Battersea Extension

But not all the trains are wedged full during the morning peak. I've found the crowding on the Windsor line services is generally worse than for trains on the main line (via Surbiton). Similarly there is capacity on many trains in the evening peak.

The first 10 car suburban trains will be starting next year which will give additional capacity.



I imagine that would depend on how the connection time and extra journey time needed from Clapham Junction compared with that at Waterloo.

Bonkers planning again. It would make sense and save money to have the northbound call at a new northbound platform at OVAL side by side with the existing one. Then have Battersea starters join the traffic up from Morden as soon as there is line clear at Oval. This would help dwell times. This is throwing money into a new one way tunnel up from Oval to Kennington unnecessarily. I despair of these people. Couldn't plan a Tupperware party, and as usual, choose an expensive option when there is a sensible and cheaper alternative.

This new diagram effectively ends Kennington terminators as I bet they'll all go to Battersea. Then, someone else will decide that the Northern must then have 'handed' stock as another way found to waste more money.

No, this would cause a severe bottleneck between Oval and Kennington. the plan is to tap into the Kennington loop, keeping the CX and bank lines separate. Whether the loop will remain usable as a turnback facility or the new junction tunnels will be plain-lined, and whether any Morden - CX services would continue, is a matter for conjecture.

The loop will remain. There are no plans to plain-line any existing track. Some trains will be scheduled to continue to use the loop as the increased frequency on the CX branch from future timetables isn't all needed down at Battersea.

No it isn't - the route to greater (rather than complete) segregation will be improving the passenger interchange between branches at Camden and Kennington. By improving I mean creating much more space for the increased interchange traffic that would result so a significant station rebuild for Camden at least has to come before segregation.

This development is a shocking waste of money and transport capacity. Developers should not be able to influence the direction of precious tube extension capacity by dangling carrots in front of TfL's nose. We are going to end up with a dead-end stub on the Northern line that goes to an area that is already well-served by rail, but does not usefully interchange with it or the Victoria line.

Meanwile, the deprived Camberwell and Peckham areas continue to have no decent tube or rail service. Diverting the Northern line to the south west takes away one of the last options for resolving this.

As has been brought up on this thread (and everywhere else this gets discussed) the Northern Line was never going to go there, regardless of this development, so it's not taking away from anything. More transport is better than none, and more is sorely needed in many places - and while the Battersea area may not need much at the moment it will when all these developments are built. For once the country is not being shortsighted, putting in infrastructure before it is needed is a good thing.
Camberwell and Peckham do need an Underground service, yes, but this will best come from the Bakerloo Line which is pointing in that direction. Saying that place X shouldn't have improved transport because place Y also needs improved transport is just selfish shortsightedness.

One thought. If the CX branch is ever closed for whatever reason, suddenly Battersea has a problem. I wonder whether the centre siding at Kennington could be extended around aswell as a third track, before connecting to both northbound and southbound tunnels east of Nine Elms?

Just as an aside, I threw this together for another discussion elsewhere by modifying a diagram of the routing options I found. This was to make my general point that they could have managed much better route options. Purple is an attempt to have stations at Nine Elms and Vauxhall with the Battersea left as-is, and the green routing is to show you can still have Nine Elms station at the same location as well as a station at Vauxhall if you alter the orientation of the Battersea platform tunnels:


...and before anyone jumps down my throat about overloading, I'm only advocating passive provision by digging out the platform tunnels at Vauxhall, with them only being brought into use and the rest of the station works being completed as part of the Crossrail 2 works, after which the Victoria line would be able to handle the extra traffic.

Plenty of interesting topics for discussion there. Unfortunately none of them rail-related.

I see that the Battersea terminus is of the two track and scissors crossover variety, with slightly less than optimal track geometry (215m radius curve when departing from SB platform). Does anyone know what capacity this terminus designed to handle?

This Tuesday 9 april at 1900 the London Underground Railway Society has a talk on the Northern Line extension to Battersea by David Leboff.

Apparently the consultation on the TWO for the NLE closed today. Following is what I submitted:

Feedback on Proposed Transport & Works Order for the Northern Line Extension

This feedback is divided into a number of separate but interconnected discussions. They address some key questions, or some key points of agreement.

