Is it a practical solution to build a second line that operates like Victoria Line? What would be the issues? How might it help in London?

[Silent]

I was just thinking of this, even maybe longer although maybe not overly long. Perhaps the stations will be even more spaced out in Central London than the current Victoria Line to make it a faster line. The main issue I see with this idea is that the core stations would have to become interchange hubs rather that stations people aim to get off, as they have wide distances between them, so station capacity would be an issue especially if it had similar frequency to the Victoria line. Prioritising quick interchanges, like the Vic Line has, would be harder or even impossible so I think the core stations would be hard to get correct if the line was to achieve what the Vic Line does and might in fact make the core tube network more congested if stations were spaced too far apart. I think it would be easily effective at bringing people to the city but then moving passengers around the city is probably just as important.

 

[SteveOfTheStow]

Crossrail 2 is meant to do exactly this, but who knows when it'll be built. The route is safeguarded, at least. It would be like the Elizabeth line, with fewer stations and mainline-sized trains.

 

[SynthD]

Quick interchanges means there’s little space to hold crowds in times of disruption. Crossrail 1 built all those long corridors, and so will Crossrail 2. There’s already a specific corridor connection stub at Tottenham Court Road for this.

 

[Silent]

Quick interchanges means there’s little space to hold crowds in times of disruption. Crossrail 1 built all those long corridors, and so will Crossrail 2. There’s already a specific corridor connection stub at Tottenham Court Road for this.

True, going by the current tube infrastructure.

There is probably a limit to how fast we can travel around London maintaining a good passenger flow.

I’m starting to think that ideally an express line needs a relief line and vice versa.

 

[Helvellyn]

Chelsea-Hackney Line was intended as a Victoria Line reliever, but if ever built it'll be as CrossRail 2 rather than a new underground line linkingn the Wimbledon District Line branch and Hainault Central Line branch

 

[AndrewE]

True, going by the current tube infrastructure.

There is probably a limit to how fast we can travel around London maintaining a good passenger flow.

I’m starting to think that ideally an express line needs a relief line and vice versa.

or maybe just develop some other cities before London chokes on its own prosperity? (and sucks even more money out of the rest of the country.)

 

[Mgameing123]

or maybe just develop some other cities before London chokes on its own prosperity? (and sucks even more money out of the rest of the country.)

We can't stop investing in London's transport network. Trains are currently overcrowded to the point that you can't even breathe at rush hour and platforms are becoming severely overcrowded. But obviously the rest of the country also needs alot more investment.

 

[Peter Sarf]

or maybe just develop some other cities before London chokes on its own prosperity? (and sucks even more money out of the rest of the country.)

I have got the impression that it is the other way round. The rest of the country is sucking money out of London ?.

But it would be nice to pay to make other cities more prosperous (bloated as a side effect) so London can breathe a little easier.

 

[AndrewE]

I have got the impression that it is the other way round. The rest of the country is sucking money out of London ?.

But it would be nice to pay to make other cities more prosperous (bloated as a side effect) so London can breathe a little easier.

I had unit trusts managed by the Coop in Manchester... now Royal London
Ditto insurance with Liverpool Victoria, now "LV" to avoid the embarrassment of admitting that it's mostly in London.

The same goes for Brum, Newcastle, Glasgow etc etc. Lots of well-paying jobs sucked into the Great Wen at the expense of the conurbations where they used to be contributing to the local economy.

I suppose it is (was) good for the railway in generating more Monday morning to Friday pm week-away long commutes, but it's not good for the provinces. We are probably the most unequal country in the developed world, both boardroom (mostly in the SE of course) to shop-floor and between London and other parts of the country.

The only exception that I see is Edinburgh, because it has a parliament, high courts, banking head offices etc.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I had unit trusts managed by the Coop in Manchester... now Royal London
Ditto insurance with Liverpool Victoria, now "LV" to avoid the embarrassment of admitting that it's mostly in London.

The same goes for Brum, Newcastle, Glasgow etc etc. Lots of well-paying jobs sucked into the Great Wen at the expense of the conurbations where they used to be contributing to the local economy.

