Jubilee line to Harrow/Watford instead of taking over the Stanmore branch

[NorthKent1989]

The Jubilee line was built initially to relieve the Bakerloo line, was it ever considered which branch the new line would take over or was the Stanmore branch always the plan?

How different would things be had the Jubilee taken over the Harrow/Watford branch?

 

[LUYMun]

The original layout of Wembley Park station (when the Bakerloo first took over) anticipated for Bakerloo line trains to eventually run on the slow lines in the Harrow direction, potentially Uxbridge too, but I believe this was subsequently reformatted after several path conflict contributed to delays around Wembley. The "Jubilee Line History" book by the late Mike Horne goes into more detail about this.

 

[brewer85]

Bakerloo line was extended out to Watford in 1915. Stanmore branch was originally part of the Met, and only handed over the Bakerloo in 1939. So in that sense, Harrow/Watford constituted the original Bakerloo line whereas Stanmore was a recent addition. So it was probably more natural for the later branch to be the one that was transformed into the Jubilee Line.

 

[etr221]

Without knowing the details, I think the tunnels layout at Baker Street dictated that Fleet/Jubilee taking over the Stanmore branch of the Bakerloo was much easier to do - while to route it Queen's Park and beyond could have been done, far more tunnelling/tunnel rearrangement would have been needed. At a price difference to make the decision pretty obvious...

 

[swt_passenger]

Without knowing the details, I think the tunnels layout at Baker Street dictated that Fleet/Jubilee taking over the Stanmore branch of the Bakerloo was much easier to do - while to route it Queen's Park and beyond could have been done, far more tunnelling/tunnel rearrangement would have been needed. At a price difference to make the decision pretty obvious...

That was my assumption, when it came up in a short digression about LU tube noise problems last year. Because they only had to build one extra platform (P10) at Baker St, then the layout as built would have kept the straighter route through the original two platforms heading to Queens Park etc, and this would have been by far the sensible choice for ‘buildability’ as you say.

It also presumably allowed the Queens Park route to remain open as normal while the Stanmore route was altered?

(I can’t remember how the service pattern changed during the Baker St works though, seems a long time ago now…)

 

[Mikey C]

And the layout of the track north of Wembley Park is designed for the "stopping" trains to head to Stanmore in a tunnel under the southbound Met lines, so it would require a major rebuild to send Met trains to Stanmore and Jubilee/Bakerloo trains towards Harrow on the Hill

 

[LUYMun]

Thinking about it, a Jubilee line route to Uxbridge would eliminate the dual-floor height problems on the Rayners Lane to Uxbridge section, as well as fully utilising ATO with the Piccadilly there. I might think the Met could get more frequent services to Watford, Amersham and Chesham as a result of skipping Preston Road and Northwick Park, alongside the elimination of the Uxbridge branch. Not an impossible nor an absurd plan, but a lot of consideration would have to be taken into account.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Thinking about it, a Jubilee line route to Uxbridge would eliminate the dual-floor height problems on the Rayners Lane to Uxbridge section, as well as fully utilising ATO with the Piccadilly there. I might think the Met could get more frequent services to Watford, Amersham and Chesham as a result of skipping Preston Road and Northwick Park, alongside the elimination of the Uxbridge branch. Not an impossible nor an absurd plan, but a lot of consideration would have to be taken into account.

Sending the Jubilee to Uxbridge has been floated around the forums for some years, I think in theory it’s a good idea, it would siphon off the remaining stopping service on the Met.

But what would you do with the 6tph left spare? They couldn’t all be divided between the Amershams, Cheshams and Watfords could they?

 

[Mikey C]

Thinking about it, a Jubilee line route to Uxbridge would eliminate the dual-floor height problems on the Rayners Lane to Uxbridge section, as well as fully utilising ATO with the Piccadilly there. I might think the Met could get more frequent services to Watford, Amersham and Chesham as a result of skipping Preston Road and Northwick Park, alongside the elimination of the Uxbridge branch. Not an impossible nor an absurd plan, but a lot of consideration would have to be taken into account.

Would you be allowed, with modern rules, to newly run Jubilee Line trains through all the former Met ones without rebuilding their platforms?

 

[LUYMun]

Would you be allowed, with modern rules, to newly run Jubilee Line trains through all the former Met ones without rebuilding their platforms?

I'd say it wouldn't necessarily require a rebuilding of the platforms, rather the raising of the trackbed to level with door height with the platform, especially as the supposed-Jubilee tracks would be mostly segregated from the Met.

 

[HSTEd]

But what would you do with the 6tph left spare? They couldn’t all be divided between the Amershams, Cheshams and Watfords could they?

Well there is always the "send the Met to Aylesbury" plan, that would soak up at least a couple, but would require the relevant infrastructure to be built - but this is rather Speculative.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Well there is always the "send the Met to Aylesbury" plan, that would soak up at least a couple, but would require the relevant infrastructure to be built - but this is rather Speculative.

Plus any electrification beyond Amersham to Aylesbury at this point would be battery operated trains I believe?

Sending the Met to Aylesbury would mean they would lose their fast Chiltern service, it currently takes an hour to reach London, the Met with its extra stops would surely bump this up to 1hr30m+

 

[HSTEd]

Plus any electrification beyond Amersham to Aylesbury at this point would be battery operated trains I believe?

The ORR ruling on third rail installations specifically excludes London Underground 4 rail installations because of fundamental differences in the network and operational practices.

Sending the Met to Aylesbury would mean they would lose their fast Chiltern service, it currently takes an hour to reach London, the Met with its extra stops would surely bump this up to 1hr30m+

Amersham is ~43-48 minutes to Baker Street on the Met, Aylesbury to Amersham with 3 stops 21 minutes is currently achieved in 21 minutes. The much better acceleration will wash out the losses from a 60mph limit (as opposed to 75). So probably 64-69 minutes, so not much slower than the current option.

But again, may want to make a separate thread for this.

It is rather telling that passenger numbers before coronavirus at Amersham were more or less equal for the Chiltern and Met options, despite the latter being significantly slower.

 

[Basil Jet]

The ORR ruling on third rail installations specifically excludes London Underground 4 rail installations because of fundamental differences in the network and operational practices.

Amersham is ~43-48 minutes to Baker Street on the Met, Aylesbury to Amersham with 3 stops 21 minutes is currently achieved in 21 minutes. The much better acceleration will wash out the losses from a 60mph limit (as opposed to 75). So probably 64-69 minutes, so not much slower than the current option.

But again, may want to make a separate thread for this.

It is rather telling that passenger numbers before coronavirus at Amersham were more or less equal for the Chiltern and Met options, despite the latter being significantly slower.

... although "Met" at the moment means calling at every station between Moor Park and Wembley Park. If the Jubilee had gone to Watford Met, all Met trains from Amersham (or Aylesbury) would run non-stop from Moor Park to Wembley Park (except H-O-T-H), making them comparable to current Chiltern journey times.