Northern Line extension to Battersea proposed

[streetquark]

Originally Posted by Bob

The flat junction south of Blackfriars must be a restriction and I think they'd be better off sending all the Thameslink trains to London Bridge before splitting the route.

Originally Posted by sotonsi

Yes, and if they could, I'm sure they would have done. But you can't provide enough trains (14tph) down those 4 tracks terminating them at Blackfriars.

Over at London Connections in the 2 recent London Terminals articles and their comments there has been some discussion of the possibility of redeveloping the buildings adjacent to the southern approach to Blackfriars south of the river and in the Blackfriars-City Thameslink area, and reusing the second Blackfriars rail bridge to allow for more tracks - perhaps up to 8 in total - and a better layout into Blackfriars, an expanded Blackfriars station, and 4 tracks north to Farringdon and possibly Barbican.

The problem is it can only be safeguarded for when these buildings reach life-expiration and without proper coordination and organisation and a suitable funding scheme buildings like Ludgate House are simply going to be torn down and replaced and the opportunity to build over future rails will be lost for another 30-40 years.

Ludgate House and the approach to Blackfriars is more achievable but what options are there for expansion of capacity at Blackfriars itself?

Back on topic, if the Battersea extension gets built it would be great to link it up later with the W&C. The W&C is a great route that doesn't suffer from tight curves and steep gradients from just north of Waterloo to around about Mansion House - about 90% of the route. Yes you would be adding 2 new tube stations at either end and possibly another in between at Blackfriars. The line is deep enough at the IMAX and Mansion house to not be blocked by foundations, cellars, the Central line or Bank station. The line could curve north to the west of the existing W&C Bank platforms or head east south of Bank and under the District-Circle (and never crossing the Central line). The current Bank platforms could become part of the expanded Bank station concourse.

The line would then become part of a new cross-town tube with the difficult central alignment sorted and the new stations would have much longer platforms. With new depot facilities or access to existing ones sorted out the frequencies could be up to 3 or 4 times higher. Higher frequencies and trains that are twice as long...

There are a couple of older threads about this where i've gone into more detail so I'll leave it there for the moment.

[DeepThought]

Originally Posted by streetquark

Back on topic, if the Battersea extension gets built it would be great to link it up later with the W&C.

As has been mentioned above, the W&C is really only suited to getting people from Waterloo to Bank and back again as fast as possible, and any significant changes would prevent it from doing even that, as well as being expensive or just plain unfeasible. The trains are full in rush hour, the platform alignment at Waterloo alone makes Southern extension very problematic, and that's before you start on the non-standard tunnel diameter (and the leaks). It's such a shame in many ways - ever since I first noticed the W&C on the map I've also wondered about extending it. But that's just the inheritance we've been left with by the Victorians.

In my ideal world, instead of the W&C we'd demolish the old Eurostar platforms and use the area freed up to build a new tunnel portal for a Crossrail-style project from Waterloo to Liverpool Street, with an intermediate station in the City somewhere. It's also completely impossible, but if you're going to dream, dream big...

[cle]

It's not a crazy idea. We have the approached and could stuff all the Windsor lines through, maybe with a double-headed station on a NE axis between City Thameslink and St Pauls - and then on to Liverpool Street and up the West Anglia lines.

Or Fenchurch Street seems an easy one - in that case a stop around Cannon Street would make more sense. Perhaps north of Cannon St so it could connect to Bank also.

[stephen_c]

Originally Posted by DeepThought

In my ideal world, instead of the W&C we'd demolish the old Eurostar platforms and use the area freed up to build a new tunnel portal for a Crossrail-style project from Waterloo to Liverpool Street, with an intermediate station in the City somewhere. It's also completely impossible, but if you're going to dream, dream big...

Not as impossible as you might think with a little tweaking to the above. I've documented how it can be done as the Swanlink proposal. Waterloo portal on the south side (although Eurostar would also do), then on to take over the Stratford Crossrail 1 branch. An alternative would be to take over the Northern City.