I suppose it is (was) good for the railway in generating more Monday morning to Friday pm week-away long commutes, but it's not good for the provinces. We are probably the most unequal country in the developed world, both boardroom (mostly in the SE of course) to shop-floor and between London and other parts of the country.

The only exception that I see is Edinburgh, because it has a parliament, high courts, banking head offices etc.

Royal London has offices in :-
Alderley Park (near Manchester)
Dublin x 2
Edinburgh
Glasgow
London

I know Liverpool Victoria "LV" moved out of London to Bournemouth. My friend did not move with them.

Over the years other firms move away from London so I think it is six of one and half a dozen of the other.

A job I had moved from Sutton (South side of London) to Redhill right outside the M25.

An insurance company I worked for had its small head office in central London and main functions in Croydon so outer London. Got taken over by a firm right outside London cannot remember where (I got made redundant). Worse still it was overall French !.

Of course none of this is really answering the purpose of the thread.

I think Cross Rail 2 will be the answer to the OPs idea of another Victoria line. When it happens will be a long way off. I remember in around 1988 * ideas of relieving the Central Line were talked about - the Elizabeth Line came along 35 years later !.

* = At the time (1987-1990) I was commuting to the BBC at Shepherds Bush in London, a vast area of offices and studios etc. That has all gone now - some to Bush House in central London but the vast majority to a long way outside London for example Birmingham and Manchester !.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Crossrail 2 is meant to do exactly this, but who knows when it'll be built. The route is safeguarded, at least. It would be like the Elizabeth line, with fewer stations and mainline-sized trains.

That was my understanding too. Victoria line is pretty deep so I wonder how deep this line would go?

 

[JCO1406]

Ok is it just me, or does the Jubilee need a relief line, especially on the newer part. I am aware that there is a proposed Thameslink 2/BML2, but I don’t even know what is going on with that.

If a new line was to be built (not crossrail 2), i would propose a South East to North West line, going through London Bridge, TCR, and Baker Street/Marylebone.

 

[brad465]

We can't stop investing in London's transport network. Trains are currently overcrowded to the point that you can't even breathe at rush hour and platforms are becoming severely overcrowded. But obviously the rest of the country also needs alot more investment.

As often seems to be the case, transport projects that have been made to help relieve capacity problems only make things worse when developers seize on the opportunity to use the new infrastructure. The M25 is a classic example of this.

I'm not suggesting we stop increasing public transport in London, far from it, but if the current transport network is running over-capacity, some thought needs to go into the effects of new projects and maybe even some development bans/caps to prevent overwhelming infrastructure.

On the original point, ignoring Crossrail 2, the Jubilee Line Extension sort of already does this, as from Green Park to Stratford, all the stations are on a fast alignment with high capacity route infrastructure, including spacious stations with step-free access. Then there is the Bakerloo Line extension, which if it ever happens will have a new faster corridor into a part of London poorly-served, although the route won't be as fast on the original central London route.

 

[JonathanH]

I am aware that there is a proposed Thameslink 2/BML2, but I don’t even know what is going on with that.

"BML2" has no official standing as a proposal. It is just the idea of an individual.

 

[Magdalia]

Ok is it just me, or does the Jubilee need a relief line, especially on the newer part.

It already has one and it is called the Elizabeth Line.

What the Elizabeth Line does, that the Victoria Line, did not, is to reach much further out of the West End/City. Any new line is going to need to do the same.

Chelsea-Hackney Line was intended as a Victoria Line reliever, but if ever built it'll be as CrossRail 2 rather than a new underground line linkingn the Wimbledon District Line branch and Hainault Central Line branch

Which is why the Crossrail 2 proposal has superseded Chelsea-Hackney.

or maybe just develop some other cities before London chokes on its own prosperity? (and sucks even more money out of the rest of the country.)

We can't stop investing in London's transport network. Trains are currently overcrowded to the point that you can't even breathe at rush hour and platforms are becoming severely overcrowded. But obviously the rest of the country also needs alot more investment.

