Bakerloo not going to Watford

[Deleted]

I have heard that the plan to re-extend the Bakerloo has been shelved but will be looked at again at a later date. Does anyone know anything about this?

[towerman]

The plan was for London Overground to leave Euston and run a Stratford to Watford service via Camden Road & Primrose Hill which would later be replaced by the Bakerloo going to Watford.Would've thought that nothing is definite yet as the Bakerloo upgrade is not due till 2020.

[amershamsi]

it was hyped up, thinking that 67 stock could be used to cover the extension (probably initially with DC trains doing Watford-Euston as well).

[tubeprune]

There is no logical reason for extending the Bakerloo to Watford. The LOR will provide an adequate service and the Bakerloo is a metro line not a suburban railway. It's only the depot at Stonebridge Park which makes it worth going beyond Queens Pk.

[metman]

I have heard the Bakerloo will not go to Watford until the upgrade. I think the current service is not good enough and I would expect a min 4tph to be honest.

[Deleted]

The current service is not good enough for Elephant - Queen's Park never mind Watford.

[mrfs42]

Dec 6, 2008 14:24:01 GMT @tom747 said:

The current service is not good enough for Elephant - Queen's Park never mind Watford.

Easy! Go back to the Camberwell plan and build a 3 platform terminus. The current restriction on the Bakerloo is the capacity of Elephant.

[Deleted]

Wasn't meaning to offend anyone who works on the Bakerloo here, sorry.

[metman]

Is stepping back employed at Elephant?

[mrfs42]

Yes; 0733½ to 1931½ Mon - Fri. 1151 - 1815 Sat. Nothing on Sundays.

[programmes1]

Dec 6, 2008 14:27:02 GMT mrfs42 said:

Dec 6, 2008 14:24:01 GMT @tom747 said:

The current service is not good enough for Elephant - Queen's Park never mind Watford.

Easy! Go back to the Camberwell plan and build a 3 platform terminus. The current restriction on the Bakerloo is the capacity of Elephant.

About 15 years ago I understand that consideration was given to going back to Watford only drawback was cost estimated at 10 million approx, the resignalling of the line especially Baker St-Elephant reduced the capacity.

The depot at Stonebridge Park was constructed due to the failure of having a site that meet the requirements at Peckham, where a number of proposals loop, rise to the surface being just two.

Had the extension been built we would have had a junction at Camberwell with a branch going to Peckham and onwards and also to Herne Hill, the Southern region being against all of this going into their territory.

[alrispoli]

So if the project is shelved, what does this mean for the 67ts? scrap?

[metman]

For most of them yes! I imagine a few trains will linger on as spares for the Bakerloo and in case the Watford plan does happen.

[DrOne]

Someone said the Bakerloo extension was hyped but I wonder how much? Surely it was just included in preliminary plans but us enthusiasts just excitedly jumped all over it... which I find completely understandable as it would have boosted the Bakerloo's profile somewhat.

Does anyone know what the original reasons were for shifting the DC service out of Euston?

[North End]

Dec 6, 2008 18:40:11 GMT @alrispoli said:

So if the project is shelved, what does this mean for the 67ts? scrap?

Basically, yes.

The proposal to convert 67ts for use on the Bakerloo Line was investigated in detail, but it was deemed not to be cost-effective given the timescales involved. One wonders exactly how much work was really required though - I guess the biggest problem would be going from 8 cars to 7.

However I think the plan is that some (don't know how many) units will be stored either on or off LUL for any possible future use. This will probably end up like the 72MkIts, with the units quietly rotting away out of sight until they eventually get scrapped.

Some other thoughts:

- the idea of keeping 67ts as a contingency in case of 09ts withdrawal is not feasible because of the limited space in Northumberland Park Depot and the massive logistical operation of moving 09ts out and 67ts in (and vice versa) - especially as 09ts can only move in/out by road.

- Isle of Wight (being investigated)

- Stripping of spare parts for Bakerloo Line

- Car 3052 is currently earmarked for the LT Museum

[cetacean]

Dec 6, 2008 21:05:10 GMT DrOne said:

Does anyone know what the original reasons were for shifting the DC service out of Euston?

Money saving, basically. I think the idea is that running a few Bakerloo Line trains up to Watford will be cheaper than running the whole Watford-Euston service. Customers on the Watford-Harrow stretch would also likely see a significant increase in frequency.

[metman]

The main problem is that the each DM needs the adjacent trailer for its operating systems. The 1972 3 car units have a special trailer with carries equipment for the UNDM and the DM. This would be the main hassle for LU. It would also mean there would be some double cab trains in the fleet with DM-T-T-DM+DM-T-DM.

[Ben]

They could at least standardize the 4 car unit with an UNDM in its makeup?

[ruislip]

If the 'Loo is not re-extended to Watford, will that expedite the plans to re-route the Met to Watford Junction?

[metman]

Maybe?

There aren't any spare UNDMs.

[Deleted]

Shame about the demise of the 67ts - perhaps the comfiest tube stock in service at the moment.

