Extension, formal consultation started

[Dstock7080]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29422425

[Deleted]

The idea that this could be done before 2030 is a non-starter, there aren't enough 1972s to cover an extension, they're not due to be replaced until about the time the extension would be complete and I don't think there would be room at Stonebridge Park for many more trains than they have at the moment. There's no room at Queen's Park and I don't think there's any possibility of expanding London Road so they're going to need extra depot space on the extension itself.

[snoggle]

Bakerloo Line extension consultation now open at Consultation Link

In essence - E&C to Hayes via Old Kent Rd or Camberwell then Lewisham, Catford, Beckenham Junction / Hayes.

[John Tuthill]

Sept 30, 2014 9:56:56 GMT snoggle said:

Bakerloo Line extension consultation now open at Consultation Link

In essence - E&C to Hayes via Old Kent Rd or Camberwell then Lewisham, Catford, Beckenham Junction / Hayes.

#It seems I've heard that song before, it's from an ol' familiar score.....# Maybe, just maybe it will finally happen

[Deleted]

Just signed it. I think it is a good idea.

[theblackferret]

Fine in principle.

Old Kent Road on the SLL may be reopened before anything starts here, so Camberwell could be the better route in terms of an area's rail needs still remaining unmet.

Don't hold your breath, though, on any of it.

[grahamhewett]

The case for extending the Bakerloo (as opposed to building a new line altogether) has always rested on the fact that there is some spare capacity in the peaks. The further it is extended, obviously, the more that spare capacity is exhausted. What is not stated in the documentation that I have seen is where that balance is tipped. Without figures, it's difficult to predict, but given the scale of redevelopment south and east of E&C, there must be a serious question as to whether an extended Bakerloo could cope with the extra traffic beyond Lewisham/Catford, even after its upgrade.

[theblackferret]

Oct 2, 2014 15:45:50 GMT grahamhewett said:

The case for extending the Bakerloo (as opposed to building a new line altogether) has always rested on the fact that there is some spare capacity in the peaks. The further it is extended, obviously, the more that spare capacity is exhausted. What is not stated in the documentation that I have seen is where that balance is tipped. Without figures, it's difficult to predict, but given the scale of redevelopment south and east of E&C, there must be a serious question as to whether an extended Bakerloo could cope with the extra traffic beyond Lewisham/Catford, even after its upgrade.

What we really need first is a firm commitment to identify where in SE London tubes would work, which if any overground/NR lines they could swallow wholly or partially or most usefully link to/interchange with, and then propose which lines extend or new lines are built, with a view to spreading the load across the entire LU network, because potential passenger's likeliest destinations in terms of existing LUL stations and lines or elsewhere is known to a very high level of probability.

For example, what %age of Hayes Branch passengers might want to go on to the Northern Line to Bank etc; what %age Canary Wharf on the Jube. extension from Waterloo? Or what %age might want to decant to Aldgate/Liverpool Street via the Circle?

This might be cart put before horse, as it stands.

[norbitonflyer]

Oct 2, 2014 16:11:20 GMT theblackferret said:

For example, what %age of Hayes Branch passengers might want to go on to the Northern Line to Bank etc; what %age Canary Wharf on the Jube. extension from Waterloo? Or what %age might want to decant to Aldgate/Liverpool Street via the Circle?

.....and how many would change at Lewisham for CX and Cannon Street

Oct 2, 2014 10:10:53 GMT theblackferret said:

Old Kent Road on the SLL may be reopened before anything starts here, so Camberwell could be the better route in terms of an area's rail needs still remaining unmet.

Camberwell Thameslink might open on that timescale too. In any case, the point where the SLL meets the OKR is right at the far end of the latter, and would do little to help the Bricklayers Arms/Albany Park area which is in the middle of the transport desert.

[melikepie]

Well my view on 1a and 1b is going down Old Kent Road should keep journeys relatively fast and smooth so the loss of a fast service to London Bridge shouldn't impact it so much. Although I don't think two stations are needed, more three. As for 1b, taking it via Camberwell is good with relatively little other rail transport in the area except Loughborough Junction and Denmark Hill and then to Peckham Rye. But Peckham Rye to Lewisham is just duplicating another faster railway service or two. Another station I think should be added at Walworth and I wonder also if New Cross should be served.