London is the most productive part of the UK and is a net contributor to supporting the economy in other parts of the UK. The gap grew significantly in the period between financial deregulation in 1986 and the banking crisis in 2008.

In that period London benefitted hugely from transport infrastructure investment, helped also by hosting the 2012 Olympics.

But two main economic drivers of that were the financial industry in the City and big retail in the West End, neither are the economic forces that they were then.

I suspect that the time for major new London transport infrastructure has passed, especially given the state of the UK public finances.

 

[Mgameing123]

As often seems to be the case, transport projects that have been made to help relieve capacity problems only make things worse when developers seize on the opportunity to use the new infrastructure. The M25 is a classic example of this.

I'm not suggesting we stop increasing public transport in London, far from it, but if the current transport network is running over-capacity, some thought needs to go into the effects of new projects and maybe even some development bans/caps to prevent overwhelming infrastructure.

On the original point, ignoring Crossrail 2, the Jubilee Line Extension sort of already does this, as from Green Park to Stratford, all the stations are on a fast alignment with high capacity route infrastructure, including spacious stations with step-free access. Then there is the Bakerloo Line extension, which if it ever happens will have a new faster corridor into a part of London poorly-served, although the route won't be as fast on the original central London route.

We can’t stop building more homes in a city that is suffering from a housing crisis. The only way to fix these issues is by building more infrastructure. The good thing is that public transport has a lot more capacity than road projects.

 

[The Ham]

The thing with Crossrail 2 is that it would bring benefits to a much wider area than just London.

Not only would it improve rail services to places it serves, but by freeing up 8 paths an hour to/from Waterloo so has the potential to allow routes to places like Portsmouth, Farnham, Basingstoke, Southampton, Yeovil and others to see a 50% increase in frequency (obviously other works would be required, but without Crossrail 2 there'll be little benefit in doing many of those works as there'll not be the paths to London).

With enough works along the WofE line it could even allow 2tph into Exeter.

It's like when the junction at Reading was rebuilt, the spend was in the southeast, yet the benefits were across a much larger area (including Exeter getting the semi fast service).

What going from 2tph to 3tph doesn't sound a significant increase, 3tph is about the point where people will just turn up for a train rather than looking at the timetable, as such you do see a reasonable increase in use at such a frequency.

 

[Silent]

It already has one and it is called the Elizabeth Line.

What the Elizabeth Line does, that the Victoria Line, did not, is to reach much further out of the West End/City. Any new line is going to need to do the same.


Which is why the Crossrail 2 proposal has superseded Chelsea-Hackney.




London is the most productive part of the UK and is a net contributor to supporting the economy in other parts of the UK. The gap grew significantly in the period between financial deregulation in 1986 and the banking crisis in 2008.

In that period London benefitted hugely from transport infrastructure investment, helped also by hosting the 2012 Olympics.

But two main economic drivers of that were the financial industry in the City and big retail in the West End, neither are the economic forces that they were then.

I suspect that the time for major new London transport infrastructure has passed, especially given the state of the UK public finances.

I think the problem with reaching out further especially if it uses old infrastructure is reliability. I think the simplicity of Vic Line compared to other lines allows it to achieve the 36 tph frequency and fast acceleration/deceleration.

 

[The Ham]

I think the problem with reaching out further especially if it uses old infrastructure is reliability. I think the simplicity of Vic Line compared to other lines allows it to achieve the 36 tph frequency and fast acceleration/deceleration.

Of course this is where the UK is likely to result in a hybrid which doesn't do everything as well as it could, as the government will only want to spend the money for one project but will look for it so the job which 3 lines would do better.

 

[Mgameing123]

I think the problem with reaching out further especially if it uses old infrastructure is reliability. I think the simplicity of Vic Line compared to other lines allows it to achieve the 36 tph frequency and fast acceleration/deceleration.

But the benefit of going further out is that you can make a high capacity crosstown RER style service and get 2 areas connected and make them feel closer than ever. Maidenhead and Canary Wharf are a good example.

