Camden Town and Northern line separation

[crablab]

TfL prioritises DLR and Northern line upgrades over Crossrail 2 and Bakerloo line extension | New Civil Engineer

Released as part of board meeting agenda notes for 30 September, TfL’s report Investment to get London and the UK moving again sets out a revised list of

www.newcivilengineer.com

Pertinent bit;

Camden Town and Northern line separation

Cost: £0.6-1.3bn


Delivery schedule: 2024-28


What TfL says: “If we purchase a new fleet of trains for the Jubilee line, we can add some of the current Jubilee line fleet to the Northern line. This would enable an unprecedented capacity upgrade to our most used line. We can do this by upgrading Camden Town station and separating the branches of the Northern line, effectively adding a new ‘Northern line 2’ line to the network.


“At least 25 per cent capacity increase on both the Northern line and the new ‘Northern line 2’ – created from the Charing Cross branch, via Kennington and Battersea with the completed Northern Line Extension. This would enable at least 20,000 additional people to be transported per hour.”

Entire article:

Transport for London (TfL) has set out a revised list of project priorities as long-term funding negotiations continue with government.
Released as part of board meeting agenda notes for 30 September, TfL’s report Investment to get London and the UK moving again sets out a revised list of major projects which it is hoping to complete during the next decade.


Major schemes named include extending the DLR to Thamesmead and upgrading Camden Town station and the Northern line.


The report concedes that other major projects such as Crossrail 2 and the Bakerloo line extension will not be realistically affordable before 2030.


“We are being realistic about what is affordable over the next decade,” the report states.


“Very large projects from the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, particularly Crossrail 2 and Bakerloo Line Extension, are still relevant and aligned to the Department for Transport’s decarbonisation plan.





“However, given current affordability constraints, our immediate priority for these is safeguarding, although they are still likely to be needed in the future to support long term growth and modal shift in London.”


Since the government’s original decision to remove the operating grant in 2015, TfL relies on a combination of fares, the congestion charge and advertising for its revenue.


However it lost over 90% of passengers as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and, going forward, tube trains operate at a reduced capacity to adhere to social distancing.


As such, TfL secured a £1.6bn bailout from the government in May following the steep drop in revenue – but Khan has previously stressed that a “continuing operating grant” is needed to maintain services after the “sticking plaster” deal.


The board meeting agenda papers reveal that TfL has now spent all of the £1.6bn grant, however it has not needed to use an additional £300M safeguarded by the government should it need it. A new deal is expected to be in place within the next two weeks.





Consequently, the papers reveal that TfL has introduced “stringent measures to control expenditure […] pausing all new non-critical spend”.


It adds that a £2bn annual funding gap needs to be plugged and it is asking for £4.9bn to continue operating until the end of 2021/22, “which will enable us to successfully achieve everything set out in our revised budget”. A further £750M is needed to fund cost overruns on Crossrail.

DLR extension to Thamesmead

Cost: Around £800M


Delivery schedule: 2026-30


What TfL says: “Extending the Beckton branch of the DLR across the river supports the regeneration of the Thamesmead and Abbey Wood Opportunity Area and would also unlock growth at Beckton Riverside. The extension would improve connectivity across the river in some relatively deprived areas of London and increase capacity to support growth


“Supporting up to 20,000 new homes across the Thamesmead and Abbey Wood and Royal Docks and Beckton Riverside Opportunity Areas. At least 8,000 jobs in Thamesmead, and potentially more at Beckton Riverside.”

Camden Town and Northern line separation

Cost: £0.6-1.3bn


Delivery schedule: 2024-28


What TfL says: “If we purchase a new fleet of trains for the Jubilee line, we can add some of the current Jubilee line fleet to the Northern line. This would enable an unprecedented capacity upgrade to our most used line. We can do this by upgrading Camden Town station and separating the branches of the Northern line, effectively adding a new ‘Northern line 2’ line to the network.


“At least 25 per cent capacity increase on both the Northern line and the new ‘Northern line 2’ – created from the Charing Cross branch, via Kennington and Battersea with the completed Northern Line Extension. This would enable at least 20,000 additional people to be transported per hour.”

This would be interesting, and would seem to make an amount of sense. The Northern line is essentially two different lines, that converge at two places (Camden Town, Kennington).

Would anyone like to comment on how compatible or not the '95/'96 stock are?

 

[tasky]

I believe TfL consulted on the new Camden Town station a few years ago (a requirement for doing this - as the current constraint is that Camden Town is overcrowded and not a suitable interchange). If I remember rightly the timescale/delay is such because a school on a nearby street had to be located to a new building that was being built for it, and then once the old site was free it could be used for a new entrance to the Tube station.