[theblackferret]

Oct 2, 2014 17:16:22 GMT norbitonflyer said:

Oct 2, 2014 16:11:20 GMT theblackferret said:

For example, what %age of Hayes Branch passengers might want to go on to the Northern Line to Bank etc; what %age Canary Wharf on the Jube. extension from Waterloo? Or what %age might want to decant to Aldgate/Liverpool Street via the Circle?

.....and how many would change at Lewisham for CX and Cannon Street

Oct 2, 2014 10:10:53 GMT theblackferret said:

Old Kent Road on the SLL may be reopened before anything starts here, so Camberwell could be the better route in terms of an area's rail needs still remaining unmet.

Camberwell Thameslink might open on that timescale too. In any case, the point where the SLL meets the OKR is right at the far end of the latter, and would do little to help the Bricklayers Arms/Albany Park area which is in the middle of the transport desert.

Yes, there's that Lewisham interchange as well.

In an ideal world, they would cut across from Old Kent Road 1.25 or 1.33 (ie after 1, but well before 2) to Camberwell and give us bread and butter and jam. After or around about the Bricklayer's Arms interchange?

I wonder what the cost difference on the proposed OKR and that amalgamation of the two would be? Going purely from the map, it appears to need slightly less railway and I assume none of the proposal for OKR is using existing NR lines?

[metman]

The question is, do we need this extension and how likely is it to happen? I know the approach to Elephant is not as smooth as Brixton but surely with ATO the capacity of the line can be improved?

[theblackferret]

It may be, this from the TfL consultation page in the link tells us more about the official line on needed(my font):

London is growing and its population is expected to exceed 10 million by 2030. This will create more demand for public transport across London. Whilst we are already investing billions of pounds, further investment is required.

Growth in southeast London is forecasted in areas such as Lewisham, Catford, New Cross and the Old Kent Road. It will also occur in parts of outer London such as Bromley.

In southeast London, public transport is also crowded in places and many of the roads are congested. Predicted population growth will further increase the pressure on the area’s rail and road networks.

To address these issues, we are considering options for extending the Bakerloo line into southeast London from its current end point at Elephant & Castle.


So, it appears to be up for consultation on the basis of future predicted population growth as much as anything.

As to how likely-well, note the map shows DLR already at Lewisham and ELL etc at New Cross Gate, so if it does start, watch it end at one of those two.

[Chris M]

Expect any New Cross Gate-Lewisham link to be very popular with people travelling between Woolwich, Dartford, etc, and Croydon, Clapham Junction, Shoreditch, Highbury, etc. The lack of interchange between LO and the North Kent Line was one of the more annoying aspects of living in Woolwich and Plumstead Common.

[melikepie]

Surely also seeing as one end also shares with NR, the fast London Bridge service avoiding Lewisham could continue to serve the Hayes Line as well as

[Deleted]

Oct 3, 2014 1:05:05 GMT melikepie said:

Surely also seeing as one end also shares with NR, the fast London Bridge service avoiding Lewisham could continue to serve the Hayes Line as well as

I doubt any new shared tube and mainline operations will ever be allowed. The gap at the platform train interface makes disabled access difficult and more hazardous to everyone else. If the Bakerloo gets extended over any existing lines it will be an exclusive self contained service with the track level adjusted for a minimum or no step on to the trains.

[Deleted]

Oct 2, 2014 17:16:22 GMT norbitonflyer said:

Oct 2, 2014 16:11:20 GMT theblackferret said:

For example, what %age of Hayes Branch passengers might want to go on to the Northern Line to Bank etc; what %age Canary Wharf on the Jube. extension from Waterloo? Or what %age might want to decant to Aldgate/Liverpool Street via the Circle?

.....and how many would change at Lewisham for CX and Cannon Street

Oct 2, 2014 10:10:53 GMT theblackferret said:

Old Kent Road on the SLL may be reopened before anything starts here, so Camberwell could be the better route in terms of an area's rail needs still remaining unmet.

Camberwell Thameslink might open on that timescale too. In any case, the point where the SLL meets the OKR is right at the far end of the latter, and would do little to help the Bricklayers Arms/Albany Park area which is in the middle of the transport desert.

Why would passengers change at Lewisham to get to Charing Cross when the Bakerloo Line goes to Charing Cross.