 

[JonathanH]

Not only would it improve rail services to places it serves, but by freeing up 8 paths an hour to/from Waterloo so has the potential to allow routes to places like Portsmouth, Farnham, Basingstoke, Southampton, Yeovil and others to see a 50% increase in frequency (obviously other works would be required, but without Crossrail 2 there'll be little benefit in doing many of those works as there'll not be the paths to London).

Isn't one of the many reasons for there being no prospect of Crossrail 2 being built that demand from these locations to London no longer justifies the train service that existed in 2019, let alone more, so there is no need for the Waterloo suburban service to move to release space.

 

[Mgameing123]

Isn't one of the many reasons for there being no prospect of Crossrail 2 being built that demand from these locations to London no longer justifies the train service that existed in 2019, let alone more, so there is no need for the Waterloo suburban service to move to release space.

By the time Crossrail 2 is done then I'm very sure there would be demand from those places.

 

[AndrewE]

By the time Crossrail 2 is done then I'm very sure there would be demand from those places.

... totaly ignoring the poorly-served parts of all the other conurbations around the UK, of course.

It's funny (not) that London and the SE have to have public transport improvements to facilitate ever more "growth," but places a lot closer to regional/provincial centres still limping along with 1 DMU an hour aren't considered worth investing in.

 

[Mgameing123]

... totaly ignoring the poorly-served parts of all the other conurbations around the UK, of course.

It's funny (not) that London and the SE have to have public transport improvements to facilitate ever more "growth," but places a lot closer to regional/provincial centres still limping along with 1 DMU an hour aren't considered worth investing in.

Welcome to the UK where priorities suck. Thank god I moved to Denmark.

 

[Class15]

... totaly ignoring the poorly-served parts of all the other conurbations around the UK, of course.

It's funny (not) that London and the SE have to have public transport improvements to facilitate ever more "growth," but places a lot closer to regional/provincial centres still limping along with 1 DMU an hour aren't considered worth investing in.

I would direct you to this post:

London is the most productive part of the UK and is a net contributor to supporting the economy in other parts of the UK. The gap grew significantly in the period between financial deregulation in 1986 and the banking crisis in 2008.

… this is entirely true, and it makes sense to invest most where the most productivity surely?

 

[AndrewE]

I would direct you to this post:

… this is entirely true, and it makes sense to invest most where the most productivity surely?

not if it is choking on its own prosperity (which includes playing in the casinos with my savings, which used to be managed elsewhere in the country) and on top of that not giving a toss about the lack of prosperity elsewhere.

 

[Simon11]

70% of the money for the Elizabeth line has come from London, including the overspend. Once you consider the wider economic impacts, I think you can reach 100% in 20-30 years and while Londoners benefit from this the most, the rest of the country will gain too through extra tax.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61521136.amp

I doubt most regions outside of London could ever reach this.

 

[Magdalia]

it makes sense to invest most where the most productivity surely?

No. It makes sense to invest most where there is most potential to increase growth and productivity in the near future.

During the heyday of financial deregulation and big retail that was London, but it does not apply to London now. As London is already high productivity it actually has less capability to increase further.

The places that most need that investment now are in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, where higher growth and higher productivity are already happening, but constrained by lack of water, houses and transport infrastructure.

places a lot closer to regional/provincial centres still limping along with 1 DMU an hour aren't considered worth investing in.

The big regional cities have a lot of potential for higher growth and higher productivity, partly because they are starting from a lower base so have lots of room for improvement. This particularly applies to the Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds axis, which I think has more potential than London to increase growth and productivity in the near future. Better transport infrastructure is part of that. For example, I heard a very interesting piece on the radio last week about regeneration in Stockport, helped by its rail link to Manchester. The places with 1 DMU per hour into their nearest big city need to be able to get some of that.

 

[swt_passenger]

"BML2" has no official standing as a proposal. It is just the idea of an individual.

To make the basic idea of a reopening beyond Uckfield more palatable? But as you note, no official standing at all.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I suspect that the time for major new London transport infrastructure has passed, especially given the state of the UK public finances.

For us commuters, I think we'd have a different opinion..