 

[Ianno87]

I believe TfL consulted on the new Camden Town station a few years ago (a requirement for doing this - as the current constraint is that Camden Town is overcrowded and not a suitable interchange). If I remember rightly the timescale/delay is such because a school on a nearby street had to be located to a new building that was being built for it, and then once the old site was free it could be used for a new entrance to the Tube station.

I *think* the school has since relocated premises, so this has ceased to be an issue.

 

[crablab]

I believe TfL consulted on the new Camden Town station a few years ago

Do you have any links to documents published on this?

 

[quantinghome]

LU have been wanting to do this for decades. The basic issue is that they need to significantly improve interchange capacity at Camden Town before separating the line into two. That requires knocking new passageways through the platform tunnels and all sorts of associated engineering. The original plans had a large oversite development (presumably to pay for the underground stuff) which attracted much local opposition. I think there were some revised plans knocking around a few years ago.

Lots more detail here: https://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/second-time-lucky-rebuilding-camden-town-station/

 

[cle]

Does the DLR just go to Thamesmead, or does it connect to Abbey Wood? That would seem to be a much greater ambition for network connectivity (if a similar GOBLIN plan is off the table).

Great resilience for the SE lines and the DLR - connections at Abbey Wood, Woolwich and Greenwich (plus Lewisham).

 

[Trackman]

They tried to rebuild it years ago on the current site with a temporary station across the road, but that fell through with the loss of the Electric Ballroom and the likes.
Something needs doing though.

Do you have any links to documents published on this?

This is what I have:

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/camden-town-station-upgrade/user_uploads/camden-a1-boards_v8.pdf

 

[bramling]

TfL prioritises DLR and Northern line upgrades over Crossrail 2 and Bakerloo line extension | New Civil Engineer

Released as part of board meeting agenda notes for 30 September, TfL’s report Investment to get London and the UK moving again sets out a revised list of

www.newcivilengineer.com

Pertinent bit;


Entire article:


This would be interesting, and would seem to make an amount of sense. The Northern line is essentially two different lines, that converge at two places (Camden Town, Kennington).

Would anyone like to comment on how compatible or not the '95/'96 stock are?

They are similar, but there's certainly differences under the skin, the traction packages being completely different for a start. As regards operating staff, a 95 stock driver could currently get into a 96 stock and find their way around, but would certainly have a scratch their head, as there's some difference in switches, switch positioning, etc.

I'd think that 96 stock on the Northern would have to undergo a programme of modifications to make them similar to the 95 stock, retractioning for a start.

Personal view but I can't see any of this coming to fruition. Whilst there's certainly issues with the Jubilee not having enough trains now, and the Northern not quite having enough trains to do everything they want, I'd put a small bet that these issues wouldn't be resolved until the next round of fleet replacements, which is well into next decade. Remember that the 95 stock actually date from 1998-99, so are slightly newer than at first glance.

 

[Mikey C]

"If we purchase a new fleet of trains for the Jubilee line, we can add some of the current Jubilee line fleet to the Northern line"

I find that slightly puzzling for a start, as there was a plan to buy more trains for the Jubilee and Northern Lines a couple of years ago which bit the dust, and as every year passes, the economics of topping up a fleet which is already over 20 years old becomes worse...

The Camden Town expansion scheme seems pretty "oven ready", with the school site available to build the new surface building, and all the consultations done. Finance has been the problem.

 

[tasky]

Do you have any links to documents published on this?

The consultation response is here https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/camden-town-station-upgrade/?cid=camden-town-upgrade

Ianno87 is right, the school has since been relocated - TfL is now in possession of the Buck Street site they'd need for the entrance.

 

[crablab]

TfL is now in possession of the Buck Street site they'd need for the entrance.

I understand they are currently using it as a compound for their equivalent of MOMs.

The Camden Town expansion scheme seems pretty "oven ready", with the school site available to build the new surface building, and all the consultations done. Finance has been the problem.

Now would seem like a good time to get started on it, given passenger numbers are right down and thus disruption minimised. That said, the main disruption seemed to be above ground anyway and there was the suggestion that only a few weekend station closures would be required to join up the new tunnels with the old.

 

[Ianno87]

I understand they are currently using it as a compound for their equivalent of MOMs.



Now would seem like a good time to get started on it, given passenger numbers are right down and thus disruption minimised. That said, the main disruption seemed to be above ground anyway and there was the suggestion that only a few weekend station closures would be required to join up the new tunnels with the old.

And when passengers return, less complaints about "but I've lost my direct tube service, now I have to change!"

 

[crablab]

And when passengers return, less complaints about "but I've lost my direct tube service, now I have to change!"

Was there a proposal to actually change the timetables as a result of this? As I understand it this is more an enabling work for future changes later on

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Can someone please explain why the Northern Line must be split? As someone near the Southern end of the Northern Line I and many other fellow South London passengers would love more direct trains via Charing Cross from Morden.

