What next for LU? At full capacity...

[Whistler40145]

Another idea is to extend the LOROL services from Highbury & Islington through to Finsbury Park or further, obviously the freight line would require doubling and brought upto Passenger standards.

 

[Nym]

The lines are kinda on the wrong side and pointing in the wrong direction...

Especially when Finsbury Park is only one change away anyway...

 

[Whistler40145]

Just a thought, wasn't sure what the track layout was like.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Is the geology under anything existing (tube lines, utilities, building foundations, etc) suitable for boring tunnels through?

 

[34D]

I assume the idea of (and issues associated with) an orbital 'overground' service, both clockwise and anticlockwise, have been pontificated here many times before?

 

[TheNewNo2]

I assume the idea of (and issues associated with) an orbital 'overground' service, both clockwise and anticlockwise, have been pontificated here many times before?

You mean like the lines from Highbury & Islington to Clapham Junction via Willesden or Canada Water?

 

[freetoview33]

I'm not sure if this has been covered or is even relevant, but I was reading the latest rail mag today and it had an interesting bit of the possibility of diverting some Southampton Trains from Clapham Junction, up the West London line to Heathrow then Old Oak Common and terminating at Paddington. So easier interchange with this HS2 nonsense! Might take a bit of pressure off Waterloo and the Northern Line?

 

[JamesRowden]

I'm not sure if this has been covered or is even relevant, but I was reading the latest rail mag today and it had an interesting bit of the possibility of diverting some Southampton Trains from Clapham Junction, up the West London line to Heathrow then Old Oak Common and terminating at Paddington. So easier interchange with this HS2 nonsense! Might take a bit of pressure off Waterloo and the Northern Line?

In the Western Route Study it suggests running a 2tph service between Paddington and Basingstoke via Heathrow and Reading with 1tph extended to Southampton or Bournemouth. These would be in addition to the Waterloo services and not instead of. The capacity to extend the service beyond Basingstoke would be produced by building a grade seperated junction at Basingstoke.

 

[Comstock]

You mean like the lines from Highbury & Islington to Clapham Junction via Willesden or Canada Water?

What sort of train frequency do you get on those lines, and do they offer a truly orbital service? If they do, perhaps they should be given a specific brighter colour on the tube map and branded 'London Orbital' or 'TfL Orbital' or whatever?

 

[Mojo]

What sort of train frequency do you get on those lines, and do they offer a truly orbital service? If they do, perhaps they should be given a specific brighter colour on the tube map and branded 'London Orbital' or 'TfL Orbital' or whatever?

Highbury/Islington to Clapham Jcn via the East London line is every 15 Min, except at the start and end of the day where it is a Halfhourly service.

The service via the North London line is Halfhourly off-peak and roughly every 15 Min (the gaps are oddly spaced by a few minutes here and there) at peak times. At certain times, additional journey opportunities are available by changing at Willesden Jcn.

 

[fairysdad]

I'm not sure if this has been covered or is even relevant, but I was reading the latest rail mag today and it had an interesting bit of the possibility of diverting some Southampton Trains from Clapham Junction, up the West London line to Heathrow then Old Oak Common and terminating at Paddington. So easier interchange with this HS2 nonsense! Might take a bit of pressure off Waterloo and the Northern Line?

There is a thread on here somewhere where it was suggested that some Chiltern trains to Birmingham go from Paddington instead of Marylebone, but this suggestion was countered with the fact that Paddington is rather full at the moment, only to increase once Crossrail starts properly, so I can't see any So'ton trains being diverted into Paddington.

There's also the slight issue of what stock you'd use, currently they'd have to be diesels or electrics with third rail shoes and pantographs. I know that such stock exists, but are there any spares? Neither SWT or GWR - the two companies who I assume would be running the services - have any dual electric stocks, the bimodes that GWR will be getting will be OHLE and not third rail (although not out of possibility for being used), and do SWT have enough 158s or 159s for additional services, I thought they were pretty much at usage capacity for the WoE.

But these questions aren't really that relevant to the topic in hand!

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm not sure if this has been covered or is even relevant, but I was reading the latest rail mag today and it had an interesting bit of the possibility of diverting some Southampton Trains from Clapham Junction, up the West London line to Heathrow then Old Oak Common and terminating at Paddington. So easier interchange with this HS2 nonsense! Might take a bit of pressure off Waterloo and the Northern Line?

