Tube future notions

Discussion in 'London Underground' started by BartTheAnorak, 28 Feb 2019.

  1. BartTheAnorak

    BartTheAnorak Member

    Messages:
    20
    Joined:
    27 Jul 2012
    Split Northern Line (Camden council permitting) - Morden-Edgware as the Bank Line (retaining Northern black) and Battersea-High Barnet/MHE as the Charing Line (dark grey).

    Wimbledon/Kensington Olympia-Edgware Road devolve as the Earls Line (olive green) - thus less congestion in the Circle/District section.

    Piccadilly and District Lines swap north-western termini with Piccadilly going to Ealing Broadway and fast District line trains (using current Piccadilly stops plus possibly Turnham Green) taking over the Uxbridge route. I mean let's face it, anyone wanting to travel even from Cockfosters to Rayners Lane has a quicker job of it changing at KXSP for the Metropolitan than staying on the Piccadilly.

    What does everybody reckon?
     
  2. Registered users do not see these banners - join or log in today!

    Rail Forums

     
  3. Surreytraveller

    Surreytraveller Established Member

    Messages:
    1,445
    Joined:
    21 Oct 2009
    The frequency to Battersea would be too high, and to Morden too low
     
  4. swt_passenger

    swt_passenger Veteran Member

    Messages:
    20,633
    Joined:
    7 Apr 2010
    There’s no prospect of a ‘normal service’ to Kensington Olympia.
    There are couple of existing discussions about the TfL intended changes at the west end of the Piccadilly and District in the LU sub-forum. They don’t involve any District to Uxbridge, all District trains will go to either Richmond or Wimbledon. Piccadilly takes up the Ealing Broadway service to give a terminus for its additional frequency service through the central area.
    Here’s one of the more recent discussions:
    https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/piccadilly-line-to-ealing-broadway.157702/

    I might suggest to the mods they move this thread to the LU section.
     
    Last edited: 28 Feb 2019
  5. Busaholic

    Busaholic Established Member

    Messages:
    8,297
    Joined:
    7 Jun 2014
    As the two main depots for the Northern Line are at Morden and Golders Green (on the Edgware branch) there would be no likelihood of the split you propose being accepted.
     
  6. Richard Ingram

    Richard Ingram Member

    Messages:
    101
    Joined:
    16 Oct 2018
    Location:
    Prickwillow
    I read an article about splitting the northern line a while back, I think it is implied that it would be Battersea-Edgware and Morden-High Barnet. I get the feeling this is something that will happen in a decade or so.
     
  7. Busaholic

    Busaholic Established Member

    Messages:
    8,297
    Joined:
    7 Jun 2014
    I could be wrong on this, but from what I've read there won't be any access from the Battersea branch to the Bank branch, in passenger service at least.
     
  8. Surreytraveller

    Surreytraveller Established Member

    Messages:
    1,445
    Joined:
    21 Oct 2009
    That's right. The Battersea branch is accessed from the Kennington Loop, which is only accessible from the Charing Cross branch.
     
  9. DPQ

    DPQ Member

    Messages:
    42
    Joined:
    4 Feb 2017
    Ignoring Kensington Olympia for now, the Wimbledon branch currently has 12tph which split 6tph via Victoria and 6tph to Edgware Road.

    Splitting the Winbledon branch off would send all 12tph to Edgware Road reducing the southern half of the Sub surface route by 6tph. (Although with extra trains these could run west to Richmond/Ealing Broadway)

    The larger issue is the lack of capacity at Edgware Road to reverse these extra 6tph. There are already 12tph that terminate on 2 platforms plus 12tph each way through the other 2 platforms.
     
  10. Richard Ingram

    Richard Ingram Member

    Messages:
    101
    Joined:
    16 Oct 2018
    Location:
    Prickwillow
    That's right, I think I should have been clearer, Battersea-Charing Cross-Edgware and Morden-Bank-High Barnet.
     
  11. Mojo

    Mojo Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    17,029
    Joined:
    7 Aug 2005
    Location:
    0035
    That would make sense as the Edgware branch is quieter than the High Barnet branch and Morden is busier than Battersea is going to be. I would anecdotally suspect that given the types of places served there would be more demand for travel from stations off the High Barnet branch via the City than the Edgware branch.
     
  12. sprunt

    sprunt Member

    Messages:
    708
    Joined:
    22 Jul 2017
    Why would Camden Council's consent be required to split the Northern Line? In order to persuade them to grant planning permission for the station rebuild?
     
  13. jellybaby

    jellybaby Member

    Messages:
    270
    Joined:
    27 Dec 2012
    The station rebuild is required before the Northern line can be split as Camden Town can't cope with the predicted additional number of people changing platforms/branch.
     
  14. bluegoblin7

    bluegoblin7 Member

    Messages:
    856
    Joined:
    10 May 2011
    Location:
    OZ / OP
    How does this cause less congestion? You're not removing either of the two biggest bottlenecks, and you're introducing additional operational constraints and passenger confusion.
     