 

[goldenarrow]

Can someone please explain why the Northern Line must be split? As someone near the Southern end of the Northern Line I and many other fellow South London passengers would love more direct trains via Charing Cross from Morden.

The line as it is in its current form is more or less maxed out in terms of throughput of trains at Camden in particular. Splitting the City and West End branches would facilitate a significant uplift beyond 30 tph on both lines being able to operate independently of one another without the current timetabling complexities of two merge/diverge points at Camden Town and Kennington respectively which constrain the line to around 24tph on both branches.

In short, the additional interchange time at Kennington and an upgraded Camden Town would is a small loss compared to the wider benefits of separation.

 

[Mikey C]

The line as it is in its current form is more or less maxed out in terms of throughput of trains at Camden in particular. Splitting the City and West End branches would facilitate a significant uplift beyond 30 tph on both lines being able to operate independently of one another without the current timetabling complexities of two merge/diverge points at Camden Town and Kennington respectively which constrain the line to around 24tph on both branches.

In short, the additional interchange time at Kennington and an upgraded Camden Town would is a small loss compared to the wider benefits of separation.

What wouldn't be justifiable though is splitting the line without the extra trains needed to run this improved frequency, as there's no slack in the current fleet.

 

[goldenarrow]

What wouldn't be justifiable though is splitting the line without the extra trains needed to run this improved frequency, as there's no slack in the current fleet.

Indeed, which is why some may argue that new trains for the Jubilee line is actually quite high up the priority list given that it's the only realistic way of adding to the Northern line fleet is via cascades providing the impetus to tackle Camden Town (finally).

 

[markymark2000]

To move the Jubilee Line trains onto the Northern Line would require a lot of platform extensions wouldn't it as the 1995 stock runs as a 6 car but the 96 stock runs as 7 car?

 

[bramling]

To move the Jubilee Line trains onto the Northern Line would require a lot of platform extensions wouldn't it as the 1995 stock runs as a 6 car but the 96 stock runs as 7 car?

They could conceivably revert the 96 stocks back to 6 cars, with the 7th car going unused (and thus probably scrapped). In any case the Northern isn’t going to need all 64 trains, or probably even close to that, so a number of complete 96 stock trains would likely end up surplus.

This is what makes the whole idea seem rather fanciful, especially for a business which is laying out the begging bowl, and has two other fleets of trains which in the grand scheme of things *need* replacing yet there isn’t the money (Bakerloo and Central), whilst the Jubilee and Northern fleets run just fine, just that there aren’t quite enough - on the Jubilee at any rate.

They might have considered moving the 95 stock to the Piccadilly and building a new fleet for the Northern, though this wouldn’t have delivered anything extra for the Jubilee. Alternatively perhaps they should just have done the additional 95 and 96 clones when they had the chance. Both fleets are highly decent trains, especially the Northern’s, there is no other need to go tinkering with them.

Alternatively, as a wild card, one wonders if they could split the 96 stock fleet into two - 28 extra trains for the Northern, and 36 replacement trains for the Bakerloo, with Lewisham kicked firmly into the long grass. They could then replace the Bakerloo fleet a decade or so down the line, perhaps coinciding with Lewisham being affordable again. This plan would see all cars utilised bar 64 trailers which would be scrapped.

 

[Mikey C]

They could conceivably revert the 96 stocks back to 6 cars, with the 7th car going unused (and thus probably scrapped). In any case the Northern isn’t going to need all 64 trains, or probably even close to that, so a number of complete 96 stock trains would likely end up surplus.

This is what makes the whole idea seem rather fanciful, especially for a business which is laying out the begging bowl, and has two other fleets of trains which in the grand scheme of things *need* replacing yet there isn’t the money (Bakerloo and Central), whilst the Jubilee and Northern fleets run just fine, just that there aren’t quite enough - on the Jubilee at any rate.

They might have considered moving the 95 stock to the Piccadilly and building a new fleet for the Northern, though this wouldn’t have delivered anything extra for the Jubilee. Alternatively perhaps they should just have done the additional 95 and 96 clones when they had the chance. Both fleets are highly decent trains, especially the Northern’s, there is no other need to go tinkering with them.

Alternatively, as a wild card, one wonders if they could split the 96 stock fleet into two - 28 extra trains for the Northern, and 36 replacement trains for the Bakerloo, with Lewisham kicked firmly into the long grass. They could then replace the Bakerloo fleet a decade or so down the line, perhaps coinciding with Lewisham being affordable again. This plan would see all cars utilised bar 28 trailers which would be scrapped.

Would the 96 stock fit on the Bakerloo, as the carriages are longer than the 72s?