[Deleted]

Oct 2, 2014 21:20:48 GMT metman said:

The question is, do we need this extension and how likely is it to happen? I know the approach to Elephant is not as smooth as Brixton but surely with ATO the capacity of the line can be improved?

I imagine that the people in South East London need the connection.

[Deleted]

Oct 2, 2014 22:14:18 GMT theblackferret said:

It may be, this from the TfL consultation page in the link tells us more about the official line on needed(my font):

London is growing and its population is expected to exceed 10 million by 2030. This will create more demand for public transport across London. Whilst we are already investing billions of pounds, further investment is required.

Growth in southeast London is forecasted in areas such as Lewisham, Catford, New Cross and the Old Kent Road. It will also occur in parts of outer London such as Bromley.

In southeast London, public transport is also crowded in places and many of the roads are congested. Predicted population growth will further increase the pressure on the area’s rail and road networks.

To address these issues, we are considering options for extending the Bakerloo line into southeast London from its current end point at Elephant & Castle.


So, it appears to be up for consultation on the basis of future predicted population growth as much as anything.

As to how likely-well, note the map shows DLR already at Lewisham and ELL etc at New Cross Gate, so if it does start, watch it end at one of those two.

As far as I can see if they are going to extend the Bakerloo Line as far as Lewisham. They may as well take it all the way down the Hayes Line.

[norbitonflyer]

Oct 3, 2014 23:09:14 GMT @oldman48 said:

Why would passengers change at Lewisham to get to Charing Cross when the Bakerloo Line goes to Charing Cross.

I meant London Bridge (they might also change for Victoria)

[Deleted]

Before we all get carried away I would point out the "small print", the bit where TfL say that this would be paid for by property developers splashing out to bring the Bakerloo to their new developments, similar to the Northern Line extension to Battersea. The obvious difference in this case is that the developers approached TfL for an extension to Battersea but here we have TfL saying they'll extend the Bakerloo if someone is prepared to pay for it.

The extension won't be completed until after the replacement of the 1972ts with the new driverless trains, they're not going to open it with brand new coloured light signals and tripcocks that would be redundant in a few years so the estimated opening in 2030 fits. My usual question is where will the trains go, at the moment there's only room for about a dozen trains at London Road (please correct me if I'm wrong), about half a dozen at Queen's Park with the all the rest up at Stonebridge Park, they're not ideally placed to serve an extension south. Anyone know of any spare depot space on the proposed route?

[metman]

I would imagine that another benefit of pushing South would be to find a large depot site. If the Bakerloo does run to Hayes it would make for rather a long line....

[Deleted]

It'd be about five miles from Lewisham to E&C, another 7 miles to Hayes so roughly 12 miles total which is nearly the current length of 14.4miles. Just had a look on Google Earth and I don't see any obvious sidings or depots on the route, a rather nice large inviting golf course that says "Dig me up"....

[theblackferret]

The original proposal was to Denmark Hill, the second to Camberwell Green.

In both cases, there was no mention of depot space or sidings that end, just where a 4 or 6-platform terminus could be built to enable better turn-round than the then 3-platforms at E & C.

Not sure that plan would be doable now, unless they intend to put sidings and depots down at Hayes or completely underground, in which case underneath Camberwell Green is a huge space, but how popular that would be or feasible for T/Op's?

[melikepie]

<badidea>They could always share with the LO at New Cross Gate</badidea>

[melikepie]

Oct 4, 2014 10:44:51 GMT aslefshrugged said:

It'd be about five miles from Lewisham to E&C, another 7 miles to Hayes so roughly 12 miles total which is nearly the current length of 14.4miles. Just had a look on Google Earth and I don't see any obvious sidings or depots on the route, a rather nice large inviting golf course that says "Dig me up"....

I disagree on the last point. It looks like if they geot rid of the link at Lewisham, there would be some space for sidings there, if a bit awkward to get at. There is some derelict land at Catford Bridge owned by G4S where some sidings would fit nicely and with a little remodelling perhaps some at Elmers End as well

[Deleted]

Oct 4, 2014 8:13:43 GMT aslefshrugged said:

My usual question is where will the trains go, at the moment there's only room for about a dozen trains at London Road (please correct me if I'm wrong), about half a dozen at Queen's Park with the all the rest up at Stonebridge Park, they're not ideally placed to serve an extension south.

