http://cdn.londonreconnections.com/logos/logo_light.png

Treasury Holdings, the company which effectively owns Battersea Power Station developers REO, have begun a public consultation their plans to redevelop the Battersea Power Station site and to see the Northern Line extended to Battersea.

Back in October 2009, a planning framework for Battersea and Nine Elms was published by Wandsworth, the Mayor’s Office and the developers which effectively concluded that any development of the site would require the extension of tube services into the area. This is something that developers REO have long indicated would be their goal, should they succeed in redeveloping the Battersea site, and represented a further cementing of it in print.

At the same time, an agreement was reached between the Borough and Mayor that any Crossrail funding raised within that area could be diverted to support such a project should it take place. Such funding would obviously be insufficient to pay for any extension completely, but would provide an option for “topping up” any funds raised either by the developer or by other means (Tax Increment Funding has been another option suggested).

Treasury Holding’s current consultation looks to bring four route options to the attention of the general public, and to solicit comments on them.

The options suggested are as follows (apologies for the image quality), and we have included Treasury Holdings’ summary of the route option beneath each image:

ROUTE 1: Kennington – Battersea Power Station (Direct)


Route Option 1 is likely to be the easiest route option to deliver in engineering terms, involving a 3km direct tunnel from Kennington to the Battersea Power Station site, with no mid-station. As a result, the route would be likely to:
- have the lowest capital cost; and
- provide the fastest journey time to the Power Station and western end of VNEB.

However, this route option would not improve access to a significant part of the Nine Elms Opportunity Area and existing residential areas.

ROUTE 2: Kennington – Battersea Power Station (via South Nine Elms)


Route Option 2 involves a 3km tunnel from Kennington to Battersea Power Station with a mid-station in south Nine Elms. As a result, the route would:
- improve accessibility to most of the key development sites in the Nine Elms Opportunity Area via new pedestrian links under the railway viaduct;
- provide a new tube station in an area currently only served by buses; and
- reduce crowding at Vauxhall and on the Victoria Line.

However, the building of this route option could result in short term disruption to existing retail, commercial and residential activities in the vicinity of the mid-station location.

ROUTE 3: Kennington – Battersea Power Station (via Vauxhall Station)


Route Option 3 involves a 3km tunnel from Kennington to Battersea Power Station with a mid-station next to Vauxhall Underground station.

As a result, this option would:
- provide additional public transport capacity and route options at Vauxhall; and
- provide an interchange between the Northern and Victoria Lines and overground railway at Vauxhall.

However, the route option has some complex engineering issues, would probably have the highest capital cost and would be the most difficult to construct and deliver. It may also exacerbate crowding issues on the Victoria Line and at Vauxhall, and may limit growth opportunities near
Vauxhall.

ROUTE 4: Kennington to Battersea Power Station (via North Nine Elms)


Route Option 4 involves a 3km tunnel from Kennington to Battersea Power Station with a mid-station in north Nine Elms. As a result, this option would:
- improve accessibility to the planned US Embassy development and several other key development sites in the Nine Elms Opportunity Area; and
- offer a reasonable interchange with the public transport facilities at Vauxhall.

However, building this route option would be complex, particularly in relation to integration with existing Network Rail infrastructure, and would probably have a relatively high capital cost. Also, while it would serve some new developments, it would not serve existing residential areas particularly well.

Obviously this consultation should not be seen as an indication that the project is now certain to go ahead, with the developer’s intentions almost certainly being to bring the Battersea development back into the eyes of both the public and financial worlds.

It does, however, suggest that we may be about to witness an increase in the efforts to bring the redevelopment of the area to fruition. The published routes also give a nice insight into what the developer’s work behind the scenes have indicated is possible, and in that regard are worth consideration alone.

UPDATE: Have now got the full leaflet, which includes a freepost questionnaire and email contact details. Have uploaded it here for anyone who wants it. – JB]


Thanks to Captain Kidd for the spot.

jump to the end
There are 39 comments on this article
  1. Baskii says:

    Hmm. I wonder if anyone can clarify how another branch on the already busy Northern Line would affect performance? Perhaps the developers are banking on the signalling upgrades going to plan…

  2. George Moore says:

    The Waterloo & City line should be extended instead, with an upgrade to 6 cars!!!

