Oxford Circus and Stockwell - connection to other lines

[wanstead]

I was wondering if there was any plans or passive provision made to link the Victoria Line physically with the Bakerloo and Northern at Oxford Circus and Stockwell respectively, as per the Piccadilly track connection at Finsbury Park? Just a passing thought I had when I was using the cross-platform interchanges earlier this week. 

I know there would be absolutely no need to provide such a connection nowadays given the self-contained nature of the Victoria Line, but was it considered during the construction stage and then descoped, or was the Piccadilly connection considered to be enough for the line?

[Chris L]

Oct 15, 2021 17:06:10 GMT wanstead said:

I was wondering if there was any plans or passive provision made to link the Victoria Line physically with the Bakerloo and Northern at Oxford Circus and Stockwell respectively, as per the Piccadilly track connection at Finsbury Park? Just a passing thought I had when I was using the cross-platform interchanges earlier this week. 

I know there would be absolutely no need to provide such a connection nowadays given the self-contained nature of the Victoria Line, but was it considered during the construction stage and then descoped, or was the Piccadilly connection considered to be enough for the line?

In town junctions are a no no.

This was why the Bakerloo line was split to create the Jubilee line.

[quex]

I can't give a definitive answer to the question. However, my thoughts...

One of the factors that helped decide on the use of a small-bore loading gauge (as opposed to a tunnel diameter that would allow for mainline-sized trains) was there simply wasn't space in the ground, around other existing tunnels etc., to arrange for a convenient passenger interchange at Oxford Circus with a larger diameter tube, using the technology then available. So there may not have been space for a track connection. The Finsbury Park connection was arranged using already existing crossover tunnels (as you may well already know).

With regards to need - the most pressing requirement would be access to Acton Works for rolling stock overhaul. As the Finsbury Park connection and the Kings Cross loop provide(d) this for the Victoria and Northern respectively, a connection at Stockwell or Oxford Circus might only really useful for stock transfers between lines which don't happen all that regularly enough to justify a special connection.

[metman]

Agreed. It seems very tight around some of the interchange stations. There wasn’t much money either, hence the narrow platforms on the line.

[jimbo]

Oct 15, 2021 18:23:16 GMT Chris L said:

Oct 15, 2021 17:06:10 GMT wanstead said:

I was wondering if there was any plans or passive provision made to link the Victoria Line physically with the Bakerloo and Northern at Oxford Circus and Stockwell respectively, as per the Piccadilly track connection at Finsbury Park? Just a passing thought I had when I was using the cross-platform interchanges earlier this week. 

I know there would be absolutely no need to provide such a connection nowadays given the self-contained nature of the Victoria Line, but was it considered during the construction stage and then descoped, or was the Piccadilly connection considered to be enough for the line?

In town junctions are a no no.

This was why the Bakerloo line was split to create the Jubilee line.

Not sure what was meant by this. If you mean that large holes under built-up areas are risky and expensive, then the original Bakerloo line junctions still remain, and two new ones were built to join the Jubilee to them! If you mean that splitting the service close to the centre is a bad idea, I don't think the original post suggested that. Just that inter-line connections might be useful to have from time to time.

When the Bakerloo was split, the peak central area service was not necessary to meet demand to Paddington, so was shared to relieve the Met. But as demand grew over 40 years, Paddington needed more trains, only possible by a new line to share demand from the Met. route.

So how long will the junction at Stepney be tolerated, which limits Crossrail services east to only half of trunk capacity? And as building density grows even out in the suburbs, will other service splits become no longer acceptable? That at Leytonstone was once to be relieved by the Chelsea-Hackney line acquiring a branch.

[Chris L]

Oct 18, 2021 18:33:28 GMT jimbo said:

Oct 15, 2021 18:23:16 GMT Chris L said:

In town junctions are a no no.

This was why the Bakerloo line was split to create the Jubilee line.

Not sure what was meant by this. If you mean that large holes under built-up areas are risky and expensive, then the original Bakerloo line junctions still remain, and two new ones were built to join the Jubilee to them! If you mean that splitting the service close to the centre is a bad idea, I don't think the original post suggested that. Just that inter-line connections might be useful to have from time to time.

When the Bakerloo was split, the peak central area service was not necessary to meet demand to Paddington, so was shared to relieve the Met. But as demand grew over 40 years, Paddington needed more trains, only possible by a new line to share demand from the Met. route.

So how long will the junction at Stepney be tolerated, which limits Crossrail services east to only half of trunk capacity? And as building density grows even out in the suburbs, will other service splits become no longer acceptable? That at Leytonstone was once to be relieved by the Chelsea-Hackney line acquiring a branch.

When the Central line was built the company had to buy the land above the tunnels. This is why the platforms at Chancery Lane and St Paul's are on top of each other. This requirement for land acquisition made later links difficult.

[spsmiler]

Oct 18, 2021 18:33:28 GMT jimbo said:

That at Leytonstone was once to be relieved by the Chelsea-Hackney line acquiring a branch.

