would you like to see the new line called? What colour would it be? And are there any other tube lines that you think should be split?
Personally, I would keep the Bank branch as the Northern line and change the Charing Cross branch to the Pankhurst line, changing the colour to a dark, mustard yellow.

I'm not sure I'd put "near future" and "once Camden Town station has been expanded" in the same sentence.....

 

[H&I]

The Northern line is most likely going to be split sometime in the near future, once Camden Town station has been expanded.
Which branch would you keep as the Northern line, and which would you change? What would you like to see the new line called? What colour would it be? And are there any other tube lines that you think should be split?
Personally, I would keep the Bank branch as the Northern line and change the Charing Cross branch to the Pankhurst line, changing the colour to a dark, mustard yellow.

The Northern line is far less crowded during the peak now than it was pre-pandemic. The Camden Town upgrade project has been put on the back burner and TfL are not actively progressing it. As someone who lives on the Edgware branch of the Northern line, I find it nice having direct trains to both the City and West End.

 

[Backroom_boy]

Bakerloo is really the only portmanteau name that has stuck on the tube, so even though I was toying with something like CHX + hampstead = Xstead, I think it will be one of the more prosaic suggestions here. But the city branch I can see as the city line (though maybe the H&C would have to be renamed?)

 

[GJMarshy]

Definitely wise to split it. The tube’s frequencies are such that changing at Camden, Euston or Kennington isn’t really an issue. Independent lines might run more efficiently with more resilience, at least from my limited knowledge of metro systems!

Might be somewhat simpler for out-of-towners to navigate too. My ex used to live in Tufnell Park and despite my relatively good tube knowledge, I did once end up on the wrong branch!

In terms of name and colour, I’d be tempted to keep the High Barnet-Morden as the Northern line still shown in black, with the Edgeware-Battersea route with a different name, perhaps “Fleet Line”. In terms of colour I have no idea, any other clout that isn’t black/dark would look strange on the map!

 

[Lucan]

Regarding colours and keeping it solid for LU, at present we have three shades of blue, three of "red", two of "black", two of "yellow", but only one of green. So surely a light green is the way to go.

As for names, they should be concise. "City" and "Northern" might do except that the word "City" is already used in two other lines. Perhaps "Southern" and "Northern" : at last curing the anomaly that the present Northern Line goes furthest south, and does not go furthest north . For heaven's sake don't make it woke or political.

 

[PGAT]

The Southern line meeting the Southern railway at Balham sure won't be confusing

 

[PTR 444]

Regarding colours and keeping it solid for LU, at present we have three shades of blue, three of "red", two of "black", two of "yellow", but only one of green. So surely a light green is the way to go.

Isn’t the Waterloo & City Line a shade of green?

 

[bramling]

Definitely wise to split it. The tube’s frequencies are such that changing at Camden, Euston or Kennington isn’t really an issue. Independent lines might run more efficiently with more resilience, at least from my limited knowledge of metro systems!

Might be somewhat simpler for out-of-towners to navigate too. My ex used to live in Tufnell Park and despite my relatively good tube knowledge, I did once end up on the wrong branch!

In terms of name and colour, I’d be tempted to keep the High Barnet-Morden as the Northern line still shown in black, with the Edgeware-Battersea route with a different name, perhaps “Fleet Line”. In terms of colour I have no idea, any other clout that isn’t black/dark would look strange on the map!

Splitting the line is something of a solution looking for a problem. The current arrangement works reasonably well in that people from the northern branches get the choice of two routes through the centre. Morden doesn’t get that, but splitting the line won’t solve that.

Worth noting that the current setup serves the line *very* well during disruption, as the ability to divert trains away from problems tends to mean the line recovers very well from problems. Obviously not always as it will depend on where a problem is, but certainly it provides much more resilience than virtually any other LU line.

The only real reason to split the line is if extra peak capacity in excess of what the current setup can handle is so vital. That certainly isn’t the case at present. And there’s always the risk of introducing a capacity bottleneck if large numbers of people suddenly start having to change trains in order to continue established travel patterns.

The Northern line works reasonably well at present, and certainly functions very well when compared against other lines. Be very wary of changing something that works well.

 

[PeterC]

If you have to split then Edgeware via Charing Cross as the Hampstead Line and keep the Northern Line name for the rest.