  15. TommyL4

    TommyL4 Member

    Messages:
    17
    Joined:
    3 Dec 2018
    It seems to me reversing "only" 18 tph (6 Circle + 12 Earl's) is perfectly feasible with 2 platforms plus a pair of crossovers? Surely the Victoria manages as many as 36 tph with also 2 platforms and a pair of crossovers. But the problem with junctions and those at Earl's Court is indeed true.
     
  16. bramling

    bramling Established Member

    Messages:
    6,621
    Joined:
    5 Mar 2012
    Location:
    Hertfordshire / Teesdale
    In reality the demand patterns are probably irrelevant. The depots are at Golders Green and Morden, and unless that changes it more or less guarantees Edgware-Battersea and Barnet-Morden.

    I must say I can’t see it happening for the foreseeable future. The main capacity need is going north from Morden in the morning peak, and vice versa in the evening. The current northbound morning separation achieves most of the benefits without imposing a permanent inconvenience. The Northern is never going to deliver a Victoria Line style service as it simply doesn’t have the alignment and operational facilities needed to run it. The new signalling can barely run the current service reliably without running much more, and now the extra trains have gone off the agenda there won’t be the trains to run much more - even running to Battersea with the current service level will prove demanding.

    The other issue is that the City branch is arguably one of the more important parts of the LU network, and even Crossrail doesn’t really diminish that. The current multi-branch setup gives a wide range of resilience options which a full separation will lose, ultimately leading to the City receiving a less reliable service. Would this be politically acceptable?
     
  17. Surreytraveller

    Surreytraveller Established Member

    Messages:
    1,445
    Joined:
    21 Oct 2009
    In fact, it would increase congestion, as there would be more conflicting moves unless new tunnels were to be built to separate the Wimbledon/Edgware Road service from the rest of the District
     
  18. BartTheAnorak

    BartTheAnorak Member

    Messages:
    20
    Joined:
    27 Jul 2012
    OK so I guess I was wrong re Wimbledon-Edgware Road devolution. I was just remembering how the H&C split from the Metropolitan but I realise that was pretty much based on an already existing service pattern whereas my initial theory would negatively affect it. Of course if the original Chelney proposal of taking over the bulk of the Wimbledon branch hadn't been overwritten with the present Crossrail 2 proposal then it would be quite a different story.

    Re Northern split I was echoing the talk I'd heard of it already. Interesting point re where the depots are. I can see how Morden-High Barnet/Battersea-Edgware would have to be what happened (Mornington Crescent would stay in the same place on the map of course).
     
  19. ijmad

    ijmad Established Member

    Messages:
    1,240
    Joined:
    7 Jan 2016
    Location:
    UK
    Remember though, traffic coming up from the Western side of the Circle is mixed in with the H&C trains coming up from Hammersmith for a few hundred metres between Praed Street junction and the four platforms of Edgware Road. So whether or not the platforms can cope with reversing 18tph, what you're actually suggesting is fitting 34tph through Praed Street junction, which is a flat junction. It's proposed that several of the flat junctions on the Circle will be doing 32tph after resignalling, but that's likely the limit.

    Four tracks from Praed Street to Edgware Road has been wished for many times, but making it so would require large scale demolition of large numbers of buildings tightly packed around the cut and cover tunnels in that area.
     
    Last edited: 3 Mar 2019
  20. ijmad

    ijmad Established Member

    Messages:
    1,240
    Joined:
    7 Jan 2016
    Location:
    UK
    Many people commuting in from Wimbledon don't want to go to Paddington or Edgware Road. They want to go to the City. So all you're doing is making those passengers change trains at Earls Court on to the same trains that are coming in from Richmond or Ealing Broadway. It looks neater on a map but it doesn't help with passenger flows.

    Not to mention that Richmond/Ealing to the City and Wimbledon to Edgware Road trains would have to cross each other on the flat still at Earls Court, because there's only a flyover in the Westerly direction, going out, not coming in. So it doesn't really help with train congestion or route reliability and wouldn't enable you to run more trains anyway.

    Again, there isn't space for another flyover at Earls Court without huge amounts of demolition of buildings in the surrounding area.
     
    Last edited: 3 Mar 2019
  21. Busaholic

    Busaholic Established Member

    Messages:
    8,297
    Joined:
    7 Jun 2014
    It's a crying shame that Boris Johnson succumbed to the various 'noises off' and agreed to the Battersea extension, a project way down any sensible wish list of what London and Londoners want and need. Apart from anything else, if there was scope to take the Charing Cross branch further on from Kennington the obvious, logical and needed direction was Camberwell and Peckham. Never mind vague promises of money from the American government and an obscure property developer with few ties to the U.K., those sources would always be fickle at best. In any case, even if those 'donations' came about in full, they represent a fraction of the total costs and, if the extra inconvenience to existing passengers is factored in, represent lousy value for money. What the southern end urgently needs is the extra capacity that a suitably aligned Crossrail 2 could provide, but the chances of that recede by the week.
     
