It is probably fair to say that Sustainable Development Select Committee Meetings to London Boroughs are not normally something that London Reconnections finds itself paying a great deal of attention to. This month’s meeting at Lewisham Council, however, did attract our attention, for the meeting featured a report for the council on possible Bakerloo Line extensions.
Put together by JRC Consulting, the report looks to lay out a number of possible extension options in light of the reference to a possible extension in the area in the last Mayoral Transport Strategy. It’s solely intended to give the the council a relatively high level overview of the possibilities, but makes interesting reading nonetheless. It also provides some basic cost estimates, based on the 2009 figures used to calculate a possible Northern Line Extension to Battersea.
It’s a well written report, so rather than summarising I will look to highlight key areas below. Those wishing to read the full report can find it here. Our previous coverage of the Bakerloo Line extension options investigated by TfL back in 2007 can be found here.
The report sets the scene as follows:
This is because any extension of the Bakerloo Line beyond Elephant & Castle would be in tube tunnel within inner London for at least 2-4 miles, and have similar characteristics and costs per mile for this sector.Any railway is costly, a railway in tube tunnel is very costly. As a former MD of London Underground (Lord Tunnicliffe) has commented in public evidence, no-one rationally would want to spend this sort of money if there are surface options available.
The sooner a tube can surface and use an overground alignment, the better, but this is rarely the case in inner London. One of the main reasons why the East London Line Extensions were authorised and are now happening, is because they make the fullest use of existing
railway infrastructure, and any new alignment is on the surface or on viaduct. There are also different environmental benefits and costs with tube or surface railway, which will need to be assessed and managed.A business case for any core tube tunnel extension in inner London can therefore be compared against other options, and the least worthwhile options eliminated, before consideration is given to any further extension to the middle and outer suburbs.
A previous historic option of surfacing the line and using a pair of tracks along the four-track Elephant-Walworth-Camberwell-Loughborough Junction railway viaduct is not feasible, because of the approved Thameslink project which makes more intensive use of this railway.
Similarly, use of the former Bricklayers Arms goods railway near the Old Kent Road is no longer possible – the railway lands have been built on, while the junctions in the Bermondsey area are now being redesigned for use by Thameslink services.
Having observed the cost factor, it is also generally true that tube railways are highly generative for passenger traffic, and have similarly high social benefits assisting regeneration and economic development because of the advantages with accessibility.
Overall, the report looks at a number of options – both Inner and Suburban. The final estimated cost breakdown for these (based on the Northern Line ballpark calculations) can be found in a table at the end of the report. Unfortunately the quality of the pdf isn’t perfect, so I’ve transcribed it below:
| Bakerloo Extension Schemes | Total (£bn) | Trains (£m) | Stations (£m) | Track/Infra (£m) | Additional (£m) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| INNER LONDON | |||||
| B1: Canary Wharf | 1.6 | 80 | 400 | 648 | 460 |
| B2: Charlton via Canada Water | 1.95 | 140 | 450 | 790 | 574 |
| B2: Charlton via New Cross | 2.35 | 140 | 690 | 878 | 636 |
| B3: Lewisham via Old Kent Rd | 2.05 | 90 | 550 | 810 | 585 |
| B4: Peckham via Aylesbury Estate | 0.95 | 50 | 250 | 378 | 273 |
| B5: Peckham via Camberwell | 1.2 | 60 | 300 | 186 | 351 |
| MID SUBURBS | |||||
| B3: Lewisham – Blackheath | 0.3 | 30 | 80 | 102 | 74 |
| B3: Lewisham – Catford | 0.4 | 40 | 160 | 120 | 87 |
| B4/5: Peckham – Lewisham (Tube) | 1.2 | 40 | 400 | 450 | 325 |
| B4/5: Peckham – Catford (Tube) | 1.2 | 40 | 350 | 468 | 338 |
| OUTER SUBURBS | |||||
| B3: Lewisham – Blackheath – Slade Grn | 1.3 | 170 | 340 | 442 | 329 |
| B3: Lewisham – Catford – Hayes | 1.3 | 150 | 400 | 420 | 312 |
Inner London
B1: Elephant – Old Kent Road – Surrey Quays – Canary Wharf
Purposes:
- new public transport capacity in inner SE London and cross-river
- serve Old Kent Road (regeneration)
- Surrey Quays (orbital and Croydon Line interchange)
- additional cross-river capacity to Canary Wharf
- relieve overloaded Jubilee Line and allow Overground-Isle of Dogs passengers to avoid Canada Water
- new orbital link from Elephant to Stratford changing at Canary Wharf.
Specification:
- standard tube railway characteristics
- distance approx 3.6 miles, so might need only limited depot expansion in NW London (approx 8 trains if 2.5 minute service)
- some risk of overloading Central London Bakerloo section, but Bakerloo frequency can be raised ( = need for additional trains)
- assumes 3 stations (Old Kent Road, Surrey Quays, Isle of Dogs), all underground
- no interference with main line railway tracks.
Costs and other factors:
- notional capital cost ca. £1.6bn: £80m trains, £400m for stations including interchanges,£1.1bn for tunnels, tracks and other works
- serves growing demand to a major London Region economic growth destination.
B2: Elephant – Old Kent Road – Canada Water – Deptford – Greenwich – Maze Hill – Westcombe Park – Charlton
Purposes:
- new public transport capacity in inner SE London
- serves Old Kent Road (regeneration)
- Canada Water (Jubilee Line, orbital and Croydon Line interchange, and transfer London Bridge – Greenwich line passengers
between routes)
- takes over Greenwich Line branch of main line network
- relieves inner London overloading on North Kent Line
- frees up capacity on main line network (benefits some train slots into London Bridge)
- relieves Jubilee Line by attracting SE London tube passengers away from North Greenwich railhead
- connects Greenwich branch into Overground and orbital network
- serves housing expansion area in SE London.
