What changes would you make for the tube

[Deerfold]

Most pubs in central London seem to close earlier than in other major cities. The first and last time I went out in Leicester Square the Pret a Manger was open later than Wetherspoon! I presume this is partly because of concerns over noise and residential areas and partly commercial, because most people will probably either want to get the last Tubes home or move on to a late-night discotheque and stay there until gone 3am.

I think that depends on which cities - and of course as you note London has many more drinking establishments that are not classed as pubs.

And also depends where you're counting as central London.

 

[Ivo]

I had a proper think about this while sitting on a 'C'-stock around Baker Street yesterday. My plan is rather ambitious (and only affects the sub-surface lines), but see what you make of it.

First of all, build a new (probably deep-bore, which could cause a problem or two) tunnel that runs direct from Kensington Olympia to Hammersmith H&C. It would have to be on an almost continuous curve and avoid Brook Green if at all possible. One track should suffice for this. Then, reorganise the routes as follows:

Circle: As present.
District: No longer serves Olympia. Trains to Wimbledon that would otherwise run to Edgware Road terminate at High Street Kensington (unless the Chelney line finally turns up and assumes operation of that route, in which case Tower Hill terminators are revised to run to/from Hammersmith).
H&C: Assumes control of Olympia services, including an improved 10 frequency and with all services continuing to Hammersmith. Olympia trains continue on to Moorgate, restoring the direct link between Paddington (Circle) and Baker Street and actually giving the spare platforms at Moorgate more than a couple of trains per day!
Met: As present, but with Watford and Uxbridge services to both run exactly every 10 minutes and not 8/12 as is (or at least was) sometimes true.

This would give 2½ frequencies between Edgware Road and Moorgate, and between Gloucester Road and Tower Hill, and also more services at HSK and Hammersmith.

 

[Ivo]

I'm reviving this thread for two reasons, one of which admittedly is so that people can see my plan for the Sub-Surface Lines (which no-one replied to :cry, but primarily, for the following.

It was suggested a year or two ago in the Network Rail RUS for Kent that the Bakerloo line should assume responsibility for the Hayes line currently operated by Southeastern. Now, at present, the Bakerloo line is the quietest of the deep lines (apart from the W&C of course), but this would bring some much-needed investment. On the other hand, there are also plans for the Bakerloo to once again run up to Watford Junction (possibly to coincide with the Met reaching there as well, assuming it actually happens), which would create quite a long route for the Underground; almost 35 miles by my reckoning! A bit of infill (OK, about 5½ miles' worth) between Elephant & Castle and Lewisham later, and I would propose the following...

• Watford Junction to Harrow & Wealdstone - every 10 minutes
• Harrow & Wealdstone to Queens Park - every 3½ to 6½ minutes
• Queens Park to Lewisham - every 3 to 3½ minutes
• Lewisham to New Beckenham - every every 3½ to 6½ minutes
• New Beckenham to Beckenham Junction - every 10 minutes
• New Beckenham to Hayes - every 10 minutes

I would co-ordinate the trains like this:

• Watford Junction to Lewisham
• Harrow & Wealdstone to Bromley South
• Queens Park to Hayes

This would give 18 trains an hour through the rather long central section between Queens Park and Lewisham, which could be augmented at peak times to run 24 times an hour (i.e. 2½ minute intervals) if need be, probably by running local trains between Queens Park and Lewisham.

A few little issues to address though.

Firstly, new stations between Elephant & Castle and Lewisham:

• Walworth (junction of Camberwell Road and Albany Road)
• Camberwell Green (Camberwell Green; where else? )
• Peckham Rye (present station)
• Queens Road Peckham (present station)
• New Cross Gate (present station)
• Deptford (present station)

The one that would jump out to me is Deptford. I have chosen it ahead of New Cross Gate, St Johns, Deptford Bridge DLR and a new station on Lewisham Road because, even though it is a diversion, it is no more of an inconvience by route than further up the line at Paddington; and then one that just happens to create greater interchange potential by providing Greenwich, Charlton, Woolwich et al with a one-stop link to the Bakerloo.

Another issue surrounds Beckenham Junction. I don't even know if the little-used chord between it and New Beckenham is able to handle 12 trains an hour, but ignoring that I am looking further east. Assuming that there is room on the existing line, I would then suggest ceasing Southeastern service at Shortlands and introducing the improved Bakerloo to Bromley as well. Then, from Shortlands (now served by the Bakerloo of course), I would try to burrow under Bromley and serve both stations there, with the line terminating at South.

