• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Northern Line Battersea Extension - Opened September 20 2021

Status
Not open for further replies.

Glenmutchkin

Member
Joined
14 Dec 2011
Messages
617
Location
Scotland
I couldn't see any other mention of this on the forum. From http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...g-starts-to-extend-northern-line-to-battersea


Tunnelling work to extend the Northern Line to Battersea started today as the first of two boring machines began its 3.2km tunnelling journey to lengthen the line between Kennington to Battersea.
The two machines, called Helen and Amy, were lowered 20 metres below ground in Battersea back in February, and Helen has started her work moving underneath south London to create the first new tunnel that will extend the Charing Cross branch of the Northern Line from Kennington to Battersea Power Station via Nine Elms.
Amy will start her work in a month’s time. The extension is predicted to be completed in 2020 and is the first major tube line extension since the Jubilee Line in the late 1990s.
As the two machines slowly bore underneath the capital, around 20,000 precast concrete segments will be put in place to form rings to line and support the tunnels. Then, a conveyor system will take spoil from the worksite to barges on the River Thames. The spoil will then be transported to Goshems Farm in East Tilbury, Essex, where it will be used for agricultural purposes.
Around 300,000 tonnes of earth will be excavated by Helen and Amy, who are capable of moving up to 30 metres a day, being operated by around 50 workers.
Tunnelling tradition dictates that boring machines can’t start work until they are named. After a vote by London school children, the machines were named after the first British woman to go to space, Helen Sharman, and British aviation pioneer Amy Johnson, the first female pilot to fly solo from Britain to Australia.
Last year, RTM reported that the project was at high risk of being delayed, although today’s news indicates works are currently on track to be completed on time, as it was actually ahead of schedule back in January.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Joined
9 Apr 2016
Messages
1,909

Interesting. Thanks for posting this. Good to see some progress. Has it been announced yet how the Northern Line will work once the new extension to Battersea opens? I think i heard that it will get split up in to two completely separate lines (Battersea to Edgware and Morden to High Barnet) but im not sure if the 1995 stock will be split up or shared and if the lines will have different names and colours?
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,271
AIUI they can only split the Northern Line into two when Camden Town is rebuilt to cope with the massive increase in underground interchanging.

It is definitely on the agenda but won't coincide with the Battersea extension opening. I think Camden is still very early in a new planning process having been turned down a few years back.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
AIUI they can only split the Northern Line into two when Camden Town is rebuilt to cope with the massive increase in underground interchanging.

It is definitely on the agenda but won't coincide with the Battersea extension opening. I think Camden is still very early in a new planning process having been turned down a few years back.

Yes, there was a fresh consultation at some point last year - London Reconnections did a typically excellent article on it at some point.

The previous iteration got stuck due to the construction disruption/noise/dust in Camden that would be necessary to expand the station, specifically one of the main sites directly adjoining (I think) a primary school.

That school I believe has, or will be, relocating to new premises, so this specific impact may now be avoided.
 

Glenmutchkin

Member
Joined
14 Dec 2011
Messages
617
Location
Scotland
Yes, there was a fresh consultation at some point last year - London Reconnections did a typically excellent article on it at some point.

The previous iteration got stuck due to the construction disruption/noise/dust in Camden that would be necessary to expand the station, specifically one of the main sites directly adjoining (I think) a primary school.

Here's a link to the article mentioned.


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

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,830
I think the Southern section will be permanently split after the extension, as the Battersea extension can only access the Charing X branch, with all Morden trains running via Bank (which is what happens most of the time now anyway)
 

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,845
Location
St Neots
I think the Southern section will be permanently split after the extension, as the Battersea extension can only access the Charing X branch, with all Morden trains running via Bank (which is what happens most of the time now anyway)

They could still run a handful of Morden via Charing X, just not Battersea via Bank.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
It's a pity this extension couldn't go a bit further to Clapham Junction.

Not going there for a very good reason - it would overload the NR station (and not really provide much in the way of new direct links).

Plus it would fill up with people changing off NR, with not much space for people to join at Battersea Power Station or Nine Elms - the raison d'etre of the extension in the first place.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
Not going there for a very good reason - it would overload the NR station (and not really provide much in the way of new direct links).

Plus it would fill up with people changing off NR, with not much space for people to join at Battersea Power Station or Nine Elms - the raison d'etre of the extension in the first place.