However I am tending towards @bramling view that its a solution looking for a problem.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Splitting the line is something of a solution looking for a problem. The current arrangement works reasonably well in that people from the northern branches get the choice of two routes through the centre. Morden doesn’t get that, but splitting the line won’t solve that.

Worth noting that the current setup serves the line *very* well during disruption, as the ability to divert trains away from problems tends to mean the line recovers very well from problems. Obviously not always as it will depend on where a problem is, but certainly it provides much more resilience than virtually any other LU line.

The only real reason to split the line is if extra peak capacity in excess of what the current setup can handle is so vital. That certainly isn’t the case at present. And there’s always the risk of introducing a capacity bottleneck if large numbers of people suddenly start having to change trains in order to continue established travel patterns.

The Northern line works reasonably well at present, and certainly functions very well when compared against other lines. Be very wary of changing something that works well.

Agreed - with the addition that the current set-up is simply more interesting than a boring straight end-to-end line. If I hadn't been fascinated by the look of the Northern on the tube map when I was a kid (not that we ever used it) I might not have become interested in railways ... though my excitement when trying to get to grips with the track lay-out at Acton Town (which I went through on the Piccadilly regularly as a kid) might just about have clinched it on its own.

 

[Lucan]

Isn’t the Waterloo & City Line a shade of green?

I'd describe it as light cyan, at least on my monitor. However I have just analysed the colour on the official on-line tube map and it is indeed slightly more green than blue. Anyway, I had in mind a definite light green, the District already being quite dark. How about this (I have not changed any of the existing line colours, only added the "Southern") :-

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I'd describe it as light cyan, at least on my monitor. However I have just analysed the colour on the official on-line tube map and it is indeed slightly more green than blue. However I had in mind a definite light green, the District already being quite dark. How about this (I have not changed any of the existing line colours, only added the "Southern") :-

View attachment 151193

I feel like having "Southern Line", as well as "Southern" both being a similar colour would not be a good idea (as mentioned in #9)
Also, the trams use a pretty similar green, except they have the split lines on maps.

 

[Thirteen]

I've always thought a Southern Line would be white with a black border. The other option is a gold colour.

Light green wouldn't work as that is the Tram colour.

 

[Lucan]

The Southern line meeting the Southern railway at Balham sure won't be confusing

Good point, so I will go with "Bank Line", not so much because it has Bank station on it (as do several other lines anyway) but because the name invokes London's financial district.

I feel like having "Southern Line", as well as "Southern" both being a similar colour would not be a good idea (as mentioned in #9)

Avoiding other railway companies' colours is impossible.

Light green wouldn't work as that is the Tram colour.

The tram routes are hollow on the map so they remain distinct, and they share no stations with the present Northern Line. There is more likely to be existing confusion between Tramlink and the District Line at Wimbledon, and the DLR and the W&C at Bank, where the colours the same or very similar and the station is shared, but I don't think there is confusion anyway. Perhaps we could keep black for the part from Morden through Bank, and use light green for the part from Battersea through Charing X.

 

[Dent]

I've always thought a Southern Line would be white with a black border.

The breaks the convention of solid colours for tube lines and patterns for anything else. Also white with a black border is already used for links between station blobs.

 

[NSE]

The tram routes are hollow on the map so they remain distinct, and they share no stations with the present Northern Line. There is more likely to be existing confusion between Tramlink and the District Line at Wimbledon, and the DLR and the W&C at Bank, where the colours the same or very similar and the station is shared, but I don't think there is confusion anyway. Perhaps we could keep black for the part from Morden through Bank, and use light green for the part from Battersea through Charing X.

There’s an OSI between South Wimbledon and Morden Road so they colours would clash there, but I agree, it’s less confusing than Wimbledon and that seems to do alright.

Personally I’d just leave it all as it is. The District line has many branches and copes just fine. You just wait for the train you need. That way you don’t have to worry about a Southern Line/Charing Cross branch train coming down to Morden in times of disruption. Have set service patterns, as you do now, but brand it all the Northern Line.

 

[Mr. SW]

Splitting the line is something of a solution looking for a problem.

It's a bit more to splitting the service than meets the eye.

Segregating the services means you don't have to keep changing the points.

