|
|
Post by zcap on Oct 18, 2020 2:40:29 GMT
Hey there folks, its been a while since ive posted. Hope we're all doing well in these troubled times.
Anyway, a question which has been spinning in my head for ages is the following:
I read an excellent five part series on London Reconnections on the creation of the Fleet/Jubilee line many many moons ago, and a point which I seem to have missed is when and why in the world did they switch from a Fenchurch Street alignment to Westminster and then to Stratford?
From what I understand, the planning of the Jubilee line was very heavily influenced by "business cases" for each stage and yet to abandon a preexisting station and tunnel alignment to build a new connection and routing seems kinda weird to me. Especially since the River line routing had been on the ropes since the early days of the Fleet line, if one of the main reasons for the final extension alignment was the Docklands redevelopment, why didnt the designers take the Fenchurch Street route and take the River line alignment onwards? Also why was Stratford chosen to end the extension? I know it appeared on the 1989 Central London Rail study (although in a very different way as the Whitechapel-Ilford proposal) but again why not choose the pre-chosen and arguably well studied alignment to Woolwich and Thamesmead or even Beckton?
I feel like im missing a piece of the puzzle. The closest I seem to get to the current extension is in the aforementioned study where they have a propesed "Docklands Second Line" starting at Waterloo and ending at Westcombe Park almost following the current Jubilee extension to the T up to North Greenwich. If anyone knows the actual origins of the current alignment and can direct me to a study/paper from which the current alignment stems, i'd be most obliged.
Thanks and stay safe!
|
|
|
|
Post by revupminster on Oct 18, 2020 5:25:57 GMT
the creation of the Docklands Development agency in 1981 and the cheaper option of a light railway took over much of the eastern arm of the Fleet/Jubilee line starting as it did at Tower Gateway.
So I would think the Jubilee alignment came out of relieving interchange points, serving dockland areas south of the Thames and back across the Thames to the growing Canary Wharf. Again the eastern extension to Abbey Wood was abandoned in favour of Crossrail that originally in the east was only going to Shenfield with a possible branch via Forest Gate Junction to the C2C (now the Riverside extension of London Overground).
The unlikely turn north to Stratford was because of a need for a depot and there was available railway land at Stratford market. If the original Fleet line alignment had been built the depot would probably been where the Crossrail sidings are at Abbey Wood.
|
|
vincenture
Quiz tryhard, and an advocate for simpler, less complicated rail routes
Posts: 843
|
Post by vincenture on Oct 18, 2020 9:11:35 GMT
I wonder if Thamesmead would have had a potential depot (I hope I didn't go off the rails)
|
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Oct 18, 2020 10:44:34 GMT
the creation of the Docklands Development agency in 1981 and the cheaper option of a light railway took over much of the eastern arm of the Fleet/Jubilee line starting as it did at Tower Gateway. So I would think the Jubilee alignment came out of relieving interchange points, serving dockland areas south of the Thames and back across the Thames to the growing Canary Wharf. Again the eastern extension to Abbey Wood was abandoned in favour of Crossrail that originally in the east was only going to Shenfield with a possible branch via Forest Gate Junction to the C2C (now the Riverside extension of London Overground). The unlikely turn north to Stratford was because of a need for a depot and there was available railway land at Stratford market. If the original Fleet line alignment had been built the depot would probably been where the Crossrail sidings are at Abbey Wood. You raise an interesting point, and its one that I too have noticed in that the Eastern arms of Crossrail do mimic past, abanadoned plans for the Jubilee/Fleet. It feels a bit as if the bits that couldnt be made to work for the Jubilee were appended onto Crossrail (ie the Abbey Wood branch). Nontheless, I still cannot see where the decision and justification to abandon Charing X came from. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Oct 18, 2020 10:47:00 GMT
the creation of the Docklands Development agency in 1981 and the cheaper option of a light railway took over much of the eastern arm of the Fleet/Jubilee line starting as it did at Tower Gateway. So I would think the Jubilee alignment came out of relieving interchange points, serving dockland areas south of the Thames and back across the Thames to the growing Canary Wharf. Again the eastern extension to Abbey Wood was abandoned in favour of Crossrail that originally in the east was only going to Shenfield with a possible branch via Forest Gate Junction to the C2C (now the Riverside extension of London Overground). The unlikely turn north to Stratford was because of a need for a depot and there was available railway land at Stratford market. If the original Fleet line alignment had been built the depot would probably been where the Crossrail sidings are at Abbey Wood. You raise an interesting point, and its one that I too have noticed in that the Eastern arms of Crossrail do mimic past, abanadoned plans for the Jubilee/Fleet. It feels a bit as if the bits that couldnt be made to work for the Jubilee were appended onto Crossrail (ie the Abbey Wood branch). Nontheless, I still cannot see where the decision and justification to abandon Charing X came from. Wasn’t there a desire to serve Waterloo, which couldn’t be reached using the Charing Cross alignment? |