Not going there at the moment, but then we were told Crossrail couldn't possibly go Reading for some of the same reasons.:)
 

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,492
Had the extension gone to Clapham Junction and had access to the City branch, would have had any affect on the Waterloo & City line in terms of loadings?
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
Had the extension gone to Clapham Junction and had access to the City branch, would have had any affect on the Waterloo & City line in terms of loadings?

If it had access to the City branch rather than Charing Cross then there would have been a lot more justification in building it imo. Not nearly as much justification as extending from Kennington to Herne Hill instead though, from the Charing Cross branch!
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Not going there at the moment, but then we were told Crossrail couldn't possibly go Reading for some of the same reasons.:)

Crossrail didn't go to Reading as it would trigger re-signalling and capacity works (and substantial cost)or a fairly peripheral benefit to the core purpose of Crossrail itself (i.e. central London rail capacity and access to employment areas from the outer zones and 'inner' home counties. Once another pot of money had paid for Reading to be done, the extension was a "no brainer" to save operational cost. And Crossrail trains will only have a handful of people joing at Reading who travel to Paddington or beyond - so not overloading capacity into the central section.

Very much not the same reason. You would basically need to rebuild the station totally from the ground up. Which would need 15-20 years or so probably. Not much use for an extension that is needed to serve housing being built right now.

Any extension would also become redundant should Crossrail 2 get built serving Clapham Jn along the way.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
Crossrail didn't go to Reading as it would trigger re-signalling and capacity works (and substantial cost)or a fairly peripheral benefit to the core purpose of Crossrail itself (i.e. central London rail capacity and access to employment areas from the outer zones and 'inner' home counties. Once another pot of money had paid for Reading to be done, the extension was a "no brainer" to save operational cost. .

So, you appear to be arguing that something that was unneeded and cost way too much suddenly became essential because money could miraculously be found for it. Noting that the 'extension' was from Maidenhead it seems that the Theresa May illiterate economic model predates June 2016:)
 
Last edited:

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
So, you appear to be arguing that something that was unneeded and cost way too much suddenly became essential because money could miraculously be found for it. Noting that the 'extension' was from Maidenhead it seems that the Theresa May illiterate economic model predates June 2016:)

No, the Crossrail project could not take on the entire cost of resignalling Reading, as this would not generate anywhere near enough incremental benefits for *Crossrail* alone, so would have sent it's BCR in a rapid downward spiral.

However, the cost Reading resignalling could be justified by the Reading Station Area Redevelopment, because of the benefits for IEP, Freight, XC etc. journey times and capacity.

So get RSAR to pay for Reading (easily justified on the non-Crossrail benefits) then Crossrail gets its minor benefits for 'free' afterwards.

This approach, although it appears daft, is essential for making schemes fundable and affordable.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
No, the Crossrail project could not take on the entire cost of resignalling Reading, as this would not generate anywhere near enough incremental benefits for *Crossrail* alone, so would have sent it's BCR in a rapid downward spiral.

However, the cost Reading resignalling could be justified by the Reading Station Area Redevelopment, because of the benefits for IEP, Freight, XC etc. journey times and capacity.

So get RSAR to pay for Reading (easily justified on the non-Crossrail benefits) then Crossrail gets its minor benefits for 'free' afterwards.

This approach, although it appears daft, is essential for making schemes fundable and affordable.

Agreed - which is why critics of HS2 find a lot of ammunition against that scheme (the lack of connection to "conventional" lines at Birmingham, the lack of link to HS1, the fact that there are no commitments in the HS2 budget to fund services on existing lines that connect to HS2 stations - e.g. HS2 don't intend to pay for DMUs to link Toton to Nottingham/Derby stations).

It's also a reason why Network Rail have had such problems with electrification - they costed what they thought would be needed to wire up a line then project creep meant that they ended up paying for re-signalling etc.

The idea is to delay your project until someone else has decided to pay for their share of parallel infrastructure - then you can piggy-back onto their new infrastructure without the cost having come from your budget.

Silly politics, sure, but that's the way the world works. You have to make sure that you aren't the ones to make the first move.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
If Crossrail didn't run to Reading there would have to be other services to provide that link - either between Reading and Maidenhead or beyond or extra trains all the way to Paddington. These would make the timetable more complicated (=potentially unreliable) and probably increase total operating costs, even though the alternative trains would most likely have been shorter formations than the Crossrail trains now to be provided.
 

