Bakerloo Line - Reviving rumours of the southern extension

[Sesquip]

Originally Posted by Garth38

Would a route through Camberwell, Peckham, Crystal Palace and then on to Croydon be best then?

I am a fan of extending or building a new tube line into SE London but I do not think the Bakerloo is best suited.

Could the Met Line or H&C be used for that purpose?

Big gap between Peckham and CP!

The bakerloo line is the obvious one to extend. It's got the most spare capacity - E&C takes 17m passengers/year - compared to Brixton's 20m.

[bigbossman]

Originally Posted by sotonsi

It wouldn't be stupid to stop at the Victoria-Brighton mainline. It would, however, be stupid to make it very difficult to extend to Croydon from somewhere like Streatham Common or Norbury.

Keep things realistic, and they might actually happen, add another 50% to the costs and the amount of money becomes less justifiable. Hence Crossrail to Maidenhead (didn't want to add £1billion+ for Reading upgrades and electrification), etc.

How is it unrealistic. There are two sets of fast lines, and two sets of slow lines running into croydon. A bit of re organisation and one of those sets of slow lines can be taken over by a southward extension.

How hard would it be to take over the whole norbury line into croydon, not hard at all, by the looks of it!

[bigbossman]

Originally Posted by Sesquip

Big gap between Peckham and CP!

The bakerloo line is the obvious one to extend. It's got the most spare capacity - E&C takes 17m passengers/year - compared to Brixton's 20m.

and those numbers are inflated by people coming from miles around to use those stations. You get any bus from brixton station south bound and the same people are still on board at norbury!

[CharlieP]

If I had a big bag of money and a magic wand I'd build three extensions:

Bakerloo: Elephant & Castle - Walworth - Peckham - New Cross - Lewisham

Victoria: Brixton - Herne Hill - Tulse Hill - Crystal Palace - South Norwood - Croydon

Northern - Kennington - East Dulwich - Sydenham - Beckenham - Hayes

[iampuking]

One of them should take over the North Bromley branch off of NR...

[SE9]

Originally Posted by CharlieP

If I had a big bag of money and a magic wand I'd build three extensions:

Bakerloo: Elephant & Castle - Walworth - Peckham - New Cross - Lewisham

Victoria: Brixton - Herne Hill - Tulse Hill - Crystal Palace - South Norwood - Croydon

Northern - Kennington - East Dulwich - Sydenham - Beckenham - Hayes

Agree with that:

[cle]

Would it be too much to split them around Lewisham and have a Bromley North branch and a Hayes branch? This could be instead of having trains terminate early (around Lewisham where it's pricier and harder to build terminating facilities) - the frequencies required for each branch would probably be sufficient with 12 tph to Hayes and 12 tph to Bromley North. This way, you'd hit Hither Green and some of the interchange from the Sidcup line could happen here, meaning Lewisham wouldn't be a total nightmare and would be more for the DLR (although would have both branches).

This would link Bromley with Greenwich and Canary Wharf very well, which would surely alleviate a lot of bus/car congestion and increase the reasonable transport catchment of the Docklands.

[Wild@Heart]

The LondonPaper reported yesterday that Boris was looking into finding funding for a Lewisham extension of the Bakerloo citing South London's poor transport links as a problem which needs to be fixed. Or something to that effect. I can't find any corresponding online articles but will post one here if I do.

[Wild@Heart]

The Going Underground blog covered this with an image of the article...

http://london-underground.blogspot.com/

[Garth38]

Originally Posted by cle

Would it be too much to split them around Lewisham and have a Bromley North branch and a Hayes branch?

This would be great way of opening up Kent to the Tube and providing some much needed line space for the already crowded South Eastern Routes. You could even tunnel from North Bromley to South Bromley to link the two of them up.

Stopping at Lewisham is selling any extension short.

[Bob]

only problem, lack of passengers. After Lewisham demand would never justify the cost. Even if every commuter from Bromley took the tube (which they wouldn't because there are quicker overground services) they wouldn't fill 12tph.