Specification:
- standard tube railway characteristics
- distance approx 3.7 miles including ramp to viaduct, then 3.1 miles overground
- approx 14-15 trains, assuming 2½ minute frequency with half of service reversing at Maze Hill
- significant depot expansion needed, scope for sidings in Angerstein area
- medium risk of overloading Central London Bakerloo section, but Bakerloo frequency can be raised ( = need for additional trains)
- assumes 2 new tube stations (Old Kent Road, Canada Water) then takeover and adapt existing 5 main line stations (Deptford, Greenwich, Maze Hill, Westcombe Park, Charlton incl interchange with North Kent Line)
- takes over part of existing main line network.
Costs and other factors:
- notional capital cost ca. £1.95bn: £140m trains, £450m for stations including upgrading existing premises, £1.35bn for tunnels,
tracks, adaptation of existing main line and other works
- relief of Jubilee Line via North Greenwich could be counterbalanced by increased loadings via Canada Water interchange
- operating benefits for the main line network are limited because of increased train slot need at Lewisham Junction from the North Kent Line
- potentially only operable if there is other investment to increase capacity at Lewisham Junction
- alignment assumes routeing via Canada Water to achieve interchange for London Bridge – Greenwich line passengers
- another option is to follow B3 to New Cross, thence to Deptford Bridge and Greenwich, however this would be in tube until Greenwich Park
(4.5 miles), with only 12/3 miles of adapted surface railway. There would be significantly greater capital cost, notionally ca. £2.35bn overall.
B3: Elephant – Old Kent Road – New Cross – Lewisham
Purposes:
- new public transport capacity in inner SE London
- serves Old Kent Road (regeneration) – might be one or two stations on Old Kent Road
- direct tube between Lewisham, New Cross area and West End
- connects to strategic inner SE London centre and interchange at Lewisham.
Specification:
- standard tube railway characteristics
- tube line approx 4.5 miles to Lewisham
- some risk of overloading Central London Bakerloo section, but Bakerloo frequency can be raised ( = need for additional
trains)
- assumes 4 stations (2 in Old Kent Road, New Cross/Gate, Lewisham), all underground
- approx 9 trains assuming a 2½ minute frequency
- no interference with main line railway tracks.
Costs and other factors:
- notional capital cost ca. £2.05bn: £90m trains, £550m for stations incl New Cross tube station linking to both New Cross and
New Cross Gate, £1.4bn for tunnels, tracks and other works
- cost similar to B2, strengthens role of Lewisham as gateway centre for SE London, benefits communities along the route
- this option has the capability to extend further into SE London.
B4: Elephant – Aylesbury Estate – Peckham Rye
Purposes:
- new public transport capacity in inner SE London
- serves Aylesbury Estate and Peckham (regeneration)
- direct tube between Peckham and West End
- connects to strategic inner SE London centre and interchange at Peckham.
Specification:
- standard tube railway characteristics
- tube line approx 2.1 miles to Peckham Rye
- some risk of overloading Central London Bakerloo section, but Bakerloo frequency can be raised ( = need for additional trains)
- assumes 2 stations (Aylesbury Estate, Peckham Rye), both underground
- approx 5 trains assuming a 2½ minute frequency (no additional spare trains assumed with this option)
- no interference with main line railway tracks.
Costs and other factors:
- notional capital cost ca. £0.95bn: £50m trains, £250m stations, £650m for tunnels, tracks and other works
- this is a lower capital cost option, with capability to extend further into SE London.
B5: Elephant – Camberwell – Peckham Rye
Purposes:
- new public transport capacity in inner SE London
- serves Camberwell (inner London centre lacking rail service)
- serves Peckham (regeneration)
- a ‘double-ended’ station at Camberwell could offer direct access to hospitals at Denmark Hill
- direct tube between Peckham, Camberwell and West End
- connects to strategic inner SE London centre and interchange at Peckham.
Specification:
- standard tube railway characteristics
- tube line approx 2.7 miles to Peckham Rye
- some risk of overloading Central London Bakerloo section, but Bakerloo frequency can be raised ( = need for additional trains)
- assumes 2 stations (Camberwell, Peckham Rye), both underground
- approx 6 trains assuming a 2½ minute frequency (no additional spare trains assumed with this option)
- historic alignment for Bakerloo Line extension into SE London – extensive planning has been undertaken several times for this route
- no interference with main line railway tracks.
Costs and other factors:
- notional capital cost ca. £1.2bn: £60m trains, £300m stations (assuming Denmark Hill link), £840m for tunnels, tracks and other works
- this costs more than B4, and serves Camberwell/Denmark Hill rather than Aylesbury Estate
- it has the capability to extend further into SE London
- an option to run via Camberwell to Herne Hill is noted here but not considered further
- a Herne Hill option has been reviewed before by railway planners – it would conflict with a Victoria Line extension from Brixton whose alignment already points towards Herne Hill and could be under 1 mile long, compared to 3 miles from Elephant & Castle.
As is alluded to above, the report also looks at develop those scheme options further, taking them further into the suburbs. As the report states, this is potentially a more complex issue:
Historically, suburban extensions of tube lines were authorised because of a combination of factors:
- overcrowding on other lines which a new railway would relieve
- opportunity to serve expanding populations or new centres of employment
- new links and connections which were strategically important
- where possible, use was made of existing suburban railways where this made economic sense, either by adopting the existing tracks, or by building additional tracks alongside where the alignment permitted this.[...]