[Bob]

Lock us up in a room for 24 hours and between us we could figure out an unbeatable master plan! I'm glad I'm not alone with this strange desire to plan.

I fear DeepThought is correct about the W&C. Closing it to extend it would break the business case in itself. I'd favour a Crossrail type route from Waterloo, but this is erring towards fantasy again.

I've read the excellent londonreconnections stuff too, but I can't see 4 tracks to Farringdon coming about. Tragedy this. I can see Blackfriars being extended very long term. If as suggested in the RUS for Southern a tunnel from Purley becomes an answer for capacity on the Brighton line then where to end it is a question answered by Blackfriars as the shortest route - even shorter if the tracks from Loughborough junction are taken over.

If funding is going to be non-Governmental (developers, pension funds, bonds etc.) I think our most likely improvements will be simple lines with few connections. For that reason I think Crossrail 2 as an automated metro is the more likely option. An extension to the Bakerloo to Lewisham, but not beyond.

The Northern will go to Battersea and I would urge Wandsworth and Lambeth to push for it going beyond - I'd favour Clapham then Wandsworth High Street, (fantasy bit) Wimbledon Village for the Tennis.

[Glom]

If Crossrail 2 is an automated metro, then it would be a London Underground line? That's makes the most sense. And if it is just that Wimbledon to Epping route, which is Chelney, then I think it should be that.

If Crossrail 2 is to be a proper Crossrail like Crossrail 1, then it should do those other things like take over bits of the West Anglia line and some parts of the South-West commuter area.

NB, being London Underground doesn't mean it needs to be those dinky little toy tube trains. It can be full size trains like on the subsurface lines.

[streetquark]

Originally Posted by DeepThought

As has been mentioned above, the W&C is really only suited to getting people from Waterloo to Bank and back again as fast as possible, and any significant changes would prevent it from doing even that, as well as being expensive or just plain unfeasible. The trains are full in rush hour, the platform alignment at Waterloo alone makes Southern extension very problematic, and that's before you start on the non-standard tunnel diameter (and the leaks). It's such a shame in many ways - ever since I first noticed the W&C on the map I've also wondered about extending it. But that's just the inheritance we've been left with by the Victorians.

In my ideal world, instead of the W&C we'd demolish the old Eurostar platforms and use the area freed up to build a new tunnel portal for a Crossrail-style project from Waterloo to Liverpool Street, with an intermediate station in the City somewhere. It's also completely impossible, but if you're going to dream, dream big...

Waterloo to Bank is the only use as it is the only journey. Massive capacity increase, an additional Blackfriars station, and one in the east of the CoL would give more options for Waterloo travellers. Additionally Bank-Blackfriars-Waterloo would be useful for those who reside north/north-east/east of the City who would be using the extension from Bank. Your claim that the proposal would prevent the W&C from performing its current purpose is unsubstantiated. In fact it would allow for much higher frequencies and longer trains which would be more able to accommodate pax, not less.

Expense is relative (to benefits), in this case a fraction of the cost of a Waterloo-Liverpool Street Crossrail (and how would you stop 12-car trains at Waterloo and go deep enough to clear the station foundations heading north?). Your argument that it is full in rush hour and that a more extensive route would be desirable are justifications for a relatively inexpensive more cost-effective scheme.

It is also quite feasible and I have pointed out how here and elsewhere. Your counter-argument is based on extension from the existing tunnel exits/platforms not from the solution proposed so I will repeat the solution for your benefit. The tunnels are under Stamford Street facing south-west and quite deep until the junction with Cornwall Road where they start to rise in gradient quite sharply. At the IMAX junction the tunnels curve tightly into Waterloo station with the platforms facing south-east at a shallow level. This was so that passengers at Waterloo wouldn't have to descend too far to get to the W&C. If you diverged the tunnels at the point where they rise and instead keep them deep and either along York road as Mr JRT suggests or as I would prefer alter course slightly to go under Waterloo station concourse heading south then you are able to have a new tube station at Waterloo and will be able to extend the line.