    Then the Northern lin can venture southeastwards.

  3. Anonymous says:

    The Waterloo and City line will never be extended. As previously discussed at length on this site there is not a chance. This developer does not want to pay to extend the W&C. The Northern line is the only line they are interested in. It will be the Bakerloo line that will be extended eastwards.

  4. D-Notice says:

    Is there any reason why the "Nine Elms" station in Option 2 can't be added to the Option 1 route?

  5. Anonymous says:

    Where and when can people make their views known to the developers about their plans? This was not mentioned in the article and as a local resident, I would very much like my views to be heard.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Baskii – It wouldn't really be another branch as they have already 99% decided that only Bank branch trains will run to Morden, and all CX branch will terminate (by running round the loop) at Kennington by 2018; (assuming all the recent South London media articles are correct!).

    So all they will do is extend Kennington terminators through – hopefully whatever terminus design they provide will have the same capacity as the loop…

  7. monkey says:

    Maybe the American Embassy should make a contribution – but there again if they won't even pay their Congestion Charge, it would seem unlikely!!

  8. Mark Lee says:

    @d-notice

    Putting a Station at Nine Elms on the Option 1 alignment would require the demolition (and re-construction?) of the Sainsbury's supermarket that is at the site.

    Option 2 is a slight change to the alignment, which would put the station in the Sainsbury's car park instead (much cheaper to build).

  9. Mark Lee says:

    Question for the author: So how does one partake in the consultation? Link please!

  10. John Bull says:

    As you can probably guess from the quality of the images, I don't have full "official" information on this yet.

    I believe the plan is to go with a major leafleting push in Wandsworth, so as soon as that hits the streets (or I can get hold of the full material) I'll put contact details up for those looking to have input.

  11. John Bull says:

    Found it.

    There's now a link to the full postal leaflet, which includes a freepost questionnaire and contact email, at the foot of the post.

    click here if you don't want to scroll up

  12. Anonymous says:

    Can't help thinking this is a waste of the potential for a future southwards extension of the CX branch to Streatham or similar.

  13. mr_jrt says:

    As stated before, I wholeheartedly believe the best option would be an integrated solution for south of the river, which, all things considered, options 3 & 4 would be the most useful to reuse at a later date for an extended W&C route I know it won't happen – too many short-sighted cheapskates in planning departments).

    In order to achieve this, a larger depot would be needed, and either a new depot north of the lines into Waterloo would be needed, or alternately, London Road Depot could fit the bill nicely. Taking over that would require the Bakerloo to be extended southwards to a site where a larger replacement depot could be built, which would have to happen irrespective of what happens to the other lines.

    The CX line can then quite happily head south-south east.

  14. G. Tingey says:

    With the new US embassy – it HAS to be option 4.
    AND
    NOT TERMINATE at bloody Battersea power station but end at Clapham Junction ……

  15. Anonymous says:

    I don't get the fascination with the W&C. The Northern line extension will be privately funded by Treasury Holdings. They don't want to pay for the W&C to be extended only the Northern line. Treasury Holdings can't spend billions on the power station and build thousands of flats without sorting out transport and therefore they want to pay for an extension to the Northern line. No one else is proposing to extend it and no one else is proposing to pay. If you can find a spare billion quid or two them I'm sure TfL will happily let you extend the W&C. After Crossrail is built then the new Mayor's transport strategy outlines a need for the Chelsea Hackney line and an extension of the Bakerloo line into south east London. If the W&C was to go anywhere it should be a connection to Victoria given the huge numbers of people that travel from the Victoria area to Waterloo each day.

  16. Anonymous says:

    The problem with extending the Northern beyond Battersea to Clapham Junction is that you would just overload the line. In theory the line could be extended to CJ but the prob is who is going to pay. Better option would be to extend further into Wandsworth avoiding CJ and link with another development site such as former brewery site near Wandsworth Town with aim that another developer pays the additional costs. The only real option for Clapham Junction is Crossrail 2 and creating a branch from there but it would also need to be combined with a huge investment in the station to finally sort out all its problems. The station as it currently stands is not fit for purpose and really needs to be sorted once and for all.