 

[bramling]

Would the 96 stock fit on the Bakerloo, as the carriages are longer than the 72s?

Again they would have to be shrunk back to 6 cars. There would likely have to be some clearance work carried out, but if the track recording train can run then 96 stock should be do-able too.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Again they would have to be shrunk back to 6 cars. There would likely have to be some clearance work carried out, but if the track recording train can run then 96 stock should be do-able too.

He means... the 1996 Stock has 17.77m carriages. The 1972 Stock is 16.09 and 15.98m carriages. This could cause overhang issues on the curves.

The track recording train is 1960 Stock, which is even shorter at 15.86m carriages.

 

[bramling]

He means... the 1996 Stock has 17.77m carriages. The 1972 Stock is 16.09 and 15.98m carriages. This could cause overhang issues on the curves.

The track recording train is 1960 Stock, which is even shorter at 15.86m carriages.

The middle car of the TRV is a 73 stock, which has similar length cars to 96 stock. I seem to remember 83 stock visited the Bakerloo at some point test purposes.

Clearly some level of work would be required.

 

[LUYMun]

TfL prioritises DLR and Northern line upgrades over Crossrail 2 and Bakerloo line extension | New Civil Engineer

Released as part of board meeting agenda notes for 30 September, TfL’s report Investment to get London and the UK moving again sets out a revised list of

www.newcivilengineer.com

Additional orders of the New Tube Stock for London fleet built for the Northern line would be better off for TfL because the PEDs will not compatible with stock similar to the 1995/96TS unless rearranging the doors.

 

[urbophile]

Would it still be physically possible to run through trains from Morden towards Charing Cross, even if capacity problems mean a restricted service? The two sections of the Northern line could be treated as separate lines for most purposes. On the map the Kennington to Morden section would be shown as two parallel lines in the appropriate colours.

 

[DerekC]

I can't see why the track layout at Kennington would need to change at all, so through running would be physically possible. I doubt whether any would be timetabled, though.

 

[Mikey C]

Would the current leasing arrangement for the 95 stock complicate things, as they are provided on a PFI arrangement from Alstom, with Alstom operating the depots too

The 96 stock is conventionally owned

 

[Ianno87]

Would it still be physically possible to run through trains from Morden towards Charing Cross, even if capacity problems mean a restricted service? The two sections of the Northern line could be treated as separate lines for most purposes. On the map the Kennington to Morden section would be shown as two parallel lines in the appropriate colours.

It'll be interesting to see in the event of a split how engineering works are dealt with. E.g. if the Bank branch is shut today, both Edgware and High Barnet remain served (at half frequency). Would in future this mean no service at all on one northern branch?

 

[MikeWh]

It'll be interesting to see in the event of a split how engineering works are dealt with. E.g. if the Bank branch is shut today, both Edgware and High Barnet remain served (at half frequency). Would in future this mean no service at all on one northern branch?

It shouldn't need to unless they get rid of the additional tunnels south of Camden Town.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Would it still be physically possible to run through trains from Morden towards Charing Cross, even if capacity problems mean a restricted service? The two sections of the Northern line could be treated as separate lines for most purposes. On the map the Kennington to Morden section would be shown as two parallel lines in the appropriate colours.

Both routes through the centre can connect to Morden, and to the reversing siding at Kennington. It's just the reversing loop which connects to the ChX branch only. And, since the Battersea route is a turn off from the loop, Battersea can only run to and from ChX. None of the Battrsea tunneling cuts any existing connections at Kennington. So if the Battersea route doesn't have the level of patronage of the Morden branch in the rush hour and hence doesn't need a highly intensive service, it's perfectly possible for some of the Morden trains to run via ChX. In fact, I presume some ChX trains that can't fit on the Morden branch (when the latter is taking a full rush-hour load from the City), which aren't needed for Battersea, will continue to turn at Kennington [ie not all Chx route Kennington terminators might continue to Battersea when it's open]; there should be more than a train's length in the part of the loop between the two Battersea connections, and so continung to run some ChX services round the loop should be possible without them messing up the service intervals on the Battersea branch.

It shouldn't need to unless they get rid of the additional tunnels south of Camden Town.

Why on earth would they cut those junctions and lose operational flexibility [they certainly won't be blocking the tunnels themselves] even if the standard service always links one route through the centre to one of the northern branches? (And since either pairing combination is possible without losing the advantage of avoiding junction delays south of Camden Town, is there any obvious reason why the normal pairing should be one way rather than the other?) Personally, even if there was a standard pattern to increase throughput of trains in the rush hour, I'd much prefer all combinations to run at other times to save the hassle of a Camden Town change; the latter might be less congested if/when they rebuild the station, but it's still unnecessary and could be avoided for much of the day.