  22. bramling

    bramling Established Member

    Messages:
    6,621
    Joined:
    5 Mar 2012
    Location:
    Hertfordshire / Teesdale
    Yes Battersea is a classic bandwagon project. Let’s hope it doesn’t destabilise the Northern Line - on the plus side it offers a bit of recovery breathing space at the south the of the Charing Cross branch (currently the all-Kennington service can be a pain to recover minor late running), but on the negative side they’re going to be running it without building any extra trains, and the infrastructure has been pared back to the absolute minimum meaning resilience will be virtually non-existent. Time will tell, much will depend on how the timetable gets structured.
     
  23. David Emmott

    David Emmott Member

    Messages:
    861
    Joined:
    26 Nov 2015
    How will changing the colour on the map relieve congestion?
     
  24. Lucan

    Lucan Member

    Messages:
    494
    Joined:
    21 Feb 2018
    I suppose it would need to be some different colour anyway, and we are running out of them.
    Not a good idea to name the line after a station which two other lines would also be using (yes, I know the Piccadilliy Line does). How about the "Tennis Line" ; especially as I have seen olive green in colour charts described as "tennis green".
     
  25. bluegoblin7

    bluegoblin7 Member

    Messages:
    856
    Joined:
    10 May 2011
    Location:
    OZ / OP
    But again: how does changing the name, or the colour, solve any of the problems set out above?

    There is a reason why the service patterns on the SSR are broadly unchanged in many, many years.
     
  26. ijmad

    ijmad Established Member

    Messages:
    1,240
    Joined:
    7 Jan 2016
    Location:
    UK
    To make a Wimbleware service viable the key is solving the conflict between Wimbleware and Districts at Earls Court (they cross each other on the flat going East right now).

    It is an enormous shame that literally right now, to the west of Earls Court, there is a once in a century opportunity to actually do this, because the entire exhibition centre has now been demolished meaning it would be possible to expose the tunnels and create the space needed for a new flyover, hiding and incorporating/hiding the new bridge behind/underneath the redevelopment.

    But this is not happening, because money at TfL is too tight to justify it. There are capacity issues on the Wimbledon branch, and it does need more trains, but the strategy is to relieve it with £41bn for Crossrail 2 (which may never get built) rather than a couple hundred million (perhaps even with a developer contribution!) right now.

    Praed Street junction is also a problem, that needs work too (High Street Ken is not an attractive terminus) but that's for another day.
     
  27. Lucan

    Lucan Member

    Messages:
    494
    Joined:
    21 Feb 2018
    It wasn't me who said it would.
     
  28. TommyL4

    TommyL4 Member

    Messages:
    17
    Joined:
    3 Dec 2018
    It occurred to me the Wimbledon branch is busier than the other two western branches (let's ignore Olympia), which is supported, for instance, here on Page 7.
    If we assume City is more attractvie than Edgware Road or Paddington, then why not switch the eastern terminal of some Wimblewares with that of Richmond/Ealing Broadway trains terminating at Barking/Upminster? I suppose this could decrease the number of conflicting moves as well as the number of passengers changing at Earl's Court.
    But I personally have never heard of similar proposals, is there a potential problem with it?
     
  29. Dstock7080

    Dstock7080 Established Member

    Messages:
    1,481
    Joined:
    17 Feb 2010
    Location:
    West London
    It has been suggested/thought about; the only way to minimise the conflicting movements at Earl' Court would be to run:
    Ealing/Richmond- Edgware Road- Wimbledon- City/east
     
  30. ijmad

    ijmad Established Member

    Messages:
    1,240
    Joined:
    7 Jan 2016
    Location:
    UK
    Yeah, I'd thought about that one myself. Richmond/Ealing trains turn left at Earls Court and go to HSK/Edgware Road, then go South all the way to Wimbledon, then go from there out East, reverse and return to Richmond/Ealing. No conflicting moves through Earls Court, but massive potential for knock-on delays to kill the service all over. Plus confusing for everyone except regular commuters, who no doubt would kick up a fuss to such a big change in principle, particularly residents of West London who lose their District Line trains to the in to centre of town, even if they don't have to change on the way home.

    That and, you'd need to run 24tph everywhere on such a service as it's one big route. You'd perhaps be able to turn back some short at Parsons Green and Tower Hill, but there are very limited short turn opportunities West of Earls Court because the Piccadilly Line sits in the middle of the District all the way out to Acton Town.

    In terms of getting more trains to Wimbledon, by far the most likely thing that's going to happen is the Piccadilly taking over the Ealing Broadway branch, which will provide 8tph extra to re-route in the peaks, perhaps 4tph more for Richmond (8tph to 12tph) and 4tph more for Wimbledon (16tph to 20tph). This would actually represent a service reduction on the District between Turnham Green and Barons Court, but stopping Piccadilly Line trains at more stations post-uplift could compensate for that.
     
    Last edited: 7 Mar 2019
  31. rebmcr

    rebmcr Established Member

    Messages:
    2,884
    Joined:
    15 Nov 2011
    Location:
    Cambridge
    There is already an equal split of Upminster-Wimbledon services and Upminster-(via Barons Court) services.
     

Share This Page