If the online extract from Rail is an accurate reflection of the print article, then I think you've misread something.

Southampton to Paddington would be via Basingstoke, Reading and Heathrow - as another reply has mentioned this is what both the Western and Wessex route studies mention.

The extension of services up the WLL towards OOC would be from the Brighton Line, and this is mentioned in the Sussex route study. The Rail magazine online extract reports that these might have an affect on capacity into Waterloo, I think this is a fairly stupid and misleading typo for Victoria.

There is no realistic way to connect between the SWML and the WLL, it is a complete non-starter.

Article here: http://www.railmagazine.com/news/2015/09/24/network-rail-predicts-new-route-requirements

 

[southern442]

I did once draw up proposals for new tube lines to be built out of existing non-rail tunnels that would be dug out to a reasonable size, to reduce tunnel costs.. However, I highly doubt that my plans would be in any way considerable, as they lack the relevant depth of information needed to know whether it would actually be less costly to build on existing infrastructure, and it was more of a fantasy project than a serious proposal

 

[SpacePhoenix]

How easy/hard is it to extend platform tunnels (where there's physically the room to do so)?

 

[Nym]

Thats a very big, "It depends..."

 

[AM9]

How easy/hard is it to extend platform tunnels (where there's physically the room to do so)?

There's an optimum length for high frequency trains. I'm not sure that 7-8 is the real constraint particularly as the capacity of tube stations in the peak is often limited by walkways and escalators. So extending platforms to increase train capacity would also involve a virtual complete rebuild of the station.
There were experiments in the '30s where trains, on the Northern line ISTR, were extended to 10 cars with a sort of 'skip-stop' arrangement for passengers where their cars stopped in tunnels.

 

[TheNewNo2]

How easy/hard is it to extend platform tunnels (where there's physically the room to do so)?

Generally very problematic. On overground sections it's not too difficult, and can easily be handled by weekend closures. On underground sections, it's nigh-on impossible for the deep tube lines due to the tunnel rings - as the work at Walthamstow showed this year, if there is any major works you need to close the line.

 

[Nym]

To flesh it out a bit, if you're renewing a fleet and the line's signalling; quite a lot of deep level stations may be able to be extended if the signalling system is replaced first.

Since most of the IMRs on the likes of the Victoria Line were at the platform ends, you can see where the extra space would come from.

However,
There remains the massive issue of depots.
If you make trains longer, you need to make all your depot space longer too.

Lets take the Bakerloo Line as an example;

I'll start with the assumption that due to wanting interoperability with Network Rail that a DTG-R type system is used for automatic train protection, and that this is overlaid with Trainstops on LU sections and AWS/TPWS/ETCS2 on NR Sections so that the signalling can be renewed first (as above), I'll then work to an assumption that we can gain 5m on most deep level platforms in terms of total length, that equates to roughly 30 passengers per train, crush loaded.

Lets also assume that the Bakerloo Line Extension to Hayes and Beckenham Junction also happens.

Even with the massive lack of space for a south end depot, lets assume space can be found somewhere in Lewisham, with around a 1.5 - 2 mile run in / run out tunnel to the running lines.

So;

From the top...

Harrow and Wealdstone Reversing Road;
This may be possible to extend by around 5m, but is constrained by the bridge to the North that may cause issues, and that if this becomes a constrained section of track, the TETS restrictions will be difficult to manage, similarly to Victoria Sidings. So this would cause us some difficulties.

Queens Park North Shed.
There might be just enough space out to the north of the shed to extend if we did some track work, but again, there would be quite severe, and possibly service effecting (for the 36tph goal) TETS restrictions, it would be likely that QPK would need to gain an additional platform to have (East to West) N/R to Kilburn High Road, LUL S/B Services and access to South Shed, LUL N/B Services terminating into North Shed (18 - 24tph), LUL N/B services to Stonebridge Park and beyond, NR DC N/B services, AC US, AC DS.

Queens Park South Shed.
Space could be made.

Baker St Loops
Possibly space, but if the line is extended to Watford Junction again, these would not need to be used.

London Road Depot
Now here's your problem, the headshunt will only just fit a 7 car now if you go into the buffers, and it still blocks the approach road, so you'd loose the headshunt with any length gained in the trains, then the small matter of the 40ft wall at the end of the depot roads that are already exceedingly tight in some circumstances for a 72TS.