To Lewisham makes sense, then money should be spent filling the other gaps in south londons zones 1 & 2 where land for high density development is available. Bromley is all completed leafy 2 floor suburban streets. Peckham, Bermondsey and around the Old Kent Road all are areas which all have old light industrial, warehouse retail and bad post war housing ripe for the wrecking ball. Well planned there is room for hundreds of thousands more to live. Connect that with a new tube and a genuinely good place to live a couple of miles from the very centre could emerge. Forget Bromley, we need to give people the chance to live closer to work, to reduce or even remove the commute and create another vibrant urban quarter.

[IMG]http://i40.************/15gdq2v.jpg[/IMG]
Why isn't the bit in pink like Kensington or Chelsea?

[sotonsi]

Originally Posted by cle

Would it be too much to split them around Lewisham and have a Bromley North branch and a Hayes branch? This could be instead of having trains terminate early (around Lewisham where it's pricier and harder to build terminating facilities) - the frequencies required for each branch would probably be sufficient with 12 tph to Hayes and 12 tph to Bromley North.

Yes, but I'd ditch Hayes and take over somewhere else. Hayes wouldn't want to be on a tube line that doesn't serve the City. Charlton has the freight problem, and anywhere else involves lots of extra tracking or going out to Dartford, so it's tricky - perhaps the Bexleyheath branch would be fine? Of course, that has the problem of going out so far and also annoying those who want the City (though that's only 3tph). Also, at the moment it's planned to be served by 11 trains per peak hour and those trains are longer, so you'd be looking at an uneven split (though frequencies won't be 24tph in the peaks, but higher, so perhaps Bromley North could be 12tph all day and Bexleyheath could be 12tph off-peak and 18tph peak). Bexleyheath would also sort out the Lewisham problem.

[cle]

Going out to Dartford might be a little far though, in terms of units needed. Maybe Bromley North would be enough - it's suburban but certainly other ends of the tube serve more obscure places and there would be some counter-commuting, as with Croydon.

I agree, getting to Bromley South would be a grand finale!

People could change at Lewisham for the City or Docklands, it would be an easy change and avoid the Tube. Or New Cross(/Gate) for the ELL to Shoreditch.

[sotonsi]

New Cross(/Gate) between Peckham and Lewisham is a skirt back north - Brockley is a bit better.

Hayes is a complete and utter non-starter for the Bakerloo, but not on a redone Fleet. They refused bluntly to have service to just one of Charing Cross or Cannon Street. You either make what Sir Humphrey would call a 'courageous' decision (ie one that'll cost a lot of votes) or you send the Bakerloo somewhere else. If you serve Watford Junction, then there's no problem with Dartford via Bexleyheath - they are about the same distance away. Hayes is only slightly shorter.

Whatever the case, Bromley North is such a blatantly obvious choice, and wouldn't need much work past Lewisham (short bit of tunnel, surface tracks to just south of Hither Green, changing the depot layout, a couple of platforms and some polishing up of stations). You can terminate lots of trains at Lewisham if you don't have a second branch.

[Bob]

I think this map is useful:-

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?im...icial%26sa%3DN

It shows why Walworth, Camberwell and Peckham would be on a bakerloo extension. Continuing to Lewisham through New Cross makes sense because of connections with other services both into central London and CW. I don't see the benefit of exchanging a commuter service from Bromley North to London Bridge and Charring Cross with a slower tube train.

It also highlights why London Underground think extending the Victoria to Streatham Hill makes sense - west of Brockwell park there is no station what-so-ever and yet high population density.

Somewhere like High Barnet is on the tube because there is no overland train there. High Barnet doesn't have a tube and a selection of overground services to a major London Terminus.

[sotonsi]

Originally Posted by Bob

It shows why Walworth, Camberwell and Peckham would be on a bakerloo extension. Continuing to Lewisham through New Cross makes sense because of connections with other services both into central London and CW. I don't see the benefit of exchanging a slower tube train to Bromley North rather than a commuter catching an overground train to London Bridge and Charring Cross and changing there.

You do realise that Grove Park-Bromley North is a shuttle? Hence it's excellence for use for a tube extension. Note that the Piccadilly to Cockfosters goes through the (relatively small) area left between the two branches of the GN, and between Wood Green and Finsbury Park parallels the NR route. Upminster has an NR alternative. Seeing how cheap a Bromley North extension would be,

It also highlights why London Underground think extending the Victoria to Streatham Hill makes sense - west of Brockwell park there is no station what-so-ever.