The tunnel diameter is the standard Yerkes one. AFAIK it is uniform in size and the only notable curve in the line between Mansion House and the Imax is at Blackfriars where the trains would have to slow but would do so anyway for a station. Considering both the costs of any new tunnels through the City and the difficulty of avoiding subterranean obstacles of any new route it is surely a better option to utilise what is already there for a broadly north/north east/east-south/south west/west metro.

I fail to see what relevance leaks have to this any more than to the current line unless you are considering closing the drain altogether.

[streetquark]

Originally Posted by Bob

I fear DeepThought is correct about the W&C. Closing it to extend it would break the business case in itself. I'd favour a Crossrail type route from Waterloo, but this is erring towards fantasy again.

Why would it need to close any more than the Northern or Bakerloo when progressing with an extension? For a Blackfriars station maybe, but the extensions themselves can be built up to the point where they would join the existing route and then the final joining up can be done in maybe a few weeks at the most.

[NCT]

At a lines-on-maps level I too feel that the Charing Cross branch should extend southeastwards and Battersea should be served by an extension of the drain, which might even take over the Windsor lines completely. In the morning peak the trains would empty out at Vauxhall and Waterloo due to punters going to the West End leaving spare capacity for City workers from the mainline trains. Those from the Windsor lines are on the drain already. Assuming 8-car trains there should be sufficient capacity.

The problem is with the stations - effectively both Waterloo and Bank would need to be completely rebuilt, leaving only the tunnel to be reused but which would need substantial work to be done anyway due to leaks etc. I'm not an expert on the costing of tunnelling, but I have a feeling it might not be that significant compared to stations, which leads me to ask whether we should be that gung-ho about reusing the W&C.

[stephen_c]

Originally Posted by streetquark

The tunnels are under Stamford Street facing south-west and quite deep until the junction with Cornwall Road where they start to rise in gradient quite sharply. At the IMAX junction the tunnels curve tightly into Waterloo station with the platforms facing south-east at a shallow level. This was so that passengers at Waterloo wouldn't have to descend too far to get to the W&C. If you diverged the tunnels at the point where they rise and instead keep them deep and either along York road as Mr JRT suggests or as I would prefer alter course slightly to go under Waterloo station concourse heading south then you are able to have a new tube station at Waterloo and will be able to extend the line.

I think I'd agree that what you describe is feasible. But its not a desirable, nor especially effective solution. The problem is that the number of people wanting to travel NE from Waterloo (to Blackfriars/Bank/Wharf) is vast. Far more than one tube-sized line could handle, even if it were 8 car. There is demand for 1, if not 2, main line sized RERs in that direction. Swanlink would provide no-change services to many more people and link in to Wharf services as well via cross-platform interchange with CR1. Once Swanlink was open, I would then support evaluation of rebuilding the W&C to be a proper tube line.

[streetquark]

Originally Posted by NCT

The problem is with the stations - effectively both Waterloo and Bank would need to be completely rebuilt, leaving only the tunnel to be reused but which would need substantial work to be done anyway due to leaks etc. I'm not an expert on the costing of tunnelling, but I have a feeling it might not be that significant compared to stations, which leads me to ask whether we should be that gung-ho about reusing the W&C.

Waterloo and Bank would get new stations, not rebuilt ones, though existing W&C station infrastructure would be no doubt put to good use, such as expanding the concourse at Bank and using the former W&C Waterloo platform station for passenger use (perhaps as the upper platform of escalators from the new lower tube station).

I fail to see what work would be needed on the 90% of the tunnels that would be part of the scheme. If they are fine for existing services involving existing carriages they should be for any extension. If there is a problem with leaks these will have to be dealt with anyway, and not dependent on any expansion.

If the answer is to close the W&C permanently because of these leaks then that's a different matter, though I would suggest an expansion of use would make any maintenance upgrade more viable. If the line will need to be temporarily closed to repair leaks without any change then it would be a good opportunity to progress with a scheme and put in works relevant for extension.

Perhaps the intense service along the new route would need signal upgrade along the section being reused.