New Depot
Well, it will definitely fit there, subject to the usual LUL "Contracting Constraints"

Since I've mentioned reopening to Watford Jcn, lets bring in Croxley Depot

If it where re-opened, I'd expect that it would be long enough to fit an S8 stock for stabling, so it would be OK for the longer NTfL stock.

Anyway, more than 2p there.

I really don't think it's worth lengthening the trains much, if there is a quick win to be had by removing IMRs and assets on the platform ends, and it can be acheived at all major stations with SDO at the less busy stations, it's proberbly worth doing, provided you can extend the depots without spending too much, but since the Bakerloo is very likely to see a new depot for the heavy maintenance of NTfL stock and the current depot to Stonebridge will be stabling and exam only, this would be rather possible. I don't think I picked the best example there though.

 

[cle]

Leaving aside brand new lines for a moment, my thoughts would be for capacity:

Northern Line - complete split following Battersea and Camden works. 32tph on each branch. Battersea to be extended - a more local Battersea stop, Clapham Junction and then somewhere.
My instinct would be along under the Windsor lines, only leaving Putney open between Clapham and Richmond and hopefully increasing frequency (all trains fast west of Putney so more even) while relieving the level crossings a tad.

Overground - extend NLL/WLL/ELL to 6 cars. DC and GOBLIN to 5 and 6 eventually.
Step one - a bigger effort to remove more freight from London. Then:
ELL extend to Caledonian Road easily, Camden Road tricky but desirable. Up to 28tph if possible. Look at New Cross spur, does it do enough? Extend or ditch.
NLL/WLL - fine as is but frequency improvements.
GOBLIN to Abbey Wood. DC as is, but frequency improvements. Euston can take it.

Market Thameslink as a new tube route (this has never been done well ) and ensure places like West Hampstead, Elephant, Kentish Town and Finsbury Park have at least 8-10tph so that people use it as such, and relieve the tube. Reopen Camberwell.
Appreciate Kentish Town and E&C have 8 car issues to address with high frequency.

Simplify the Southeastern lines brutally. Too much terminus choice which most other lines don't have to worry about:
Cannon Street and Victoria to only have metro services (to Rainham in future seems to be the boundary but for Cannon St I'd say only Loop and maybe Sevenoaks - nothing to fast lines).
Charing Cross and St Pancras to handle Coast routes.

 

[jopsuk]

ELL: Extend to Camden Road and on to the Watford DC. At New Cross, extend to Bromley North.

Bakerloo: Back underground at Queen's Park (so severing from Watford DC- allows it to become AC with level boarding) and head for the sector between the New North Mainline/Central Line and GWML/Crossrail

District & Picadilly: Continue four-track section from Acton Town to Hanger Lane junction. Grade seperate the junction and send Picadilly to Ealing. Convert route through Sudbury Town to District Line. Before Ealing Broadway, send Picadilly underground. Surface after West Ealing, take over Greenford Branch and run onto the Central Line.

This all removes any interaction between Tube and SSL and Tube & Overground. It makes Watford-Bromley a "backdoor" Crossrail.

Find a way to tunnel beyond Moorgate. For maximum points, surface in such a way that the bay platforms at Blackfriars can become through platforms. Take the Sutton Loop off Thameslink, except this time it becomes a through route connected through the City and onto Welwyn, Hertford North and Stevenage via Hertford North. Very expensively extend the stations to 200m. Reconfigure the GN stations from Finsbury Park to Alexandra Palace (inclusive) to be six-track, four platform (two islands) with no platforms on the fast lines, and extend six-track to Welwyn- tracks to be "Crossrail 4" (Moorgate & Sutton), "Thameslink" and "Fast".

Rather than have trains terminate at Baker Street, identify a suitable Southern or Southeastern Metro route (not the Hayes, I'm assuming that goes Bakerloo) to connect to. Run through central London and then create dedicated tracks where the service currently doesn't have them.

Keep the Watford services into Euston, but in a deep level. As with the Met, connect across. So Watford would have Bromley North services via the NLL and ELL, and (inser line here) services via Euston

 

[SpacePhoenix]

This all removes any interaction between Tube and SSL and Tube & Overground. It makes Watford-Bromley a "backdoor" Crossrail.

What about Richmond (District & LO) upto the junction where they diverge?