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Oct 18, 2020 11:14:04 GMT
You raise an interesting point, and its one that I too have noticed in that the Eastern arms of Crossrail do mimic past, abanadoned plans for the Jubilee/Fleet. It feels a bit as if the bits that couldnt be made to work for the Jubilee were appended onto Crossrail (ie the Abbey Wood branch). Nontheless, I still cannot see where the decision and justification to abandon Charing X came from. Wasn’t there a desire to serve Waterloo, which couldn’t be reached using the Charing Cross alignment? Ive been rereading the articles this morning, and ive just got to part five. Additional to the Central London Rail Study of 1989 mentioning a Second Docklands Line (which would originate at Waterloo and go to Canary Wharf via London Bridge, ending at Westcombe Park), the Reichmann brothers wanted a Direct tube from Waterloo to Canary Wharf, initially suggesting extending the Bakerloo Line along two branches, one to Stratford and Tottenham Hale and the other to the Royal Docks (imagine how that wouldve turned out!). |
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Oct 18, 2020 13:11:17 GMT
Ok so, I seem to have answered my own question insomuch that the fifth part of this article explains the happenings of 1989 with respect to the JLE.
Firstly, it appears the original Phased Jubilee Line extensions concept and planning was allowed to fall through by the Government in the early 80s. This meant that now the extension of the Jubilee became a bottom priority task in the Department of Transports' backlog.
This is best exemplified by the fact that it is genuinely at the bottom of the list of priorities in the Central London Rail Study (CLRS) of 1988 (published 01/01/89), under Thameslink 2000 (great name), Crossrail and the Chelsea-Hackney line.
Furthermore Olympia & York (big time investors in the Docklands regeneration scheme and the main pushers of the Second Docklands Line idea or the Waterloo and Greenwich Tube, affectionately called the W&GR) were really pushing for a direct link for the Waterloo BR commuters to the Docklands, and were attempting to build a fully private tube, whose design was almost given Royal Ascent! To be fair, it became obvious that without a proper rail connection to the Docklands, namely to Canary Wharf, the development would be a bust, so it seemed in everyones interests to build a link to Canary Wharf. I feel that Government then scrambled to create a route which appealed to all and hence the old W&GR was patched to the Jubilee as best as they could. An alternative routing of the Jubilee Line was explored via Ludgate Circus to London Bridge, but this appears to have been rejected quickly by O&Y since it missed Waterloo. Hence, we get the current JLE.
It appears the current Stratford terminus was indeed chosen out of the need to provide a depot east of Canary Wharf, but also because Stratford was becoming, quote "a transport hub" in the East. That, and the fact that Westcombe Park truly is nowhere in comparison to Stratford.
These latter explorations were done as part of CLRS of 1989 and the East London Rail Study (ELRS 1989) both of which were published in July 1989.
What is still unclear to me is that options to terminate at Beckton and Thamesmead were still explored into the latter stages of the JLEs planning. Statford makes sense because of the Depot but there was plenty of ground in both alternatives to sustain depots. Both alternatives also serve more of the Docklands and hence provides more of a Docklands spine for regeneration.
I know that N.Greenwich has tunnels for a potential future alignment to Thamesmead, but I suspect that will never happen now. I wish I could read more about why these options were rejected and I suspect there are clues in both CLRS/ELRS 1989. If anyone has a copy or knows where I may accquire a copy of either or both of these, or any other source of information, again, id be much obliged.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 18, 2020 13:35:01 GMT
Furthermore Olympia & York were really pushing for a direct link for the Waterloo BR commuters to the Docklands, To be fair, it became obvious that without a proper rail connection to the Docklands, namely to Canary Wharf, the development would be a bust, so it seemed in everyones interests to build a link to Canary Wharf. Moreover, at the time the JLE was being planned and built, Waterloo was the Eurostar terminus. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Oct 18, 2020 14:35:05 GMT
Furthermore Olympia & York were really pushing for a direct link for the Waterloo BR commuters to the Docklands, To be fair, it became obvious that without a proper rail connection to the Docklands, namely to Canary Wharf, the development would be a bust, so it seemed in everyones interests to build a link to Canary Wharf. Moreover, at the time the JLE was being planned and built, Waterloo was the Eurostar terminus. Although even then, Waterloo was never intended to be the permanent terminus. |
|
|
|
Post by ijmad on Oct 18, 2020 15:51:27 GMT
Am I correct in assuming that the section proposed from Custom House to Woolwich would have used the former NLL alignment (including the Connaught tunnel) that is now the Elizabeth Line?