  17. Chris M says:

    This looks like too good an opportunity to miss, so I really hope that one of hte options actually gets built.

    Any sensible design for the terminus would be one that allowed for easy onward extension to wherever is best (be it Clapham Junction or elsewhere) at a later date.

    South-east London does need a tube line, but the best fit for that area will be the Bakerloo Line. See extensive discussion on the District Dave forum and elsewhere for the reasons.

    DD's forum is also a good location to see all the many and varied schemes relating to extending the W&C at either end. Those who want to do something with that line, you're going to have to accept that it wont come about because of this project, and continuing to shout about it may just result in neither getting done, to the benefit of nobody.

  18. Chris M says:

    Looking at the maps a bit closer, I wonder if (for routes 1 and 2) it would be possible to build another station where the extension crosses the Victoria Line? Or would this be too close to Stockwell for the Victoria Line?

    Also, what are the possibilities of a third platform at Oval for southbound trains on the extension (routes 1, 2 or 4)? I doubt that a separate station for northbound trains there would be beneficial (given the proximity to the converging junction) unless Oval is really creaking at the seams?

  19. Anonymous says:

    "W&C" – extension.
    Seriously. the obvious routes are:
    A single-track loop, with an island-platform two-track station underneath the new Shoreditch, with an intermediate at LS at one end…
    And extend from Waterloo to Victoria at the other, leaving the "top" (NW) end at Victoria open for further extensions.
    (Like twoards Paddington/Marylebone)

  20. Trances says:

    It has always been the case that Clapham Junction needed a tube line connection but now as the transport network is becoming better integrated in this as urgent? I do like the idea of extending this northern line branch onwards but given the case of overloading I believe that the wandsworth option is better. Connections like this will massive help south London development.

    Bakerloo and Victoria can both be extended southwards if capacity (and of course funds) if they ever become available! Why is Option 2 consider lost compared to Option 4. Would this location spread the passenger load of the development in the area between the Vauxhall and new tube station ? Also disruption to existing retail would mean it could be redeveloped with focus on the tube station. Is Nine Elms and the Embassy still not within walking distance of the new tube station ?

    As for the unusual suggestion of a single new platform at oval what would this add. A few reduced interchanges at Kennington ? As far as I am aware nothing like this exists current on the tube network ?

    By they way will people just forget about any extension to the W&C line! :P.

  21. Anonymous says:

    @ Monkey – the US Embassy will be going through the normal planning process thus they could expect to be hit for planning obligation money to contribute to the NLLE

    @ Mark Lee – Sainsbury's want to redevelop their Vauxhall site anyway as they recognise a low rise development with car park is not appropriate that close to the centre of town (oh, and they can leverage lots of ££ out of a resi led redevelopment!)

    Re: an interchange at Vauxhall, wouldn't that just load the Victoria line even more prior to Victoria with people changing from NLLE to Vic line? Everyone who wants to change from NLL to VL will have already done so at Stockwell…

  22. Mark Lee says:

    @Anon 10:39

    The Sainsbury's plan has been talked about for 10 years, with no planning application ever submitted. Given the way that the planning process for towers seems to work in Lambeth (application submitted, rejected, appealed, rejected, application modifed and re-submitted, accepted), if an application for the Sainsbury's site isn't submitted in the next year or so, it isn't going to get approval / start in time for the construction of the station / tube line.

    By using a slightly different route alignment (Option 2), the station sits in the current Sainsburys car park, and removes any dependency on design / planning for the Sainsburys site project for the successful completion of the tube route.

  23. Anonymous says:

    Regarding the extension to Clapham Junction:

    People say that it would overload the line but surely anybody on National Rail who needs to get onto the Northern Line is going to get onto it some way or another anyway (e.g. at Balham or Waterloo) so interchange at CJ just makes it a bit easier for them to do what they were going to do anyway. That leaves the issue of additional people, looking to get onto other lines. Would they really be tempted to jump on the Northern Line from CJ when a SWT service is going to get them to suitable interchange points (Waterloo and Vauxhall probably cover what they want) quicker? Bear in mind that a lot of them will already be on a SWT service so why would they change?