Does this mean the Watford DC line will just continue as is? Are any of the proposed enhancments/changes to the former Silverlink Metro services going to happen, now (apart from the ELL extension)?

[cetacean]

Does this mean the Watford DC line will just continue as is?

Yep. The Watford DC Line is planned to stay exactly the same. 3 tph is listed as the "ambition" in an undated leaflet I picked up the other day.

Are any of the proposed enhancments/changes to the former Silverlink Metro services going to happen

Gospel Oak to Barking goes to every 15 minutes advertised for 2009, although 2011 was mentioned in a recent meeting, but he may have been referring to something else.

ca. 2011 here'll be an additional, half hourly Clapham Junction-Willesden Junction-Stratford service, doubling WLL frequency and giving the NLL 6 tph, and there'll also be four car trains around the same time.

The other enhancement is they plan to run the full service all day every day instead of it getting a bit rubbish on Sundays and evenings, and they've already done a lot of this.

[max]

They might do something about the line speeds to begin with.

[source, TfL web pages]

Queen's Park to Oxford Circus: 16 min (6.5 km approx, 8 intermediate stops)
Queen's Park to Euston: 13 (o/p) or 14 (peak) min (6 km approx, 2 intermediate stops)

For all the complaints about the Underground being a short-distance metro service, not suitable for longer journeys etc. etc. it's actually quite a fast way to get around compared with the alternatives, much more likely to take you where you want to go too.

[amershamsi]

For the City, Euston and change looks better, though you can change to the Central at Oxford Circus, or the Circle/H&C/Met at Baker Street. Why didn't they do something sensible and extend the CSLR to Watford, rather than build DC lines and extending the Bakerloo to them.

Of course, the longish term plans to extend the DC lines to Tring or Berkhampsted, to free up both the fasts and the slows there a completly blown out the water by Bakerloo to Watford Junction. I'd also say that if frequencies on the DCs increase, Met to Watford Junction wouldn't happen, and North Curve services would definitely not. Simply as there's no room.

[ruislip]

Dec 9, 2008 12:15:04 GMT @amershamsi said:

Why didn't they do something sensible and extend the CSLR to Watford, rather than build DC lines and extending the Bakerloo to them.

Wasn't something like that proposed in the post-WW2 plans for the "Northern Heights" extensions to Aldenham?

[amershamsi]

I don't think so - the Northern Heights were via Edgware and Highgate. Aldenham is quite a way from the DC lines. What I was suggesting was via Queens Park, Willesden Junction and Wembley Central. The CSLR was at Euston was there waiting.

IIRC there were plans to extend the line into Watford, using the DC lines from Bushey (which is in Oxhey) though these were opposed. The plans changed to use the Watford and Rickmansworth railway and head towards High Wycombe.

[Deleted]

I still like the idea of Queen's Park - Stratford as a way to relieve the Willesden Junction - Camden Road section of the North London Line, and obviously so Primrose Hill can be re-opened as well. The stations on the Watford DC south of Queen's Park are barely used because they're so close to much better stations (Swiss Cottage and one of the Kilburns I believe), but providing an East-West service there could be very useful I think.

People coming from North of Queen's Park can usually get to their destination almost as fast by taking the Bakerloo and changing somewhere other than Euston.

[slugabed]

Just read on London Reconnections,that everything above platform level at Primrose Hill has been demolished in the last few days.
Hope this isn't so....any news from those out and about in the area?
If it is so,does anyone know the reason for this to be done NOW?

[Deleted]

Dec 6, 2008 21:05:10 GMT DrOne said:

Does anyone know what the original reasons were for shifting the DC service out of Euston?

Something somewhere mentioned cost, the implication being that LO had to pay a premium (to NR?) for using platforms/facilities at Euston.

On the wider proposal the logic as I understood it was that the present combined 9tph (off peak) running between Queens Park and Harrow was an over-provision, and that running 3 of 6 Bakerloo line Harrow terminators on to Watford would save running the Euston service.

The problem would seem to be what to do with Kilburn High Road (~400,000 annual entries+exits*) and South Hampstead (~160,000 annual entries+exits*) - a permanent service via Primrose Hill, even if possible, might not be what these travellers want.

One could speculate that the removal of the Euston service could be mitigated by stopping some London Midland services at Queen's Park where there are the relevant platforms. I can't see London Midland being too thrilled by that idea, but it's also possible that taking LO trains out of Euston would give them some extra capacity.

*2006-7 figures - www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.1529

[Deleted]

Dec 10, 2008 16:14:34 GMT slugabed said:

Just read on London Reconnections,that everything above platform level at Primrose Hill has been demolished in the last few days.
Hope this isn't so....any news from those out and about in the area?
If it is so,does anyone know the reason for this to be done NOW?

the thing is if they have done that it is completley pointless
it would have ment they spent alot of money demolishing it and if they just left it there there, unless people thought it was ugly orsomething rediculous like that would be no costs and always a possiblity of reopening it