Originally Posted by stephen_c

I think I'd agree that what you describe is feasible. But its not a desirable, nor especially effective solution. The problem is that the number of people wanting to travel NE from Waterloo (to Blackfriars/Bank/Wharf) is vast. Far more than one tube-sized line could handle, even if it were 8 car. There is demand for 1, if not 2, main line sized RERs in that direction. Swanlink would provide no-change services to many more people and link in to Wharf services as well via cross-platform interchange with CR1. Once Swanlink was open, I would then support evaluation of rebuilding the W&C to be a proper tube line.

For a relatively low-cost option I would have thought great demand would simply make the BCR ratio even higher and the scheme even more desirable. Of course if we extended the idea that we can't go to Vauxhall or Clapham Junction on the NL extension due to fears of over-use we might just not bother with anything new except less useful schemes and it's trouble enough funding CR2 after CR1 without trying to find the massive budget for Swanlink after that.

I see problems with Swanlink as it is. Splitting off east of the West End. A lot of kinks between Waterloo and Moorgate. Turning Moorgate-Paddington into a branch with branch frequencies. Moorgate-clapham Junction being a branch with branch frequencies. you also loose the opportunity to incorporate a WCML branch. It's bad enough the existing Crossrail branches before Stratford and Canary Wharf.

Well I suppose too much need makes a change from the implication that it only serves Waterloo-Bank people and quite adequately at that. The truth is somewhat in between of course, and with Crossrail 2 demand is partly covered. That depends on the nature and route of CR2 of course, but you can't realistically have it heading to Tooting and along the King's Road at the same time for example and I personally favour the Crossrail option with no dog-leg between Victoria and Clapham Junction.

Perhaps after Battersea the W&C/NL extension could go via Clapham Junction to Tooting to relieve the Northern line (and to some extent Sutton loop services) or head for Barnes and at the other end take over the Jazz lines to Chingford/Enfield or one of the Central branches as per Chelney.

[stephen_c]

Originally Posted by streetquark

I see problems with Swanlink as it is. Splitting off east of the West End. A lot of kinks between Waterloo and Moorgate. Turning Moorgate-Paddington into a branch with branch frequencies. Moorgate-clapham Junction being a branch with branch frequencies. you also loose the opportunity to incorporate a WCML branch. It's bad enough the existing Crossrail branches before Stratford and Canary Wharf.

Swanlink duplicates Liverpool Street to Whitechapel, so you get 24tph Stratford to Waterloo and 24tph Paddington to Wharf. No branches. (Did you read the article?) Oh, and ignore the kinks - there is a straighter route I'm choosing to not show on the website.

What we have right now is a TfL plan for Crossrail 2 that looks like its heading to £20bn+ (longer tunnel and more stations underground than CR1). Thats unsupportable by the economy and politicians. I think a minimal CR2 (just Clapham Junction to Finsbry Park or Kentish Town) plus Swanlink could be done for less than £15bn, if not less than £10bn.

More smaller schemes are what we need, so that if some fall to politics, others get through. Putting all the eggs in one basket helped delay Jubilee, CR1 and Thameslink many times. London cannot wait 25 years for the next new tunnel.

[kerouac1848]

Given CR2 is going to go NE (and it's going to be the crossrail option, the metro one is just to give the impression of options. Wimbledon-Epping is dead) any Waterloo-LS route should take over the Stratford branch of CR1 imo. You can then branch out after Straford to somewhere else in outer East London, perhaps north from Ilford to take over part of the central line or more likely down to Dagenham and into inner South Essex.

[Bob]

I like Swanlink. Set against it though is that it doesn't help out HS2 so pushes it down the priority. Or not even priority, more that the Mayor doesn't have a critical breaking point issue to hold the Government to ransom with.

If Crossrail 2 could be built with private money as an independent automated metro then Swanlink would have a chance.

[DeepThought]

Originally Posted by streetquark

Waterloo to Bank is the only use as it is the only journey. Massive capacity increase, an additional Blackfriars station, and one in the east of the CoL would give more options for Waterloo travellers.
...
The tunnel diameter is the standard Yerkes one.
...
I fail to see what relevance leaks have to this any more than to the current line unless you are considering closing the drain altogether.