The same historic justifications remain relevant. So, for these criteria, the area served would need to show a cogent case for investment which could amount to another £0.3-1.3bn capital costs on top of an extension through inner London (this is how Crossrail’s extension via Stratford to Shenfield has been justified). For a Bakerloo Line extension, participating boroughs such as Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich, Lewisham and Southwark would need to demonstrate clear spatial and economic development reasons for a tube extension.
It assesses further extensions outwards as follows:
B1 Beyond Canary Wharf / Isle of Dogs
It is difficult to see how an extension beyond the Isle of Dogs towards SE London would be justified in the foreseeable future, with the DLR extension to Woolwich and Crossrail’s authorisation. This option is not considered further in this note.
B2 Beyond Charlton
No further extension is assumed beyond Charlton, as the next logical destination would be Woolwich, which is to be served by Crossrail.
B3 Beyond Lewisham
Historically, two lines have been the usual candidates for proposed tube extensions beyond Lewisham:
- to Blackheath, then taking over the Bexleyheath Line
- to Catford, then taking over the Hayes Line.
This is because they are capable of separation from the rest of the main line network and becoming self-contained tube lines.
A further option might be to Central Bromley via Hither Green and Grove Park, taking over the Grove Park-Bromley North line.
However this railway does not offer much SE main line relief, as it is a self-contained shuttle service. Journey times by fast train from Bromley South make a tube journey relatively unattractive. Further consideration of this option would depend on a strong development case linked to proposals for Central Bromley. The rest of this option focuses on the Bexleyheath and Hayes Lines.
Extension of B3 beyond Lewisham is possible in either direction.
Towards Blackheath and Bexleyheath
Purposes:
- primarily a suburban commuter railway
- extra train slot capacity on the main line network at Lewisham Junction and towards London Bridge, Cannon Street and Charing Cross
- scope for extension to Bluewater, to providing a traffic attraction at the further end of the line
Specification:
- tube railway takeover of suburban main line east of Blackheath (main line retained for North Kent services between Lewisham and Blackheath)
- use part of existing depot capacity at Slade Green, to reduce extension costs and provide sidings in SE London (with adaptation costs)
- further 0.8 miles from end of Lewisham tube to Blackheath (mix of ramp / surface), assumed parallel to existing line as far as Blackheath Junction, then 8.5 miles to Slade Green depot via Bexleyheath
- approx 12 trains needed to extend Lewisham service to Slade Green at assumed 5 minute headway
- high risk of overloading the existing service on the Central London Bakerloo section, requiring an increase in service towards 2 minute headways between Lewisham or Elephant and Paddington (possibly a further 6 trains in use if Elephant-Paddington).
Costs and other factors:
- additional capital cost Lewisham-Slade Green ca. £1.3bn: £170m trains (incl Central London), £340m stations, £770m route and other works
- overall cost Elephant & Castle to Slade Green ca. £3.35bn
- the existing Bexleyheath Line has a mix of City and Waterloo/Charing Cross services, and Victoria trains (not an all day service)
- a future tube line would be more frequent but only serve Waterloo/Charing Cross/West End directly.
Towards Catford and Hayes
Purposes:
- primarily a suburban commuter railway
- extra train slot capacity on the main line network at Lewisham Junction and towards London Bridge, Cannon Street and Charing Cross
- assists economic development at Central Catford
- scope for additional short distance services to Beckenham Junction, connecting with SE main line via Bromley South
- Tramlink via Elmers End and Beckenham Junction, to Croydon, to providing balancing traffic in outer London and attract car users to public transport.
Specification:
- tube railway takeover of suburban main line south of Lewisham
- additional sidings required to support increased train service frequency in SE London (increases the specific scheme cost)
- 1.25 miles to Catford Bridge from end of Lewisham tube (mix of ramp/surface), then 7 miles to Hayes and 0.5 mile to Beckenham Junction
- approx 10 trains needed to extend Lewisham service to Beckenham Junction / Hayes, each at 8 minute headway
- high risk of overloading the existing service on the Central London Bakerloo section, requiring an increase in service towards 2 minute headways between Lewisham or Elephant and Paddington (possibly a further 6 trains in use if Elephant-Paddington).
Costs and other factors:
- additional capital cost Lewisham-Hayes ca. £1.3bn: £150m trains (incl Central London), £400m stations, £730m route and other works
- overall cost Elephant & Castle to Hayes ca. £3.35bn
- the existing Bexleyheath Line has a mix of City and Waterloo/Charing Cross services
- a future tube line would be more frequent but only serve Waterloo/Charing Cross/West End directly.
B4+B5 Beyond Peckham
Towards Lewisham
Purposes:
- alternative extension to Lewisham (and beyond) if route via Peckham favoured over route via Old Kent Road
- connects to strategic inner SE London centre and interchange at Lewisham, serving 2 or 3 town centres on the same railway (Camberwell / Peckham / Lewisham)
- potential for further extension to Blackheath and beyond to the Bexleyheath Line (not to Catford as this would be a roundabout route)
- the latter would achieve extra train slot capacity on the main line network at Lewisham Junction and towards London Bridge, Cannon Street and Charing Cross, as discussed above under option B3.
Specification:
- standard tube railway characteristics as far as Lewisham (surface alignment unlikely to be achievable)
- tube line approx 2.5 miles between Peckham Rye and Lewisham
- if extended beyond Lewisham, see characteristics identified above for Slade Green service under option B3.