And finally, there is the issue of the Overground towards Watford Junction; as I understand it however, said service may well be heading towards its cessation anyway, should the Bakerloo re-extension go ahead.

And this, remember, is just for the Bakerloo line; other proposals I would have include splitting the Northern, a new Central line station close to Park Royal, the Chelney (if it ever happens) serving Clapham Junction, and not Wimbledon as hoped for in the SSL post immediately above, and possibly a completely new line running between Croydon and Stratford (whose alignment - and allowing for the East London Line, benefit even! - is somewhat difficult to determine; you have to agree though, a line connecting London's premier non-central business/development areas would be useful).

 

[LE Greys]

I can't believe I missed this thread.

I like the Bakerloo to Hayes idea, my version would only have gone as far as Lewisham and run via New Cross Gate, but Deptford actually makes more sense. I'd also go for extending the ELL north after crossing over at Canonbury (new flyover) then to Finsbury Park and following the old Northern Heights route to Highgate and then New Barnet and Edgware via Mill Hill. The Northern would thus go to Alexandra Palace (with the NR station going back to Wood Green). The Metropolitan would extend to Aylesbury and become dual-system (as part of the Chiltern electrification and extension to Buckingham) changing over at Harrow-on-the-Hill. I'd consider switching Piccadilly and District over west of Ealing Common (Picc to Ealing Broadway, District to Uxbridge). However, the important one would be to extend the Chelney to Heathrow and Southall instead of Wimbledon. Stations below

• Fulham Broadway
• Craven Cottage
• Barn Elms
• Chiswick
• Gunnersbury
• Brentford (junction)

Southall Branch (under the Brentford goods branch)

• Boston Manor
• Southall

Heathrow Branch

• Syon Lane
• Isleworth
• Hounslow
• Feltham
• Heathrow Terminal 4
• Heathrow Terminals 12&3
• Heathrow Terminal 5

This does mean going under a runway, but the idea is to provide better links from south of the airport as well as up the Thames.

Finally, I'd introduce a much more Beck-styled map, which happens to be much clearer than the current one. I've been working on it for five years.

 

[Whistler40145]

I would make connections between lines & upgrade stock transfer/emergency links to Passenger standard.

 

[Ivo]

I would make connections between lines & upgrade stock transfer/emergency links to Passenger standard.

A large number of connections aren't possible due to clearances. Those that are have already been done in at least some instances.

 

[Yew]

I would take some of the tubes nice new stock, up to northern land, and send them some pacers in return, then see how long it is before the pacers get replaced.

 

[ainsworth74]

I would take some of the tubes nice new stock, up to northern land, and send them some pacers in return, then see how long it is before the pacers get replaced.

Could be a slight issue with that plan mostly due to the distinct lack of 4th rail electrification in the North

 

[jon0844]

Some of the tube stock is pretty old. Some people wouldn't notice, besides the smell and maybe being poisoned by diesel fumes.

 

[Ivo]

You try running Pacers on even really quiet NR lines in London (e.g. Epsom Downs), never mind LUL, and Boris will be isuing a restraining order to the effect of banning you from ever being within 50 miles of Trafalgar Square.

 

[trentside]

I would take some of the tubes nice new stock, up to northern land, and send them some pacers in return, then see how long it is before the pacers get replaced.

I think you may find that the ride quality of certain LU stock is no better than a Pacer. Anyone who has been on an A Stock over poor quality track at speed with testify to that. At least you have better seats though

 

[LE Greys]

I'd like to see what a Pacer would look like having passed through the whole length of the Bakerloo! hock:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The other one is, who was it thought of increasing the number of through services? Modify the Wimbledon proposals for the Chelney so that the planned connection still happens, but further on, then runs through Earl's Court and up the Thames (effectively quadrupling the District and segregating traffic) then links into the old District at Whitechapel. Having done that, extend one way to Southend, thus reducing pressure on the Barking-Fenchurch St section.

 

[Waddon]

A scheme I thought of which would create a great deal of benefit would be to route the eastbound only H+C deeper underground after Paddington, with new deep platforms at Edgware Road and Baker Street, to rise up and rejoin the line just before Great Portland street. This would have lots of benefits, including removing conflicting moves with the Met at Baker St, as well as keeping the terminating circle trains and H+C route seperate between Edware Rd and Paddington (using one of the two available lines for westbound Hammersmith and the other line for terminating Circle line - as it's terminating it would not matter that a short section of the line would be single track bi-directional, trains would just wait in the platform as they do now until the terminator had arrived, and then depart along the same single line for a short distance until the routes diverge, when it would go back to double track)

In addition, by placing one of the H+C/Circle lines underground at Baker St, the platforms could be enlarged and extended at that station without destroying it's historical structure (extend the westbound line platform onto the former eastbound trackbed, and extend for longer trains each end into the tunnel space vacated by the removed line, with the former cramped w.b platform taken out of use) thereby allowing longer trains on this stretch of line, and the H+C overall

Result: more capacity, longer trains and less conflicting moves. Result!!!