 

[TheNewNo2]

ELL: Extend to Camden Road and on to the Watford DC. At New Cross, extend to Bromley North.

Extending to Camden Road seems doable, though you would have an issue where the tracks are grouped in a passenger-unfriendly way.

New Cross to Bromley North? You must be joking. You'd need to hextuple the line, and instead of using that capacity for 12 car trains you'd be using piddling 5-car 378s!

 

[traji00]

Very good ideas chaps

(Just one thing: you can't tunnel the GN lines beyond Moorgate because Crossrail is in front and the Northern Line is below)

 

[swt_passenger]

Extending to Camden Road seems doable, though you would have an issue where the tracks are grouped in a passenger-unfriendly way.

But they wouldn't need to be once the freight was banished, (possibly using some sort of magic spell), as is usually required in many of these NLL improvement proposals.

 

[TheNewNo2]

But they wouldn't need to be once the freight was banished, (possibly using some sort of magic spell), as is usually required in many of these NLL improvement proposals.

My point is that, as at Canonbury, you have platforms eastbound (westbound eastbound) westbound, where what you really want is (eastbound eastbound) (westbound westbound). To do the latter would require probably a flying junction at Dalston.

 

[jopsuk]

Oh flying junctions everywhere are very much implicit in the fantasy. Tunnels in the way at Moorgate? Build new, even deeper, platforms.

SpacePhoenix- the district is part of the Sub Surface Lines, as opposed to the Tube. SSL S-stock is much closer (possibly identical?) In floor height to Mainline stock such as 378s. Indeed the whole train is much the same height and supposedly BR Mark 2 or Mark 1 coaches have in the dim and distant past been round the Circle. So beyond signalling systems there's little technical incompatibility. Might even be possible to gradually switch the SSLs over to plain 3rd rail, and/or when the S-stock is replaced get dual voltage stock allowing surface sections to to AC.

And yes, an extra pair of tracks mainly for 100m trains is extravagant south of New Cross. But even I have my limits and extending the ELL platforms to a more ideal 250m goes beyond them. Or does it? Hmm.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Oh flying junctions everywhere are very much implicit in the fantasy. Tunnels in the way at Moorgate? Build new, even deeper, platforms.

SpacePhoenix- the district is part of the Sub Surface Lines, as opposed to the Tube. SSL S-stock is much closer (possibly identical?) In floor height to Mainline stock such as 378s. Indeed the whole train is much the same height and supposedly BR Mark 2 or Mark 1 coaches have in the dim and distant past been round the Circle. So beyond signalling systems there's little technical incompatibility. Might even be possible to gradually switch the SSLs over to plain 3rd rail, and/or when the S-stock is replaced get dual voltage stock allowing surface sections to to AC.

And yes, an extra pair of tracks mainly for 100m trains is extravagant south of New Cross. But even I have my limits and extending the ELL platforms to a more ideal 250m goes beyond them. Or does it? Hmm.

If the SSLs could be converted from 4rail to 3 rail would it be easier and/or cheaper to maintain in the long run?

 

[AM9]

If the SSLs could be converted from 4rail to 3 rail would it be easier and/or cheaper to maintain in the long run?

There is too much ironwork along the SSLs to risk 3 rail operation. The additional costs of electrolytic corrosion prevention and integration of track circuiting would far outweigh the costs of maintaining the separate negative return rail.

 

[tsangpogorge]

Why is the Victoria line so busy? Was looking at the usage figures for different underground lines and noticed that, going by average journeys per mile, it is by far and away the busiest route and that's including the anomaly that is the one stop only Waterloo and City.

 

[Busaholic]

Why is the Victoria line so busy? Was looking at the usage figures for different underground lines and noticed that, going by average journeys per mile, it is by far and away the busiest route and that's including the anomaly that is the one stop only Waterloo and City.

Because it is the only non-bus transport link between large swathes of NE London and Kings Cross/West End/Victoria: in the other direction it takes in at Victoria the hordes who descend from the Southern and SouthEastern trains, not just from the Home Counties but also from the tubeless boroughs of south London. Brixton in turn takes in all the people who arrive on buses from places like Streatham, Herne Hill and Dulwich and have a chance of getting a seat on the Vic in the morning peak at least. For these reasons, the Vic can never be extended meaningfully beyond Brixton (yes, I know Herne Hill has been seriously considered.)