Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 811 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
740 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Have recently heard rumours that TfL and the PFI companies are looking again into the southern extension of the bakerloo line to Camberwell. does anyone know anything further??? Planned timeframe??

I also know that once the TfL has acquired the North London Line Franchise (the new London Overground) that it will also be re-extended to Watford
 

·
Titter ye not.
Joined
·
19,298 Posts
Really, I doubt it who runs the bakerloo line? It is a Metronet line, and considering they have just asked London taxpayers and ticket payers for £100's of millions because of their incompetence and insistence on using their parent companies work crews, I doubt its going to happen this side of next century.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,199 Posts
it was Ken Livingstone that suggested it as a possibility, not Metronet, as one of 3 options (Victoria extension or Northern Charing Cross branch extension were the other 2) for a possible extension of the underground more into South London.

Construction to start around 2020, if even that soon.

As for extension to Watford - I strongly doubt it:
1)it would require relaying the 4th rail
2)there's a good reason why it was cut back - most people north of Harrow want Euston
3)TfL have no plans to extend it
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
422 Posts
I seem to recall that the Northern extension was part of the measures outlined in the report last year by TfL about plans for the next 20 years.

Unfortunately I saved the PDF to the works computer at my old job and not my home computer and so can not confirm if my recollections are true!
 

·
Titter ye not.
Joined
·
19,298 Posts
I thought they wanted either the Bakerloo or the Victoria to Camberwell. This won't happen until way after the 2nd extension of the East London line, as then the whichever extended line they go for it will interchange with the ELL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,636 Posts
Don't you mean Northern line (Charing Cross branch extended from Kennington) or Bakerloo line? The Victoria sure isn't going anywhere, except for maybe a loop from Brixton station with one station on it. It's way too overcrowded for an extension!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,086 Posts
Tubeman's thread on the Global Subways section had a bit of discussion about this recently.

Tubeman said:
Insider info: I had lunch with the Chief Operating Officer Mike Brown (Tim O'Toole's number two) on Tuesday on account of my recent promotion to Middle Management, and he mentioned that a full split of the Misery / Northern Line is part of the long-term strategy of LU.

Another bit of info I just discovered since moving to the Bakerloo is that plans are quite far advanced for a southern extension of the Bakerloo beyond Elephant & Castle to Hayes (Kent)... I heard a cost of £3.5 billion mentioned today (i.e. no fucking chance!).

I can only assume it entails stops [give or take] at Walworth, Camberwell, Peckham, Nunhead, then hence over existing NR tracks taking over the Hayes branch beyond Lewisham. A good cost-benefit... Bakerloo Line capacity is under-utilised south of Waterloo and Walworth, Camberwell and Peckham could really do with Tube (utter shiteholes). It would then provide useful interchanges with NR / DLR at Lewisham as well as the Croydon Tramlink at Elmers End. It would also remove the perpetual headache of trying to reverse 24tph via Elephant & Castle's two platforms and single scissors crossover (an issue I am very rapidly becoming familiar with).
Seems all a bit hit an miss with regard to southern tube extensions. Any southern Victoria extension is definitely a no no due to the capacity restraints. Extending the Bakerloo to Camberwell/Peckham seems like a good call - but going all those miles further I'm not sure about. Do we really need existing line extensions sprawling out in to the home counties? Seems to me the Victoria line model(predominantly in Zones 1-2) works well whereas Crossrails could facilitate longer distance journeys - i.e. like the Metro and RER in France.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
660 Posts
Going beyond Camberwell/Peckham would be very important to the scheme. Tunnelling a few km into SE London is hideously expensive. You incurr absolutely huge costs to get to Camberwell and Peckham and for the sake of only one or two stations in areas which are already fairly well placed for feeder buses to the Bakerloo (Camberwell) or already good rail links and future tram links into central London (Peckham).

However, go the same distance again and you pick up Lewisham, which gives you huge revenue from the suburban lines which converge there. Then down to Hayes, you're taking over an NR line, so negligible cost compared to the tunnelled part, and you will pick up a line through the SE suburbs which is currently very crowded in the peak.

The people on this line therefore benefit from a dramatic increase in service, and lots of passengers can transfer to/from the Dartford services at Lewisham.

This means several trains per hour into London Bridge etc. from Hayes will be removed, allowing extra services on the Dartford lines and reducing crowding on them. So the benefits of this are spread across the whole of SE London, a long way from the extended Bakerloo itself.

All these benefits would be included in the business case for the extension, so it's a very much stronger scheme than it would be just to go to Camberwell or Peckham.
 

·
***Alexxx***
Joined
·
5,275 Posts
there needs to be some sort of bakerloo line extension to camberwell and Walworth becuase its to hard to get to central London from there...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
There definitely should be an extension of the Bakerloo line. The sole reason being that large cities like London need more Underground. There's no pretending that the measely schemes through up by a stingy government are anything other than obstacles to expanding Underground transit continually like all other large cities with more successful metros than us. Underground is the way forwards.
The Bakerloo line should go to
Walworth Road,
Camberwell Green,
Denmark Hill,
Pecikham Rye,
Queen Road Peckham,
New Cross.

