Victoria Line to Chingford

It would be interesting to write a book about all the plans to extend the Underground that didn't get approved(Northern Heights, Central Line to Denham, Bakerloo to Camberwell, etc)

Theres deffinately a market for a book about the tubes abandoned plans since the first world war. Badsey-Ellis has perhaps convieniently left this as a cut off point in his book 'Londons Lost Tube Schemes'. I'll happily buy a sequel

Though, the District and Northern to Sutton were actually approved....but political meanderings resulted in the line being built by the Southern Railway resulting in the Sutton loop instead.

I know that there was an proposal to extend the District to Kingston,taking a direct route over Wimbledon Common.Presumably this was before the line to Wimbledon was built.The Kingston line reached an advanced stage of planning,but construction was never started.

Piers Connor once said to me that in his opinion, ideally the Underground should only have gone out as far as roughly Zone 3. So, yes, I agree that Walthamstow is a bit of a half-way house, and that taking over the branch (closing St James's Street) would have been a very logical thing to have done, a relatively cheap way of increasing capacity at Liverpool Street.

But other people disagree with this, and think that the Underground stretches too far out as it is. This is despite that fact that if you take any pair of comparable BR and Underground stations in the suburbs, the Underground station will generate roughly twice the traffic of the BR station.

So because Stratford has HS1 (charging a premium) to Kings Cross, and the Overground to nowhere in zone, already you want Chelney to serve Walthamstow and Chingford, removing their city service and giving the former ANOTHER service to Kings Cross.

Chingford is an absolute no-no for Chelney. Also the Victoria would be better extended to Woodford - no detour to Homerton on the way to Kings Cross, plus already Underground, plus not having anyone really joining it from Chingford if your ill-thought-out plan to send Chelney there came into fruition.

Chingford on the Underground is best as a Met extension, reinstating the link. Then again the 'line D' is also good (Chingford/Enfield Town - Fenchurch Street via Whitechapel then along the Fleet route to Charing Cross before going to Victoria, then either Wimbledon, along the Uxbridge Road, or some other W/SW London route)

Introducing yet another flat junction on the northern circle is far more an 'ill-thought-out' plan.

Remember theres croos platform interchange to the city at H&I. Granted its probably 10 mins a longer route though.

I've said it before a long time ago, but Chelneys northern route from Dalston Junction hasnt changed since its conception. The stations it serves predate the reopening of the link from Dalston to Stratford on the NLL in 198x.

The whole network up there is pretty tricky to sort out decently. It would be very useful to have a link between the Victoria Line and the Central. If the Central is suspended north of stratford its a pain to get to london; Chelney will help a lot, but theres only a small link between Walthamstow and South Woodford; and an obvious traffic node at Whipps Cross.

Jubilee to (eventually!) South Woodford, continuing after straftford to a new lea bridge road station, reopened low hall farm curve, taking over St. James Street, a reconstructed cross platform interchange station with vic at Walthamstow Central/Queens Road, then via new tunnel to Whipps Cross, South Woodford and Woodford, with cross platform interchange at the latter. The Vic takes over the Chingford Branch and NR services cease to run. And Chelney gets constructed as planned. That should offer travel options, and make the most of the situation.

Rather than insanely nesting quotes I'll just do a quick reply:

1) Working on the SSL is not cheap nor operationally desirable, else Edgware Road would've been fixed long ago.

2) I agree with this point. Going via H&I is longer.

3) Which is why I agree with Chelney as far as Hackney Central/Downs and would like to see Chelney attempt to connect the two.

The two reasons I put forward a Chelney branch to Chingford were 1) OHLE is there already if it becomes Crossrail 2 and b) frees up space on the WAML, especially if Clapton station is closed in favour of an underground one. This is of disbenefit to Chingford line commuters I agree; I thought interchanges at Hackney Downs (when trains are emptier because they've already fed the Vic) and Essex Road would be sufficient for City traffic.

The idea stemmed from my belief that Chelney via Stratford City is unnecessary considering its recent connections. Instead of Chelney to Chingford, consider then leaving the current planned route at Homerton, through mid Leyton to Whipps Cross then on to Woodford and surface after the divergence to Roding Valley. This a) keeps Central and Chelney separate, leaving the Central a convenient loop with the bay platform at Woodford facing the right direction and b) serves areas where there is currently no service such as north Leyton, instead of just paralleling the Central.

Cracked it.

It was my understanding that Chelney and Crossrail 2 are presently one and the same? They can't seem to decide whether they want it to be a tube or full size line. Although personally if it were Epping to Wimbledon then full size seems a bit overkill IMO. As for WAML, then yes, north of Coppermill Junction is probably the bigger bottleneck.


Thanks. 4 tracking north of Woodford would be great, but alas no space I think

I meant what you said - Woodford not Epping.I guess so, due to Hackney Wick not being served, and Chelney not going to Stratford. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if it's frequency was reduced, though that would create problems at Camden Road-Highbury & Islington (dare I suggest extending New Cross ELL trains to Camden Road to keep that frequency 8tph?). The Hackney stretch of the NLL would definitely be a lot less crowded.