- distance in tube between Elephant and Lewisham via Aylesbury Estate and Peckham is similar to Old Kent Road option B3 (above), and with similar costs (assumes new intermediate station at Brockley)
- approx 9 trains needed for Elephant- Lewisham service and another 12 beyond, based on previous specifications, via option B4, one further train required with option B5 via Camberwell
- significant risk of overloading the existing service on the Central London Bakerloo section, requiring an increase in service towards 2 minute headways between Lewisham or Elephant and Paddington. However in short term new trains might be resourced from other fleet cascades.
Costs and other factors:
- total capital cost Elephant-Peckham-Lewisham ca. £2.15-2.4bn (B4 or B5 options): £90-100m trains (excl Central London), £650-700m stations, £1.4-1.6bn tunnels, tracks and other works
- overall cost Elephant & Castle to Slade Green ca. £3.45-3.7bn (B4 or B5 options)
- the existing Bexleyheath Line has a mix of City and Waterloo/Charing Cross services, and Victoria trains (not an all day service)
- a future tube line would be more frequent but only serve Waterloo/Charing Cross/West End directly.
Towards Catford
Purposes:
- alternative extension to Catford (and beyond) if route via Peckham favoured over route via Lewisham
- assists economic development at Central Catford, serving 2 or 3 town centres on the same railway (Camberwell / Peckham / Catford)
- potential for further extension onto Hayes Line, but arrangements for the Lewisham-Ladywell-Catford Bridge section would need to be defined
- unless the Hayes Line service were wholly replaced, there would be only limited additional train slot capacity on the main line network at Lewisham Junction and towards London Bridge, Cannon Street and Charing Cross.
Specification:
- standard tube railway characteristics as far as Catford, whether in tube or on the surface
- any joint operation of tube (West End) and main line (City) trains south of Catford Bridge is unlikely unless platform heights (and automatic train protection) were resolved – disability legislation requires level access between platform and train, but tube and main line trains have separate platform heights, so the present compromise arrangements on some lines would not be allowed again
- until a workable scheme were developed south of Catford (see issues above), it is not assumed that a Bakerloo Line via Peckham could be extended towards Hayes or Beckenham Junction
- it might be possible to widen the Catford Loop line to accommodate parallel Bakerloo Line tracks at surface level from east of Nunhead Junction to Catford, though this would incur disruption and environmental impact
- surface route 2.6 miles, via Nunhead and Crofton Park, terminating at the present Catford station area
- the alternative is an extension in tube, possibly non-stop to achieve the fastest West End journey times from southern Lewisham via Catford Interchange, or with an intermediate station near Honor Oak Park for the Croydon line
- tube route approx 2.6 miles between Peckham Rye and Catford via Honor Oak Park
this assumes the optimum location for new Catford tube platforms to support economic development at Central Catford,
would be to locate these on an E-W alignment between the existing Catford stations and Central Catford
- approx 9 trains needed for Elephant-Catford service, via Option B4
- significant risk of overloading the existing service on the Central London Bakerloo section, requiring an increase in service towards 2 minute headways between Catford or Elephant and Paddington. However in short term new trains might be resourced from other fleet cascades.
Costs and other factors:
- total capital cost Elephant-Peckham-Catford tube route ca. £2.15-2.4bn (B4 or B5 options): £90-100m trains (excl Central London), £600-650m stations (beoynd Peckham, at Honor Oak Park, and Catford Interchange/Central Catford), £1.45-1.65bn tunnels, tracks and other works
- a Bakerloo Line to Catford could be similar to the Victoria Line at Seven Sisters/Tottenham, offering a faster direct West End service than existing main line trains (whose typical journey is 20 minutes), and complementing the bulk of main line services at Catford/Catford Bridge which serve the City.
no assessment of the benefit side of the sum?
(and whoever chose the options for that pdf murdered the maps and table)
Do they have a preferred option?
This being the council that can't even lobby for a shitty little station…
B3 looks like the best route.
This and the earlier TfL document should be seen as starting a debate early. It will be a long time before a SE extension of the Bakerloo line becomes a goer. Before that kind of money becomes available, the project needs to be seen as a familiar and sensible option.
It has got to be one of the two PEckham Tye options, if/when money becomes avilable.
Meanwhile, apart from "crossrail2" (Chelsea-Hackney- Leyton(stone)) …
OTHER sensible tube extensions would be:
1: N line not just to Battersea but to C.Junction.
2: Extend Drain at both ends – E to Liverpool St, with turning loop, and island-platform underneath the new Shreditch, and NW to Victoria.
3: DLR
Bank-Moorgate-KrapYrubsnif-Ally Pally (after 'slink takes over KX outer-suburban services)
Bringing the tube to Peckham/Catford would seem to be the best plan based on this analysis.
But it would be interesting to understand how this project compares with the potential for improved interchange options in South East London:
Higher Level Brockley station
Brixton Overground station
Combined Catford/Catford South station
As well as better use of existing tracks:
Bellingham to Victoria
Stopping fast trains to/from London Bridge at New Cross Gate for ELL interchange
Building Surrey Canal Road
Oh how I do love some of the blue sky ideas that persistently appear:
NLX to Clapham Junction will never happen because it couldn't handle the capacity
WLC extension will never happen (especially to Victoria), because there would no longer be enough capacity for people to get on at Waterloo (as it is, people can have to queue for 5-10 mins just to access the platform at Waterloo).
I think NLX from Clapham Junction would work fine – it would still be slower to Waterloo than on the train from SWT services.
Western West End people would probably still go via Vauxhall or Victoria on the Victoria line.
City people would still go to Waterloo – or Victoria for the District/Circle lines.