1. NEW RAIL ACCESS for BATTERSEA/NINE ELMS DEVELOPMENT AREA

1.1. Is separate and additional rail access needed?

1.2. Could access be adequately provided to/from nearby stations with access tools such as Travelators or PRT pods?

1.3. If separate access is needed, is this best provided by extending the Northern Line west from Kennington?

1.4. How does the mooted Crossrail 2 fit in with the Battersea development?

1.5. What travel patterns have been assumed for residents of, and people working at the development?

1.6. What is the effect on the Northern Line City Branch of having both CR2 and the NLE feeding City bound workers to it?

1.7. Is Battersea a more appropriate development/regeneration area than Chelsea to be served by CR2

1.8. If CR2 serves Battersea, will a NLE be needed?

1.9. If CR2 serves Battersea, how will Chelsea’s connectivity be improved?

2. Taking these questions in turn:

2.1. The Battersea/Nine Elms development is extensive. It is thought to generate a substantial level of passenger traffic, but not sufficient to cause the Northern Line to become congested. However, if there is enough traffic to justify a dedicated railway branch, it becomes an illogical argument to then suggest that the traffic levels won’t be so high that their effect on existing capacity is negligible. In other words, either the development needs to be connected to railway that has the potential to cope, or it doesn’t generate enough traffic to warrant a railway. The scale of the development suggests that capacity provision needs to be made.

2.2. Could nearby stations be used? That would be influenced by the quality of service on offer. Vauxhall is a major interchange between SWT lines and Victoria Line. The Victoria Line is overloaded to the point of dysfunction and danger. Access to Waterloo would be good, but spread over so many platforms that ease-of-access is probably compromised. Access to the south (Victoria Line) and SW is good. Battersea Park gives access to London at Victoria station – interchange there in the morning peak simply doesn’t need any more traffic. Access from BP south is good. Queenstown Rd has service on the local lines, and is reasonably placed.

2.2.1. These stations could be linked to the development area by a series of travelators and/or PRT Pods (like those at Heathrow T5).

2.2.2. However, as the most likely destinations for passengers are City, West End and Canary Wharf, the existing stations are limited in their coverage. It is likely, therefore, that stations that are more central to the development area would be of more use – but only if they gave good access or good connections.

2.3. Extension of the Northern Line from Kennington gives indirect access to Waterloo, cf good internal links within the development to Vauxhall. It give access to the City by change at Kennington to the City Branch – which can be expected to be dysfunctionally busy. Alternative access is via Waterloo and the W&C. But a good internal link to Vauxhall would address this more directly. Canary Wharf would be accessed likewise by Jubilee Line connection at Waterloo. The Northern Line Charing Cross Branch would give GOOD access to the West End, without exposing residents to the extreme overloading of the Victoria Line.

2.3.1. In summary, the NLE is good at providing access to the West End, but internal links to Vauxhall give excellent access to Waterloo, where an interchange to the existing Northern Line station can be made. For employees approaching the development area for work, the Northern Line is of direct use only to the stations along its length, plus their connections. Good internal links from Battersea Park, Queenstown Rd and Vauxhall will still be needed for workers coming from the north-east, east, south-east, south, south-west and west.

2.4. Crossrail 2 hasn’t been included in the analysis of the Battersea development’s transport needs. As a regeneration area, Battersea must rank well ahead of Chelsea for needing a major rail access stimulus. It is therefore the basis for most of the discussion here that CR2 is routed through Battersea, not Chelsea. With CR2 serving the development, access to the West End is reasonable. There is a clear need for a station between Victoria and TCR (Tottenham Court Rd) in the vicinity of and pedestrian linked to Piccadilly Circus and Charing Cross.

2.4.1. CR2 could then handle some Canary Wharf traffic via the interchange at TCR. This will remain valid only until the TCR underground station becomes too dangerously crowded for effective interchange.

2.4.2. The Achilles Heel of CR2 is City Access. It would be of little use except by changing to CR1 at TCR, giving access to the northern end of the City at Moorgate/Liverpool St.