Why? Because that's the way a great deal of traffic goes.
It's not too far from Camberwell to Oval by bus. But that fifteen minute journey multiplies with the traffic.
Getting the tube from New Cross, Peckham and Camberwell across the river would undoubtedly be faster, easier and would definitely be used.
To me it is sensible and logical to extend and build more lines for the London Underground rather than settling for these 2nd and 3rd prize stuff they're offering and botching up at the same time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,416 Posts
^^ YOU AGAIN

at least you'renot advocating a cross south london totally underground tube anymore...

while extending the bakerloo is a great idea, the less tunnel the better, and quite clearly the alignment you have chosen isn't the best...

camberwell green to peckham rye via denmark hill???

Peckham to new cross via queens road??

come on... less is more in this instance...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,414 Posts
Suggest an alternative then?

Knock some houses down to build an at-grade railway?

Share tracks with all those capacious NR routes?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,416 Posts
Suggest an alternative then?

Knock some houses down to build an at-grade railway?

Share tracks with all those capacious NR routes?
OK no need for property demolition

isntead of splitting thameslink at blackfriars run all trains via London bridge and down the Brighton main line... that is the main complaint about thameslink 3000... it has too many branches in the south.... there are 5 pairs of tracks into london bridge, it would be easy and logical to have each pair as a service rather than each having services to every branch

2 pairs- Canon street- SE suburban, SE main line
1 pair blackfriars- Brighton main line
1 pair charing cross- brighton stopping
1 pair london bridge- queens road peckham etc

but when they tried to run all hayes trains to one terminus the locals kicked up a fuss, they'd prefer alternating traisn to canon street and charing cross which cause conflicts and limit the service, than change at london bridge (lazy buggers)

all this means that...

...you have two tracks free to extend the bakerloo line on the viaduct (a long upward slop would be necessary) to points south... it's not the NR routes that are at capacity it is the space into the terminals....

with chelney and some creative extension of the charing x branch, victoria and bakerloo, you can take tons of trains off the london bridge/victoria approach paths and provide real turn up and go services for millions of south londoners...

only tunnel when absolutely necessary most of the tube extensions into north and east london, just took over suburban services... the congestion would be unthikable in liverpool street with the entire eastern end of the central trying to cram in as well...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,414 Posts
OK no need for property demolition

isntead of splitting thameslink at blackfriars run all trains via London bridge and down the Brighton main line... that is the main complaint about thameslink 3000... it has too many branches in the south.... there are 5 pairs of tracks into london bridge, it would be easy and logical to have each pair as a service rather than each having services to every branch

2 pairs- Canon street- SE suburban, SE main line
1 pair blackfriars- Brighton main line
1 pair charing cross- brighton stopping
1 pair london bridge- queens road peckham etc

but when they tried to run all hayes trains to one terminus the locals kicked up a fuss, they'd prefer alternating traisn to canon street and charing cross which cause conflicts and limit the service, than change at london bridge (lazy buggers)

all this means that...

...you have two tracks free to extend the bakerloo line on the viaduct (a long upward slop would be necessary) to points south... it's not the NR routes that are at capacity it is the space into the terminals....

with chelney and some creative extension of the charing x branch, victoria and bakerloo, you can take tons of trains off the london bridge/victoria approach paths and provide real turn up and go services for millions of south londoners...

only tunnel when absolutely necessary most of the tube extensions into north and east london, just took over suburban services... the congestion would be unthikable in liverpool street with the entire eastern end of the central trying to cram in as well...
Two questions...

What route are you refering to? I'm not particularly familiar with South London NR routes.
Isn't most of the point of the Bakerloo line extension to serve unserved areas, such as Camberwell, how does taking over NR routes do this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,416 Posts
Two questions...

What route are you refering to? I'm not particularly familiar with South London NR routes.
Isn't most of the point of the Bakerloo line extension to serve unserved areas, such as Camberwell, how does taking over NR routes do this?
because the thameslink viaduct follows the alignment of walworth and camberwell roads slightly to the west... in fact there used to be stations at walworth and camberwell new road... these were closed during WW1 i believe... so yes it would serve camberwell!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,416 Posts
completely, all lines that end in central london have capacity to be extended theoretically.... the bakerloo and northern (charing cross branch) being the prime examples...

northern line trains are near empty when they arive in waterloo and don't really pick up huge numbers till leicester square/tottenham court road... similar can be said of the bakerloo line....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,414 Posts
because the thameslink viaduct follows the alignment of walworth and camberwell roads slightly to the west... in fact there used to be stations at walworth and camberwell new road... these were closed during WW1 i believe... so yes it would serve camberwell!
What about the massive tract of land to the south east of Elephant & Castle, where the nearest (in the broadest sense) station is South Bermondsey, which only has 8tph to London Bridge?

Let's not forget that this is in Zone 2 and could do with some regeneration.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,416 Posts
What about the massive tract of land to the south east of Elephant & Castle, where the nearest (in the broadest sense) station is South Bermondsey, which only has 8tph to London Bridge?

Let's not forget that this is in Zone 2 and could do with some regeneration.
Walworth doesn't have a station within it's post code... SE17...

burgess park in walworth is the furthest place from a train station in zone 2... building a station on the thameslink viaduct will remove that monicker... although it would still be quite far

one of the original plans in the 80s was torunt he bakerloo over the disused bricklayers arms line... a station at bricklayers arms (walworth) would've been built... too late now though as it's all been built on!
 
1 - 20 of 811 Posts
Top