Of course Waterloo to Bank is the only use, but what I meant is that the W&C was designed with this in mind and hence is very well adapted to it. As you have pointed out, to go any further South you have to completely rebuild the Waterloo end, and if memory serves of the one time I actually took the route you'd need to do the same at Bank. Both are possible, but very expensive.

The "massive" capacity increase would have to be really massive - you currently have a full tube service between just two stations. That means you essentially have to have an empty tube's worth of carriages arriving at Waterloo from any station further South, no matter how many passengers you've picked up from Battersea. This is not easy!

I was confused about the tunnel diameter - the W&C trains are non-standard compared to the Central Line but it's just different control systems. I only mentioned the leaks because the W&C is notorious for them, and I'd guess that any future work would want to fix them.

The big reason I'd favour a Crossrail style solution from Waterloo over tweaking the W&C is that Waterloo Station itself is a bug, not a feature, of the London Transport Network. It's the busiest terminus in the country and it's only there because the rail companies couldn't get the land where they wanted it (in the City). We've built 4 tube lines through it just to make sure people can get to places they actually want to be! Perhaps we could instead just make the mainline trains take them there in the first place?

[sotonsi]

W&C trains are half-length and the line is just over half the usual tube frequency - hardly a full tube service! - you need just a quarter of each train to cover current W&C capacity, but many may have changed to the tube earlier than Waterloo, so less than that...

That said, I prefer a different option to sorting out the W&C.

[Rational Plan]

The idea of rebuilding and extending the waterloo and city is crazy and will never happen.

Airy talk of rebuilding both stations and then extending southwards miss several rather important points.

Suppose you do rebuild Bank and Waterloo where do all those people arriving at Bank go? As in physically fit in that ever overcrowded station? How many trains can you turn there with it grinding to a halt?

The big question is what are you going to do with all those passengers in the mean time, in 4 years that the line is closed? Put on them on a bus?

People propose these options because they know the existing line can't just be extended and cope with increased passenger use as it is already full. For a modern new tube line, stations have to be large to cope with the volume of passengers that the modern system can throw at them. We are talking about £500 million plus here.

Once you start adding up the costs, what is the point of rebuilding it when you might as well build a new line. Keep the Waterloo and city as it is and have a new cross city line

[Rational Plan]

Getting back to the Northern line, the latest TFL meeting about new lines suggests that 2016 is the earliest construction would start, with completion in 2020. On one hand you think that's so long, but when you stand back and look at how quickly any line has been built you realise this at lightening speed. Just 10 years from a line being suggested to it opening is in fact incredibly quickly, if only it was not true.

[mackenziesoley]

Originally Posted by Rational Plan

Getting back to the Northern line, the latest TFL meeting about new lines suggests that 2016 is the earliest construction would start, with completion in 2020. On one hand you think that's so long, but when you stand back and look at how quickly any line has been built you realise this at lightening speed. Just 10 years from a line being suggested to it opening is in fact incredibly quickly, if only it was not true.

Especially if you compare it to Crossrail 2/Hackney-Chelsea line.

[mr_jrt]

Originally Posted by Rational Plan

The big question is what are you going to do with all those passengers in the mean time, in 4 years that the line is closed? Put on them on a bus?

Why on earth would it be closed for any significant length of time, let alone 4 years?

You could send the TBMs from Clapham to Waterloo without so much as delaying a W&C train until the final hand-dug section and junction to the existing tunnels was needed - easily a bank holiday weekend closure at best, a week-long at worst. And the drain can be shut all weekend long without much issue!

The only real major shutdown due to work at Waterloo would be the construction of the platforms that would sever the curve into the existing platforms and depot. I propose the W&C taking over London Road depot, and the conversion would have been constructed already by this point, likewise, the new northbound platform would have been largely completable, so it's really just a small section of the southbound that would require further construction. Given the short trains in use, depending on where the platforms ended up there's a decent chance that they might not even need the full length so could switch immediately once depot access was available.