2.5. At present, we must assume that in the morning peak, the primary direction of work travel outwards would be towards the City, then West End, then Canary Wharf and Docklands.

2.6. The Northern Line City Branch is already forecast to be extremely crowded after all the NTfL and capacity enhancement works (including partial separation) and CR2. Indeed many commentators are suggesting that CR2 calling at Tooting Broadway would actually exacerbate crowding problems on the City Branch because at that point, the NL trains won’t be so crowded, whereas CR1 will be at its most crowded through TCR. This effect has the potential to make the NLE of little or no use for City Access once CR2 opens. It’s for this reason that I question the value in diverting CR2 over to Tooting. (My CR2 feedback will be submitted to that Consultation – repeated here for fullness of context.)

2.7. How would Chelsea be served if CR2 is routed through Battersea? A re-arrangement of District and Piccadilly Line operations to:-

2.7.1. Route a Piccadilly Line branch (westbound) through the unused platform tunnel at South Kensington (eastbound into the existing platform), then via Chelsea to connect with the Wimbledon Line. The Piccadilly takes over the Wimbledon Line completely, removing the conflicting movements west of Earl’s Court.

2.7.1.1. The Piccadilly could be considered to take over the Sutton part of the Wimbledon Loop (resolving a Thameslink political issue).

2.7.2. The District Line takes over services to Uxbridge from the Piccadilly Line

2.7.2.1. This allows all platforms on the Uxbridge line to be standardised at 980mm for near level entry.

2.7.2.2. District Trains serving Uxbridge run on the fast tracks to Acton Town

2.7.2.3. Arrangements around the Circle Line to be reviewed with the aim of reducing conflicting moves, and using the Circle as a Loop to terminate District trains.

2.8. With CR2 providing access to the West End and beyond, there is little rationale for a NLE. However, CR2 does NOT provide City access. This is vital if the development is to adequately served.

2.8.1. At present, passengers from the SW are required to change to the W&C, catch buses, Barclaybike or walk to theCity. Many commentators criticise the choice of roads and bridges for TfL bus routes between Waterloo and the City. More direct and faster routes are possible.

2.8.2. The W&C has capacity constraints at both ends, and needs a dedicated depot. Its ability to remain fit for purpose in an environment of increasing traffic is doubtful.

2.8.3. The only effective way the W&C can realise its potential is for the constraints to be worked out of the design, either as a “big Bang” or incrementally.

2.8.4. One of the needs is for higher terminal capacity. At the Waterloo end, this could only happen if the depot function was relocated; or the station was relocated.

2.8.5. Relocation of the depot requires rail access to other LU depots. Three possibilities:

2.8.5.1. Underground single tunnel to link to London Rd Bakerloo depot

2.8.5.2. Extend Aldwych branch to Waterloo to access a Piccadilly depot

2.8.5.3. Extend Bank end via Liverpool St with connections east thereof

2.8.6. Option 2.8.5.3 conveniently addresses both the depot access and the train length constraint at Bank. Network South East staff established the feasibility of the Bank end extension just prior to privatisation. That analysis would need to be redone in the light of changes that have occurred and are mooted for the area.

2.8.7. If the Waterloo reversal was relocated to Battersea, and CR2 was routed via Battersea, then an extended W&C could neatly and effectively address the CR2 City access requirement from the south. An intermediate double ended station at Nine Elms could both serve that end of the Battersea estate and provide connection with the Victoria Line and SWT at Vauxhall.

2.8.8. We would be looking at a W&C running at 24-30 tph, with 8-car trains. A major uplift from today’s arrangements. The additional traffic from the Battersea development would not swamp such a massively enhanced line. Convenient connection to the (admittedly overcrowded) Jubilee line. (Residents and workers could also use CR2 and change at TCR.)

2.8.9. The extended W&C would have contra-flow traffic from Liverpool St, and this would be significantly uplifted if an extra station was provided at Blackfriars for TL and District interchange.