BelleIsle

Member
Joined
24 Aug 2012
Messages
116
It's a pity this extension couldn't go a bit further to Clapham Junction.

Not going there for a very good reason - it would overload the NR station (and not really provide much in the way of new direct links).

Plus it would fill up with people changing off NR, with not much space for people to join at Battersea Power Station or Nine Elms - the raison d'etre of the extension in the first place.

I believe there is some passive provision going in in case they want to extend to Clapham Junction in future. It all depends on how Crossrail 2 changes travel patterns.
 

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,492
I believe there is some passive provision going in in case they want to extend to Clapham Junction in future. It all depends on how Crossrail 2 changes travel patterns.

How many years away will CrossRail 2 likely be at the earliest (I'm guessing at least a decade)?

Would it be worth extending to Clapham Junction anyway? It could relieve some of the demand on SWT's Clapham Junction-Waterloo?

When will the extension get added to the official tube map (with it being shown as under construction).

Is there a physical reason that would have stopped the extension connecting to the "City" branch (eg tunnel alignments, building foundations etc)?
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,271
Would it be worth extending to Clapham Junction anyway? It could relieve some of the demand on SWT's Clapham Junction-Waterloo?
No it wouldn't. It was explicitly ruled out by TfL during the consultation for the new branch because Clapham Junction could not possibly cope with the additional interchange numbers. Same as Vauxhall, another unrealistic suggestion for interchange that gets mentioned every now and again.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,271
Is there a physical reason that would have stopped the extension connecting to the "City" branch (eg tunnel alignments, building foundations etc)?
The physical reason is that it is much easier to join the new tunnels into the existing Kennington loop tunnel, away from the station, and the loop is only connected to the Charing Cross branch platforms.
 

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,845
Location
St Neots
Is there a physical reason that would have stopped the extension connecting to the "City" branch (eg tunnel alignments, building foundations etc)?

The physical reason is that it is much easier to join the new tunnels into the existing Kennington loop tunnel, away from the station, and the loop is only connected to the Charing Cross branch platforms.

The practical way to achieve this would be an additional crossover tunnel north of Kennington, however would never be funded because the plan is to fully separate the Northern into two lines once Camden Town remodelling is complete.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
No it wouldn't. It was explicitly ruled out by TfL during the consultation for the new branch because Clapham Junction could not possibly cope with the additional interchange numbers. Same as Vauxhall, another unrealistic suggestion for interchange that gets mentioned every now and again.

I understand all this, but if empty trains are running out all day, apart from a couple of hours in each peak, to Nine Elms and Battersea then questions will be asked as to the cost benefits of this routeing.
 

Railguy1

Member
Joined
6 Apr 2016
Messages
116
I understand all this, but if empty trains are running out all day, apart from a couple of hours in each peak, to Nine Elms and Battersea then questions will be asked as to the cost benefits of this routeing.

These are all just aspirations. Unless funding is available, it won't happen because the cost of redeveloping Clapham Junction is probably very high.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
If Crossrail didn't run to Reading there would have to be other services to provide that link - either between Reading and Maidenhead or beyond or extra trains all the way to Paddington. These would make the timetable more complicated (=potentially unreliable) and probably increase total operating costs, even though the alternative trains would most likely have been shorter formations than the Crossrail trains now to be provided.

Maybe so, but Crossrail was meant to be shorthand for Cross-London Rail, with short extensions beyond the Greater London boundaries into Essex and Berkshire (though the latter technically no longer exists). Once you compromise this it becomes a different animal, and why should TfL be concerned about the welfare of travellers from Reading?
 

simonw

Member
Joined
7 Dec 2009
Messages
756
Maybe so, but Crossrail was meant to be shorthand for Cross-London Rail, with short extensions beyond the Greater London boundaries into Essex and Berkshire (though the latter technically no longer exists). Once you compromise this it becomes a different animal, and why should TfL be concerned about the welfare of travellers from Reading?

For the same reason as why the mayor is campaigning for CR2, because of the need to get workers into London.
 

simonw

Member
Joined
7 Dec 2009
Messages
756
These are all just aspirations. Unless funding is available, it won't happen because the cost of redeveloping Clapham Junction is probably very high.
Not just the cost of redevelopment but the fact that Tube trains would be full by the time they got to Waterloo and thus there would be a vicious circle of more people wanting to get off at Clapham.
 

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,492
Once CrossRail 2 is factored in, would there be any good candidates for an extension from the Battersea extension?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top