 

[Deerfold]

Doesn't that make it very hard to transfer at Edgware Road from one bit of the Circle line to the other?

 

[Waddon]

Doesn't that make it very hard to transfer at Edgware Road from one bit of the Circle line to the other?

Well, at the moment you may have to cross by bridge from platform to platform (depending which line the train terminates on) so not necessarily much more difficult, just a descent to a sub-surface platform instead. Would also mean that all circle line trains terminating at Edgware rd could use either side of one island platform, making it easier to find the correct platform face for your train, and the space cleared by removing one line could mean that escalators and lifts could be easily installed too.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I'm not sure you could swing one track outwards between Great Portland street and Baker Street in order to move the eastbound junction far enough along to make the gradient reasonable for the line climbing back up; how close to the foundations / basements of the buildings does the line already run?

If there is enough lateral space to do this then yes, I think it would be worth looking at.

 

[Waddon]

I'm not sure you could swing one track outwards between Great Portland street and Baker Street in order to move the eastbound junction far enough along to make the gradient reasonable for the line climbing back up; how close to the foundations / basements of the buildings does the line already run?

If there is enough lateral space to do this then yes, I think it would be worth looking at.

Fortunately west of Great Portland Street there's several areas of parkland, which could probably be used for cut and cover excavation until the line's deep enough to go tube (although I don't know the exact alignment of the track around here so may be wrong)

I would imagine the realignment east of Paddington would be more problematic, but maybe the new lower alignment could be created within the footprint of the existing tunnels in these areas? Would mean some disruption during construction however...

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I wonder.... you are suggesting the eastbound dives down between Paddington ( H&C ) and Edgware Road... runs underneath the present Edgware road - Baker Street section ( eastbound Circle track still in present position )... thus nothing needs to be outside the limits of the present alignment except the rise up and rejoin section between Baker Street and Great Portland Street...?

Therefore there should be no problem at the Paddington end?

And therefore it is only the question of whether there is enough width on the northern side east of Baker Street that we need to worry about?

 

[Waddon]

I wonder.... you are suggesting the eastbound dives down between Paddington ( H&C ) and Edgware Road... runs underneath the present Edgware road - Baker Street section ( eastbound Circle track still in present position )... thus nothing needs to be outside the limits of the present alignment except the rise up and rejoin section between Baker Street and Great Portland Street...?

Therefore there should be no problem at the Paddington end?

And therefore it is only the question of whether there is enough width on the northern side east of Baker Street that we need to worry about?

Pretty much, yeah. Although I'm sticking with LU's current teacup shaped circle line, in as much as circle services would terminate at Edgware Road from the Notting Hill direction, in fact the circle line from this route would be physically seperate from the other lines, except for maybe some alignment for empty stock/diversion only, and only Westbound H+C and Circle in the current tunnels between Edgware Rd and Baker St (so single line) with Eastbound H+C/ Circle in the new alignment

I've drawn up a schematic of how I think it would work, attached here...

EDIT: they are before and after plans, not both 'current track plan' as stated, and also they omit some lines and sidings for clarity

 

[LE Greys]

Would it not be better to go the whole hog and run these deep-level tunnels the whole way round the Circle to Liverpool Street, thus quadrupling the northern half of the Circle. They could meet up at some point between Liverpool Street and Aldgate (perhaps cutting back the Met to the old Thameslink platforms at Moorgate) to allow the Circle to become fully circular again. As a result, H&C service increases, possibly with some turnbacks at Aldgate, Whitechapel or Plaistow, the flat junction at Baker Street becomes less problematic and the Circle resumes its shape.

 

[Waddon]

Would it not be better to go the whole hog and run these deep-level tunnels the whole way round the Circle to Liverpool Street, thus quadrupling the northern half of the Circle. They could meet up at some point between Liverpool Street and Aldgate (perhaps cutting back the Met to the old Thameslink platforms at Moorgate) to allow the Circle to become fully circular again. As a result, H&C service increases, possibly with some turnbacks at Aldgate, Whitechapel or Plaistow, the flat junction at Baker Street becomes less problematic and the Circle resumes its shape.