I think it would be mainly local and immediate vicinity journeys – if the change wasn't too bad. If it was a double ended station running N-S under the platforms, crowds could be spread more evenly (along the tiny 6 car train!).
It would be very busy, but I'm sure 24-30tph could handle it.
Waterloo & City is jam packed at waterloo. The platform is solid with people each morning. It can't cope with any extension unless it follows the same route as almost all of the people using it already – towards clapham junction. Basically, it needs to steal the proposed NLX route.
As for the Northern line. There are clearly two or three plausible Bakerloo routes south east:
(1) bricklayers arms – greenwich – charlton
(2) old kent road – peckham rye – lewisham – bexleyheath
(3) camberwell – peckham rye – catford – hayes
There is only one Bakerloo line, which means only one of those routes can really be taken. But if you make the Northern line continue SE (the direction it generally heads from charing cross), not SW, then it can take the camberwell route, so that two of the 3 options could be taken, not just one.
Anyone know when the Bricklayers Arms goods area was built on (as mentioned in the text)? Was it recently?
Waterloo & City can't be extended north; the rest of Bank station is in the way.
A good analysis.
My musings on this pretty much concluded the route E&C, Aylesbury Estate, Peckham, Brockley, Lewisham, Bexleyheath, Dartford. I hadn't considered continuing on to Bluewater, though it seems obvious, thinking about it.
I find it strange that they think you could only serve a single station (Camberwell OR Aylesbury Estate) though. I think both options justify a station in Walworth/Aylesbury Estate as well as another south of Burgess Park between there and Peckham Rye.
@jas
I recall reading the development was in the late 70's/early 80's.
@The W&C Extension Naysayers
Of course you wouldn't be able to extend at either end – nor would you want to – all the current platforms point in the wrong directions. Re-aligning them for extension would then also enable them to be rebuilt long enough for proper 8-car trains.
As a starting point, Clapham Junction, Battersea, Nine Elms, Lambeth, Waterloo, Blackfriars, Bank, Moorgate, Old Street, Essex Road, H&I, Drayton Park, Finsbury Park. Nice and self-contained, zone 2 to zone 2, with plenty of options beyond there.
Am I being dense? This whole process seems the wrong way round to me.
Surely building/extending railways should start with "there is overcrowding/a need for better connections in xxx area" -> "aha, we can extend the Bakerloo line (or whatever to solve that problem". Instead this is discussing "we have a solution (Bakerloo line extension)… now what problem can we find that it solves?"
Yes, but since every route in London is overloaded and resources are finite. You might as well look at a route that gives you the most passengers for the least money. As well as looking at routes that bost regeneration, to help boost the BCR.
Thanks for this: came to it via Brockley Central blog. A subject I've wondered about for a while, though have struggled to find enough detail, so forgive me if this is a stupid question.
Is there any obvious reason why the Bakerloo couldn't surface at Elephant and join the Elephant – Denmark Hill – Peckham Rye – Nunhead – Lewisham route? {This is I think what mr_jrt suggests above). Cost is obviously a factor, but this option would seem significantly cheaper than any proposed in the report which all include miles of underground track.
If the Brockley High-level Link was opened en route, there'd be an easy interchange to the Overground (and, if they cold be persuaded to add a stop, Thameslink/FCC).
B3 contributes very little, mainly duplicating an existing very busy route (London Bridge -> Lewisham), and simply acting as an extra pair of tracks.
B1 improves on this by providing a small amount of regeneration, but it does so at the least deprived corner of the area. It again duplicates an existing route (the Jubilee line), which though very busy is already likely to be relieved by Crossrail.
B2 offers more regeneration, in some currently bad areas. However, it also puts pressure on Lewisham junction by redirecting trains towards it that would formerly have gone via Greenwich. Although Angerstein wharf offers a ready-made set of sidings, it is also an officially protected wharf, permanently dedicated to freight activities.
B5 offers regeneration of a deprived town centre. Extending it to Lewisham and beyond to Bexleyheath additionally offers relief of both Lewisham Junction, and the mainline towards London Bridge. Unlike B3, it would be a more direct, faster, route to the centre of London than existing mainline services. Unlike B1, B2, and B3, it would serve 3 town centres (Camberwell, Peckham, and Lewisham), not just 1.
Extending B5 to Catford, direct from Peckham (possibly via Honor Oak), would necessitate the DLR being extended from Lewisham to Catford before mainline trains could be removed from the Hayes branch. This in turn would necessitate the rebuilding of Lewisham DLR station, and the mainline junctions around lewisham, due to difficult geography (the DLR is just below ground level, just before it meets a river stream, just before it meets Lewisham Junction. The only options are for the DLR to dive into tunnel before Lewisham, or to rise onto a bridge above the existing Lewisham station, which itself is raised above ground; both options are expensive, and awkward, and mean that the DLR could not serve Lewisham for some time while such construction occurs).
B4, while having the same advantages as B5 from extending towards Bexleyheath, and the same issues as it if extending towards Catford, would also offer regeneration of the worst council estate in the whole of Europe – the Aylesbury Estate -, Hell's waiting room.
Therefore, B4, with extension to Bexleyheath, is the best option, and B3 the worst.
In order, from best to worst, the options are B4->Bexleyheath, B5->Bexleyheath, B4->Catford (direct), B5->Catford (direct), B2, B1, B3
@suggestions that the Bakerloo should surface near Elephant, and go down the mainline to Lewisham, via Loughborough Junction and Peckham Rye.
Basically, from Loughborough Junction to Peckham, this is one of the two core mainlines for South Eastern trains on the Kent to Victoria line. After Thameslink 2000 it, together with the remaining stretch between Loughborough junction and Elephant, will also be the mainline for Kent to Blackfriars trains. Its far too busy to take a tube line as well.