Firstly.
If you consider that it effectively costs through energy, wear and tear, say, 25 pence to change a set of points and 30 pence to run a train over them, then multiply that by the times you have to change them and the number of trains you run over them per annum. This particularly critical at Camden Junction.

Secondly.
Each set of points is also a potential source of failure, breakdown and delay. Even a delay of a few minutes can end up with trains backing up. That also costs money. And angry passengers.

So, segregating the lines, though possibly a relatively minor inconvenience for passengers, will result in both direct cost savings and reliability. I haven't done the sums because I have a life.

I suspect also the new name(s) and colours have already been decided on, but operationally and from the passengers point of view, you will see a combined diagram in the passenger saloon, in the manner of the District/Circle/H&C, and the trains would be shared between both lines, enabling them to be give the chance to turn on the Kennington loop to even out wear.

As for the names? Charing Cross Branch will retain 'Northern line' and the Bank Branch will become 'City and South London line', this reviving the original name, OR 'Bank' line, should there be a name clash with 'South London Line' or similar proposed for the Overground.
'Southern' has probably been already dismissed due to the name clash.

Colour? Light Green, Beige, Mustard Yellow like the original locomotives of the CSLR?

You decide.

 

[bramling]

It's a bit more to splitting the service than meets the eye.

Segregating the services means you don't have to keep changing the points.

Firstly.
If you consider that it effectively costs through energy, wear and tear, say, 25 pence to change a set of points and 30 pence to run a train over them, then multiply that by the times you have to change them and the number of trains you run over them per annum. This particularly critical at Camden Junction.

Secondly.
Each set of points is also a potential source of failure, breakdown and delay. Even a delay of a few minutes can end up with trains backing up. That also costs money. And angry passengers.

So, segregating the lines, though possibly a relatively minor inconvenience for passengers, will result in both direct cost savings and reliability. I haven't done the sums because I have a life.

In terms of cost, maybe, though bear in mind there are points elsewhere on the line which throw for every train movement - twice in fact - at Finchley Central and Golders Green. Clearly the extra cost isn’t *that* significant otherwise this would have been designed out.

But in terms of reliability, don’t agree at all. Yes sometimes points at Camden will fail. However this is outweighed by the number of times the extra flexibility benefits service recovery after a problem elsewhere - and in particular allowing as much of the line to keep moving as possible. This is something most other lines just can’t do. So something like a one-under at Angel would lead to Piccadilly Line levels of disruption. I’d suggest the cost of those points at Camden is probably a bargain in terms of the flexibility they offer, on top of the fact that two branches get a direct service to/from both city and west end.

I guess you could make an argument to say there’s a case for keeping the flexibility but only using it in emergency, but who is actually benefiting from that? I’d suggest your only beneficiaries are people who are currently left behind on platforms in the morning peak, which is only really an issue at the south end of the line for a short period each peak, and less so since 2020. Is separating the line the best solution here?

In any case, it’s not going to happen for the foreseeable future as there aren’t sufficient trains to run an enhanced service, and the current fleet isn’t going anywhere for many years.

 

[leytongabriel]

The old LTB used to be proud of being able to make the complicated junction at Camden Town work. It's not great Morden line folk having no West End service as it is. Well within capacity at the moment so please leave well alone.

 

[Basil Jet]

A copy of a letter I sent to Modern Railways years ago..

+++++++++++++

It is said that London Underground's Northern Line cannot be split into two lines without a major rebuilding of Camden Town station, because of the large number of people who would need to change trains there. However, such a rebuilding would be a wasted expense in the long term, because people change their place of residence on average every seven years, and I think change their place of work even more frequently. As soon as the lines were split, any people changing residence or job would plan their new commute around the new tube map, and so after a decade, the vast majority of current Northern Line commuters would either work and live on the Bank Line or work and live on the Charing Cross Line, and the glut of people changing at Camden Town would have been a short lived phenomenon.