Still doable - if there was the will. The real problem here is that two other perfectly good railways were closed in the post-war years and suddenly its been realised that there is overcrowding on another service (Piccadilly line)

The original plans to take over the Chingford and Epping routes may still offer greater advantages for more passengers than going to New Southgate. That said, it might be that some Hainault loop passengers switch to Crossrail when it opens. This will depend on where they live and their ultimate destination.

[quex]

Oct 18, 2021 19:29:49 GMT Chris L said:

When the Central line was built the company had to buy the land above the tunnels. This is why the platforms at Chancery Lane and St Paul's are on top of each other. This requirement for land acquisition made later links difficult.

Strictly speaking, the underground railways had to purchase or otherwise obtain an easement, or wayleave - the right to run under (or in some cases, above) the property - not often did they have to purchase the property itself. Wayleave was considered a quite serious matter as earlier tube construction (e.g. the C&SLR) had resulted in subsidence to buildings above. One of the various Committees or Commissions on tube railway matters (I forget which year) suggested that tube railways be granted free wayleave under public roads (to help encourage the development of more schemes and lines), hence the layout of many tube lines following roads. Several Central line stations (Notting Hill Gate is another I believe) are "stacked" so that they remain within the narrow footprint of the road above.

By the 1930s concerns about subsidence had relaxed as tube construction methods had improved and wayleave was granted more freely - hence the more relaxed alignments of 1930s tube extensions, and the Victoria itself blasting straight underneath vast swathes of north London housing.

That said, in areas as congested as Oxford Circus I think there would still be concern about adding yet more large caverns, such as would be required for crossovers, under heavy department store buildings - but I'd be surprised if property rights were the biggest issue in doing so.

[rapidtransitman]

Oct 18, 2021 22:15:27 GMT quex said:

Strictly speaking, the underground railways had to purchase or otherwise obtain an easement, or wayleave - the right to run under (or in some cases, above) the property - not often did they have to purchase the property itself. Wayleave was considered a quite serious matter as earlier tube construction (e.g. the C&SLR) had resulted in subsidence to buildings above. One of the various Committees or Commissions on tube railway matters (I forget which year) suggested that tube railways be granted free wayleave under public roads (to help encourage the development of more schemes and lines), hence the layout of many tube lines following roads. Several Central line stations (Notting Hill Gate is another I believe) are "stacked" so that they remain within the narrow footprint of the road above.

By the 1930s concerns about subsidence had relaxed as tube construction methods had improved and wayleave was granted more freely - hence the more relaxed alignments of 1930s tube extensions, and the Victoria itself blasting straight underneath vast swathes of north London housing.

That said, in areas as congested as Oxford Circus I think there would still be concern about adding yet more large caverns, such as would be required for crossovers, under heavy department store buildings - but I'd be surprised if property rights were the biggest issue in doing so.

There is an interesting article on convenants, easements, and wayleaves at LondonReconnections.com by a former a Land and Vesting Engineer at London Underground: www.londonreconnections.com/2020/covenants-easements-wayleaves-the-hidden-urban-interfaces-which-shape-london-part-1/, along with a followup article.

[norbitonflyer]

Oct 18, 2021 22:43:27 GMT rapidtransitman said:

Strictly speaking, the underground railways had to purchase or otherwise obtain an easement, or wayleave - the right to run under (or in some cases, above) the property - not often did they have to purchase the property itself.

One of the few places where an early Tube line did have to be built under property rather than a street, because of the tight curvature of the street, was at East Road in Shoreditch. The Land Registry entry for the property includes the phrase: ‘So much of the sub-soil as was vested in the Great Northern and City Railway is excluded from the registration.’

Unfortunately, the conveyancing solicitors handling the sale of the property to developers in 2013 failed to understand the significance of this (the GN&CR company itself ceased to exist in 1913) and the local council (who were both the planning authority and, since 1963, the owners of the land) were unable to explain it. It was only after piling started on the site that anyone associated with the building work realised there was a tunnel under the site - indeed the builders only learned what had happened to their drill bit two hours after the initial penetration of the tunnel, when they got a visit from the British Transport Police. (Oh to be a fly on the wall at that conversation.......)

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c8fb940f0b60241000157/R032014_140213_Old_Street.pdf

[scheduler]

The links talked of would only serve a purpose for engineering trains and stock transfers. Therefore they are simply not worth the investment. If you are thinking of multi-routing trains and splitting them across different lines - that's a big no,no! The way to get frequent high density intense services is for every train to do the exact same thing - and that is pretty much London Underground's focus. Hence the removal of Central/District transfer at Ealing Broadway.

With the exception of Waterloo & City Line all London Underground have a connection to the engineering trains base at Ruislip Depot. Either directly - Central, Picc, Met. Or by existing connections:-
Circle/H&C from the Met.
District from the H&C or more usually via the Picc and Acton Town junctions.
Jub from the Met usually running via Neasden Depot
Bakerloo from the Jub (Baker Street) from the Met. (as above)
Victoria from the Picc at Finsbury Park.
Northern from the Picc at Kings Cross.

It is therefore possible, assuming you have a train of a suitable gauge for LU stock to access all lines.

Thus any actual track connections at locations other those already existing and currently in occasional use by engineers trains / stock moves is never going to happen.