So, at least as far as Nunhead, any Bakerloo extension must be in tube. And if its going to be in tube it might as well take a more direct route, serving more central parts of various areas.
@Waterloo and City extension suggestions.
You cannot extend north because the central line is in the way. There is only enough space for one line above the level of the northern line, and its already taken by the central line.
The only way to extend is have entirely new Waterloo and City line platforms.
You could then make it dive below the Central line, but then you'd have to go through the basements of expensive buildings, with bank vaults in the basements, to get it on top of the Northern line before it reached Moorgate.
Or you could move the Northern line itself lower, to make the space for the Waterloo & City to pass between it and the Central line. Which would mean the Waterloo & City taking over a small fragment of the Northern Line. But you'd then also need to move the DLR platforms, as they are in the way of any lowering of the Northern line – basically the Northern line would have to take them over.
However, despite how much work you'd need to do to each line, it is a more workable solution that it sounds. There is currently a plan to rebuild Bank (its long term, so any construction won't be finished until 2025 though), so that the Northern line platforms aren't so cramped; this solution offers a way to resolve the problem by having the Northern line use the DLR platforms. As for the DLR, the main DLR extension planned is towards Charing Cross; the current DLR platforms face the wrong way, so they'd need new platforms anyway.
Alternatively, you could redirect it down Coleman street, to reach Moorgate. But then it wouldn't be able to pass through Bank station at all, and it couldn't then have an interchange with the Central line.
Anyway, this isn't the place for discussing the Waterloo & City line.
@anon @1033: many thanks for answering my question from earlier.
@Anon @10:00
As someone else says…those lines are going to get much busier.
Tube, whilst expensive, does have one advantage – it's easier to thread through urban areas. Using that advantage to serve the widest new area and make the most of the Bakerloo route until bypassing one of the worst bottlenecks in the UK railway system – Lewisham Station, has to be a priority.
My original suggestion was to leave it in tunnel until reaching the surface at Peckham Rye, before taking over the route east to Bexleyheath (but adding platforms at Brockley!). This was to save money as there would be less tunnelling, but would mean that the North Kent lines would lose their link to Victoria. Remaining in tunnel until Blackheath retains that link. Building a pair of tunnelled platforms at Brockley will be just as useful as opening them on the bridge in that regard.
Remaining in tunnel will also have the effect of effectively quad tracking the route between Peckham and Blackheath, which should increase capacity on the other two North Kent lines towards Victoria somewhat dramatically, as they would then have exclusive use of the current tracks (probably making the need for platforms on Brockley's bridge redundant).
I think that LU should, by now, be serving much more of South London than it already does. We all know that this is due to the geology south of the river. But if they could do it on the Jubilee line extension (JLE), then why can't they do it on other lines.
I strongly agree that the Waterloo & City line should be extended to Clapham Junction (or even beyond towards Wimbledon) and I oppose the Northern line extension to Battersea; I think it should go south-eastwards.
I've said something about this before and was criticised by some readers who said that the Bakerloo line is also to be extended to SE London. Think about how many lines are in NW London!
The District line could also be extended south from Wimbledon, taking over some South West Trains (SWT) tracks and stations, as could the 'Chelney' line, instead of terminating at Wimbledon.
Back to the Bakerloo, but on its northern side – I think that services should be reduced north of Stonebridge Park and completely withdrawn north of Wembley Central, and increase LO frequencies to 3 tph Euston-H&W and 4tph to Watford Junction and 1tph to Willesden Junction. This would relieve pressure at Stonebridge Park depot, reducing the necessity of building extra sidings elsewhere.
The extra LO trains needed for this could be stabled at the old Croxley Green sidings (nothing has come of the Met extension as far as I'm aware).
Eventually I think the following service pattern would do nicely:
6tph Queen's Park to Lewisham
8tph Queen's Park to Hayes
4tph Queen's Park to Elmers End/Eden Park
2tph Queen's Park to Burgess Park
4tph Wembley Central to Hayes
2tph Wembley Central to Beckenham Junction
4tph Stonebridge Park to Beckenham Junction
2tph Stonebridge Park to Burgess Park
This would give a total of 32tph, if only 30tph is possible then the Burgess Park terminus could be scrapped and have 2 extra tph to Hayes.
@George
Good ideas.
My suggestion for the northern end is to extend the tunnels from Queens Park to Willesden Junction (to segregate the LO and Bakerloo lines), then build a new Bakerloo depot at Willesden. The existing Bakerloo facilities and builder's yard at Queens Park can then be flattened and the space used for 2-3 freight loops.
The line would then be sent to either:
* The GWML via North Acton out to wherever (Greenford? West Drayton?)
* Up the Dudding Hill line to Cricklewood via Neasden, then back into tube to Finchley Central (via Brent Cross and a new station on the North Circular), then up to either Mill Hill East (to Edgware?), or High Barnet.
The LO could be amalgamated with the ELL, extended from H&I via Primrose Hill:
* 4tph Watford to New Cross
* 4tph Harrow to Crystal Palace.
* 4tph Willesden to West Croydon.
* 4tph Dalston to Clapham
…not forgetting that the NLL will be running in addition to the ELL between Camden Road and Canonbury. The key part of this is to widen the 20m or so of viaduct west of Camden Road to keep the southern and northern pairs of tracks fully segregated. You can double those frequencies quite easily if demand justifies it.
The Dudding Hill freight line is planned to be used for the NWLR; there will be a post on that in due couse (in the middle of researching at the moment).