There is a nearly free solution. Declare the line to be two separate lines - a Bank Line to Barnet with a "limited" service to Edgware, and a Charing Cross Line to Edgware with a "limited" service to Barnet. The map would show each line south of Camden with a single colour, and each line north of Camden would be a double stripe with one of the colours dashed (as used to happen between Rayners Lane and Uxbridge when the Piccadilly Line had a limited service supplementing the main service of Metropolitan Line trains). The timetables would not change, still providing 50% service to each branch from each trunk, so there would be no overcrowding at Camden. The stigma of limited service shown on the map would affect people's perceptions, and anyone changing residence or job would avoid planning their commute around the supposedly limited service, and thus journey patterns would gradually to shift to match the map. After three years you bring in a new timetable with 60% following the main routes and 40% following the limited routes. The gradual shift of journey patterns continues, so every three years you can switch to 66% main and 33% limited, then 75% main and 25% limited, then 80% main and 20% limited, and finally fifteen years after splitting the lines on the map you can split the lines completely, without ever overloading Camden or rebuilding it.

 

[AlbertBeale]

A copy of a letter I sent to Modern Railways years ago..

It is said that London Underground's Northern Line cannot be split into two lines without a major rebuilding of Camden Town station, because of the large number of people who would need to change trains there. However, such a rebuilding would be a wasted expense in the long term, because people change their place of residence on average every seven years, and I think change their place of work even more frequently. As soon as the lines were split, any people changing residence or job would plan their new commute around the new tube map, and so after a decade, the vast majority of current Northern Line commuters would either work and live on the Bank Line or work and live on the Charing Cross Line, and the glut of people changing at Camden Town would have been a short lived phenomenon.

There is a nearly free solution. Declare the line to be two separate lines - a Bank Line to Barnet with a "limited" service to Edgware, and a Charing Cross Line to Edgware with a "limited" service to Barnet. The map would show each line south of Camden with a single colour, and each line north of Camden would be a double stripe with one of the colours dashed (as used to happen between Rayners Lane and Uxbridge when the Piccadilly Line had a limited service supplementing the main service of Metropolitan Line trains). The timetables would not change, still providing 50% service to each branch from each trunk, so there would be no overcrowding at Camden. The stigma of limited service shown on the map would affect people's perceptions, and anyone changing residence or job would avoid planning their commute around the supposedly limited service, and thus journey patterns would gradually to shift to match the map. After three years you bring in a new timetable with 60% following the main routes and 40% following the limited routes. The gradual shift of journey patterns continues, so every three years you can switch to 66% main and 33% limited, then 75% main and 25% limited, then 80% main and 20% limited, and finally fifteen years after splitting the lines on the map you can split the lines completely, without ever overloading Camden or rebuilding it.

Frankly, I doubt people choose homes and job based on not having to change tube lines. Both northern branches of the Northern have vast catchments, and both routes through the centre serve many destinations and other interchanges besides workplaces.

I imagine it's inevitable that there would always be significant interchange at Camden Town if the standard service pattern didn't have all 4 routings available. Even now, some of people choose to interchange anyway, to give themselves the possibility of a faster journey than if they waited for the next train going "the other way"; if lots of people had to, this would surely increase a great deal - way beyond the (already overstressed) current capacity of the inerchange tunnels at CT.

Anyway, as some of us have said, we prefer the current set-up, even if some people want it made "neater".

 

[Sad Sprinter]

If anything we should make more of an effort to run more trains from Charing Cross to Morden, there’s clearly demand for it

 

[bramling]

If anything we should make more of an effort to run more trains from Charing Cross to Morden, there’s clearly demand for it

It’s virtually impossible off-peak nowadays, for two reasons. Firstly the basic service across the line is more frequent than in the past, and secondly Battersea. There are insufficient trains to do anything more without compromising maintenance time between the peaks.

 

[AlbertBeale]

It’s virtually impossible off-peak nowadays, for two reasons. Firstly the basic service across the line is more frequent than in the past, and secondly Battersea. There are insufficient trains to do anything more without compromising maintenance time between the peaks.

I assume there are more Northern Line passengers wanting destinations on the Morden branch than Battersea branch. Bank trains can only access the Morden branch (or terminate and reverse) at Kennington, so that's a given. But surely a few of the half of the service coming from the ChX branch could go Mordenwards at Kennington? This would better satisfy the demand south of Kennington, as well as meaning that fewer people from the ChX branch needed to change at Kennington.

I don't understand why all the off-peak ChX trains have to go to Battersea. The trains coming from Bank surely don't take up all available paths between Kennington and Morden?

Is the maintenance referred to done at Morden? If so, all the more reason for some trains to go down there when leaving and rejoining service during the day - and the timetable could be arranged such that these odd extras to Morden were to and from the ChX route.