    Also, I have heard it claimed that splitting the Northern Line into two separate lines would allow increased capacity on both, presumably subject to Camden Town being modified. Wouldn't that cover any additional capacity needed?

    Finally, is there a reason why trains loop at Kennington instead of reversing? It seems like a complex arrangement and the loop takes up more space than a few reversing sidings would. Would any extension need to have a similar loop at the end?

  24. Anonymous says:

    The one good thing about this extension is that it will allow more trains that have not come all the way through south London to get into the central section with some space left at peek times – Hence why extension to CJ would be a bad idea if you wanted a good service for your newly built flats!

    As for the termination at the end of the line, a loop alows quicker turn-a-rounds (like the picadilly line in the south) If you put sidings in then you have to stop the train, close down one end of the train, walk to the other end, start up that cab, and then move off again. You end up having at least one train waiting there all the time while this is going on. A Loop on the other hand, you just drive off and come back round with the train pointing in the other direction – you also don't have to make sure the train is empty, and have platofrm staff to empty and close all the doors for you……

    However as the TPH on the new section will be less, and as LU will not be paying for it, I suspect that a set of sidings will be built as it would seem a cheaper option……

    Any idea on how deep they are going to build it as there does not seem to be much in the way? ANd will they be building longer platforms for future expansion? – I guess not if its not TFL funded.

  25. Anonymous says:

    Such touching interest in the developer's puffery. What a pity it will never be built.

  26. Anonymous says:

    If I remember rightly, the environmental impact study of the Vauxhall, Nine Elms and Battersea Power Station development said that:

    - there had to be an underground link
    - it had to have a Nine Elms station
    - a station at Vauxhall would be difficult to build and would overload the Victoria Line.

    Some of the options in this new consultation would appear to contradict what has been stated in previous studies. Only a couple of the options in this new consultation meet the conditions set previously, as far as I remember them. Does anyone know how this new consultation takes into account previous studies?

    Guano

  27. Chris M says:

    @Anonymous 15:14

    I suspect that they have included the options that don't meet the required criteria for several reasons –

    * They can say they've consulted on a variety of options, even if some aren't practical

    * The public can express their comments about the various options (some people will complain about not being given a chance to comment on e.g. a Vauxhall interchange, even if it is completely impractical)

    * If there is only one or two options that result in significant approval then they have to spend less money on the next round than if there are a dozen similarly-favoured alternatives (this is also likely to mean they get to build their development sooner).

    * It is also possible that the result of the consultation is that there is not much public support for a Nine Elms station, in which case the developers can say to the planning commission that nobody wants the station so we shouldn't have to pay to build it. (Not that I think this is likely).

  28. Anonymous says:

    Is there any talk about where the line would go after Battersea? TfL must have considered it already so they can make sure the tracks at Battersea are pointing the right way (and so there aren't new foundations in the way of the tunnels).

    Looking at their current strategy with new lines it would probably be a short tunnel maybe with one stop then take over one of the SWT branches, possibly the Richmond loop? Anyone tried a FOI for their plans? If they haven't looked into it already (they must have considered doing it all at once at some point – can't now for finances of course), they must do before they finalise the designs for Battersea, no?

  29. Anonymous says:

    @ Mark Lee – look out for a planning application at Sainsbury's Vauxhall soon ;)

  30. monkey says:

    With regards Sainsbury´s carpark, it´s worth looking at what´s happening in Whitechapel. The majority of the surface carpark is required for the Crossrail development. Sainsbury´s have demolished the petrol station and are building a ´temporary´ multistorey carpark (with no loss of spaces) on the petrol station site, releasing the land to Crossrail. My understanding is that, on completion of the works (at least 3 years), the land will be returned to Sainsburys and the ´temporary´ structure taken down. This would seem a terrible waste (by then everyone will be used to the MSCP), and I would have thought the released land could be redeveloped (either for social housing or commercial premises) – with Sainsbury´s sharing in the profit.
    With the precedent set, could a similar solution not be found for the Northern Line extension. I´m sure Sainsbury´s would welcome a new tube station on their doorstep discharging returning commuters right next to their ready-meals (or US embassy staff picking up a bottle of bubbly on the way home to Hampstead!).