Obviously Crossrail doesn't go to Thamesmead, which is a shame, but Abbey Wood certainly is a more useful interchange.
|
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Oct 18, 2020 16:16:34 GMT
Am I correct in assuming that the section proposed from Custom House to Woolwich would have used the former NLL alignment (including the Connaught tunnel) that is now the Elizabeth Line? Obviously Crossrail doesn't go to Thamesmead, which is a shame, but Abbey Wood certainly is a more useful interchange. Its unclear to me however I believe one proposal at some point did suggest that. There were some pretty interesting schemes proposed by the GLC in an attempt to keep the Jubilee Line "Stages" alive, in the late 70s such as the building of a single bore mainline gauge tunnel linking Woolwich to the NLL via Custom House, which was to be taken over by the Jubilee line once it reached Woolwich. |
|
|
|
Post by revupminster on Oct 18, 2020 16:28:28 GMT
I've found the 1990 Capital Transport publication Underground Official Handbook by Piers Connor.
On page 78 " the original hope was that there would be extensions to Fenchurch Street, Surrey Docks and Lewisham. These did not find favour with the government of the time but an extension to Docklands and Stratford was given the go ahead by the Department of transport in November 1989, to be partly financed by private capital".
On page 79 is a half page spread of the current Jubilee Line alignment. It also showed the Bank extension of the DLR under construction.
|
|
|
|
Post by zcap on Oct 18, 2020 16:32:59 GMT
I've found the 1990 Capital Transport publication Underground Official Handbook by Piers Connor. On page 78 " the original hope was that there would be extensions to Fenchurch Street, Surrey Docks and Lewisham. These did not find favour with the government of the time but an extension to Docklands and Stratford was given the go ahead by the Department of transport in November 1989, to be partly financed by private capital". On page 79 is a half page spread of the current Jubilee Line alignment. It also showed the Bank extension of the DLR under construction. Oh sweet, that sounds interesting. Where dya find it if you dont mind me asking? |
|
|
|
Post by revupminster on Oct 18, 2020 18:27:17 GMT
I've found the 1990 Capital Transport publication Underground Official Handbook by Piers Connor. On page 78 " the original hope was that there would be extensions to Fenchurch Street, Surrey Docks and Lewisham. These did not find favour with the government of the time but an extension to Docklands and Stratford was given the go ahead by the Department of transport in November 1989, to be partly financed by private capital". On page 79 is a half page spread of the current Jubilee Line alignment. It also showed the Bank extension of the DLR under construction. Oh sweet, that sounds interesting. Where dya find it if you dont mind me asking? In my bookcase. I probably bought it in 1990. Annoyingly, not for this thread, is I had maps for the original Olympia & York estate, royal docks and early crossrail map that had the line going to Amersham I think but can't find them. I have nearly all the books London Transport published and sold in the ticket offices in the late 60s early 70s. The booking clerks got commission. Sad story Ian Allen bookshop at Waterloo closes 31 October. Got some good stuff in there. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Oct 19, 2020 0:12:40 GMT
The staged approach to the original Fleet Line came from experience with building the Victoria line, where Walthamstow to Victoria was too big a job to manage and subcontract. It ended being finished in a staged approach to Highbury and Warren Street, and a vow to build any future line in stages. So Fleet line to Charing Cross worked out well, as we all know. But stage two for Fenchurch Street had no cost/benefit case, only as a link to stage three to New Cross, but that also couldn't get over the cost/benefit line. Lewisham was added on, and even a car park for park-and-ride traffic there could not push the cost/benefit calculation high enough. These were early days for such calculations, and must pick up much more benefits these days than they once did. That led to a decision not to take a staged approach in future. With the widespread adoption of computers, big projects can be managed much easier now; witness Crossrail!
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Oct 19, 2020 0:40:12 GMT
Given Canary Wharf's role in achieving the JLE by promoting the Waterloo and Greenwich Tube, what happened to last year's proposal for another similar line? see here l suppose Covid-19 got in the way for now! |
|