Currently 10 trains start from London Road, but I don't know what maximum capacity is. It is a bit tiddly. The carto metro map does indeed show a dozen roads.

Queen's Park south sheds can take four trains and there would be space, conceivably, for six more trains if all four north shed roads and both platforms were used. Currently, because of maintenance, trains are using 21, 22 and 23 roads (north shed roads). However, 21 road is left clear Monday night, 22 road on Tuesday and 23 road on Wednesday with the displaced train stabled in platform 3. Seven trains, then, from Queen's Park at the moment. I would say eight would be very doable - stabling on 24 road would be preferable to stabling in the platform - but 10 would be a nuisance.

The only one you're really forgetting is Elephant, which has 2 sidings. 3 trains stable at Elephant, with two in the sidings and one in a platform (both can be used), or 2 in the platforms and 1 in a siding (again either). This juggling about is "in order to allow track inspections, cleaning and litter clearance to take place at Elephant & Castle."

Mind you, I'm not sure the NTfL (or whatever they're calling it) could make use of all this space anyway, it might be too long, so upgrades and extensions may well be needed as it is.

Edit: Of course, the sidings at Elephant would presumably end up as the running lines for the extension (isn't that how they came to be in the first place) - so would be of no use in the future. For the time being, though, it's 12 from Stonebridge, 7 from Queen's Park, 10 from London Road and 3 from Elephant.

[twobellstogo]

Oct 4, 2014 11:22:22 GMT melikepie said:

Oct 4, 2014 10:44:51 GMT aslefshrugged said:

It'd be about five miles from Lewisham to E&C, another 7 miles to Hayes so roughly 12 miles total which is nearly the current length of 14.4miles. Just had a look on Google Earth and I don't see any obvious sidings or depots on the route, a rather nice large inviting golf course that says "Dig me up"....

I disagree on the last point. It looks like if they got rid of the link at Lewisham, there would be some space for sidings there, if a bit awkward to get at. There is some derelict land at Catford Bridge owned by G4S where some sidings would fit nicely and with a little remodelling perhaps some at Elmers End as well

If it's the bit of land that I think it is at Catford Bridge, then it's already earmarked for housing, but I agree re. Lewisham/Elmers End.

aslefshrugged : the golf course is Langley Park, and although it wouldn't break my heart to say 'goodbye golf course', I suspect the children who attend the two Langley Park schools won't like losing their playing fields

I suspect this proposal will go the same way as the others for the Bakerloo (i.e. nothing will happen) - but an inner SE London tube is very much needed. Given the choice, I'd probably just have the inner section, up to Catford, via Old Kent Road : beyond, you may see local resistance to the Tube.

[Deleted]

Oct 4, 2014 10:44:51 GMT aslefshrugged said:

It'd be about five miles from Lewisham to E&C, another 7 miles to Hayes so roughly 12 miles total which is nearly the current length of 14.4miles. Just had a look on Google Earth and I don't see any obvious sidings or depots on the route, a rather nice large inviting golf course that says "Dig me up"....

There is room for an expansion of Stonebridge Park Depot and a couple of abandoned roads at London Road. I don't know if this will be enough though. It also looks like there are plans to build over London Road Depot See here as has happened at White City and due to happen at Lillie Bridge, I suspect if this happens additional roads will be squeezed in.

[Deleted]

Oct 4, 2014 16:30:40 GMT @jim said:

There is room for an expansion of Stonebridge Park Depot and a couple of abandoned roads at London Road. I don't know if this will be enough though. It also looks like there are plans to build over London Road Depot See here as has happened at White City and due to happen at Lillie Bridge, I suspect if this happens additional roads will be squeezed in.

If you extend to Lewisham then you can always run first and last trains out of London Road, its only 5 miles, about 15-20 minutes, so not that much different from the Central Line where the first and last Eppings are stabled at Loughton sidings. If the extension is out to Hayes then that's about 12 miles, at least half an hour from London Road making it too far to be a feasible stabling point. The obvious solution is to build a new depot/siding further south and sell London Road, now in the middle of the line where a depot is not particularly useful but is in a prime SE1 development area.

PS the 15-20 minutes includes coming out of sidings and tipping out at the end of the night.