It will be interesting to see what impact Crossrail has on this side of the circle line, as it will be substantially quicker between Paddington and Farringdon/Liverpool Street... will the circle become less busy, or will it have little or no impact on passenger numbers? I wonder...

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Interesting schematic - I would have put the new eastbound line directly underneath the current eastbound line and simply jiggled it aside to the north to make the re-connection.

 

[justinsteam]

Extension to Hertfordshire? (as in, further than Watford)

Met Line Watford to Watford Junc

Rebuild the Croxley Green branch to connect through to Rickmansworth.

It would cost a fortune, but it is not impossible.

Bring Back Steam on the Met!!!!

Link the Metropolitan Line to Watford Junction (be planned and dropped).

For about 15 years or so, the Croxley Link has been proposed to connect the Watford branch of the Metropolitan Line to the BR Croxley Branch from Watford Junction. TfL have commited to providing some funding, but Hertfordshire County Council do not have the funds to meet the rest of the proposed costs for the project. Here is some information on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croxley_Rail_Link

Interestingly, in 1996 a new dual carriageway called Ascot Road was constructed as part of the redevelopment of the local business park, which resulted in the removal of the embankment and track between the last two bridges nearest to the the branch line terminus, Croxley Green Station. The original Ascot Road still exists, although the Watford end is closed to all traffic other than cycles.

The Steam on the Met events were excellent, especially as I managed to get rides on Metropolitan Vickers Electric Locomotive "Sarah Siddons"!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Mine would be extend the Bakerloo Line up to Watford Jct.

Re-introduction of the 1915-1982 Bakerloo service to Watford?

 

[Deerfold]

They could meet up at some point between Liverpool Street and Aldgate (perhaps cutting back the Met to the old Thameslink platforms at Moorgate) to allow the Circle to become fully circular again.

And regaining all the problems you get running cirular services.

 

[LE Greys]

And regaining all the problems you get running cirular services.

Well, yes, but getting rid of the problem that you can't go from Baker Street to Queensway without changing. Upgrading the Bishop's Road part of Paddington would be very helpful (lifts from the anti-clockwise platform would be useful, and probably more lifts to the clockwise platform).

I just happen to find that break in the Circle to be an absolute pain in the backside. It was a much more useful service as a circle. I can see the reasons behind changing it, but the reasons for keeping it as it was (namely the fact that it's more convenient and provides better options for passengers) outweighed them.

 

[jopsuk]

an "ideal" Circle would be four track for the whole circuit, grade separated, with the "Circle" using dedicated tracks offering cross-platform interchange with the same direction trains on the other lines- with a bonus of then being able to run services during engineering (especially if pointwork for flat junctions was retained, and bi-di signalling installed). This would allow the Circle to run as such "unmolested" during normal operation at much higher frequency. The other lines could even run as "express" services.

Of course, this is far too expensive and difficult to build in reality. Not quite impossible- nothing is.

 

[LE Greys]

an "ideal" Circle would be four track for the whole circuit, grade separated, with the "Circle" using dedicated tracks offering cross-platform interchange with the same direction trains on the other lines- with a bonus of then being able to run services during engineering (especially if pointwork for flat junctions was retained, and bi-di signalling installed). This would allow the Circle to run as such "unmolested" during normal operation at much higher frequency. The other lines could even run as "express" services.

Of course, this is far too expensive and difficult to build in reality. Not quite impossible- nothing is.

Yes, that would be good. That is the best feature of the New York Subway, mostly quadrupled so that trains can run to different stopping patterns. Very useful and would have been a good thing to do with the Circle. I don't suppose they ever thought it would be that busy in the 1860s.

 

[Whistler40145]

Justinsteam, regarding the reintroduction of Bakerloo line service to Watford Junction, only any good if the 4th Rail is still in situ North of Harrow & Wealdstone?

 

[jopsuk]

Yes, that would be good. That is the best feature of the New York Subway, mostly quadrupled so that trains can run to different stopping patterns. Very useful and would have been a good thing to do with the Circle. I don't suppose they ever thought it would be that busy in the 1860s.

Indeed- though the City Widend Lines were orginally built to add extra capacity- admittedly mainly for traffic coming off the Great Northern route.

 

[Mojo]

For me, I find it much better the way it is now. Circle line much more reliable and it removes the lottery of which Paddington station to go to when you want to go East.

Works are already going on now to improve the C&H line station at Padd and also providing step free access.

The western side of the Circle isn't particularly useful anyway, except for High St Ken, and most for there seem to come from the South.