3. IN SUMMARY

3.1. There is a need for new rail access to the Battersea Development.

3.2. This is best provided by changing the CR2 route to serve Battersea

3.3. City access for CR2 and the development is best provided by an extended and upgraded Waterloo & City Line

3.4. The Northern Line extension has the potential to overload the Northern Line City Branch.

3.5. Transferring passengers at Kennington have the potential to cause platform crowding there.

3.6. CR2 deviating to Tooting Broadway was the potential to absorb free capacity on Northern Line City Branch trains in the a.m. peak, leading to severe conditions further north.

3.6.1. This would be exacerbated by the NLE

3.6.2. But equally, if the NLE was replaced by a W&C extension and upgrade, the demand for City Access via Battersea & the W&C would ensure that the City Branch remained ONLY extremely crowded and as forecast the most crowded tube line in London in the a.m. peak in the planning period shown in the CR2 plans.

3.7. Both NLE and CR2 need to be subjected to a full enquiry, and indeed the Department should be seeking a thoroughgoing strategic plan for both passenger and freight services in London and the South-East region before any such major or mid-sized project goes forward.

3.8. The same conclusion should affect the OOC area, HS2 planning, the HS2 terminus in London, HS2-HS1 links, future planning for St Pancras and the lines using it and so on.

3.9. No money should be released for any more projects or planning UNTIL the major strategic plan is done, and the specific works projects can be placed into context. If this was done, it would have been seen that Battersea was way more important a regeneration area for CR2 to serve than Chelsea, that a second tier solution would be adequate for Chelsea, that problems would emerge with trying to fix the Northern line overcrowding by diverting CR2 and so on.

3.10. At present, the only direct (non-reversing) link between Kent and the main rail freight routes and corridors to the North is the weak and damaged/repaired Cremorne Bridge. This carries two tracks of the West London Line. It is an absolutely vital and rather vulnerable link in the nation’s rail infrastructure, and has a major conflict between freight and passenger service – in terms of available paths. All the railway lines point to London!! If that bridge gets hit again, then what? What’s plan B? The whole region, indeed the whole UK needs a good, stable, workable plan. Even a little chord at Redhill would help, though it’s not so simple as I’m sure you’ve analysed – level crossing at Reigate, rail paths at Guidford, level crossing at Wokingham, tough short gradients at Reading. I’m sure you’re across these.

3.11. Therefore the call to action is:

4. DO THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROPERLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY FIRST; then

5. GET THE MONEY COMMITTED LONG TERM (like the French)

6. THEN and ONLY THEN START THE BALL ROLLING ON THE WORKS PROJECTS NEEDED, with PRIORITIES BASED ON THE CROSS-DEPENDENCIES SHOWN IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN, NOT NECESSARILY THE APPARENT LOCAL PRIORITIES.

6.1. For example, fixing the North Downs line for frequent 775m intermodal trains probably comes before NLE, and releases space on the WLL for LO traffic and inter-regional trains, and prepares the way of OOC and HS2. And so on ….

In conclusion, I oppose the NLE on the basis that strategic events have overtaken the limited scope of the project. It would be inappropriate to authorise the works until such time as Crossrail 2 has been properly defined, and in particular the question of whether the regeneration site at Battersea is more appropriate to be served by CR2 than Chelsea (which could be served by another means) has been addressed and resolved.


18 June 2013

With your idea about the Piccadilly taking over the Wimbledon Branch, would this involve scrapping the Earls Court to Edgware Road service, or would this run from elsewhere (eg. Richmond - Edgware Road). Otherwise, if the Wimblewares remain, you are sacrificing level access on the Wimbledon branch for it on the Uxbridge branch, and I think that the Wimbledon branch does better suit level access, with 3 step free stations, against the Uxbridge Branch's two. Also, where abouts would the Piccadilly line connect? Would it be Parsons Green as suggested in early proposals for CR2, in which case, a service would still be needed to go from Earls Court to Parsons Green, especially for matchday traffic. Lastly, with the Wimbledon Branch somewhat always in need of extra capacity, would punters be happy being forced onto a potentially less frequent service, with smaller trains. I'd say, the room is there to run SSL trains, so let them run