 

[bramling]

I assume there are more Northern Line passengers wanting destinations on the Morden branch than Battersea branch. Bank trains can only access the Morden branch (or terminate and reverse) at Kennington, so that's a given. But surely a few of the half of the service coming from the ChX branch could go Mordenwards at Kennington? This would better satisfy the demand south of Kennington, as well as meaning that fewer people from the ChX branch needed to change at Kennington.

I don't understand why all the off-peak ChX trains have to go to Battersea. The trains coming from Bank surely don't take up all available paths between Kennington and Morden?

Is the maintenance referred to done at Morden? If so, all the more reason for some trains to go down there when leaving and rejoining service during the day - and the timetable could be arranged such that these odd extras to Morden were to and from the ChX route.

It isn’t the case that all off-peak trains go to Battersea. Only half the service does - those from Edgware still reverse via the loop, and I don’t think there are any immediate plans for this to change.

It isn’t the case that the Bank trains take up all paths to Morden, as every 3 minutes is only 20tph. In theory I’m sure it would be possible to fit in an extra 5tph to/from Morden, which would be half the loop trains. However with running time of 21 minutes to Morden you are talking about a minimum of 45 minutes extra time. That’s four extra trains. In theory that could be provided from the four trains which stable in Highgate between the peaks, but in practice this is going to represent quite a performance risk. It’s also likely this would require stepping back at Morden right through the day.

I guess a compromise might be to provide a CX service on Saturdays. However would that many people bother to wait potentially 12 minutes for a CX train, when there are excellent cross-platform interchanges available towards the west end at both Stockwell and Kennington? Is it worth making the Bank service less even?

Worth also mentioning that the current crewing situation, since Covid, is such that delivering the current service is essentially impossible on a daily basis without multiple cancellations, and has been so for some time. So no realistic prospect of any extra mileage on that score in the shorter term.

If I was going to make a change to the Northern Line it would be to go back to having Mill Hill East served by a shuttle train. The random 6-minute gaps to High Barnet are a pain (it actually represents a 12-minute gap to/from Barnet south of Camden Town), and Mill Hill also suffers in the form of getting an erratic service during disruption. However I think even this change would require two extra trains in service. It was this saving of two trains that allows Battersea to be covered.

 

[AlbertBeale]

It isn’t the case that all off-peak trains go to Battersea. Only half the service does - those from Edgware still reverse via the loop, and I don’t think there are any immediate plans for this to change.

It isn’t the case that the Bank trains take up all paths to Morden, as every 3 minutes is only 20tph. In theory I’m sure it would be possible to fit in an extra 5tph to/from Morden, which would be half the loop trains. However with running time of 21 minutes to Morden you are talking about a minimum of 45 minutes extra time. That’s four extra trains. In theory that could be provided from the four trains which stable in Highgate between the peaks, but in practice this is going to represent quite a performance risk. It’s also likely this would require stepping back at Morden right through the day.

I guess a compromise might be to provide a CX service on Saturdays. However would that many people bother to wait potentially 12 minutes for a CX train, when there are excellent cross-platform interchanges available towards the west end at both Stockwell and Kennington? Is it worth making the Bank service less even?

Worth also mentioning that the current crewing situation, since Covid, is such that delivering the current service is essentially impossible on a daily basis without multiple cancellations, and has been so for some time. So no realistic prospect of any extra mileage on that score in the shorter term.

If I was going to make a change to the Northern Line it would be to go back to having Mill Hill East served by a shuttle train. The random 6-minute gaps to High Barnet are a pain (it actually represents a 12-minute gap to/from Barnet south of Camden Town), and Mill Hill also suffers in the form of getting an erratic service during disruption. However I think even this change would require two extra trains in service. It was this saving of two trains that allows Battersea to be covered.

Thanks. Apart from not completely following the arithmetic of the "45 mins extra time = 4 extra trains" calculation, this is helpful!

 

[bramling]

Thanks. Apart from not completely following the arithmetic of the "45 mins extra time = 4 extra trains" calculation, this is helpful!

21 minutes each way makes up to 42 minutes running time, plus a couple of minutes to turn round at Morden. With a train every 12 minutes this is too tight for three trains, even allowing for the fact that the current service has a small stand in the loop plus running time round there.