  31. Mark Lee says:

    @Anon 18:23

    I'm quite prepared to eat my words, but I'm skeptical. Are you sure that you're not thinking of the planned redevelopment of the adjacent New Covent Garden Market site?

    http://www.newcoventgardenmarket.com/RedevelopmentProject/tabid/56/Default.aspx

    The only public consultations that have been doing on in the area for new developments are for the NCGM site and for the Island Site in the middle of Vauxhall Cross. There have definitely been no public consultations for the Sainsburys site… a prerequisite for a credible planning app.

  32. Jim says:

    Are there any vague costings at all?

    Say £500 million.

    If you built 5000 apartments, that's £100k per apartment you'd need to tack on to sale cost to cover the £500 million for the extension.

  33. Anonymous says:

    Indeed I do suspect that some of the options in this consultation are not real options but have just been included to pad out the consultation document.

    Guano

  34. Anonymous says:

    no point doing a FOI to TfL as it is Treasury Holdings plans. TfL has no money for an extension so won't have wasted any cash thinking about where it could go after Battersea.

  35. Anonymous says:

    TfL have committed to extending the line from Battersea to Clapham Junction with one intermediate station (near the Albert Bridge if I remember rightly). I can't remember quite where they were going to get the funds from.

    But Waterloo & City is a much better route. There are plenty of places around Lambeth High Street about to be massively redeveloped (we're talking skyscrapers), that could really do with a nearby tube station.

    And as for Vauxhall. There are a mass load of skyscrapers planned for there. Vauxhall is already overcrowded as it is – without the station being rebuilt and another line added it just won't cope. So what if the Victoria line is crowded, the developments at Vauxhall are already going to make that much much worse unless something is done to relieve them.

  36. Alex says:

    Waterloo & City as built points to South-East at Waterloo – so there is no way it can be extended to Victoria. Any extension would also involve major work in the foundations of Waterloo station and Bank of England (in the City) + it would need a completely new depot (as the only way to extend W&C is through the existing tiny depot).

    In the end it is just too expensive.

  37. mr_jrt says:

    @alex

    Yes, that may well be the case, but it's not the problem you make it out to be.

    As you can see here:
    http://archivemaps.com/mapco/bart1908/bart35.htm

    Yes, there is curvature, but you can see that you could simply continue towards Lambeth North, thence onto Vauxhall under a variety of roads. Likewise, you could easily cut off the curve and continue down under the York Road and thence onto an alignment under the Lambeth Palace grounds and from that point it's much the same as the other option.

    As for the northern end, as you can see from the other panels of that map, the line runs under Queen Victoria Street, so curving north to Moorgate would run under the Natwest building at 1 Prince's St., and those around it until you get the alignment of Moorgate St. Very difficult, but possible.

  38. Idle Pen Pusher says:

    With ref to the W&C line, what about extending it from Bank to Liverpool St and then connecting it to the subruban train services to create new services linking North East and South West London?

    http://idlepenpusher.blogspot.com/2010/07/connecting-capital-waterloo-to.html

  39. Roehamster says:

    Option 2, with a Jubilee interchange at Vauxhall Park seems an obvious choice given that transport planners seem to love maximising interchanges. There's also the fact that it evens out the distance between stations.

    And whilst the TBMs are down there, how about a link into Clapham Junction overground?

Leave a Comment

In order to make LR a pleasant place for discussion, please try to keep comments polite and, importantly, on topic! Comments that we feel do not meet these criteria, or that contain language that could cause some people trouble at work, may be moderated or deleted.

*
* (This won't be shown, but you can link it to an avatar if you like)

acceptable tags

Recent Articles

MTR To Operate Crossrail Concession

by

We wrote recently about how Crossrail would operate and now we know who – it was announced this morning that MTR have been selected as the successful bidder for the £1.4bn, eight year (extendable to ten) contract. Tendering for the

The (Caledonian) Sleeper Awakes

by

It may not have attracted the attention of most London Reconnections readers but recently a new rail franchise that serves London was announced – one with a start date of 1st April 2015. This is the new Caledonian Sleeper which