The Victoria is an error - Northern line from Kennington is far better, as it has lots of spare capacity (south of Waterloo, at peak times, the Charing Cross branch of the Northern is rather empty compared to other bits of the underground in zones 1 and 2 - segregation means that the frequency would increase by 50% as well). Ending at Streatham Hill is also an error - Streatham, Streatham Common, Norbury aren't that much further and interchange with lines to Sutton and Croydon as well.

Somewhere like High Barnet is on the tube because there is no overland train there. High Barnet doesn't have a tube and a selection of overground services to a major London Terminus.

nor does Bromley North (unless Grove Park is a major London terminus)! Lewisham and Peckham will, of course, when the extension happens, though they have the density. How about West Ruislip? Greenford? Richmond? Watford Junction? OK, these don't have the selection of termini that Grove Park (Charing Cross and Cannon Street), Hither Green (Charing Cross and Cannon Street) and Bromley (Blackfriars and Victoria) have, but they have NR - Richmond has rather a lot of NR trains (is it 6 stoppers, plus about 10 more regional services during the peak?) - it's rather similar to Bromley in many respects, though is probably less dense.

Stanmore has just been upgraded to be able to reverse 24tph - does it need that many trains - no. Does Bromley North need 12tph - more likely, but still no! Of course those trains won't be filled by the time they reach Lewisham 3 stops later (Sundridge Park, Grove Park, Hither Green) - that's a good thing as it means people can still get on in zone 2!

[Bob]

You do realise that Grove Park-Bromley North is a shuttle?

Yes I did, I've used it. As you point out Bromley South has a good service to Victoria and is getting a much improved Thameslink to Central London. Improved access to London Bridge through a new switch and crossing to send the Bromley North services directly to London Bridge (as they used to, the track bed is still there) would give it access to the three key areas. I don't see where the need for the tube comes in.

I just have a different angle on this I guess. I'm looking for places that don't have any service at all, West of Brockwell Park being one and think that should have priority. Others would be around Old Kent Road, East Dulwich (south of), Parts of Hackney, Chelsea, Stoke Newington, Clerkenwell, Battersea..... Population density or work location density are key as is potential for more of both. The closer to central London the stronger the case IMO. The longer any bakerloo extension becomes the less likely it is another improvement happens.

[IMG]http://i44.************/33ym52b.jpg[/IMG]
Bromley, lots of stations low population density.

[IMG]http://i41.************/5x52ex.jpg[/IMG]
Streatham Hill (along Brixton hill road and/or Efra Rd-Dulwich Rd jnc), no station at all, high population density. If you mean extend the Northern here from Kennington rather than the Victoria, then yeah, why not. The northern may be heading to Battersea though. Who knows.

[CharlieP]

Originally Posted by sotonsi

New Cross(/Gate) between Peckham and Lewisham is a skirt back north - Brockley is a bit better.

You're right - I just threw New Cross Gate in there for interconnection with the East London line, forgetting that it's being turned into the Overground...

All I really did was look at a map of London and picked the names between Elephant and Lewisham that were drawn bigger than others - if I were to sit down with a map of all existing rail lines and centres of population I could probably do a far better job...

[CharlieP]

Originally Posted by Bob

I'm looking for places that don't have any service at all, West of Brockwell Park being one and think that should have priority.

Ages ago I took a map (from an old road atlas) of Central London, and drew circles round all the tube and rail stations, to show which areas were furthest from an existing station. Burgess Park stood out as the obvious "blind spot", but it took me ages to realise that that was because, well, it's a park!

[sweek]

Originally Posted by CharlieP

Ages ago I took a map (from an old road atlas) of Central London, and drew circles round all the tube and rail stations, to show which areas were furthest from an existing station. Burgess Park stood out as the obvious "blind spot", but it took me ages to realise that that was because, well, it's a park!

Yeah this was a very interesting post on London Connections

Big version here

Link: http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...th-labels.html