TfL won't have the money to build extra tunnels to Willesden, unless HS2 builds them with a new station at Old Oak Common for HS2, XR and LO…
Seems odd to stop the Greenwich extension at Charlton when you can continue it along that branch to Abbey Wood to meet Crossrail. So Deptford to Abbey Wood becomes exclusively Bakerloo while Abbey Wood to Slade Green becomes exclusively Crossrail (and there is space to build a bit more dedicated parallel track to take it to Dartford so it can ensure connection of that line with the remainder of southeastern services.
Otherwise, Bexleyheath seems best. I don't know why TfL are pushing for Hayes when it runs so close to the extended East London line. The south east doesn't even have overground!
The thing about Charlton is that it is a junction. If you extend the line along the Greenwich route beyond Charlton then you start having to run on the North Kent line. That's a major commuter route, and a major freight route (freight is loaded onto freight trains nearby at Angerstein Wharf). Its an extremely bad idea to try and run even more trains on it as well.
Alternatively you could make it go back into tunnel, but then you've got an extremely expensive route that just duplicates the mainline for no particularly good reason.
Remember, if people are on the Bakerloo line already, why on earth would they head on a time consuming journey east in order to reach a route that heads west again.
Charlton -> Woolwich -> Crossrail -> Paddington
really isnt that much faster than
Charlton -> Bakerloo extension -> Bakerloo -> Paddington
Plus Woolwich is an extremely tight station. Its basically a tunnel either side of the platforms. And its in the centre of an urban area. There's nowhere for sidings to go.
Slade Green on the other hand has ready made sidings. Crossrail has no use for them, the sidings will be far too short. But they are perfect for Bakerloo line trains.
But you're right that Slade Green is a bit of an odd place to terminate the route when Dartford is not far away.
The problem essentially is that Dartford is an urban area, with the station situated on a viaduct at the far side of a river valley. There isn't really any easy way to put in an extra set of tracks. And digging a tunnel from Slade Green just to get to Dartford really isn't worth the vast amounts of money you'd need to spend to cross the terrain, especially given that there isn't enough space for the line to rise to surface level at the station – it would have to be an underground platform, and that's an absurd expense for so little gain.
It's scandelous how bad the maps are in the Lewisham Council report. There's little chance of any extensions given the crappiness of the maps, and the ease with which one can map good clear maps these days.
@Anonymous 20:03
Well commuters heading west would go via Crossrail, while the Bakerloo would be a more local service and a western Greenwich-to-centre service (the tube network isn't just about how fast we can get to the centre). Bakerloo couldn't handle taking on the full commuter service east of Woolwich anyway but by splitting the whole of that line between Bakerloo and Crossrail ensures that all the stations are still served and well interconnected. Crossrail couldn't go further east without sharing lines or constructing new ones; this way it can (though granted it has to be two tracked on the stretch to Dartford but it can be done without knocking down any houses).
Much talk, again, of DLR to Catford to meet/juxtapose a Bakerloo to Hayes.
Yet a simpler and cheaper option would surely be to extend the LO from New Cross via a short tunnel and some surface land take for extra tracks to Lewisham, perhaps taking over St Johns station, and then on to Catford.
Catford/Ladywell service to Lewisham preserved with nifty Jubilee connection via ELL, and slots to London Bridge freed. All much cheaper than messing with the DLR. Win win.
Good suggestion Paul – the New Cross spur does certainly feel to be a little bit stumpy and premature. It's almost a waste of 4tph.
Although maybe it keeps the amount of units needed down!
Getting the Overground to Lewisham would have been much better (taking over St Johns, relief for many passengers I'm sure) but Catford would be perfect. I'm sure it could share tracks in some places, certainly south of Lewisham.
It would give this branch some purpose, and more interchange. And again, relieve London Bridge station, paths, outer suburban trains and overcrowd Canada Water
Yet a simpler and cheaper option would surely be to extend the LO from New Cross via a short tunnel and some surface land take for extra tracks to Lewisham, perhaps taking over St Johns station, and then on to Catford.
But, given the capacity constraints already present on the North Kent lines at this point, you'd have no benefit from this unless you built a tunnel from New Cross which would then emerge on the Hayes branch – and those of us on the line aren't going to welcome losing our direct link to Central London, as we'd have to struggle onto Jubilee Line services or Lewisham trains in any case.
From the POV of the Hayes Line, by far the best solution for adding it to the Tube network would be for it to follow the original alignment of the JLE before the 1990s (from the old Charing Cross Jubilee platforms through Aldwych and the City to New Cross, and thence to Lewisham). But what would happen then? You could have a two-branch Jubilee Line, or a two-branch Bakerloo, with the two branches meeting up at Piccadilly Circus and the E&C branch being extended to Streatham or somewhere else, but that might create big capacity problems in the future.
@hyuey
The point is that LO from New Cross to Catford is a cheaper/easier option than the DLR, not that it's free and everyone will love it. Free and universally loved options don't generally exist in the real world.
Also, as I said, it can be done with some cut&cover and some surface land take (yes, a few demolitions, just like anything else).
Check the route for yourself – http://bit.ly/dd7SEP
not that it's free and everyone will love it.
That's clearly not the point I aimed to make. Even the best feasible schemes will involve losers, and significant expense, except in fairlyland. But any new rail scheme for this part SE London must aim to ease capacity along this over-used stretch of rail, and your scheme, as far as I can see, fails to do that given the costs involved.
Check the route for yourself
It's been my home route for many years now.
it can be done with some cut&cover and some surface land take
Land could fairly easily be taken at parts of the route. But you'd have to expand the railway cutting between New Cross and the eastern end of Tanners Hill Tunnel by demolishing one wall and expanding the tunnel. More significantly, you'd either make existing problems at Lewisham worse by using existing track, or you'd have to add two additional tracks, with platforms – and Lewisham would cost a significant amount of money to re-engineer, given the need to maintain the spur bypassing Lewisham station and the junction from Victoria, and the current platform arrangements.
And this is why it certainly is not clear that a DLR extension which, say, tunnelled under the A20, or even rose over the the existing rail racks at Lewisham, would be more expensive than the option you chose.
@alpa
Crossrail isn't an efficient route to the west from greenwich/lewisham/catford, if the bakerloo line is extended to them. To reach crossrail, you'd have to go east, and that takes time, as well as being counter-intuitive.
@anonymous 10:37
The New Cross spur only really exists because there's no other junction between LO and the kent lines.
If there is ever anything joining new-cross to new-cross-gate, the LO spur won't be needed any more. Or if there's ever a station where the mainline crosses the ELL extension to Clapham, the LO spur won't be needed.
If you're going to the expense of building a tunnel, its better to dig from New Cross to Brockley, and route the ELL to Croydon via New Cross instead of via New Cross Gate. Its less tunnel/demolition/land grab, but you still stop the spur being peculiar, while ensuring that both the kent lines and the brigton line still get a connection to the ELL; in fact, all ELL trains (apart from those going to Clapham) would now connect with both lines, you'd improve the service drastically.
So you see, extending LO to Lewisham/etc. really isn't a good option.
@paul
Catford is a completely bizarre place for LO to terminate. If its got that far, why not just have it take over the hayes line entirely?
And if you do that, we're not talking about a bakerloo extension to Hayes any more.
By contrast, DLR is a railway mainly working over short distances, centred on the Docklands. Catford is a quite natural place to be right at the end of its service; Hayes is far to far.
Bakerloo to Bexleyheath via Peckham is by far the most logical route, not only as the most geographically natural route, but as the one delivering the most mainline relief, and the most regeneration.
I see no-one else has commented on that little throwaway comment on the Bexleyheath line options – possibility of an extension to Bluewater.
Can't see how realistic that would be – there's been no attempt to safeguard any such route as far as I can tell, unlike Crossrail to Gravesend.
Thoughts, anyone ?
@Mike, oh, I noticed all right.
On another forum (which I won't link to here as a matter of courtesy), we've been discussing this topic back and forth for quite some time.
Net result, here's my musings, recently-updated.
Aside from reducing congestion on existing services, a potential side benefit to extending from Elephant would be to allow SE London commuters to access SW London stations without having to pass through Zone 1, considerably reducing their fares. It requires going southbound to Stockwell and then northbound on the Victoria Line to Vauxhaull, from which all of the South West Trains mainline services can be joined.
It's a little bit inconvenient, with two rapid Tube changes, but worth it – a Zone 2-4 Travelcard costs £15 less per week than a Zone 1-4 Travelcard! My fear, though, is that TFL won't like that at all, and will simply shift the Zone 1 boundary so that Elephant falls entirely within it (as they did with Shoreditch earlier in the year), scuppering any thought of commuters actually saving money…
@Anonymous @22:58 and Tangent
LO to Hayes and Bakerloo to Bexleyheath seems like a good combo to me, but I don't see any real difference between terminating LO or DLR at Catford. Calling it 'Bizarre' is silly; lines always have to end somewhere. It's no more bizarre than New Cross, Elephant or even Lewisham.
The DLR through Lewisham would require a viaduct extending some 800m across the existing station, the A20, the river and the Lewisham Centre until it could plug into the Hayes branch (and it would need to be completely segregated to maintain the NR route to Hither Green. A tunnel is clearly not feasible because of the river and the need to connect to the Hayes branch which is raised to the South – unless the tunnel is even longer than the viaduct. A "Lewisham Centre" station is the only conceivable benefit I can see to any of this, and it would need to be elevated (or in tunnel) and thus expensive.
By contrast, LO could share the platforms at Lewisham with Hither Green services (why not, they do at the moment!) with new tracks slipping over or under the existing lines to the North of Thurston Road. There are multiple side benefits to be gained from re-engineering the layout west of Lewisham – "Value for Money" is the factor here as well as cost.
At New Cross, the island platform actually extends under New Cross Road, so moving the platform North might free up enough clearance for additional lines. If not, one or two demolitions would easily allow the bridge to be widened.
Yes the cutting, Tanners hill (and other road crossings) would need some work, but this is nothing like the cost for the limited benefit of the DLR option.
LO all the way through to Hayes would also have the side benefit of maintaining the freight/diversionary route from Lewisham to Beckenham junction.
Missed this somehow.
This report should be read in conjunction with the Lewisham Boroughwide Transport Survey 2010 (http://bit.ly/LBLTransport) which shows train usage back to a sardine squashing 125% of Crush Capacity at Brockley by 2026, with Lewisham and Catford operating at 88%. This is even after taking into account the proposed growth in housing (17525 new homes in Lewisham and Catford). Any extra capacity should therefore be directed to alleviate the Sydenham line.
The best options are therefore B4/B5 to Catford, with little to choose in cost (£2.2bn for B4, £2.1bn for B5). The choice then comes down to regenerative effect, so you'd probably go for B4.
Use the Lewisham -Hayes line to extend the tram up to Lewisham from Beckenham and create an orbital light railway for london
I noticed during BoJo’s comments to the tory Party conference that he said if the government gave london the money, he would built new tube lines. presumeably he wasn’t talking about the Battersea extension to the Northern line, could this be what he was refferring to?